1984-06-26

Hon. Yvon Pinard (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-5, an Act to Amend the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Nielsen:: By leave, now.


Yvon Pinard: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to correct limitations in the Radiation Emitting Devices Act in order to protect better the public against hazards to health resulting from the sale and use of unsafe radiation emitting devices.
The Radiation Emitting Devices Act was proclaimed in force in 1972. It provides for the establishment of standards for radiation emitting devices and prohibits sale or importation unless such devices comply with the prescribed standards. Standards have now been prescribed for television sets, dental X-ray equipment, microwave ovens, baggage inspection X-ray devices, laser scanners, ultrasound therapy devices, diagnostic X-ray equipment, and therapeutic X-ray equipment.
In respect of the areas of jurisdiction, the federal Government is responsible for the regulatory control of the design, construction, and functioning of radiation emitting devices at the point of importation and sale. Provincial Governments are responsible for the control of the installation and use of such devices after sale has taken place.
At the present time standards established under the radiation emitting devices regulations apply only to devices manufactured after the date of coming into force of regulations for those devices. Radiation emitting devices manufactured outside Canada prior to that date can continue to be imported indefinitely for sale in Canada, even though they do not conform to the standards and may be potentially hazardous to Canadian users. Manufacturers outside Canada are aware of this weakness in the Act and could exploit it by producing and stockpiling for sale in Canada devices manufactured under less stringent conditions.
The Act does not now provide authority for regulating radiation emitting devices for which standards have not been prescribed, and which are defective or create a risk of injury to the health of the user. New types of radiation emitting devices can be introduced in Canada without any prior knowledge or evaluation by the Department. Such devices can be ineffectual for their intended purpose, or totally unnecessary and detrimental to the safety of the Canadian public, yet could still be sold without restriction until standards are developed and promulgated, often a lengthy process. Under the present Act there are no restrictions on representations made by manufacturers in respect of the safety, performance or effectiveness of the devices. For many radiation emitting devices, design, construction and performance standards alone are insufficient to ensure safety. Proper and careful use of a device requires adequate written instructions for the use of the device to complement equipment standards.
The Radiation Emitting Devices Act presently limits the prescribing of standards, in the form of regulations, to devices that emit electromagnetic waves having a frequency of ten megacycles per second, or ultrasonic waves having frequencies greater than ten kiloycles per second. However, the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and acoustical energy propagation are governed not only by the frequency but also by the intensity of the propagated radiation and by the absorption properties of exposed medium. There is an increasing use of a variety of devices which propagate such high levels of power that, in spite of the low absorption coefficient, sufficient power is absorbed to be injurious to biological systems.
Extending the scope of the Act to include all acoustic frequencies would permit an assessment of the health effects of high levels of infrasound which come from air conditioning, heating and ventilating systems, compressors, and large diesel engines. The biological effects which have been attributed to infrasound include hearing loss, involuntary eye movements, nausea, slowed reactions, and fatigue.
The following comments address specific points raised in the debate on second reading on May 18, 1984. Fear was

June 26, 1984
Radiation Emitting Devices Act expressed that regulations might be promulgated for new noise emitting devices such as chain saws. In any regulations designed to protect hearing, not only must the level of noise be stipulated but also its duration. The very stipulation of duration of exposure then becomes a "use" parameter and properly falls under provincial jurisdiction. Microwave ovens are now controlled from a health hazard point of view. The unauthorized use or misuse by children is again a provincial responsibility.
The suggestion was made that the regulations must be compatible with those in the United States or country of origin of the equipment. The United States is the major exporter of radiation emitting devices to this country, and every effort is made to ensure compatible regulations, with only minor variations such as wording and language of warning signs. The same applies to international standards where promulgated. Some countries have minimal or no standards for such radiation emitting devices which, if it were Canadian policy to accept the regulations of the producing country, could result in the dumping into Canada of potentially hazardous devices.
A question was raised with respect to genetic and pregnancy effects from video screens. There are no levels of exposure to the operator from ionizing or non-ionizing radiation which can reasonably be expected to give rise to such effects.
The suggestion was made that the control of some radionuclide devices be transferred from the Atomic Energy Control Act. The Radiation Emitting Devices Act specifically excludes all emissions controlled by the Atomic Energy Control Act, and no redistribution of responsibility is being sought.
We intend by this Act to leave the Atomic Energy Control Act intact for its own responsibility, but by the Radiation Emitting Devices Act to have a separate Act which would be responsible for such things as consumer products and dangers in the home to the average Canadian.
This is a very important piece of legislation directly affecting the health of Canadians and the safety of our families. I ask for swift passage on third reading.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate for me to begin my comments by congratulating the Hon. Member who just spoke on the new addition to his family. I am sure that he speaks with considerable enthusiasm today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: I understand the new arrival is a healthy baby boy so the Hon. Member has every reason to be properly concerned about the environment in which this young fellow will grow up. Very appropriately, Mr. Speaker, we are today dealing with an Act which deals with the environment in which Canadians live.
I would make the very strong point that the healthiest thing the Liberal Government could do for the Canadian people would be to have an election. However, I do not wish to
expand on that point too much, having just congratulated the Hon. Member on the expansion of his family.
Today we are dealing with Bill C-5. I do not think I could do anything but waste time by repeating the very well prepared and reasonably appropriate comments that were made by the Hon. Member who just spoke. However, there are some points that I think need to be made. In some cases those points are broad, and they will certainly become more specific as we turn to some of the more specific issues that are involved. Indeed, the Hon. Member has already addressed some of those issues.
We are dealing with a Bill that does affect the health of Canadians vis-a-vis the variety of things in our environment to which they are exposed. I would like to bring to the attention of the House some of the things that were discussed most recently, in fact in this last week, by the 24 member nations of the OECD. That meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development was precipitated by the state of our environment and all of those things that the environment means.
In this Bill, we are dealing with a reasonably specific and very technological part of the environment. Indeed, it is very much a part of that with which the OECD countries were dealing, being the state of the environment and the health of the environment, including the quality of life which we may all expect because of that environment. In the long run the environment will determine both the physical health and the economic health of the people who are exposed to a variety of industrial, technological, and other innovations that are occurring around the world today.
There is a global distribution of a considerable variety of pollutants. Here we are speaking of everything from noise to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. This variety of pollutants is seriously threatening the sync of the global community. In the long run they are probably jeopardizing our ability to sustain a healthy economy and to sustain a healthy lifestyle. There are many things we do not know about the impacts of these various influences on our environment. One of the things that has come to light, with which I will deal specifically now, is radiation. I take the point made by the Hon. Member that nuclear radiation is excluded from consideration in this Bill, but I would also have to say very specifically that we are considering some of the same effects. I would think it would be appropriate to discuss them in the same context.
As recently as the last several months, reports have been made which bring to light new impacts of radiation that have as yet been unknown and not understood. One of the most important factors in understanding those impacts is the knowledge of the length of time between exposure to and the ultimate effect of radiation. We have all been living with a source of radiation, the sun, since the world began. We need that particular source of radiation and, as a healthy planet, we have been nourished by that source of radiation. We have also exposed ourselves along the way to additional radiation sources. Here I am talking about everything from video display screens to the effects of X-rays which are being used for



June 26, 1984

diagnostic purposes. We have exposed ourselves to those additional components in which there exists risk.
Originally there was a notion that there was a limit and that people could expose themselves to a certain amount of radiation without any physical costs. That is to say, so much exposure per year to an amount of radiation would be a so-called safe level. However, I think evidence is mounting which indicates that there is no such animal as a safe level of radiation. That includes the radiation which people may be receiving from the sun.
It is a well-known fact that people who expose themselves to the sun-and I say that in a gentle sense-for suntanning purposes, or people who work in the sun for long periods of time, suffer more from skin cancers. Evidence is mounting which indicates that while certain prescribed levels have become acceptable in the community for different levels of radiation, if a time study were taken it might indicate that there may well not be any so-called safe level of radiation exposure. That is not an indication that everyone should run down into the coal mines. There are dangers there as well, as was unfortunately demonstrated in the last week. Many of us have a lifestyle which includes sunbathing. We look forward to sunbathing. However, it is not without risk.
It is unlikely that there is an absolutely safe limit of exposure to any of the radiation sources. Clearly, that indicates that there is a need to understand what the effects will be over long periods of time. I believe that there is good and reasonable work being done on this matter by the scientific community around the world. It also means that at a given point in time-and we are taking a snapshot of where we stand today in terms of the effects of the radiation to which we are exposing ourselves-we need to be reasonable in establishing, as far as we can determine, exposure limits which will keep adverse effects to a minimum.
The first question that I would put forward with regard to this Bill is: on what premise will the regulations be made? I have some degree of insecurity about how evenly, reasonably, and accurately these regulations will be applied. We could go back to the time of Madame Curie. She did not know that the radium with which she was working, and which she discovered to the benefit of us all, would leave her with hands which needed to be covered completely because of cancerous changes before the time of her death. Another example, in more comtemporary times, is the shoe stores which had fluoroscopes which allowed people to see whether their toes were pinched when they bought a new pair of shoes.
There is more and more evidence about the adverse effects of radiation. I have some degree of difficulty in believing that the bureaucracy will know when it is appropriate to make regulations, and how to weigh the costs and benefits of some of these devices. If we go too far we may be denying ourselves what would be reasonable and valuable components in our lives-whether it is electrical generation or the use of computers. If we do not go far enough, 50 years from now there may
Radiation Emitting Devices Act
be an exceedingly high rate of adverse effects which we would all regret. Therefore, the premise on which these regulations will be established is something which should not just be left up to public servants, who, from time to time, will have different attitudes.
I think that is something which requires a watchdog. We require some form of reporting mechanism in order that what is happening can be understood as far as possible, on what basis decisions will be made to provide limitations, and to ensure that the Act and the amendments which are being proposed today will in fact do what is intended. That is the first point I would make, and there are minor points which I would like to include.
I have a Cabinet document here, Mr. Speaker, dated September 12, 1979, from the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, indicating the changes to Cabinet which he thought were implied by the Act which at that time, I believe, was Bill C-15. That is a period of five years between the time that that document was presented to Cabinet and now. Perhaps some of the problems have become greater during that period of time. However, we are now in the second last day of Parliament and I feel it is kind of weird that we are dealing with this Bill today. This is an important issue which might have been dealt with at almost any time in the last five years instead of today when we have some of the crushing social consequences of economic policies which need to be changed, bread lines which are running out of food sources in Toronto, as well as a number of other critical situations which are affecting the health of Canadians. Suicides are on the increase. I do not want to belabour the point, but it seems passing strange that we are dealing with this now instead of something of consequence which would help to deal with the problems of unemployment, interest rates and all of those things which I feel are of critical and immediate importance to the Canadian public.
It was in 1979 when this Cabinet document was produced. It indeed describes many of the amendments, which I will not go over again. My understanding is that we have now expanded this legislation to some degree to address the areas of lower levels of emissions. The Hon. Member used the example of a chain-saw. I am very happy that he made specific mention of the fact that there is a provincial jurisdiction here which needs to be respected. This is a broad area. We are talking about a wavelength of something; then we get into a wavelength with an energy imparted to it; then we get up to a certain energy level and with it, perhaps, an additional factor in terms of the momentum or time factor and other qualities which would in fact bounce off electrons in cells which they might hit and so cause harm to health. This problem is common throughout the world.
I started out talking about the environment and it is really the environment we are talking about here because, as someone said, we could apply this to John Turner's voice, if we wanted. If we did not like the quality of his voice, we could

June 26, 1984
Customs Tariff
regulate it and perhaps get him to say the things which are important to the Canadian people. That is just how broad this Bill is and that indicates some of the potential problems we could have.
I do not believe that civil servants in the first instance are necessarily misdirected or ill informed or out to do us harm. However, I can see problems if we do not respect the fact that this is a broad concept we are talking about, that there are other jurisdictions which must be respected, and it does require that additional level of watching and understanding before things get out of hand. That is my second point.
There are many natural environmental changes but there is no single change we can get away with without cost. Economists talk about economic rents, and there is a cost. We have developed, with the help of technology and the improvement of nutrition and so on, a situation in which human beings, if they do not get blown up in the meantime, can expect to live to the age of 70 or 80, if they live in a favoured country. This has not been accomplished without costing us something along the way. There will be costs. Exposing ourselves to radiation of all types has its costs. What we must do as carefully as possible is balance those costs and those benefits and keep that progression of improved health and economic climate and environment on the right track.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, that we do support this Bill. However, we raise those cautions which I have expressed and we hope the Government will take them into consideration as this Bill goes forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Roy MacLaren: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 is a repeat of the incompetent way of handling the Customs Tariff in Canada by this Government. The incompetence is expressed so perfectly in the schedule to the Bill that it is important that once again this matter be brought to the attention of the House of Commons.
Somehow we have developed a tariff system with four different tariff items. We have a tariff for the British preferential situation. We have a tariff for most favoured nations. We have a tariff for the general tariff. Then we have what is called the general preferential tariff. In addition, Sir, we have special rates for the United Kingdom and Ireland. All in all, we have a tariff system which makes little if any sense; a tariff calculation and computation system which has grown without any attempt at review. I want to go over how this developed and what we think should happen to correct the matter.
In the first place, Sir, you will recall that back in the early 1930s there was an effort made by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as Prime Minister, to organize a British Commonwealth free trade or virtual free trade system. The empire, then the Commonwealth, more or less like the empire prior to World War II and very shortly after, was cohesive and worked well. We had a British preferential tariff whereby rates of duty on goods coming to Canada from Commonwealth and empire countries came in at a very much lower rate of duty than goods which would come in from other countries under what was then the general tariff.
Now, Sir, change has taken place. The British Commonwealth still exists. We are proud members of that Commonwealth. But Great Britain and Ireland have joined another tariff unit called the European Community. They have aligned themselves in a new free trade arrangement with Europe.
However, we still retain the British preferential tariff for no purpose at all other than that it might possibly be of some help in our trade with Australia and New Zealand. It is really of no purpose because following the war we created something called most favoured nation status. Some of those most favoured nations are the most heinous totalitarian countries it the world. For example, Soviet Russia, East Germany and Czechoslovakia are most favoured nations. They are favoured as much as the finest democracies in the world, including the United States. This status covers almost all the countries in the world with the exception of Albania, the Balu Islands, North Korea, Libya, Mongolia, Oman and Saudi Arabia. It has long been said that if everyone is favoured, no one is favoured; if everyone is special, no one is special; if everyone is a somebody, no one is a somebody. We have a tariff system which provides that everyone is a somebody with the exception of Albania, the Balu Islands, North Korea, Libya, Mongolia, Oman and Saudi Arabia. We do not do much business with those countries. We do some business with Saudi Arabia and Libya, basically importing oil. The fact is that we just have not got round to negotiating a treaty with these countries. If we did, they would be most favoured nations too. But I suppose they do not really care.
Nevertheless, we carry the general tariff in our big, weighty tariff tomes. Duly printed in this Bill is the general tariff, including photographs, chromos, chromotypes, artotypes and oleographs, whatever they are. General tariff countries will pay 22.5 per cent duty, whereas most favoured nations will pay 15.7 per cent. We keep this garbage in this statute. Why? If you are amending a statute, surely you look at the problems


June 26, 1984

that multitudinous rate structures create and get rid of them. But not these fellows. They are happy in the bureaucracy carrying on with this sytem, piling new changes on old change, changes on changes, until we build up tomes that are incomprehensible and undefinable.
We have the Bill before us to make sure that labels for cigar boxes coming from Saudi Arabia will attract 35 per cent duty, but if they come from East Germany it will be only 14.6 per cent. Why we should discriminate against the Saudis and make them pay over twice the duty for labels for cigar boxes, I do not know, but there it is in this bill.
The poor people from the Balu Islands are treated the same way. But it is different for Czechoslovakia, that home of democracy which has managed to keep as a prisoner one Vasclav Pivenec. I bring this up because I think it is important. This man worked for the Czecholovakian trading company in this country. When he went home one Chritsmas he was immediately arrested. His wife and kids defected and they are now here as landed immigrants. When he tried to return to his wife and kids, that most favoured nation which we allow to import into Canada goods produced by slave labour said he could not go. He tried to escape and they put him in jail. They still say he cannot come because they do not really care about the Helsinki Agreement. But they are still a most favoured nation; favoured by this Government.
It is a great Act we have here. It really indicates the lack of thinking in a ministry that would produce it and a government that would bring it in and say it is important that it be passed. Well, Sir, we are going to let the ministry and bureaucracy know right now that they better get their act together, because this legislation is incomprehensible, has no regard for the ultimate benefit of Canada as a world trader and it has to go.
We are going to let the Bill go through because it has a provision to extend the general preferential tariff this country has generously given to underdeveloped countries so they can bring their goods into Canada by and large duty free. If it is not passed by June 30, that right would expire and all of those underdeveloped countries, would be stuck with the general tariff or, at best, the most favoured nation tariff, and that would be unfortunate for them. Another reason for letting the Bill pass is that it goes on to increase, from $100 to $300, the amount Canadians returning home can bring in duty free. Those two provisions are very important and must be passed.
I want to bring to your attention Clause 1, which still exists, and the unfortunate things that have happened with respect to which countries are entitled to the general preferential tariff. That tariff is a fourth tariff item. That tariff gives underdeveloped countries the right to bring in goods at a rate below or equal to the British preferential tariff and below the most favoured nation tariff. It allows goods to come in at a very substantially reduced rate. In creating the list of countries entitled to the general preferential tariff, there seems to have been no effort made by the Government to bring that list up to date. While certain countries are underdeveloped and are
Customs Tariff
entitled to this tariff privilege, some countries have become less underdeveloped. Some of them have become major industrial countries.
I speak, for example, of Brazil. There is no question that there is a lot of poverty, underdevelopment and distress in parts of Brazil. There is also a high degree of technology and expertise in this country. There are manufacturers of airplanes, auto parts and automobiles which compete head on with us on the world markets. We allow them tariff concessions which are totally unrealistic in comparison to their degree of development. Brazil is not an underdeveloped country. It may be a poorly managed country. Instead of reinvesting in their country the rich people of Brazil may put their money in bank accounts in Switzerland. There may be little redistribution of wealth in that country, but there certainly is not a total lack of technological ability. To the extent that it is underdeveloped, it is because, through the management of their own affairs, the Brazilians make it underdeveloped.
One wonders why a country of that nature should be entitled to the general preferential tariff. I say that also in relation to Argentina. That country is entitled to the general preferential tariff. In Argentina the people are not illiterate and in poverty all over the country. Argentina has the capacity to produce, create and build and to be a modern industrial machine. The fact that it is badly managed may make it underdeveloped. Our country is badly managed and we are underdeveloped in terms of our potential. However, that does not justify that country having general preferential tariff status.
If one looks at the list of countries with general preferential tariff status, one begins to wonder why they are entitled to the general preference to come into Canada at a rate which is less then the British preferential tariff ever was, when their manufacturers and subsidization of manufacturing is such that, because of free entry, they are able to do damage to Canadian business.
Cuba has that status. Is there any real justification for Cuba, a communist country in the western hemisphere which causes us all sorts of problems in connection with national defence, to have the benefit of a tariff lower than the British preferential ever was? Why would you treat Cuba better than you treat Australia? Is there any real justification for that? Why would you treat communist Cuba better than you do the United States? I say that there is no justification for that at all. One begins to wonder where the priorities of the Government are. Where does the Government intend to take us trade-wise?
In 1968 Canada had 5.74 per cent of world trade. We had a larger percentage of world trade than Japan had. At that point Japan had only 5.71 per cent of world trade. The last statistics I was able to get are from 1981 because these do not come through that quickly. In 1981 we had 3.8 per cent of world trade and Japan had 7.93 per cent. In 1968 we had a larger percentage of world trade than Japan. Now Japan has more than double the world trade we have. We have not been holding our own as a nation. We have been giving tariff privileges to other countries. Yet we have not done anything

June 26, 1984
Customs Tariff
for ourselves. Candy manufacturers in Canada have protested the way Brazil is able to dump candy into the country. Sugar refineries protested as well with respect to Cuba. Automobile companies have said the same thing to us. I have protested on behalf of people making cordage about what was happening in terms of import and how that was affecting manufacturing jobs in Canada.
Our percentage of world trade has dropped. That of our trading competitors has risen. Germany has 9.21 per cent of world trade, which is nearly three times ours. France had 5.59 per cent in 1968. In 1981 it had 5.57 per cent. That is virtually the same. They do not lose their percentage against Japan. The country that loses is Canada. Our percentage has been going down dramatically more than other countries.
We conducted a study on these matters. It is no secret that our Party has been examining what we could do to make this country grow again and get people back to work. For example, we know that if we could bring Canada's trade up 1 per cent, not even back to what it was in 1968 but to 1 per cent more of trade in the world market, there would be another 600,000 jobs in this country. Yet we are faced with a tariff Bill that repeats the confusion, the inconsistencies and the lack of policy developed by the Government during its history.
Is the Government attempting to get people back to work and to build the country, or is it trying to pretend that this country means something to everyone and that each nation is a most favoured nation? Each nation that says it is underdeveloped is allowed that status and therefore is entitled to virtually free access to our market no matter what the extent of their development. It does not matter to the Government whether a nation is able to make short-take-off-and-landing aircraft that compete with us and drive us out of the South American and African markets with its subsidization programs. It will let them into our country virtually tariff free.
Where is the Government's trade policy? Where is its intention to get tough and to build Canada so it can grow again? It is not provided in this Bill. This Bill really does nothing except extend the privilege to some underdeveloped countries. There are some underdeveloped countries that deserve the underdeveloped status and should be allowed to send goods into the country tariff free. Perhaps that is the best way to help them. However, there seems to be no discrimination. Apparently any country which says it is underdeveloped can qualify and the Government does not reserve that status to those countries in real need. The Government does not reserve the privilege of trading in the Canadian market duty and tariff free to a select group to whom this privilege matters. It is those countries with which we could have free trade, to whom our manufactured goods and technical expertise could be sold while importing from them raw products which cannot be found in our country. That would be a trade policy, but it is not done.
The Government gives this general preferential rate to virtually every country which asks for it. It does not matter
whether it is Cuba or Brazil. The Government gives the most favoured nation status to all the others, without regard to politics, how they conduct their trade, whether we can have access to their markets or whether they can sell to Czechoslovakia freely while we cannot. They sell $53 million worth of goods to our country while we sell $11 million worth of goods to their country. It does not matter to the Government, it lets them come in as most favoured nations.
Since the Government has not yet negotiated an agreement with Saudi Arabia and the Balu Islands, it says they must pay the high general tariff. Since they are paying that high general tariff then everyone could be most favoured nation status who is not either in the Balu Islands or North Korea.
This Bill lacks thinking, development and intelligence. It should be passed only for two reasons. First, it will help those who really need the assistance of most favoured nation status and are included in the schedules. That status should be extended. Second, Canadians who are returning from overseas will be able to bring in $300 worth of goods.
I am not sure they will be able to do that any longer. The House will recall that when this Bill was presented in January the exchange rate was well in excess of 80 cents. As each hour goes by, the value of the Canadian dollar seems to drop in terms of international purchasing power. Perhaps the value of $300 Canadian duty free goods coming into Canada has decreased by 4 per cent since the Budget, which is $12 since the Bill was introduced. Since the Budget, that preference has been reduced to approximately $287 and perhaps tomorrow it will be $286. Its value is getting smaller. Canadians believe they are getting something for this privilege, but as the international value of our currency drops, it is not much of a privilege.
The Bill should go through but the Department should be warned that it will have to rewrite the Customs Tariff and put the customs tariff schedules into comprehensible form. Unless it is prepared to begin doing that, some changes will have to be made.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), since 1968 the Government has had to increase the duty free limit from $100 to $300 not only to counteract inflation but the devaluing of our dollar. Therefore, I would say that going back 16 years we are no further ahead, perhaps even a little bit behind.
This Bill is what I would call a good neighbour Bill. While neighbour nations are allowed to send goods into our country without any restrictions, they have a different set of rules when we export our products. I am particularly concerned about the automotive industry. The report of the auto task force was made almost two years ago but nothing has been done about it. That report requested that the preferential tariff rate extended to developing countries for their automotive products be limited to two-thirds of the most favoured nation tariff rate for automotive goods. That is a reasonable request.
June 26, 1984

I represent an auto industrial area. In order to get around the tariff from West Germany, Mercedes Benz now produces their products in Brazil. As a result, they come into Canada duty free in direct competition with our own industry. This is not the best example because the demand for trucks is not great, given that the economy is at such a stalemate.
However, another example is the South Korean Pony. I will admit that it looks a very good product. It sells at a discounted price and is put together by people who probably earn less than $1 an hour, in a country where the standard of living is much lower than that in Canada. We in Canada try to protect a standard of living for all Canadians. While this product which is brought into the country may benefit consumers, it removes jobs for the workers.
As I said, the Government takes the attitude of being good neighbours and accepts products from anywhere. It will not put duties on the products of other countries and is not concerned about the duties that are placed on our export products.
I would like to point out the reason for that, which came up in our research about what has to change in government. We are not producing as many products now as we did ten years ago. We are still depending upon the export of raw materials. This situation is hurting Canada by eliminating jobs. We have to address methods of producing Canadian products that create jobs, that create additional research and will produce additional profits, allowing further research for new products. We should not just import such things as Mercedes Benz trucks from Brazil and Pony cars from North Korea.
Canada is being very kind to the rest of the world. We put no blocks in the way but everyone else puts blocks in our way. We come across one roadblock after another. We have not been quite as smart as other countries. We have not subsidized industry as much as other countries. We have not enacted adequate legislation for our citizens enabling them to be working today.
As my colleague mentioned, our trade has dropped from 6 per cent to 3.9 per cent. Japan, which traded less then Canada in 1968, now trades more than double the amount that Canada does. How long will we have to wait for other newly industrialized countries to surpass our 3.9 per cent figure? We should be addressing the major problem of pushing our 3.9 per cent trade up to a reasonable level that will create jobs for Canadians. Moving up our world trade one percentage point would create over 600,000 jobs. Moving that percentage in world trade to 5 per cent would create 750,000 jobs. That would cut unemployment in Canada in half. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I think this country could live with 50 per cent of the unemployment rate we have today, but we cannot live with unemployment rates of 11 per cent and 12 per cent. People do not want to stay at home watching television all day. People want to be productive. This Bill does nothing to encourage our trade. I should correct that: yes, it does. It encourages everybody else
Customs Tariff
to trade with us but what does that do to help Canada export more products?
This Bill will be in place until June 30, 1994. You wonder why we object, Mr. Speaker. We object when we see a democratic country like ours being treated in a different fashion from communist countries such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany and Russia.
Let us examine our position with Saudi Arabia. We probably export more to Saudi Arabia than to many other places. We have had tremendous success in our exports because of Bell Canada and Northern Telecom. Yet, as a favour to Saudi Arabia because it buys Canadian research and development and technology, we turn around and say to the Saudi Arabians: "You must pay a different rate than the Soviet Union". That situation is not addressed in this Bill. That is wrong. Saudi Arabia requires secondary industry. Saudi Arabia buys from us and we buy from Saudi Arabia what we have to, that being oil because we are running out of oil. We do not create that many jobs in Saudi Arabia by simply buying oil; nor do other countries create many jobs in Canada by buying our coal, our aluminum and our zinc. This Bill does not really solve any of our trading problems. I realize this is something that has to be done every ten years. We have to adjust duties. We had to change the British preferential tariff because Britain is now part of the EEC. But we have many inequities which should have been changed much sooner.
I am concerned, as I said earlier, about the preferential duty for automotive parts and auto products. Yes, Canada is in a positive position today, but I am not at all certain that six months from now Canada will have a positive trade balance on cars. Canada was fortunate that the United States allowed us to retain large car production facilities in Canada. The United States did not really allow us; the situation just happened. All American plants were changed over to the new styles. The Americans left in Canada the "B" bodies-the Monte Carlos, the Pontiacs and the small Oldsmobiles. The United States did not anticipate there would be a boom for those cars. That boom happened because the price of oil did not go up as quickly as anticipated. I am worried and that is why I am dwelling on duty on cars. I am concerned about these new industrialized countries that are able to bring their products into Canada duty free, because we could be in a very dangerous position just six months from now. I hope I am wrong. The new industrialized countries, some of which are in far better shape than Canada, are developing much faster than we are.
I have requested a number of times, to be fair to Canada and to our automotive trade which creates many, many jobs, that we impose two-thirds of the most favoured nation tariff rate on automotive goods. I know that requesting it will not do any good but, believe me, the people in my riding would be appreciative, Mr. Speaker.
Let me digress to the auto task force report which was written two years ago. Nothing has been done about it. Fortunately the industry has done something to help itself. In Canada industry knows that the only way for it to survive is to help itself.

June 26, 1984
Customs Tariff
If we are going to accept this Bill-it will be accepted and it will be passed-we have to address what we can do in Canada similar to what the Americans did with the DISC program. We have to deal with subsidization programs throughout the communist world and the slave labour rates in other parts of the world. We must do something to protect Canadian industry. We cannot accomplish it through tariffs, nor by increasing tariffs on goods coming into this country. But we can do something by allowing the free enterprise system to fly. We have put too many constraints in its way, yet we have taken away the constraints on all other countries in the world except for about a half dozen. I am continually amazed that we are such good neighbours. I wish they were as kind to us.
We still protect some items. For example, the British preferential tariff on biscuits is higher than the general preferential tariff. Since I was a child I have eaten more British biscuits than I have those of the rest of the world. Obviously Britain has a higher productivity rate in biscuits than any other country.
The Government is acting in an inequitable manner. For example, we can purchase lobsters prepared and preserved from the communist world at a lower price than we can purchase them from Australia and New Zealand, our friends. Also it is interesting to note the situation with respect to caviar. I am very fond of caviar; I really have a tongue for it. The Government places a tariff on caviar from Britain, a most favoured nation tariff, but caviar from communist countries comes into the country duty free. That is from where most caviar comes, other than that from the Middle East, which I think comes from Iran and perhaps from Saudi Arabia. We charge our friends an excessive tariff, but our enemies bring in their caviar duty free.
The Hon. Deputy Whip likes champagne to go along with his caviar. As he knows, champagne is very heavily taxed coming into Canada. It is not taxed to keep champagne out; it is taxed in the same way as oil, as a money machine. I could deal with all the different items to show the inequity or unfairness. In the case of cigars, the tariff is much less on those from Cuba than on those from other countries. Possibly the Minister enjoys a good cigar after dinner. I do not know, but I feel the situation is inequitable. We must address the importance of encouraging our Canadian industry to produce products so that we do not need to worry about tariffs. If we turned the situation around and took a positive economic step forward, we would start producing more products and become highly productive. Then it would not matter what were the tariffs in other countries because we would be competitive and would accomplish free trade, about which everyone talks. This Bill does not provide free trade. It provides unilateral free trade-everything coming into the country is free; everything going out is taxed.
How can the Government justify this Bill and at the same time go down to Washington and discuss sectoral free trade? That should have been done first and this Bill should have
been brought in second. Our best friend and largest trading partner is the United States of America. It had better remain our friend because it protects us and we buy its products.
I agree with sectoral free trade, but I do not agree with Canada allowing in products from wherever the Government wants at any price. I know this is third reading debate and that I must deal with the Bill. Therefore, I should like to refer to another item about which the Hon. Deputy Whip should be very concerned. I am referring to brandy. French brandy probably has a tariff on it but brandy from communist Russia comes in duty free.
When I look at the area of ceramics, I am glad the Government has left in some protection because a ceramics industry is developing in Canada with fine people who have come from Portugal and Italy, Mexico and Spain. They have developed small cottage industries in the ceramics field. The Government has left reasonable tariffs in place so that ceramics do not come in duty free.
There are parts of the Bill which are right, in particular those which protect the cottage trade in Canada. We must address this area. I have not had an opportunity to review each item covered in the Bill. However, there are other items which could be harmful to the cottage trade. If the cottage trade is flourishing, it means that people are being taken from the welfare and unemployment rolls and being allowed to do something productive.
This is another poor Bill. We do not want to have to vote upon it. However, we realize there are problems and that there are serious implications with our other trading partners if we do not pass it. Once again I state that we must review the auto task force report and the tariffs on the Mercedes Benz from Brazil and the Pony from Korea to ensure that we are protecting jobs in the Canadian automotive industry, which comprises a large portion of our population.
In that my time is up, I thank the House for allowing me to express my concerns about this Bill.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on this Bill, particularly as it relates to the whole question of our approach to customs matters.
A story recently appeared in the press which typified the rather silly extents to which the Government goes in terms of some customs regulations. The story-and it has not been denied by the Government-dealt with a circumstance in which regulations relating to customs tariff requirements were passed. They referred to various commodities which were being imported into Canada. The story concerned the importation of dance apparel by a woman in Winnipeg who ran a dance school for young children and students. She was in the habit of importing dance apparel from different countries including the United States. One requirement of the customs regulations was that the country of origin had to be prominently displayed on the apparel. In this particular situation there was a tab on the costumes being imported on which the name of the manufacturer was displayed on the front. On the back
June 26, 1984

the tab it indicated that the apparel was manufactured in the United States. This seemed to the woman in question to meet the appropriate regulation under the Customs Act.
However, the official at the customs office was not satisfied with the 125 dancing dresses that were coming in for these students. He required the importer, the owner and proprietor of the dancing school, to sit in a room at the international airport in Winnipeg and to reverse the labels on the back of each of these dresses so that the place of origin would face up rather than down. I found this to be an incredible perversion of what we are trying to accomplish under our customs regulations.
We have schedules in this Bill with respect to items that are going to be dealt with under the Customs Tariff. When we have a provision with respect to importation of goods into this country, what is accomplished by a bureaucrat requiring some poor individual importer, the proprietor of a dance school in Winnipeg, to sit for the course of one whole day and re-sew labels on the back of dancing apparel? That is an outrageous example of the preposterous extent to which a very small minority of unthinking bureaucrats are in fact enacting the laws that we pass in this Parliament.
This was not a person who felt there was no alternative. The person involved in making this decision at the port of importation in Winnipeg said that it was good for this woman to sew those labels on the dancing dresses, that it was a good education for her and that she sure would not import dresses again with labels turned the back way. When we talk about changing the customs laws of this country, it is time that some of us stood in this House to point out that some of the same problems exist in terms of the dealings under the laws that we enact at our borders for our own Canadian citizens, as we experienced in Revenue Canada with respect to the taxpayers of the country and some of the enormous abuses that have come to light in the last few months.
When we in Parliament review the provisions of this Bill and look at what we are now doing in terms of changing the Customs Tariff for a variety of commodities, we should do so on the basis that these laws will be enacted and put into practice and operation on a sensible basis. When we find circumstances of abuse where Canadian citizens are harassed or treated unfairly, it should give us cause to stop and think about the way we are giving directions, the directions being given by the government of the day to its employees with respect to the laws we pass in Parliament.
This is only one step in the whole process. Here we set the bare bones law with respect to legislation. We determine by such legislation what the level of import tax will be, the percentage and the preference, if applicable. We think our responsibilities finish there. When those who are importing goods and commodities of all sorts and descriptions covered by this legislation have to deal with the administration and customs branch, we should be vigilant. We should send out a signal to ensure that, while there is a purpose in enacting this
Customs Tariff
legislation and giving protection to Canadian manufacturers and producers of all sorts with respect to goods made and produced in Canada, that does not give the agency required to administer these laws carte blanche to act unreasonably with respect to people who are interested in importing goods into Canada.
There has to be an even-handedness demonstrated in the administration. In the same way that we have proposed in terms of Revenue Canada, there should be a bill of rights for the taxpayers of this country so that they know they will receive fair and reasonable treatment from Revenue Canada when dealing with that Department. This same principle should apply with respect to the customs side of Revenue Canada.
I do not want to get involved in discussing in a wide-ranging way the problems faced by people with respect to some of the regulations that have now been passed with regard to our customs law. However, we are more and more getting into an age where many of our laws are not passed in Parliament but rather by Order in Council. The Deputy Minister and the bureaucracy really set the rules with respect to the application of those laws which we pass. There is a highly arbitrary element with respect to the administration of the laws that we pass in Parliament. This is happening more and more. I do not say it is unique to the Parliament of Canada, it is happening in legislatures across this land. More and more power is being vested in the Public Service, the administration, the bureaucracy, so that we in Parliament do not set the rules regarding the application of those laws.


Mr. Kelly:: What was that again?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unfortunately my colleague's microphone is not on, so I am not able to get the benefit of his wisdom. I am concerned about this development regarding legislation where wide powers in terms of passing laws which very much affect the way in which legislation such as we are now dealing with are dealt with through regulation, through administrative orders which have very serious consequences in terms of our over-all customs policy.
I know that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLar-en), who is a very sensible and honourable man, agrees with me in this connection. He has had experience trying to figure out whether when coming into Canada he should declare the toothpaste and shaving cream he bought in Washington, where he spends a lot of his time getting instructions with respect to his portfolio. It is time for parliamentarians to remind themselves again of the growing incidence of government by regulation. It has a very serious impact in the way in which legislation such as we are now looking at, which will be approved today, will be administered.
I go back to the rather human example I mentioned at the outset of my remarks. It is inconceivable that any person acting on behalf of the customs branch of Revenue Canada would think it a wise decision to make some poor proprietor of a dancing school sit with a needle and thread all day to reverse labels that have been placed on garments because they did not

June 26, 1984
Customs Tariff
meet his view of how those labels should have been sewn on the dancing garments. What kind of mentality would exist in a branch of government for it to allow these kinds of circumstances to exist? As that woman said, she felt like a criminal. She somehow felt that there was no alternative but to follow the instructions of the customs official. I think we would all find ourselves in the same position. We tend to respect authority. When a police officer, a customs official or a person from Revenue Canada tells us to take a particular action, 99 per cent of us will accept that authority and will follow through on the instructions because Canadians are law-abiding people. As well, Canadians believe, and rightly so, that there are sanctions attached to these positions.
All I can say is that when considering this legislation, it is time for us to make sure that the principles embodied in the Bill before us are not distorted or perverted by the administration of the Department through the ability of the Deputy Minister to pass laws by regulation with respect to administration which give wide and arbitrary powers to officials. I say that because we in this Party feel strongly about the expansion of government by regulation. That is why we have spoken up with respect to this particular Bill.
While the Bill will pass, we simply serve notice that under a new administration, people who are involved with Revenue Canada, whether on the taxation side or the customs side, will take a new attitude with respect to their need to deal with people in a fair and sensitive way. We in this Party believe that Canadian citizens have rights and should be treated as human beings who should be entitled to carry on discussions and negotiations with the Government free from harassment and arbitrary treatment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) would advise us of his view with respect to the various schedules contained within the Bill. He will note that there are schedules for British prefer-rential tariffs, most-favoured nation tariffs, general tariffs and general preferential tariffs. Certain suggestions have been made regarding the consolidation of those tariffs. Perhaps the Hon. Member could give us his views with respect to these tariff schedules.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question put by the Hon. Member because it gives me the opportunity to say that we are given the responsibility of dealing with a wide range of commodities which are dealt with under these schedules. We as parliamentarians have been asked to pronounce judgment on these matters and we do so on the basis of advice we have received from the Government indicating that these are the appropriate tariff levels for each of the commodities listed. To a large extent, in the dying days of this Parliament we are dealing in good faith with a variety of items listed in each of the schedules. We are doing this in the belief that the Minister has done a thorough review and is able to substantiate that these in fact are the appropriate levels for the various commodities.
In a general response to my colleague, I would say that one of the difficulties is that when we deal with these items as we are doing now, that is only part of the story. The administration of the customs laws in our country very much affect the success or otherwise of this particular legislation because wide and arbitrary powers are given to customs officials through regulations passed by the Deputy Minister by Order in Council.
I appreciate the opportunity my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), has given me to comment on the schedules and to assure Canadians that, when dealing with this kind of legislation, much of the law that is enacted is not enacted on the floor of the House of Commons. At least in this case, we have been given the courtesy of being able to look at the various items and pass judgment on them. We have been given the opportunity to stand up and say that this particular item should fit into another category or should have a higher or lower rate of tariff if we have any specific objections to certain items. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Very often three-quarters of the rules and decisions are made not on the floor of the House of Commons but in the offices of bureaucrats. These rules and decisions are, as I say, subject to no accountability or scrutiny excepting the scrutiny of, I am proud to say, the House of Commons and Senate Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, a committee of which I am a member.
A very substantial amount of work is placed before the Committee to which I have just referred and we deal with our responsibility in a painstaking way. However, we deal with these matters after the fact as opposed to before the fact. We do not pronounce on these regulations before they are enacted but after they have been passed to the Privy Council Office and have been in existence for two, three or even four years. In many instances these regulations have done great damage to individual Canadian citizens. These laws are the same as any law that is passed by Parliament but it is legislation that is delegated.
I know that 100 per cent of my colleagues would agree with me that a new government will take a serious look-


Mr. Deniger:: New image, new face.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not only a new image, Mr. Speaker. Liberal Members like to speak about new images. We do not want only a new image; we want real change, and that is where we differ from members of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
June 26, 1984


CURRENCY AND EXCHANGE 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Roy MacLaren: that the Bill be read the third time and do pass.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, by and large, this Bill follows the recommendations contained in the report of the Subcommittee of the Finance Committee on special import measures. Therefore, we are very much in favour of the Bill. In particular, the Bill proposes that the anti-dumping and countervailing duties legislation should place specific time limits on various stages of the investigation of dumping and subsidization, as well as the conduct of injury inquiries. To complete cases more rapidly, the Department of National Revenue's investigation of dumping and subsidization, and the Tribunal's inquiry into injury, should coincide to a greater extent than they do at present. Basically, those recommendations have been followed in Clauses 31, 32, 38, 41 and 43.
In the past when complaints have been laid it has been possible to use the favourite lawyer's trick when defending a matter-that is, to delay, delay and delay. As a consequence, the injury carries on. Even if a finding has been made that there has been dumping or undue subsidization, the damage has already been done and in many cases the Canadian industry will have gone under or will have been severely damaged to the point where even an order by the Tribunal would do nothing except tell that industry: "It is too bad that you are good Canadians and that you waited for this legislation to assist you, but now you are dead and we will send you roses; or we will send you the investigators from the Department of National Revenue, or the bankruptcy group from Consumer and Corporate Affairs to find out why you went under". Therefore, we welcome the proposal to move ahead and complete more rapidly the investigations and hearings of the Tribunal.
The second proposal which was made by the subcommittee reads as follows:
The new anti-dumping and countervailing duties legislation should permit the suspension of investigations if price undertakings have been accepted by National Revenue from exporters who are dumping, or price or quantitative undertakings from exporters and their governments in the case of subsidized exports to Canada.
That matter has been dealt with in Clauses 49 to 54 of the Bill.
Currency and Exchange Act
The third proposal which the subcommittee made was that the new countervailing duty procedure should generally parallel anti-dumping procedures. That raises two matters. First, there is an order on dumping which imposes a duty or charge that is an anti-dumping levy. Often the problem is not the dumping of goods but situations in which countries have subsidized their internal producers to the extent that the goods are for sale in their own country at an exceptionally low price. When those goods are shipped to Canada, those countries can properly say that they are not dumping the goods. For example, Italy can say that their tomatoes are for sale in Italy at the same price as they are offering them for sale in Canada. We could ask why canned tomatoes are so cheap in Italy. The answer is that they subsidize their farmers to grow tomatoes. In effect, the canned tomatoes are cheap because Italy also subsidizes their steel can makers. Therefore, the result is that tomatoes are a product which is exceptionally low-priced. If it is low-priced to Italians, then why can they not sell it at the same low price to Canadians? The answer is that Canadian farmers and can companies will be put out of business. Why is Italy able to do it? Not because their price of production is any lower-indeed, it is probably higher-but because the agriculture and steel industries are subsidized to such an extent that the products in those industries are coming into Canada at an unfair price marking. If we were to allow that to continue, we would seriously damage our farmers and our steel industry.
There is a problem in the country today with respect to wine. As many of us are aware from reading articles, some members of the European Common Market-the countries of Germany, France, Italy and Portugal-have been producing excellent crops of grapes over the last few years. The consequence is that they are virtually floating in a sea of wine. To a large extent this is because agriculture in Europe has been excessively subsidized by rebates on land taxation, subsidies of one form or another in terms of interest on loans to farm groups, acreage subsidies and the like. The effect is that subsidized agriculture ends up with enormous production. If producers have a good year on top of that, they wind up with enormous production.
Without some kind of protection, the Canadian wine industry would be wiped out. We could place certain tariffs on wine, but if we are prepared to sell it for virtually nothing, then it is a tariff on nothing. If fixed prices are placed on wine as is the case in Ontario, which indicates that foreign wine cannot be sold for less than domestic wine, then the pressure is still on and it makes it impossible for our own producers to produce. This legislation is exceptionally important as it gives another layer of protection and makes it possible for Canadian industry to be protected, not against ordinary and proper foreign trade-because I think we must recognize that we are a trading nation-but against subsidized imports and situations in which producers in other countries decide that our market is a place for their surplus.
The next proposal recommended that the anti-dumping legislation provide authority for the establishment in excep-

June 26, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
tional circumstances of a basic price system. That is, I suppose, the philosophy of the legislation. When someone is bringing something to our country, the product which comes in must have a price structure which indicates that it could in fact be produced for the price at which it is offered. A constituent of mine informed me of a case recently which involved paint brushes in China. The brushes are made of hog bristles. They are good brushes. The fact is that the Chinese were selling paint brushes in our market at about half the price at which they would sell the hog bristles themselves. This is a case in which there is no basic price at all because there is no way of finding out what the market for paint brushes is in China. China does not have the same kind of society as Canada. They do not have hardware stores and the same merchandising system. The brushes were essentially made for one purpose: they were made for export. Hog bristles are also available for export. However, the brushes were coming into the country at significantly less cost than the brushes could have conceivably been made for if the hog bristles were worth what the Chinese were prepared to sell those bristles for.
Obviously, we must reach a fair price. This legislation will enable the establishment of a basic price. If we took the hog bristle price and the price at which China is prepared to sell those bristles and we added the price of putting a brush together, it would end up as a fair price. After all, China determines the price of the ingredient-the bristles. Why should that not be the basic cost of producing the brush? It is not a question of inquiring whether in fact it is a subsidy, because in a country where there is no market system it is difficult to determine whether it is a subsidy. There may be in fact no subsidy paid. It may be just the way the marketing system of that country values its product. On that basis, it becomes difficult to determine whether it is a subsidized import or whether it is dumped. What one has to do is to determine what is a basic fair value and charge duty accordingly or put on a countervailing duty or something of that nature, and this legislation provides for that.
With respect to the proposals, proposal No. 5 was the criterion for finding injury: the new definition of regional industry contained in international agreements or anti-dumping duties and on subsidies and countervailing duties should be taken into account by the Tribunal. That is dealt with in Clause 42(3) of the Bill. The recommendation was that the injury criteria specified in the GATT anti-dumping code be adopted into Canadian legislation as a reference for injury inquiries, and that the definition of "regional industry" contained in the GATT anti-dumping code should be taken into account by the Tribunal.
We live, Sir, as you know, in a very large country where we have five, six, and perhaps even more separate regions. The importation of an article at a very low price into one region of our country can hurt manufacturers in another region of our country where that importation is not taking place. Therefore, dumping or subsidization has to be looked at not only on the basis of the whole country, but on the basis of the regions of
the country. We are pleased that that particular provision is in the statutes.
Proposal No. 6 of the committee was that the existing Canadian legislation permitting imposition of import quotas based on injury findings by the Textile and Clothing Board or the Tribunal should be maintained. However, there should be provision to place the products on the import control list for monitoring purposes based upon the recommendation of the Tribunal and the Textile and Clothing Board. This whole question of imports and monitoring imports is dealt with in Clause 106 of the Bill and further dealt with on a three-year review period provided in Clause 104 of the Bill.
The next proposal was that Section 8 of the Customs Tariff should be amended to permit surtaxes to stay in effect for more than 180 days without parliamentary approval in the case where the Tribunal, or where appropriate, the Textile and Clothing Board, finds on a reference by the Government serious injury or threat of serious injury to Canadian producers. Clause 103 of the Bill provides for that but also provides that the review would have to be every three years instead of being an annual review. Therefore, there is provision in Clause 103 to make sure that the surtaxes can in fact stay in effect longer than the 180 days which was the case in the past.
Proposal No. 8 with respect to the legislation is that the legislative authority for applying surtaxes should also permit the application of surtaxes after certain quantities of the product have been imported. Again, if there is a quantitative import allowed, Clause 103 of the Bill provides that a three-year review should be held on those quantitative limitations. Proposal No. 8 of the committee was that the legislation should provide for specific authority for Canada to take safeguard measures for balance of payment purposes. Obviously, we live in a trading world but occasionally we can have, and have had in the past, balance of payment problems. We do not seem to have those right now, although I may point out to you, Sir, that in the first three months of this year we suffered a balance of payment deficiency. We have been very fortunate in our foreign trade to have a surplus of trade, and that has more than overcome our ordinary deficiency in terms of the tourist industry and our deficiency in terms of payments of interest and dividends to foreigners. However, we can, and have had in the past, serious problems with respect to balance of payments. Section 102 of the statute provides that we can interfere to safeguard our balance of payment problem.
Proposal No. 10 is that the Government should have the power to suspend or withdraw rights or privileges granted by Canada to other countries and to impose surtaxes, quotas or a combination thereof, or to impose countervailing duties, and in cases where it is deemed to be appropriate to respond to actions by foreign governments which either affect Canadian trade, goods and services or impair Canada's rights under trade agreements. That again is part of the provisions in Section 102.
There were some additional recommendations. First, that the Tariff Board should be empowered to undertake a review of decisions made by the anti-dumping tribunal when so

June 26, 1984

requested by consumer advocates and when, in the opinion of the board, it is in the national interest to do so. This was not completely done in the Bill, but Clause 45 of the Bill will permit interested parties such as consumers to make representations to the Anti-dumping Tribunal. Perhaps that ought to happen more often. But, of course, we are all consumers and it is difficult to get people interested in making representations to tribunals when the cost of going to a tribunal gets to be rather horrific in terms of legal fees and disbursements.
The subcommittee recommended further that there was a unique problem with respect to capital goods, and that problem continues. Clauses 89 to 95 of the Bill, to some extent, with regulations, perhaps help here. However, we may be building, for example, a transit system and another country may come in and make a bid on that transit system which is a one-of-kind item. In one-of-a-kind items it is very difficult to say whether an item is being subsidized or whether it is being dumped because, after all, if it is one-of-a-kind, how can you say it is being dumped in your country? So we always have a problem with capital goods because there is no specific market for a particular exclusive and unique type of machinery or equipement. It is on the basis that there must be some study made of it. We are not entirely happy with the way it is handled, but we will see how it goes. It may be impossible, really, to legislate here without interfering with the over-all requirement that we as trading nations should have our regulations for imports generally available to people to see and read and understand. We cannot have a situation where the Government is asked by some people to stop a foreign importer at the border because some Canadian all of a sudden objects that some foreign importer or manufacturer is bringing in goods cheaper than the Canadian thinks they can be produced. Indeed, world trade would cease to exist if the Government used that type of regulatory procedure, particularly when there is really no market for a product. It is exceptionally difficult on a capital goods matter to protect yourself. These clauses do something but we are not at all convinced that that is going to solve the problem, but again the problem probably defies a solution.
The subcommittee further recommended that the role of current import agencies be examined in relation to one another. That was not dealt with, but there are businesses in this country whose sole purpose is to buy foreign products, bring them into Canada and distribute them. They should be examined as to how they are working. We have not done it in this Bill and perhaps it should be done at some future time. The committee should continue to monitor the question of import regulation and control because after all, Sir, the question of goods coming into this country and their effect on jobs is pretty important to us. Therefore, the role that import agencies play in this country's trade patterns is important and has to be looked at continually.
There is provision concerning public disclosure in Clauses 78, 79, 82 and 88. The committee suggested that the legislation should outline a greater disclosure of information collect-
Currency and Exchange Act
ed by Revenue Canada during an investigation and the reasons underlying a decision. That is important. Importers are entitled to have the reasons why a countervailing duty is imposed, why the countervailing duty is 29.5 per cent or, in the case of the paint brushes I mentioned, in excess of 500 per cent. The committee also suggested that all confidential information be accompanied by a non-confidential summary. In other words, if there are matters brought to the Tribunal that are confidential, then surely they can be summarized in a non-confidential manner. It is not necessary to give away a company's trade secrets, but there is no reason why they could not be summarized in a non-confidential manner. The committee recommended that the Government be given the right to disregard any confidential information not accompanied by a non-confidential summary. Perhaps that is the way it should be. Then the committee recommended that the Government review all information claimed to be confidential in order to verify that fact. If it does not appear to be of a type that must be confidential, steps should be taken to convince the company to reclassify the information as non-confidential.
One of the greatest ways to avoid telling anyone anything, and we see it here in this House time and time again, is to say that the information is somehow confidential. Well, often what is confidential is just prejudicial. It is information that may cause the Government a great deal of distress, but it is not confidential. The recommendation is that it be handled in that fashion.
On balance, this is a worth-while Bill. I guess it goes against the grain of free trade, but I suppose in looking at legislation of this nature, we have to understand that while free trade is important, it also has to be fair trade. Too often we have been like boy scouts. We have said, "My goodness, we belong to GATT, we are free traders and therefore we will not step in when people take unfair action against us". Well, we have to realize that other countries subsidize their exports. We have to realize that other countries are prepared to use taxpayers' money to subsidize interest rates in order to finance capital goods. Some countries as a matter of national policy will encourage their steel industry to the extent where the importing country, such as the United States, is faced with a tremendous amount of steel imports and they are now looking at ways to reduce those imports. That is going to affect us. We should not be affected; we have been fair traders with the U.S. on steel. But when countries like Korea and East Germany dump steel in the United States at prices far below any realistic cost of production, then it becomes a question of unfair trade. When there is unfair trade, then we must be capable of protecting ourselves.
This Bill goes a long way toward making sure that trade remains free. At the same time that it makes sure that those engaged in unfair trading are stopped quickly. There will be a quick investigation, a quick order and a countervailing duty which redresses the balance. I commend the Bill to the House. I think it is important that it be passed, and it is essential that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs continues to monitor the question of trading practices.

June 26, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
It is a fast moving world out there. People are not afraid to take advantage of our relatively low tariffs and our open market. Canada is one of the few countries where it is not difficult to distribute goods. If you sold to Sears, Canadian Tire and Hudson's Bay, you have sold half the market or maybe even 80 per cent of the market in some goods. So you really do not have to hire a distributor who goes door-to-door across the country; it is much easier to merchandise products in this country. So when we allow importers that ease of access to our marketplace we must insist that they trade fairly. But we should have the same ease of access to the Japanese market as they have to our market. If we had that ease of access to the markets of Japan we would not have to impose the quota system which we have on Japanese automobiles because we too could sell our automobiles in their market. We could do as well in their market as they can do in ours. However, the ease with which they can get into our market is entirely different from the way we can get into theirs. I commend the Bill to the House on the understanding that the Bill and the trade activities be monitored over the years to come.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, some of what I will say today may appear to be a repetition of some of the remarks just made by the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I believe that they are worthy of further emphasis. I am not being critical, but I would like to draw some matters directly to the attention of the Minister who moved this Bill. I hope that it is possible for him to return because there are some serious problems in Canadian trade. There are some inequities which I think must be addressed by the Government. It is too late to address them through this or the preceding Bill, but I do think they deserve consideration.
Unfortunately, the negotiations which Canada has conducted on an international basis, and by which it has become a member of GATT, have not been conducted in a fashion which protects Canada against some of the unfair trade practices to which we are subject. As a result, goods are arriving on the Canadian market at prices which bear no relationship to our cost of production or to the cost of production in the export country. We have been weak. We have not protected ourselves as other nations have, either by artificial trade barriers or by agreement with our international partners in trade.
The steel situation is a prime example of what has happened to us. We have not protected ourselves in any way against being excluded from a market by virtue of the dumping of others. Yet that is exactly what we are experiencing with the United States today as it has decreed that there is injury when steel arrives in the United States from other countries at depressed prices. Although Canada has been able to prove that our prices are competitive, but not cutthroat, in respect of the steel market in the United States, we are excluded from exporting steel to the United States.
This could not be addressed in the discussions on the preceding Bill nor on this one. We must address this at the international trade level in a very serious fashion. Apparently
we have come up with a negotiated trade deal in GATT which only allows the total exclusion of the product concerned, whether from our market, the American market or others. Therefore, the innocent are classed with the guilty and punished in exactly the same fashion. We need further negotiations and further improvements in our international trade negotiations.
The former speaker mentioned wine. I think we can extend that to fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates such as from apples and grapes. The source from which they come and the terms and conditions under which they arrive here must be given serious consideration. The European Economic Community has subsidized the export of virtually all of its agricultural products. Canada has been a market for one or another of them at various times in virtually every year. Irish beef has been arriving in the Canadian market. European wines are presently arriving and will continue to arrive at prices which are more than competitive with the price of a comparable sized bottle of coke bought at the wholesale price. It does not make much sense that a bottle of wine can arrive in Canada at a price competitive with a bottle of coke produced in Canada because it involves a much more expensive process. That is implicit in the decision-making process which will decree that there is in fact injury to our Canadian market and dumping from foreign sources. We must address these problems.
I am not satisfied that by virtue of earlier negotiations this Bill does address that problem. There are literally billions of bottles of wine in excess of the European capability to consume which will have to be marketed somewhere in the world. Some of that wine is presently arriving in Canada at prices which bear no relationship to cost. However, because of the mechanism of indirect subsidy which was described in part by the previous speaker, we have not been able to establish a legal framework within which we can say that that wine is in fact being dumped in Canada. That is because the subsidy does not go directly to the farmer or the winery. It goes directly to the selling agency, whether that be a private broker or a private exporter. He is the one who receives the subsidy, and it is reflected in the price paid to the farmer for his goods or to the winery for its product.
This will just not work in the world of trade. Our wine industry would be a healthy one if given proper access to the Canadian market. It is small but it deserves consideration and reasonable protection, either by virtue of anti-dumping legislation or by renegotiation of the terms and conditions which apply to it. Either course may solve the problem. However, I do not believe we can solve it with this Bill, because I think it contravenes our agreement with GATT. It is merely a mechanism which was not defined in GATT. Therefore, it is not acceptable for us to accuse them of dumping. We must address these questions properly.
It is rather unique that the Member for Mississauga South would have so much to say in common with what I want to say. The Hon. Member mentioned brushes and hog bristles. He was talking about the largest single brush manufacturer in the British Commonwealth. That manufacturer is located in
June 26, 1984

the City of Saint John and has been subject to very unique pressures of pricing by foreign suppliers over the years. Its very existence has been threatened. This needs to be addressed. Such manufacturing does not exist in Toronto and therefore may not be addressed as it deserves.
I will also bring to your attention two tea packaging companies located in the City of Saint John. The consequence of inadequate protection for that industry may mean that it will fold up completely. It presently employs approximately 500 people in the reception of the raw product at the Port of Saint John and in its processing, packaging and sales operations. Every one of these jobs in the City of Saint John and the nearby town of Sussex is presently in jeopardy because the two companies find that they are exporting some of their product to the United States with a duty applied against exports to the United States. On the other hand, they are competing in the market in Canada on a duty-free basis with products from the United States packaged the same way. This spells the demise of these industries. This is one of the items which I would particularly like to draw to the attention of the Minister who has moved this Bill. It is imperative that he study it. The industry has made representations to the Government of Canada stating that in a few months it must make a decision whether to go out of business completely or to move the plant to the United States where it will have free access to both markets. The members of the industry say that they cannot exist in Canada when they are subject to duty on their exports to the United States but in competition with the same source of supply in Canada duty free. Free trade is a great thing, but I repeat the phrase of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that fair trade is what Canada must accomplish in its negotiations and through its legislation. Nothing less can be acceptable.
I have yet to hear to what degree we will be able to apply this Act in its literal intention without being subject to penalty by our GATT trading partners. Is this Bill designed to be used in that fashion and does it set up any of the artificial trade barriers which have prohibited us from selling our wares abroad? For instance, it is impossible to get an agricultural product into the European market today unless it is something that they do not produce. Nothing that they produce can be imported except by special permit. However, Canada is open to virtually free trade on exports arriving from Europe in the same field. For example, recently I saw in the storage space of the Parliamentary Restaurant, a five-gallon can of fruit salad. There was a time when Canada would have made that fruit salad primarily from Canadian products. However, that product arrived in Canada at a price below the cost of freight and packaging in Canada. It could not have been packaged in the Okanagan Valley for the price for which it was sold there. It could not have been packaged in the Niagara Peninsula for the price at which it was sold in the Niagara Peninsula. Consequently, that fruit salad trade is totally lost to the peach, pear and other fruit producers in Canada.
Currency and Exchange Act
We must have reasonable measures because the markets from which this product came do not accept a comparable amount of fruit under any terms if it were to be shipped from Canada. There are sanitary and other artificial trade barriers that would absolutely prohibit our sale to the country of origin in this particular instance. This requires redress and the renegotiation for fair trade between ourselves and our world trading partners.
There are many small producers in Canada, particularly in the farm trade, who are unorganized and therefore cannot afford to prepare for action which is taken against us in such places as the United States. They cannot afford to prepare the evidence which is necessary to establish that there is in fact injury done to the Canadian market as a result of improperly and unfairly priced products arriving in our market.
I hope that this Bill we are debating today will at least address this in part. It does not address such circumstances as took place when the potato industry came under review in the United States. There was no viable organization that could in fact fight that case in the quasi judicial process which took place in the United States. Consequently, the potato agency in the Province of New Brunswick is absolutely strapped. There was no government assistance to protect Canadian trade and its just rights in a foreign market. These matters must be addressed. It will take several years before the potato industry in Canada can recover a viable operation as a result of the expenditures it incurred to protect the interests of the export trade in the United States. Our representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), have all been rejected out of hand.
Another example is the forest industry. I agree that the forest industry was able to finance itself because its group included giants that could have assumed the total expense with only a small dent to their treasury. However, when it comes to exports in the agricultural market, the Government must recognize that the total trade is the very lifeline of our financial survival. This problem should be addressed differently. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this.
The disposition of surpluses by other countries can take place in many ways. For instance, a group of agricultural processors in the United States decided that they had an excess of their product. They determined that if they sold 10 per cent of their total storage holdings at any price anywhere in the world, they would then be capable of marketing the balance at a profit and could recover any loss on the first 10 per cent of sales. This did not take place with government sponsorships but through the co-operation of the processing industry itself. There is no vehicle in this Bill, in any other legislation in the House or in other international agreements to protect an agricultural product from the efforts of a cartel to dispose of surplus. These are matters which must be given much more serious consideration. They should be addressed in this Bill.
In closing the debate, perhaps the Minister could tell us if the Bill leaves us totally without the responsibility of paying

June 26, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
penalties or compensation to a trading partner whose trade may be perceived to be interrupted by virtue of dumping or any other exercise which this Act permits the Government to take to prohibit the trade of a particular product. According to our negotiations with GATT and our legislation, we have only applied penalties against imports subject to a compensation to be paid to the country which may consider that it was damaged because it could no longer export to Canada. There are a number of products which need attention. While we must deal with the agricultural industry in general, it is presently the wine industry that is in particularly serious trouble. We must ask for fair trade from those who would take up our market at the expense of our own producers.
The tobacco industry must be examined on somewhat the same basis. Are the imports of tobacco coming in under fair trade practices or are those imports arriving at prices which do not bear proper relationship to the cost in the country of origin? Perhaps we may have to establish some artificial trade barriers of our own and negotiate them as acceptable in order to preserve any production in the horticultural field in this country.
I implore the Minister to arrange for the acceptance of the notion that the moneys spent to subsidize exporters-not producers-from the European Economic Community will be paid instead as a subsidy to the farmer himself, because it seems that this is the only way we can impose dumping duties and penalties for the appearance of that product on our market.
There is no question that it is an invasion of what was intended in the GATT agreement. We should no longer accept an improperly established artificial subsidy. It is time to make a decision about the wine industry. I would also ask the Minister to address the problems of the tea industry. We need duties on the import of tea into Canada that are comparable to those which our industry would experience when it exports. It is necessary for the preservation of jobs in Saint-John, Montreal and the Toronto area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments. If there are no questions, or comments, we will proceed to debate.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out to the House that the report on this Bill was presented in June 1982. The emphasis was to get this Bill through so legislation could be put in place. That was 24 months ago. Now we are being asked to rush this Bill through the House. I am in favour, in general, of what has transpired. But why have we had to wait 24 months?
There are many inequities relating to the Anti-dumping Tribunal which should have been addressed a long time ago. Let me relate a difficult experience concerning one of my constituents, a Japanese Canadian who is a tool manufacturer. There has been an ongoing battle for 18 months regarding whether a certain drill is of an industrial type or a consumer
type. In spite of the fact that 93 per cent of the sales are in the consumer market, three years ago one catalogue in Japan showed that the drill was equal to an industrial tool, and this drill is now being treated as an industrial tool. That is an inequity that has not been looked at in depth. The literature is looked at, but no one takes the trouble to find out what the facts really are. The case I have outlined is a serious problem. The company set up a manufacturing facility in Canada and created 50 jobs. But because of the attitude of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and the Anti-dumping Tribunal the company may move its entire operation to Georgia. When we put this type of Bill together, we must be careful not to drive more industry and equity capital out of the country. We have lost billions of dollars since 1977. I stated in the House on Friday that we lost some $40.5 billion. I think the figure is $47.8 billion of equity capital that has left Canada, and in turn Canada has had to borrow foreign capital to the extent of almost $100 billion to keep covering the deficit.
This Bill addresses subsidized exports. It addresses situations where other countries, in order to create an industrial base, do the entire financing, not only for the building but for all the equipment and the working capital. We cannot go that far but that is what we have to compete against. Let us look at what happens when we have to go to the capital markets and borrow money at current rates which at the moment for medium industries are 13.5 per cent to 14 per cent. We have to compete with zero interest rates. Now how can we do that? The United States has certain programs that provide for minimal interest rates to companies that borrow, which rates are in effect until production is at full volume. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we have to compete against different plans in different countries. In the Bill it states that this will be taken into consideration. The words are: "Subsidies and Countervailing Duties should be taken into account by the Tribunal. Notice that the words "should be" are used. Those words should be "will be". Otherwise how do we protect Canadian industry?
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) mentioned hog bristles. When he talked about that I thought about the petro-chemical industry. The Chinese are probably wiser than we are. Chinese sell hog bristles at an extremely high price. Hog bristles are a raw material. This allows the Chinese to fill the hog bristle brush market with China's own manufactured products. How does this relate to the petrochemical industry? On Friday, the Minister announced a great plan to save the Canadian petro-chemical industry. He has offered to provide loans to the petro-chemical industry in order for people to convert their process from oil to natural gas and natural gas liquids. What value have loans got unless you bring down the cost of the raw material to a level competitive with other trading partners? Why not remove the taxes from natural gas and natural gas liquids in order to be competitive? But we throw money out the window when we say: "We will give loans, guarantees and grants". Why create an industry when you have a surplus of raw material? Why not bring the price of that raw material down to a level which will enable us
June 26, 1984

to compete? Why can we not use some ingenuity so we can export a finished product from one of our natural resources?
We have iron ore. The supply is diminishing at economical prices. Why should we ship iron ore out of the country at minimal cost and in turn buy steel from foreign suppliers? Perhaps we should protect the price of the base material. We have to do something to protect our industries.
I would like to address the steel industry. Dofasco is probably one of the finest steel companies in the world. Dofasco is so advanced in technology that its productivity equals that of any corporation in the entire world. Dofasco reinvests its profits and its cash in research and development. Dofasco continuously brings in Japanese engineers to the plant. People at Dofasco continuously check with other people elsewhere in the world to make certain that it has the highest level of productivity of any steel company in the world. If it is faced with competition because we have not done our job against dumping, that is wrong.
Stelco has built an entire new complex. It is probably the ultimate in new technology. The money that went into that complex was not in the form of grants, it was not in the form of interest-free loans, it was money earned and raised in debt by the corporation to bring up the standard to world-class level. We have industries at world-class level that must be protected.
About a year and a half ago several of our steel companies imported steel plate that would have hurt Algoma Steel. Algoma is a smaller corporation located in northern Ontario. It creates employment for an important part of our population. Fortunately, the Anti-dumping Tribunal jumped in and imposed a penalty on the people who imported the product. I spoke to a gentleman involved. He said: "I am delighted I have to pay that additional duty. It is wrong that I, as an importer, should be able to bring a product into Canada, similar to a product made in Canada, at distress prices."
We must also look at Finished products. I hope they will conduct an analysis of products from Pacific Rim countries and from Third World countries. Grants will be provided from Canada to some of these countries at no cost to them. If we start importing products from those countries for moneys which we have given them, again Canadian citizens will be subjected to an inequity. Not only will they face the inequity of giving money to other countries for which there is no return, but people will be driven out of work because those countries can compete and undercut our costs. This is a serious matter.
Free trade is fine, but what is free trade? No one has answered this question. I have not found an economist in Canada who can tell me what free trade is. Furthermore, economists never talk about the profits of corporations when they refer to what will happen in the economy. Free trade is no longer free because non-tariff barriers have been put in place by every country in the world. Non-tariff barriers are either subsidies or financing at zero cost. Other countries are aware of the importance of creating jobs. They are much more aware
Currency and Exchange Act
than Canada. If we were concerned about creating jobs, our trade would not have dropped to 50 per cent of Japan's trade today when we exceeded that of Japan in 1968.
We are trying to put teeth into our border. We are trying to put teeth into our duties. However, I am nervous that we do not have the expertise to analyse the costs which have been incurred by other countries. We must bring in experts from the private sector. They are the ones who will be affected. Public servants who have not manufactured a piece of steel do not know how to assess what goes into a piece of steel. Philosophically they know, but they do not know the hard facts concerning the comparison of products.
What about the Pony? A great many of them are coming into Canada from Korea. I should like to know the costing which permits the sale of a product in this country at about 30 per cent less than we can produce it. My friends to the left will say that it is because large bonuses were paid to executives of automobile manufacturers. That would not add a dollar per car. I do not agree with the executives taking those funds. It was greed on their part and it was the wrong time to do it. However, how do we know the true costs involved in the manufacture of those vehicles?
Let us look at what happened just recently in terms of our lumber exports to the United States. In effect, the Americans were extremely fair to us at the time. There had been a great deal of subsidization of the lumber industry to upgrade its facilities so that our productivity level would be higher than that of others. The Americans were right in looking at it but they were fair to us. They are our biggest trading partner and we must protect that. We must look at the products of other countries which are coming into Canada on an equal basis, as they look at ours. We should not attack Canada, we should defend it.
I was concerned as a result of committee consideration that the Tariff Board was to be empowered to review decisions made by the Anti-dumping Tribunal. However, that was not permitted. Interested parties may make representations, but we wanted someone else in there as a doublecheck. We do not have checks and balances in this country. We need a doublecheck to ensure that the system is equitable both to consumers and to manufacturers. Let us not only think of consumers. Manufacturers create jobs. When there are two million people unemployed in the country, that is our major concern. Possibly that is the reason this Bill sat for two years in the Department and nothing was done about it. Perhaps it was because unemployment levels had not reached the critical level of today.
In terms of the capital goods sector, we recommended further study of the innate problems of that sector. A little was done but not enough. Why are we not the major manufacturers of mining equipment? We were very progressive in mining in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. We used to produce a great deal of the mining equipment required in Canada. Now we import more than we produce.
Also we recommended that the role of current import agencies be examined in relation to one another. This was not acted upon. We should review the agencies importing these

June 26, 1984
products. We should review the deals in which they are involved under the table. We should review state to state deals which are being made. We must review products from steel mills in Japan, for example, which came into the country from Houston. This pipe was going into Houston and filtering through to Calgary at a cost which was a third less than the price for which Phoenix Tube could make it in Saskatoon.
Whether the Tribunal will catch up with all the slips in the market is a big question, but we must at least start. This Bill is nothing but a start. It should be reviewed by the Finance Committee at least every six months because of the tricks which are being pulled on us and because the possibility of creating pure fair trade in the world is important.
These are difficult times for Canadians. These are difficult times for unemployed Canadians. This Bill could have a direct impact upon many lives in the country. This Bill could assist Canada, but it would be only one spoke in the wheel. It could help Canada to get from its pathetic trading position now back to its trading position of 1968. We must put an economic policy in place which will bring out the entrepreneurial spirit. If we do, at least it would be in place to protect Canadian citizens who undertook risks and created jobs. We must be careful that the Bill is not directed against our major trading partners, those who buy a great deal from us. We must ensure that the Bill only addresses those countries which are unfair or are not dealing with us in an equitable way. Hopefully, in the future the words "free trade" will become meaningful.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the hurt, frustration, and anger of many thousands of family farmers at the boast of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that Canadians now pay 12 per cent of their disposal income for food as compared to 16 per cent when the present Liberal Party came to power. As a result of the Liberal cheap food policy, Canada has lost tens of thousands of family farmers. Their net incomes have dropped dramatically. Over 50 per cent of our family farmers must work off the farm in order to sustain their families and to remain on the land.
The Liberal Party's cheap food policy benefits consumers in the short run, but when the Liberals have destroyed the family farmer, consumers will pay, pay, pay. It need not happen.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, by barring the media from Saturday's swearing in ceremony of the new Cabinet, Canada's new temporary Prime Minister has given the Canadian people a clear indication that the Liberal Party has not changed one iota in form or substance.
Closed door swearing in ceremonies are a throwback to yesterday, from whence the temporary Prime Minister comes. What is so secret about a swearing in ceremony? The temporary Prime Minister replies: "I thought I would do it in a business like way." That may be the way the temporary Prime Minister did business yesterday as a director of CPR, but it will not wash on Main Street.
It is obvious that the real reason the temporary Prime Minister wants a closed door meeting is because there is no real change. The Ministers of Transport, Treasury Board, Labour and International Trade, who brought Canada high record interest rates, unemployment, and bankruptcies, are still running the store, and the temporary Prime Minister has not changed a thing. As the Minister of Energy can testify, the same backroom gang are in charge. Nothing has changed. The temporary Prime Minister just wants to hide it from the Canadian people.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a telegram from the Mayor of Ucluelet, a community in my riding which is dependent upon the fishing industry and tourism. He asked me, on behalf of the community, to do everything I can to stop the proposed Pacific salmon fisheries legislation from passing before his community and others have an opportunity to assess the impact. It is clear to Mayor Larson, and it is clear to me, that the impact will be devastating. The proposals outlined in the draft legislation to restructure the Pacific fishery would wreak havoc on the West Coast. Coastal communities sense this, and so do fishermen. Yesterday some 1,500 fishermen tied up their boats in Port Alberni as a demonstration against the Government's proposals and its inability to manage the West Coast fishery.
Fishermen, coastal communities, native leaders, and all others in B.C. who are concerned about the future of our salmon stocks, are angry that the Government's proposals do not address in any substantial way any measures to increase salmon stocks. This proposed legislation does little more than ensure the financial ruin of fishermen.
If the Government continues with its present approach, it will lead not only to the gutting of the commercial fleet and the loss of thousands of jobs, but it will also lead to the eventual closure of the sports fishery and have serious impact
June 26, 1984

on the native food fishery. Many coastal communities may not be able to survive. If the Government is serious about conservation and restoration of our salmon stocks, it should introduce buy-back legislation which is acceptable to most, and allow the rest of its proposals adequate scrutiny, as is being demanded.



THE PAPACY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has invited His Holiness the Pope to make a state visit to Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories. Fort Simpson is a village with a population of less than 1,000. It may well experience an influx of up to 50,000 souls at that time. The planning committee estimates local expenses, not otherwise covered, will amount to about half a million dollars. Obviously Fort Simpson is unable to come up with this large amount of money, and such expenses should be borne by Canada.
The Department of External Affairs will not pay and says it is the responsibility of Indian Affairs. Indian Affairs will not pay and says it is the responsibility of External Affairs or of the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops. Everyone is passing the buck. The situation is getting desperate. If the Government cannot decide which Department is to provide the funds, the Papal visit to Fort Simpson may well end in a fiasco.



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several months the Members in this House have heard the Government pumping itself up for the wonderful state of the economy. Perhaps these same people would care to tell us why a shocking 50 per cent of Canadians do not take an annual vacation. I doubt that half of the families in this country forgo a holiday by choice. More likely, they cannot afford to travel during their leisure time. The Government has dealt Canadians a real double whammy. On the one hand it has taken away the right of Canadians to enjoy vacations. On the other hand it has crippled our tourist industry without batting an eye.
Ten years ago Canada enjoyed 4.2 per cent of the international travel market. Now, due chiefly to government waffling and languid lip service, our share has plummeted to 2.6 per cent. The Government is hurting itself. It appears to be bending over backwards to slap its own behind. Instead, it should be hard selling Canadian vacations to the people who live here. The systems are already in place to accommodate vacationing Canadians. The only road block is the Government itself.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I was disturbed to learn this weekend that the Liberal Government is toying with the notion of a flat tax that would tax every Canadian taxpayer at the same rate, regardless of income. In considering the flat tax proposal the Government has to share the stage with such notables as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), and Peter Pocklington, one of the more outrageous contenders for the Tory leadership last year.
It is not hard to tell what a flat tax would do to Canada. It would attack what little fairness there is in our tax system by taking more tax from the poor and taking less tax from the rich. Even that ultra right wing think tank on the West Coast admits that.
At a flat rate of a little more than 19 per cent, people who earn between $5,000 and $15,000 a year would pay on average $176 more in income tax. Those Canadians who make more than $200,000 would pay $37,000 less in income tax. It should not surprise anyone that the people who would be hardest hit by this notion would be the elderly poor because they have little chance of increasing their income in the future and taking advantage of the tax saving that goes with it.
Proponents believe a flat income tax rate is good because it would leave money in the hands of the rich and they know what to do with that money to stimulate the economy. That sounds like a pretty thin excuse for a major tax grab on behalf of Canada's richest citizens. The notion of a flat earth was relegated to the trash bin of history centuries ago. The flat tax proposal deserves nothing less than the same fate.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Jerry Amernic, author of "Victims: The Orphans of Justice", and four Ottawa parents of murdered children, made some important points at a press conference about our national criminal justice system. Let me repeat only two of the many points which they made.
First, the federal-provincial criminal justice system now spends about $4 billion yearly on policing, judging, jailing, et cetera, but only $12 million on compensating victims.
Second, the present mandatory supervision scheme, which incidentally, as one of the group pointed out, was brought in by the new Leader of the Liberal Party when he was Minister of Justice as Bill C-150 in 1969, remains a societal time bomb. A recent Solicitor General's study showed that of 15,000 prisoners pre-released on MS between 1974 and 1979, fully 5,300 were released directly from maximum security. In other words, they were not considered safe enough to be in the normal prison population, but by operation of law were

June 26, 1984
released before completing their court awarded sentences, to the public.
The most current figures available indicate that fully 2.8 million Criminal Code offences were reported across Canada during calendar 1981. Far too many of them involved violence and innocent victims. Despite, for example, the fact that the Liberal Government has denied even a tax registration number to all of the victims' groups across the land, the hour for redress for victims has arrived. I believe a Mulroney Government would show a great deal more concern both about crime victims and the protection of the public-


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



AN INDEPENDENT MEMBER'S REFLECTIONS

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a week of reflection for each of us in this Chamber. The future is uncertain, but the past is known. For me, the last Five years have been memorable. I have had the privilege of occupying a chair in three of the four back corners of this Chamber. From these three prominent corners I have had my say, and represented my constituents and the nation to the best of my ability.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: What a rare privilege it has been to occupy a chair in this place-even a corner chair. Where else in all of Canada could one embrace centuries of democratic evolution? Where else could one feel the searing fire of man's vanity, or the cold winds of deception and hypocrisy; where illusion becomes reality and where silence is the greatest sin? Yet is this not a place where truth triumphs, where reason is fundamental, and where justice is supreme? It is so, and it will continue to be so.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been a privilege and an incomparable gift to toil herein for the last five years. I want to say thanks to all who gave me the opportunity to sit here.


Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, from watching CTV network television last night we learned that yesterday's man is about to appoint a Cabinet. The cornerstone of that Cabinet will be four regional Ministers, Axworthy, Regan, Gray, and Ouellet. Taking the First initials of those four names and putting them together-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that he should not refer to individual Members of this House by name but by constituency.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I simply could not resist mentioning the fact that, put together, the first initials of those names spell Argo. All of us in this country know about the record of the Argos. We know that yesterday's man was an undying loyalist to the Argo cause. We know that there is a great deal of hope in Toronto that this year's Argo team will be better. However, those of us in the rest of the country know and understand that record and what it means for our country.
We would have felt a lot better if we had heard news of a Cabinet with a track record of success in creating jobs rather than success in dispensing patronage. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. We believe in jobs; Liberal Members believe in patronage. Yesterday's man is proving that.



INDUSTRY


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, on Friday afternoon the Minister responsible for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion presented his report in answer to the report of the petrochemical task force. I read through that report a number of times on Friday afternoon as I was sitting in the House of Commons and found that the more I read the less I could find.
The report presented by the Minister is hollow and does not provide the information the petrochemical industry needs. A 9 per cent reduction in the price of natural gas was mentioned. That reduction would only apply to a brand new ammonia gas plant that would get an 8.8 per cent reduction in price. For the rest of the petrochemical industry, that reduction would be 2.2 per cent.
The Minister has indicated that he will provide financing with guaranteed loans or some other form of financing. He does not even tell us what form that financing would take. He has indicated that he will provide financing, but to provide financing when the raw material is not available at a competitive price is the most ridiculous thing any Government could do.
If the Government is to do something for the petrochemical industry, it should first remove the taxes from the natural gas liquids and natural gas so we can change over from oil to the lighter fuel gas liquids.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.
June 26, 1984



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


[Stage Direction]
Mir. Neil Young (Beaches): Mr. Speaker, one of the key recommendations that the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped included in its report entitled Obstacles was that the Cabinet should appoint a Minister responsible to disabled persons, who would act as a form of policeman within Cabinet to ensure that Cabinet made every attempt to implement the recommendations made in that report. A Minister was appointed to such a position and, to be quite frank, the results have not been as positive as we would have hoped. As a result of that, many of the groups that were affected by that report have recommended to the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that a subcommittee of a Standing Committee should be established so that these groups could have a sounding board to which they could speak.
From rumours and speculation that abound, I am extremely concerned that the new Prime Minister of Canada who will be appointed on Saturday will have a reduced Cabinet. In all likelihood the Minister who the disabled and handicapped had hoped would be a force in implementing recommendations of the task force will no longer hold that position on Sunday. Therefore it becomes extremely important for the Government and the House to consider establishing a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Communications to deal with the issues affecting the disabled.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance, one of the three or four Ministers who is present here today. It has now been 10 days since Mr. Turner became the new Leader of the Liberal Party. It has not been 10 days that shook the world, for the world has not shaken. However, Canadian economic conditions continue to worsen. The dollar closed yesterday at 76.14 U.S.
The U.S. prime bank rate has just risen to 13 per cent. The Canadian prime rate is at 12.5 per cent. We are told it is expected that interest rates in the United States will rise another 1 per cent to 2 per cent in the next few months. Is the Government going to permit Canadian interest rates to continue to go upward even though we have a faltering, barely discernible and barely perceptible recovery? If the Government continues to say it has no option but to allow interest rates to rise because of the falling dollar and rising U.S. interest rates, will the Minister recommend to the Government
Oral Questions
that an election be called so that the Canadian people can exercise their option, which is the PC Party of this country?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that an election will be called in due time. However, I must say that if I were a member of the Conservative Party I would not hope for such a day. I am sure that once the Canadian public sees what the alternative is, the PC Party will indeed be dramatically rejected if only for the good reason that on the very issues raised by the Hon. Member, members of the Conservative Party keep contradicting themselves. In particular, the Hon. Member for St. John's West and his own Leader have done so.
The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party said on television on Sunday: "Let the dollar go down," and at about the same time the Hon. Member for St. John's West was speaking on a radio program and said: "You cannot let the dollar go down". Before speaking of alternatives, I would hope that the Hon. Member for St. John's West would first sit down, if he still cares to sit down, with his Leader, and reconcile their contradictory views.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is responsible for the alleged financial policy of the Government and now has the power to do something about the economy. He is failing to do anything so we have the worst of all worlds. We have a falling dollar and increasing interest rates, and that situation has existed during the Minister's entire term of office.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES
John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Turner dollar is no better than the Trudeau dollar. They are both falling to the ground. There has been no change, and there is no confidence in Mr. Turner.
At page 15 of the Budget of February 15, the Minister of Finance said this:
If nominal and real rates of interest were to rise significantly from current levels, the recovery itself could be at risk over the medium term.
Interest rates were then at 11 per cent. They are now at 12.5 per cent, and are heading higher. Does the Minister therefore agree that the recovery itself is now at risk because of the interest rates? Will he permit those rates to go higher and doom the recovery altogether? He is in power and has the responsibility. What does he intend to do?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I find it rather strange that the Hon. Member would try to blame the new Leader of the Liberal Party, who will be the next outstanding Prime Minister, for the rise in interest rates in the United States. He referred to 13 per cent in the U.S. Surely that is not something for which Canada can be held responsible, or can do much about. I would not try to argue that the visit of the Hon. Member's Leader to Washing-

June 26, 1984
Oral Questions
ton had an impact on the increase in interest rates in the United States.
I would remind my hon. friend that the Canadian dollar has gone down vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar, for example, since June 20 by 0.9 per cent, the same percentage as the German Deutschmark; it has gone down less than the Swiss franc, the British pound sterling, the Japanese yen, and the French franc. The Canadian dollar has behaved quite well vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar when compared with the other major currencies with which it must be compared.
These factors result from higher interest rates in the United States and speculative moves in terms of the displacement of capital resulting from those higher interest rates. Again I would remind my hon. friend, as he stated in his question, that the prime rate in Canada today is still half a point lower than it is in the United States. Our policy is to keep the rate of interest as low as we can while ensuring that there will be no speculation against the Canadian dollar.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Finance has stated that there is nothing much Canada can do about this situation. That is where we differ. We think Canada can do a lot about it, and we will do something about it. We will have lower interest rates when we form the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ECONOMIC FORECASTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the despairing Minister of Finance who can do nothing. The Minister met Mr. Turner yesterday and apparently gave him new economic forecasts. Will he tell the House what are those economic forecasts, and will he make an economic statement in this House, give the House new economic forecasts and a plan of action before we adjourn on June 29, or will he continue his "do nothing" attitude of despair that dooms the people of Canada to unemployment and lack of economic growth?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, far from a "do nothing approach", this Government has been very active in terms of attempting to promote growth and in terms of ensuring that interest rates will remain as low as possible. For instance, I would remind my hon. friend that, on the basis of the growth of the economy in the first quarter, the projected growth for this year would still be 4.4 per cent-


John Carnell Crosbie: 3.2 per cent.


Marc Lalonde: It is 4.4 per cent on a year over year basis. I would invite my hon. friend to look at that.
As far as interest rates are concerned, I would tell my hon. friend that in Canada we have a policy which has succeeded in achieving a lower rate of interest than that of the United States. That is a record which was not achieved in the short
period when the Hon. Member was the Minister of Finance. I am sure it will not be achieved as long as the Hon. Member contradicts his own Leader on what they should do with interest rates.
With respect to the last point raised by the Hon. Member, I did not provide Mr. Turner with forecasts yesterday.


LONG-TERM POLICIES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. I would remind him that he should not be so very pleased with the performance in Canada. It was 3.2 per cent against 9.7 per cent for the comparable period in the United States. That is performance?
The only action with which the Minister has responded against the weak dollar is a short-term policy which will prop up the dollar with high interest rates. I would remind him that it is not a short-term problem. It is a problem which has been going on since 1977 when our dollar was $1.03. It is now 76 cents. I would ask the Minister, in face of this and in face of the need for a long-term recovery program which would re-establish strength in the Canadian economy and would give fundamental strength to the Canadian dollar, when will he bring in a policy of long-term growth and not just short-term propping up?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to compare figures with the United States he will have to accept the Figure of 4.4 per cent which I have mentioned. I would invite him to check his facts and consult his advisers in that regard.
As to the issue of providing long-term policies and long-term approaches-indeed, medium and long-term-that was the basic approach contained in the last two Budgets. They have produced good results for the Canadian economy, and are continuing to produce good results. We are not going to put ourselves into the situation of inventing short cuts which will damage the Canadian economy. We have adopted medium and long-term measures which are producing results.
At the same time we have taken steps to help those most in need in this country, whether it was the $50 increase of GIS which was recently approved by the House, whether it was the $4.8 billion worth of incentives contained in the recovery program and which is being spent at the present time, or whether it is the billions of dollars being spent in the Department of Employment and Immigration for training and direct job-creation. This Government has put forward a combination of short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures to ensure that the economy will be able to compete with the rest of the world and will be one of the most efficient economies in the industrial world. That is what we are working toward. That is what we are achieving. I recognize that it will take longer than I wish, and longer than the Hon. Member wishes. But, indeed, we are working on the basis of medium and long-term measures which will be helpful to our economy.
June 26, 1984


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making my point for me. Canadians have been waiting for 20 years for performance from this Government. We have seen the result of this in an 11.7 per cent unemployment rate, against 7.5 per cent in the United States, and a growth rate in the economy in the first quarter of this year of 9.7 per cent in the U.S. against 3.2 per cent in Canada. We must do better.


EXCHANGE VALUE OF DOLLAR-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the subject of the Canadian dollar. Canadians are seeing the cost of the low dollar in their food, vacations, cars which they buy from abroad, clothing, television sets, gasoline, and virtually everything. The cost of financing the Government's borrowing overseas has increased over $1 billion as a result of the recent decline in the dollar. Does the Minister regard the current exchange crisis with a sense of urgency? Is he determined to bring in policies which will attack the situation, or are we going to see a long drift through this summer in which nothing will happen and the dollar will go as low as 70 cents or 75 cents?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to talk about an exchange crisis. As I have mentioned, the Canadian dollar has gone down vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar at the same level as the German Deutschmark. It has gone down less than the currencies of all the other main industrial countries, whether it be Britain, Switzerland, France or Japan. If the Hon. Member would look over a longer period he would find that the Canadian dollar, rather than falling against those other currencies, has increased in value against those currencies in the last year or two.
One of the problems which many exporters have mentioned to me was the difficulty they had in penetrating European and other markets where they were in competition with European and Japanese products because the Canadian dollar was relatively strong against those currencies. They had great difficulty penetrating those markets because the Canadian dollar was stronger than those of other countries, both in their domestic markets and in their export markets. The Hon. Member should bear that in mind. He should not only consider the relationship between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar, but the relationship between the Canadian dollar and all the other currencies. If he looks at other currencies he will find that indeed the Canadian dollar has gained strength over the last several years.
As far as the comment of waiting for 20 years is concerned, my hon. friend should know that during the last 16 years this country has created more jobs proportionately than any other industrialized country. That is what we have done. This country has known, as an average, a higher rate of growth than the other industrialized countries, except Japan, over the last 16 years. This is what has happened in this country during that period. Rather than disparaging this record we should, as a country, be proud when one looks objectively at what has been done here.
Oral Questions


Mr. Crosby:: Tell the jobless.


Marc Lalonde: And that has not been done by constantly moaning and complaining.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS-REQUEST FOR NEW MEASURES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As he knows, the Canadian banks increased the interest rate on Friday, and the American banks followed again yesterday by increasing their rates. This means that the vicious cycle will continue, which will create a loss of jobs in this country and destroy a lot of our small farmers, as well as make things difficult for home owners and small business. Can the Minister of Finance put rhetoric aside for a moment and tell the House whether he is even considering any new ideas or approaches in order to bring interest rates down? Or is the Minister content to do like the Leader of the Official Opposition and cuddle up to Ronald Reagan in the White House, and his policies?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, of course I am always ready to examine alternatives, suggestions, and views, and weigh their positive as well as negative elements to see whether it would be to the benefit of the Canadian economy to adopt this or that particular step. If the Hon. Member has particular proposals to put forward, I will certainly be happy to look at them. As a matter of fact I have examined a very large number of suggestions over the last several months. The Hon. Member should realize that although interest rates have been rising in the last couple of months, the fact is that we in this country have been able to keep our interest rates lower than in the United States. That is already quite an achievement and one the Hon. Member should recognize.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE SPECULATORS' TAX
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said he is willing to consider new ideas. Because of the fact that speculators are now sending a lot of money to the United States which is, of course, hurting our dollar, driving up inflation and hurting jobs in this country, would the Minister be willing to consider the possibility of a new speculators' tax, which would be a tax on the difference between the rate in the United States and a much lower made-in-Canada interest rate? I wonder if the Minister would consider that as a new idea which would keep Canadian money in Canada for investment in Canadian jobs.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already considered that idea, as a matter of fact, and I have found it an idea which is wanting in many respects. It would have more negative elements in it than positive, and I have rejected it.

June 26, 1984
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT'S POSITION


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that all the Minister is doing by rejecting new ideas is putting more gasoline on the fire. When polluters pollute the environment, they are often taxed in order to clean it up. I wonder why this Minister will turn down a new idea or a new policy which would tax the economic looters of this country? Why turn down the idea of a tax on speculators who are shipping money out of this country and hurting the Canadian economy? A tax on the difference between the American rate and a lower made-in-Canada rate-why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt the honesty of the Hon. Member and his genuine concern in asking the question. However, I would at least say that he is very naive to assume that a scheme could be developed whereby you could differentiate the dollars and say: "This dollar is speculative. This dollar is a real transfer. This dollar should stay in Canada, and this dollar is allowed to go out without a tax". 1 believe what he is inventing may be an idea. I have no objection to the Hon. Member having an idea. However, if the Hon. Member talks about pollution, that one is a real polluted idea because it would require probably two million or three million public servants checking every transaction to find out which one is speculative and which one is not.
I invite my hon. friend to reflect a little on how much confidence this would inject into the Canadian economy on the part of foreign investors who want to come into this country and who are going to start wondering whether they will be able to take their money back without having to pay some kind of tax along the lines which the Hon. Member is talking. Surely this is not a very realistic idea. I invite him to keep working. He will get a better idea.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from Trinidad and Tobago, led by Senator Carlton Alert.


Some Hon. Members:: 
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, Senator Yuzyk, Senator Hai-dasz, and I have just returned from a two-hour meeting with the Polish ambassador regarding the three Polish hunger
strikers in front of the Polish Consulate in Etobicoke. The ambassador urged our delegation to convince the strikers to end the strike, and for every day the strike is ended it will be to the strikers' advantage. You can put your own interpretation on that bottom line, Mr. Speaker.
To prevent similar strikes from taking place across Canada, and to assist the reunification of all families divided between Poland and Canada, would the Secretary of State agree to meet with the Polish ambassador as soon as possible to help end this strike and to set up some sort of guidelines for speeding up the reunification of these divided families between Canada and Poland?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a continuing series of consultations with the Polish authorities, one taking place as recently as yesterday. I am pleased to learn that the Hon. Member and other parliamentarians have met today with the Polish ambassador, because I am proposing to have a meeting with him on the same subject this afternoon, shortly after three o'clock. I hope that I will be able to reinforce the concerns which the parliamentarians have expressed to the ambassador earlier in the day. Our object is to attempt to reach a speedy resolution of these humanitarian cases, and to avoid a repetition in the future.


REQUEST THAT ASSISTANCE OF HELSINKI ACCORD SIGNATORIES BE SOUGHT
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the previous question to the same Minister, since I was at the eleven o'clock session and not at the one o'clock session. Will the Minister tell us now whether he has given consideration to the request made to him earlier by the Hon. Member for Rosedale to the effect that the signatories to the Helsinki Accord should all be encouraged collectively to make their views known on this issue to the Polish Government? And will the Minister in fact say to the Polish ambassador this afternoon that he supports the proposal that the Helsinki group meet to resolve these issues, since part of the problem is that the Polish Government is a signatory to the Helsinki Accord but, notwithstanding that fact, believes it has the right to keep people within that country who wish to leave and join their families in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a suggestion which was made. I found it an interesting suggestion, considered it, and decided that it would not be helpful to ask a large group of countries to join Canada in dealing with the family reunification cases affecting our country. The reason I did so was because, as the Hon. Member knows, the Polish record on family reunification is a record which is quite sensitive to Canadian representations. Of all the Eastern European countries, the Polish Government has responded most sympathetically. For example, in 1983 some 1,900 persons, permitted exit from Poland for the most part
June 26, 1984

through normal immigration procedures, were reunited with their families in Canada.
I believe the Polish Government has been attempting to respond to our concerns, and I feel a bilateral approach is likely to achieve better results. However, I do appreciate the suggestion which was made by the colleague of the Hon. Member.


POSSIBLE REACTION OF POLISH AUTHORITIES
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Minister's words. I would ask him this supplementary question. The Minister will know that there is some apparent view on the part of the Polish Government that no action will be taken with regard to any families who are involved in a hunger strike, but in fact there may be a new regulation which suggests that people who have been involved in a hunger strike will have the applications for their families delayed. Will the Minister tell this House what he proposes to do or say to the Polish Government should it refuse to allow the families of the hunger strikers to come to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 
THE ECONOMY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance indicate whether, in his review of the interest rate structure in Canada and its interrelationship with American rates, he has discovered the fact that an American rate of 12 per cent has roughly half the impact on the consumer in the U.S., because of interest deductibility, compared to that in Canada? He will bear in mind that, if you have a 33 per cent tax level, a 12 per cent rate in the U.S. is equal to 8 per cent here, but you have to get 18 per cent here to equal that 12 per cent in the U.S.
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I may remind the Hon. Member that the preferred lending rate offered by banks in the United States is now 13 per cent and not 12 per cent as the Hon. Member is claiming.
Second, he is referring to differences between the tax rates or tax systems in Canada and the United States. There are obviously many differences between the tax systems in our two countries. The Hon. Member is aware of that. For instance, he ought to know that in Canada, Medicare is provided free to the general public, and is paid for through taxes, with premiums is some provinces, while in the United States, one has to take out private medical insurance. There are many differences between the tax systems in our two countries. All I can say is that right now, interest rates in Canada are still one-half point lower for the consumer than they are in the United States.


INTEREST TAX DEDUCTIBILITY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister got his cards mixed up. He gave me the answer the bureaucrats gave him as a response to a tax question. My question is simply this. Has he looked into the impact of interest deductibility in the U.S. and the lack of it in this country, which means Americans feel half the impact of the high interest rates he is locking into, compared to Canadians? That in turn has dampened our recovery and buoyed the recovery in the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again, that is not what I heard from my bureaucrats. I informed the Hon. Member very clearly that there are differences between the tax systems in Canada and the United States. The Hon. Member referred to interest deductibility. This deductibility applies in certain cases to mortgages, but, generally speaking, does not apply in the United States the same way as it does in Canada. There is also interest deductibility on investments. In Canada, we have interest deductibility on the investments we make. In some cases, for instance in business investments, and so forth, we have the same kind of interest deductibility they have in the United States. I would urge my hon. colleague to take a closer look at this matter or to at least allow for the differences in various areas. He will then realize that in some cases, the situation is the same, and in other cases it is different, in Canada and the United States.

June 26, 1984
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. He knows from the annual CMHC reports that his Government has cut the number of social housing units it funds by over 17 per cent in the last three years. That means that public housing, rental, native, rural, rent supplement, public and private non-profit, and co-operative housing have been cut from over 31,000 units in 1980 to less than 26,000 in 1983, with further cuts projected for 1984.
Does the Minister recognize that cities such as Toronto and Vancouver are reporting that the number of people seeking food handouts has doubled or tripled in a year because of the number of them who have to pay double or triple rent on scarce housing? Will he reverse his policy of cutting the social housing commitments, and fund a total of 50,000 units for 1984?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Hon. Member's question is that it is a based on a whole series of distortions of fact. He knows, because I have answered this question at least twice, that we borrowed units from future years in the social housing program in order to create some economic activity in the years 1981, 1982, and 1983. It was understood all along that there would be a gradual readjustment. If the Hon. Member persists in repeating what is not factual, I cannot do anything but say that I hope he at least listened to the answers given previously.


TORONTO SITUATION AFFECTING LOW INCOME TENANTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister to recognize not some program established five years ago which he talks about borrowing from, but the need of the people in Canada today. Will he recognize, for example, the brief presented to the CMHC in April which shows that over 50,000 units of limited dividend housing, 14,000 in Toronto alone, may be lost to low income tenants during the next year or two because the owners, who built them with a public subsidy in return for guaranteeing limited rents and space for low income tenants, are now becoming free to sell them at inflated prices? This will wipe out the low rentals available to over 50,000 tenants. Will the Minister, recognizing that some of these owners have already begun selling these units, act now by Order in Council, or legislation, as appropriate, to protect the remaining low income, limited dividend units, for low income tenants?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to act in the future; I have acted in the past. On those limited dividend units units built before 1968, which might have been sold, I issued the order that they should not be sold. Those that were built in 1968 and thereafter, I am told by my legal advisers that under the contract that
was signed I have no authority to prevent their sale when the terms of the contract are fulfilled.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You can break a union contract.


DISASTERS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council who has the responsibility for Emergency Planning Canada. A very serious situation exists in urban and agricultural areas of Manitoba. Because of severe weather conditions there has been serious flooding of Manitoba farmland, as well as of basements in Winnipeg. Has the Minister received, through Emergency Planning Canada, a request from the Government of Manitoba for financial assistance for this important part of the country? Is Emergency Planning Canada going to respond in a positive way, because a storm hit Manitoba for the fourth time last night?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe at this stage we have received a request from the Province of Manitoba, but I will look into the matter. I can assure the Hon. Member that, following this natural disaster, we have a program called the Disaster Financial Assistance Program and I will make sure that, if we have the proper request from the Province, the program will apply and co-operation will be given those who are looking into the matter in Manitoba. In other words, I want to assure the Hon. Member of the co-operation of Emergency Planning Canada the minute we have received a request from the Province.


DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. It is not only water in the basements that is the problem. Farm buildings have been destroyed and the mud and water have backed up in places to about waist high. Therefore will the Minister look into it to see if Manitoba can receive the maximum amount of funding?


Yvon Pinard: course, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows well that under this program there are thresholds that have to be met. This depends on the population of the province where the disaster occurred, as well as on the amount of damage. I will ensure that the minute we receive a request we will respect that threshold and allow Manitoba to get the maximum provided for by this financial program.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk.


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the Minister of Agriculture, who just ducked out. I believe his
June 26, 1984

Parliamentary Secretary ducked out after him. If I may, I will hold until he returns.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for South Shore.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I will have to wait until he returns.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He is no doubt aware of the latest incident at the Edmonton Maximum Security Institution where there was a homicide. Would the Minister finally consent to an external inquiry into the many difficulties which this institution has experienced over the last year and one-half in order that we may have an outside view, rather than an internal inquiry as we have had in the past?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that an external inquiry is required in the situation at Edmonton Maximum Security Institute. I am concerned about these incidents. All of the incidents which have occurred have been followed up by an Inspector General's investigation. Where it was appropriate, the local police were called in to see whether charges should be laid against anyone in the circumstances. I just do not see circumstances there which justify an outside inquiry.
On the other hand, I would remind the Hon. Member that there is an excellent citizens' advisory committee at that institution, made up of citizens who live in the community and who have accepted, as volunteers, to act as two-way explainers. They help people in the community understand what is happening inside the institution, and the reverse. I would suggest that the Hon. Member get in touch with the chairman or members of the citizens' advisory committee and go over his complaints. I think he will be satisfied by the citizens' advisory committee that these regrettable incidents are all being handled by a pretty effective system.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that these regrettable circumstances are not being handled properly.


PLEA FOR EXTERNAL INQUIRY
Peter Elzinga: Would the Minister make the Vantour inquiry public? Although the Minister will not make it public, I understand that it offers recommendations on how to deal with difficulties similar to those experienced in the Edmonton Maximum Security Institution. It deals with overcrowding, the lack of granting of local autonomy to the various prisons across Canada, and the low morale amongst the prison guards themselves because of the grievance procedure not being acknowledged by the Minister and Mr. Yeomans. Because of fear that there may be more uprisings which could
Oral Questions
cause conflict in the prison and in the citizenry around the prison, I plead with the Minister to have an external inquiry, rather than allowing an internal inquiry with its cover-up procedures.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Since passage of the access to information legislation, the Inspector General's reports have been made public regularly. I do not think it is a fair criticism to say that the Inspector General's reports are a way of covering things up. In fact they are a way of getting to the truth of problems and assisting the Correctional Service of Canada to correct them. As I have indicated, I am concerned about it.
I am waiting for a translation of the Vantour report so that it can be made public. The Stewart report, the correctional investigator's report, is now being translated. When these reports are made public I look forward to discussing, with the Hon. Member, what sort of action should be taken.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, my question, of which I sent notice, was for the Minister of Agriculture who has left the Chamber. I will have to defer.


ONTARIO BICENTENNIAL
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. The City of Brampton received a $4,000 grant for the bicentennial program which it is staging on July 1. Why were officials of the City of Brampton summoned-a command performance-to a Liberal Member's office in Mississauga in order to receive the funds?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the case raised by the Hon. Member. If he had had the courtesy to inform me before question period, I would have been able to give him the information at this time. However, I doubt that his own information is accurate.


METHOD OF PRESENTATION
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister deny that in order for groups to receive their cheques they must travel to the offices of Liberal Members, not have the cheques come out to the ridings of opposition Members to present them? Did that order not come from the Minister's office?

June 26, 1984
Oral Questions


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I never ordered any group to come to the office of a Liberal Member of Parliament to pick up their cheque. I offered all Members of the House the opportunity to deliver the cheques themselves if they so wished. They just have to notify-


John Horton McDermid: You never made that offer in your life.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Serge Joyal: -my office that they are interested in delivering the cheques themselves, if they so wish. If they do not express that wish, the cheque is sent through the mail to the sponsors of the various proposals and initiatives.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Serge Joyal: That is the way it has operated in all the programs, and that is the way I intend to operate it. Everyone has the same chance. If the Member wants to deliver the cheque himself or herself, he just has to notify the office and we make sure that their request is passed on.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings.


Serge Joyal: I could give to Hon. Members a list of Members of Parliament on this side of the House who have expressed the wish-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the Minister explain the rationale behind establishing the accident investigation operation of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board in Montreal, since it will involve the transfer of more than 50 senior people, considerable inconvenience, heavy costs, and unnecessary disruption? Additionally, it will affect the ability of accident investigators to co-ordinate their work with other government agencies such as Transport Canada, the National Research Council, the Aviation Safety Bureau, and many others?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the Hon. Member's question, coming as he does from a part of the country in which there is always an interest in making sure that there is a fair and equitable distribution of federal government activity. The Government is committed to the basic principle that the entire country should be able to support and secure federal activity, offices, and operations. I gather from the Hon. Member's question that
that is not a principle endorsed by the Conservative Party. That is one reason why they are on the opposition benches.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Until the next election.


EFFECT ON MORALE
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, we are quite in tune with decentralization when it makes some sense. Since the news which I just spoke of came out, three senior investigators have taken early retirement, two senior analysts have taken lateral moves, more personnel are considering similar options, and morale is low in the Department. Will the Minister agree that this will impair, rather than enhance, air safety in Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. I would say that it will substantially fulfil the basic objective which we put forward in establishing the Canadian Aviation Safety Board. It was to be a board quite separate and independent from the ongoing functions of the Department of Transport. The original purpose of the safety board was to divorce the investigation inquiry of accidents from the standard setting and review functions of the Department. One of the ways to ensure that that would happen would be to separate them in a geographical as well as a functional way.
I can think of no better location than the City of Montreal, which is very much the centre of aviation development for Canada. It is the head of the international aviation agencies. It is the area where we have our major airline centres and our major maintenance bases. Both logic and justification show that the placement of the aviation safety bureau in Montreal is a decision which will enable that board to fulfil its functions most appropriately and accurately.


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State, who seems to be very eager to talk today.
My question concerns Her Majesty The Queen: Is the Queen still coming to Canada this summer? What is the present situation with respect to Her Majesty's visit to this country?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the Hon. Member that preparations for Her Majesty's visit to Canada on the dates scheduled in July 1984 are proceeding as planned. The official program of Her Majesty's trip was released by the Prime Minister's Office as soon as
June 26, 1984

it was approved. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in the House could learn to be polite when we are referring to Her Majesty, perhaps he would get some information on this trip. A detailed program was published by the Prime Minister's Office. It was approved by Her Majesty's representatives and at this moment, it is assumed the visit will take place as scheduled. All mechanisms are in place. The co-operation of the Provinces is excellent, and the list of suggested activities is entirely in line with the objectives of the visit.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-16, an Act to revise Stadacona Mines, 1944 Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVACY ACT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table a report prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the period July, 1983, to March, 1984, in accordance with Section 72 of the Privacy Act.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to announce a change to House business for today. After consultations with Opposition House Leaders, rather than dealing with the Nova Scotia offshore oil agreement this afternoon, the last item of business after Bill C-8 and Bill C-49 which remain to be dealt with will be Bill C-36. There is an understanding that we would allow second reading to be given today in order to allow Bill C-36 to go to committee for a short meeting, the understanding being that we will give third reading to this Bill later this week in due time.
Tomorrow we will be dealing with two Bills, C-34 and C-33. The understanding is that we will divide the time available for Government business tomorrow into two equal parts to deal with those two Bills. We will deal first with Bill C-34 and the second part of the time available for Government business will be devoted to Bill C-33, it being understood that if there are a few minutes left we could complete third reading of Bill C-36, if possible.
The understanding also provides that we will allow Bill C-34 and Bill C-33 to be adopted through all remaining stages
Business of the House
tomorrow. On Thursday, if a report is made on the Peace Institute Bill on time by consent, we will be dealing with it as a first item of business Thursday morning. It will be followed by Nova Scotia offshore, Bill C-43, which was supposed to be dealt with this afternoon, and the Bank Act, C-30. This business for Thursday is subject to modification depending on the talks we will have, but this is what we are planning for today.
Assuming that all business that I have just indicated is completed by that time, Friday is open to deal with so-called non-contentious matters. We will have to wait until later this week before specifying the order of business for Friday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have been referred to by the Government House Leader. In terms of Thursday, my understanding would be that all we are talking about is the sequence of legislation. That is to say, if the Peace Institute Bill were to come forward, we would be able to deal possibly with that matter first. Otherwise, we might proceed with the Nova Scotia offshore treaty first, for example, and take that to its conclusion.
In terms of these items of legislation, the Government has decided to bring them forward on its legislative agenda. We are prepared to deal with them but I should say that the proposal for business with respect to Thursday in regard to the Peace Institute and the Bank Act, particularly the Bank Act, remains the subject of negotiation.
With respect to the Bank Act, as the Government House Leader will appreciate, I must have further discussions in terms of the extent of our participation in that legislation. My understanding is that there have been negotiations with the other third Party in the House with respect to their attitude on it. I will be interested in having the definitive statement with respect to their position on that legislation and to have further consultation with my caucus colleagues, in view of the fact that this Bill is now coming forward. As long as it is understood that we are going to consult with respect to the Bank Act, I would like to have a reasonable period of time to debate important issues such as the offshore and the Peace Institute. I do not want those important items and the Bank Act to be dealt with in five-minute periods.
I believe there are important statements to be made with respect to these items of legislation, so I hope that the Government House Leader, in setting forth these items, will allow us a reasonable period to deal with these Bills.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my House Leader, whom I understand will be returning this evening, our attitude toward the Bank Act will be determined at that time through formal discussions between the Government House Leader and the Official Opposition House Leader. As far as other legislation is concerned, we are prepared to deal with that as the Government brings it forward.

June 26, 1984
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of 271 residents of the Province of Ontario and my constituency of Bruce-Grey, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. These petitioners humbly sheweth that, in keeping with their Canadian ideals of respect for human rights and national sovereignty, they affirm the positive steps taken to date by the Hon. Allan MacEachen to recognize and support the new Government of Nicaragua. They encourage our Canadian Government to establish an embassy in Managua, Nicaragua, to promote dialogue and strengthen our relations. They recommend that the Government of Canada actively support the Contadora Group by consistently and publicly reinforcing their policies for the region; and finally, they request that the Government of Canada communicate clearly to all governments involved in the region that Canada is vigorously opposed to armed interventions into the affairs of Nicaragua.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Honourable House to impose such changes. And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition of some 552 petitioners from the areas of Ste. Rose, Ste. Amelie, Ebb and Flow, Rorketon, Winnipegosis, Laurier, Fork River, Crane River, McCreary and Eddystone, who state that whereas human life begins at conception and is a proven scientific fact, and that whereas the present abortion rate is unacceptable, they humbly demand that we as elected officials fulfil our duty in restoring protection to all human life, including the life of the unborn.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order; Introduction of Bills:
June 22, 1984-The Minister of Justice-Bill intituled: "An Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters".
Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be a royal recommendation with regard to this Bill. Under the circumstances, the Minister cannot introduce it at this point.


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: 711 and 761.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How many Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personnel attended the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, Yugoslavia including all reporters and technical staff?
2.	What did it cost the Corporation to (a) fund its personnel while in Sarajevo (b) transport its personnel to and from Sarajevo?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The number of CBC personnel attending the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo, including all reporters and technical staff was 71. This group serviced four CBC networks-English television, English radio, French television and French radio- and provided coverage of Olympic events from seven different venues.
2.	(a) and (b) Such costs are components of the over-all cost of the special programming produced for the Olympics, and it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, answered November 6, 1975.


Mr. Oberle: 1. Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provide news coverage and documentation of the wolf hunt in British Columbia and, if so, what was the total cost of (a) (i) travel to (ii) accommodation in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson (b) food and other expenses (c) communications (d) the charter of aircraft, cars and other equipment?
June 26, 1984

2.	How many persons, employed by the (a) English (b) French network, were involved in this coverage?
3.	Did corporate employees, at any time during the event, transport or otherwise assist members of the protest group?


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) Yes. These expenses are components of over-all program costs, and it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.
2.	(a) Ten. (b) One. In the period January 30, 1984 through March 7, 1984, these employees were in the Fort Nelson/Fort St. John area at various times to provide radio and television coverage of the wolf hunt. It should be noted that the services of, and/or the tape produced by, those recording for English television were shared between the Journal, CBC British Columbia regional television, the National and the CBC's French national television newscast, the Telejournal.
3.	No.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 193 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 193 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of the Environment and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?
80152 41
Order Paper Questions


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, since the House is going to recess at the end of this week, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is causing the delay in answering the questions which I placed on the Order Paper some time ago. Question No. 6 was placed on the Order Paper on September 20, asking whether the Department of the Secretary of State or the Department of Multiculturalism authorized funding of the Manitoba 23 Organization or any other ethnic organization in Manitoba. It is not a complicated, detailed question but the answer is a matter of great interest to the citizens of Manitoba.
I also placed question No. 2 on the Order Paper on October 24 asking whether the Minister of Transport has a private parking stall at the Winnipeg International Airport. I understand it was installed at a cost of $100,000 and I would like some information about that.
If you can believe this, Mr. Speaker, I placed question No. 13 on the Order Paper on November 18, 1981, in regard to three Ministers flying Liberal campaign workers to work in the last provincial election in Manitoba. I would like to have details on how Liberal Cabinet Ministers can use JetStars to fly campaign workers around Canada.
In addition, I placed a starred question on the Order Paper on April 10 of this year and I am still waiting for an answer regarding what salary Mr. Zarry of the Advertising Management Group is receiving. Is it $1,500 a day or $2,000 a day? I ask what his expenses were for 1983.
As I understand the purpose of starred questions, Mr. Speaker, they are to be answered within a reasonable period of time. Otherwise, what is the point of starred questions? If starred questions are supposed to be answered within a reasonable period of time, can I have an explanation from you or from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why a starred question placed on the Order Paper on April 10 has not been answered as of this date?


John Leslie Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, for the one hundredth time at least may I say that a starred question simply means that when the answer is given it will be read orally in the House. That is the only purpose of a starred question. I have said that in the House a hundred times and I hope that this time Hon. Members opposite will finally understand the rules of this House.
I will look into the other matters for the Hon. Member and see whether I can get him an answer before the House rises.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has a particular way of making a statement about starred questions; he takes every advantage that he can for the Government. I am wondering why I have not had an answer to question No. 840, which I tabled on May 29 of this year. It is a replica in part of a question that I tabled four years ago and have not had answered. It asks what the increases in real terms in Department of National Defence expenditures have been over the years. It is fairly common knowledge in the Department and is a question they can answer in five minutes if they want to. I am afraid that recent statements made in the press

June 26, 1984
Introduction of Bills
by the current Minister of National Defence leave me as skeptical as have statements made by all the other Ministers of National Defence, with one exception, in the last ten years about the increase in spending. I would like to find out whether they dare table the true figures so that we know once and for all what has been happening to our defence expenditures.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe there was some confusion over a Bill standing in my name concerning the enforcement of judgments. No royal recommendation is needed. I understand the Table has located the copy of the Bill, so perhaps we could return to Introduction of Bills, with your permission and that of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is perfectly right. Is there consent to return to Introduction of Bills?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: for leave to introduce Bill C-51, an Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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 read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) had finished his opening remarks. There is a ten-minute question period if Hon. Members wish to put questions or make short comments.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that we have received many representations from the Ontario Wine Council clearly indicating that there is what they consider massive dumping or subsidization of wines coming into Canada from the European Common Market. This is placing our own domestic wine industry in a very serious situation, to the extent that a year or so ago we had to purchase grapes under our agricultural subsidy program in order to make brandy. Our own production capacity is seriously being hurt by very low prices. I am wondering what are the Hon. Member's thoughts on this situation and whether he feels the Bill goes anywhere toward helping the Ontario wine industry.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) for bringing up this very important point. I hope the Bill does address that problem. This year Ontario wine growers have sold 20 per cent less than during the same period in the previous year. It is not only one product; there are so many other things being dumped in Canada, wine being but one example.
The wine industry in Ontario is very important. I am not convinced that our method of taxation of wine is done equitably. In such countries as France and Italy you can buy what is commonly referred to as vin ordinaire at a very nominal price, a little less than you would pay for a Coca-Cola. When good French wine comes into the country we tax it very heavily, but what is happening is this. The French and Italians used to have control of the whole market, but many other countries have now infringed upon this exclusive market which France and Italy controlled for a long time. People like the Ontario wine growers are producing a wine that is palatable to the Canadian palate, and to the American. Therefore, in order to compete the French and Italian wine industry have been subsidized so as to dispose of their product, since they cannot afford to store any more than they have already. Thus, they are dumping it in Canada.
We have to look carefully at the Bill. As I said earlier, there is a weakness. I believe it will take experts from the wine
June 26, 1984

industry to assess the damage being done, as opposed to public servants or people appointed by Liberals to this board. I am really concerned because in the Niagara Belt there are 24,000 acres of vineyards and 16,000 full-time and seasonal jobs. For each of these jobs there are indirect ones. The multiplier effect takes over. I have great apprehension about the Bill accomplishing everything anticipated, but it must be adjusted to protect an industry which is so critical to southern Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any further questions or comments? For debate, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with at least four principles involved in the Bill. The first one concerns the beef industry. The other day the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) did not seem to take seriously the fact that the beef industry in Canada, certainly in western Canada, was being ruined by the dumping of beef into the country. I take great exception to that. This industry has been very profitable for Canada. It is one of our mainstays. Now, because the European market has subsidized its industry to the point where it has piled up food, that product is dumped in Canada below the cost of production. Some people may say that that is very nice for consumers, but it is not because it means the cattle industry will be ruined. It will take years for the industry to recover, if at all. I deplore the attitude of the Government in not taking action immediately to deal with the dumping of beef in Canada. It is a serious matter and it hurts one of our industries.
My second point concerns the importation of natural products from the United States. The principle is that when no tariff has been established, someone somewhere decides what tariff the product will carry. I am referring in particular to a natural product used in the preparation of a pollutant. It came into Canada for a long time without any duty or tariff. Suddenly out of the blue there was a tariff change which demanded that importers pay a 15 per cent duty on all such imported products. A sudden change such as this forces small companies out of business. If there is to be a change in tariff, surely companies should be notified. The Department should not wait until these companies have gone to a lot of work organizing their affairs. In the case of a small company involved in the importation of this natural product, it had to prepare labels both in imperial and metric, as well as in French and English. It went to a lot of expense on the understanding that the importation of the product was duty free. Suddenly it was stuck with a 15 per cent tariff which it was told it had to pay. Certainly it hurt this small company very much.
The tariff which was used was the one on materials of all kinds used in producing or manufacturing products under heading 93811 when imported exclusively for such use or whether or not otherwise enumerated in Schedule A. It definitely showed 85001.1 as being free not only for the most favoured nation but also from the general tariff and throughout. Then a 15 per cent tariff was imposed. It is pretty serious when such a company is left in a precarious position.
Currency and Exchange Act
Approximately a year and a half later I received a letter from the Minister which indicated that to date a tariff item for the goods in question had not been introduced into the Customs Tariff. The Department floundered around for a year and a half using this tariff and that tariff. At the same time it extracted money from the business and ruined it. At the end of that period of time the Department indicated that it had not yet introduced a tariff. If that is the case, why was it not continued on the pre-tariff which was used when the business was started? This type of action does great harm. Surely the Department should not endeavour to put small companies out of business. That is what a sudden change in tariff does. It did not make up its mind as to what was the tariff. It certainly hurt small businesses but it also hurts any business in Canada. It is not much credit to the Department. It indicates that the Department does not know what it is doing.
Another area of the Bill to which I would like to refer is the one dealing with the importation of dental supplies. A dentist in my constituency ordered dental supplies by mail from the United States. He included the full postage in both directions. The dental supplies arrived in Calgary. Recently he received a telephone call from the customs office saying that duties were due on the goods. The dentist asked how much the duties were. The official told him that he could not tell him over the telephone but that the declared value of the goods was $111.25. Also the dentist was told that he had to come into the customs office himself, that he could not send anyone else. In other words, the dentist had to close his office, inconvenience all his patients slated for that day, drive at least 35 miles there and 35 miles back. What for? Customs seems to be completely inflexible. It does not seem to realize that it is there to serve the public. Also he was told to bring in his invoice when he attended at its office. He said that he did not have an invoice because it was attached to the goods. The officials told him that he had to bring an invoice with him. From where would he get an invoice since his order was made by mail? It was attached to the goods. This type of nonsense on the part of customs officials should be stopped. It is hurting business across the country. How many businesses have folded due to ridiculous attitudes such as this on the part of customs officials? They seem to think they are so powerful that they can do anything they like. Apparently they are getting away with it.
I hope the Minister will deal with this case, not just tap officials on the fingers. The invoice was attached to the dental supplies. The doctor should have been able to obtain them without wasting his time by going to the office himself. They should have been able to tell him over the telephone how much the duties were. It was nonsense to give the declared value but refuse to give the amount of duty. This type of inconvenience should not be taking place.
The next item with which I would like to deal concerns another beef or grievance I have with the Department. For many years the American Quarter Horse Association has come to Canada to take part in equestrian competitions. Many Canadian horsemen went to the United States to do likewise.

June 26, 1984
Currency and Exchange Act
Suddenly in 1983 there was a change and the Department indicated that they would have to pay 16.7 per cent on their saddles and all equipment on their competing horses. That was unheard of before. Equestrian competitors, both American and Canadian, have been crossing back and forth across the border without any duties. Suddenly someone had the idea that they would have to pay. They were not bringing in this equipment to sell. It was to be used in competition. It is a reputable organization, but it was told that it had to pay a duty on the equipment. It is a ridiculous situation.
We got in touch with the Department. The Department said they must make a deposit of several hundred dollars in order to be able to compete in Canada. When these people come to Canada they spend money. When these people come here they use hotels, buy food and purchase gifts to take back home. They spend money here. The Minister does not seem to realize that. He says they have to make a deposit. The rule reads:
Animals and equipment for use therewith for pasturage, competition, training or breeding.
That is free. That is what it states in the regulations. Why is authority given to someone at the border and somebody in the customs tariff office to force these people to pay or leave a deposit when they are just coming here to take part in a competition? They are not coming from Russia. They do not have to escape from the United States; they are coming here to take part in a competition. They will leave money here, something that is good for the country, yet we have this type of behaviour. A clean-up is required in many of these areas.
The last point I want to raise in this connection is a very serious problem. It involves farm machinery. Under the tariff rules, farm machinery should come in free. Somehow or other the Department has decided that if your farm equipment breaks down and you require a replacement part, you have to pay duty on that replacement part. Farm machinery wears out. Parts will be required.
Let me talk about the 1600 Ford Easy-Rider air-flow self-propelled fertilizer, a machine used for fertilizing. That is straight farm use to increase production in this country. Under the tariff it comes in free. The self-propelled fertilizer spreaders manufactured by Lor-Al Corporation, complete with fertilizer, spreader and applicator incorporated therein, comes in free under the respective tariff.
An accident occurred. The chassis was destroyed. The fertilizer equipment was fine. They were told they would have to pay duty on the replacement chassis. This chassis is not used on any other farm machinery. It is not used off the farm. Only 50 were manufactured in the United States for Lor-Al specifically for the 1,600 Easy-Rider air-flow self-propelled fertilizer. Only 50 were made. One was ordered. They were told they would have to pay duty on it, as if it were part of a car or truck. This is farm machinery.
I appreciate the attitude of the Deputy Minister and his chief assistant. They say that this is now being reviewed so that all farm equipment with a chassis will no longer have the
chassis come in duty free. There will be a tariff. It is a new classification. It is supposed to start this year. I take serious objection to that. When the House of Commons set out that farm equipment coming into Canada for use on the farm to increase our production would enter free, the public servants or bureaucrats should not change that and say that duties and tariffs will apply to replacement parts. It does not make sense.
A chassis for the 1600 Ford Easy-Rider air-flow self-propelled fertilizer is a specially made chassis. It is for that machine only. No one will buy it for anything else. It is now said that every machine with a chassis will not come in duty free whether it is for agriculture, working on the highway or working in the mountains. There will now be a tariff fee. That is completely contrary to what the Members of the House of Commons said when they said that all farm machinery coming into Canada to produce food cheaper and help agriculture, our basic primary industry, should enter free. Now it is being changed, not by leaps and bounds but by inches at a time. First the chassis will be taxed, then the pistons, and so on. It does not make sense.
I wish to bring these cases to the attention of the House of Commons and the Minister. Every case I mention affects a number of people across this country who are dissatisfied and unhappy. It is hurting farming and small business. It is time that we in this country help to keep our small businesses and farmers in a fluid position so that they can continue to operate rather than go into bankruptcy.
The next point I want to mention is with regard to the importation of clay. Many people in this country do clay modelling, producing beautiful vases and other items. Clay had been coming into Canada duty free. In some parts of Canada it now enters duty free and in other parts of Canada duty must be paid. That is not right. This was brought to the attention of the officials. They are still quarrelling about it.
Truckloads of this clay come into Alberta and British Columbia. It depends on which port it enters as to whether it is charged duty. This is to be used to produce in this country. It is necessary for the manufacture of the pottery in that industry and it should enter duty free. It should not be taxed. If there is going to be a tax on any of these items, it should not be so great that it drives small businesses out of business.
Any equipment brought into this country to help us produce for farm purposes should not be taxed whether it comes in in whole or in part. There is no rhyme or reason to put a tax on the chassis of a 1600 Ford Easy-Rider air-flow self-propelled fertilizer. It is a farm machine and should not be taxed. I emphasize that over and over again. Once we tax the chassis on this machine, we will inch by inch get to the point where we tax everything used in the production of food in this country. That would be a disaster.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would appear that the Minister does not wish to make any comments. In view of that, we do not have any opportunity to ask questions of the Minister. Would it be possible for us at
June 26, 1984

least to have the pleasure of a ten-minute question period with the Minister rising to make a speech of one sentence? There are questions which must be addressed to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the Chair cannot help the Hon. Member in the circumstances. I remind the House that the Bill has gone through several stages where opportunities were provided for questions or comments. However, the matter is in the hands of the Government. 1 cannot help the Hon. Member.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the Minister will not permit any questions to be addressed to him? We would like to ask questions in view of the subject matter raised in connection with this Bill.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, you did state the situation accurately. Ample opportunity was provided for questions and answers on this Bill, both at committee stage and earlier.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there further debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


WESTERN ARCTIC (INUVIALUIT) CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you read the order on Bill C-49, I think you should know that there have been discussions and there is agreement that Bill C-49 should be sent to Committee of the Whole and proceeded with through all stages of the House this afternoon.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, there is an understanding to that effect. However, before we commence our proceedings on Bill C-49, I feel obliged to bring to your attention that, due undoubtedly to negligence on the part of the Government, the Bill appears to be improperly before the House in that in the printed version that has been circulated to Members there appears on page 2 in Clause 2 certain blanks that have not been filled in. I would request a ruling from the Chair as to whether this Bill is indeed properly or improperly before the House.


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and I told him about the mistake, which is just a printer's error. I was going to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with second
Western Arctic Agreement
reading, after the requisite corrections for first reading: at Clause 2, line 30, read "for the Minister" instead of "by the Minister", and insert in the blank spaces: "June 19, 1984" and recorded as Document No. "322-7/20". If the Hon. Member agrees, we can now proceed with second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are two matters before the Chair at this time. First, there is the point of order raised by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) whereby he sought the unanimous agreement of the House to proceed with the committee stage of the Bill this afternoon in Committee of the Whole. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered. The other matter raised by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), to which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Gingras) has responded, deals with, if I can use the expression, the printing of some blanks in Clause 2 of the Bill as it now stands before the House. The Chair has had this matter researched and has been informed that this omission arises out of a very straigthforward or bona fide printing error, if I may put it in those terms.
The Bill as introduced and as deposited with Table officers, a copy of which I have in my hand at present, was, I can confirm, properly tabled with the said blanks duly filled in. If they so wish, Hon. Members will have to take the word of the Chair that in fact the Bill was properly presented and introduced at first reading but through some technical error at the time of printing contained these blanks in the text. The Chair of course regrets that, as I am sure do Hon. Members.
That being the case, I should ascertain that the House nevertheless intends to proceed with the Bill at this stage this afternoon. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) seconded by Mr. MacLaren, moved that Bill C-49, An Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National Parks Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-49, the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act.

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
Hon. Members are probably aware that the purpose of this Act is to legalize the claims settlement concluded with the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement which defends the interests of the Western Arctic Inuvialuit. Mr. Speaker, it is a historic measure, since it enshrines the first comprehensive settlement of this kind concluded with a native group in Canada's North. This Bill shows us what the future has in store. We hope we shall soon see the day when similar settlements will occur throughout the North and native claims in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will have been settled in a definitive and satisfactory manner.
For some time now, the settlement of outstanding native claims has been a decisive factor in developing Canada's regions north of 60.
Certain aspects of the economic, political and social situation that has prevailed in the North for many years are a source of profound concern. After the rate of economic expansion slowed down, the people of the North, instead of trying to plan the future together, were often paralyzed by bitter disputes about development, the environment and other issues. Mr. Speaker, in these conditions it was important for the federal Government to choose a plan of action that would put stability and co-operation in the place of uncertainty and discord, a plan that would encourage the people of the North to become more active participants in planning the future of their territory; a plan that would involve the native peoples of the North in decision-making on political and economic issues. However, native claims must be settled satisfactorily before this plan can be expected to show any results.
As long as the problem of native claims is not resolved, distrust and resentment will prevent parties from co-operating and making the concessions that are a pre-requisite for developing a plan of action for development of the North. Settlement of the claims is a key element in our plans for the North.
Hon. Members will recall that more funds have been earmarked for research and negotiations. We have made it clear to the native groups concerned that the federal Government was very serious and sincere in its desire to negotiate a fair settlement for outstanding claims as soon as possible. Despite the complexity of this type of comprehensive negotiations, real progress has been achieved. Furthermore, the agreement in principle with respect to the claims of the Council of Yukon Indians was recently accepted by negotiators for both parties, by the Government of Yukon and by the federal cabinet. Now the agreement only has to be ratified by the Yukon Indians.
As for the claims of the Dene Association and the Metis, which represent the main native groups in the MacKenzie Valley, and those of the Tungavik Federation of the Nunavut, on behalf of the Eastern Arctic Inuit, negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily. Since we started making tangible progress
on the claims issue, there has been a considerable change in atmosphere in the Territories, both in relations between the North and Ottawa and within the Territories. Distrust and intransigence have made way for mutual trust, co-operation and a willingness to make concessions. The people of the North, including the native peoples, are once again prepared to work together with the federal Government and define and set priorities for the future.
We shall therefore continue to pressure for progress in settling comprehensive claims in the North. During the next ten years, we shall see a new upsurge in economic development in the North, in the mining and oil industry as well as in other sectors. Economic growth will be largely stimulated by improving economic and political conditions which will stabilize as a result of substantial progress in claims settlements.
I shall now, if I may, return to the legislation before the House. This Bill concerns claims presented by the Inuvialuit.
These are some 2,500 Inuvialuit living in six communities in the Northwest Territories, along the coast of the Beaufort Sea and on the islands off the coast. The territory they have always inhabited is immense, covering nearly 435,000 square kilometers of land and sea. The Inuvialuit who have lived there for centuries, depend on hunting and fishing for their livelihood.
Mr. Speaker, it was not easy to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. The Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement presented its claim seven years ago to the federal Government. This agreement demonstrates the sincerity and determination with which all parties have worked towards a definitive solution that would be fair to the Inuvialuit, the people of the North and all Canadians. Comprehensive claims are not concerned exclusively with land, although environmental planning is a very considerable factor in negotiations. Comprehensive claims are based on the principles of ancestral rights, in other words the historic claims of a population that has lived for centuries within a certain territory on which it depends for its livelihood and whose cultural and economic survival depends on the future use and development of that territory.
Through these comprehensive negotiations, we have tried to conclude an agreement that:
Preserves Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society;
Guarantees the equality of the Inuvialuit and enables them to be meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society;
Protects and preserves the Arctic wildlife, environment and ecosystems.
This agreement which will be implemented through this act is basically an agreement under which Canada will grant to the Inuvialuit certain rights, privileges and benefits with a view to achieving the objectives already mentioned. In exchange, the Inuvialuit agree to relinquish any title on certain
June 26, 1984

lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as well as on certain adjacent offshore islands.
The agreement we have concluded deals basically with three major issues: the land and its use, the provisions related to economic expansion, social progress and compensation, and finally wildlife and environment.
With respect to the land, the Inuvialuit will receive titles to approximately 91,000 square kilometres of land within the
435.000	square kilometre area they traditionally occupied. They will own both surface and subsurface rights to almost
11.000	square kilometres of land adjacent to the six main communities. They will also receive title to a further 78,000 square kilometres, with full surface rights and subsurface rights to sand and gravel, but not to oil, gas or minerals. Approximately 2,000 square kilometres of land in the Cape Bathurst area will also be held as a protected, non-development area.
Among the economic and social benefits provided under the agreement, they will receive $45 million, in 1977 dollars-the year they filed their claims-to be paid directly in a series of payments to be made annually until 1997. There will also be an Economic Enhancement Fund of $10 million to help the Inuvialuit participate fully in the Western Arctic economy, and a Social Development Fund of $7.5 million to help the Inuvialuit solve the problems which accompany social transition.
The agreement grants the Inuvialuit certain preferential and exclusive rights to harvest wildlife in the settlement region. The agreement also provides assistance in integrating the Inuvialuit into the decision-making process involving wildlife management within their territories.
Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this agreement will give the results which the Inuvialuit and the federal Government are seeking. It will enable that group of native people to maintain their ancestral way of life and go on with their traditional activities.
Thanks to the Economic Enhancement Fund and the Social Development Fund, the Inuvialuit will play a greater role in the economic growth of the North, and they will also have their say in setting their own social and economic priorities.
The agreement was concluded earlier this year by teams of negotiators representing COPE and the federal Government. I might add that the Governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as well as the federal Cabinet gave their agreement.
The Yukon Indian Council, the Nunavut Tungavik Federation as well as the Dene and Metis of the Northwest Territories have signed bilateral agreements to settle the problems created by the redistribution of their interests in the lands described in the agreement.
Western Arctic Agreement
Last month, when the Inuvialuit voted to ratify the agreement, the overwhelming majority-81 per cent-was in favour. The only thing left to do, Mr. Speaker, is for Parliament to adopt this Bill so that the agreement be implemented. We hope Hon. Members will consider this Bill quickly and agree to its adoption.


Dave Nickerson: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on a point of order.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very attentively to the presentation of the Parliamentary Secretary. I believe he might have inadvertently misled the House in that he said that the amount of land to be transferred to the Inuvialuit was
90,000	square miles. From my reading of Section 7(5) of the agreement it is quite clear that it is 35,000 square miles. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to check that?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, if I may have a few moments, I will check.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is checking those figures. The House may want to proceed with debate at this stage and in due course we could recognize the Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order, if need be.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, before I get into my presentation, I would like to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Bill goes before the Committee of the Whole it is my intention to ask several questions. I hope there is expert advice available to him at that time so that committee stage might be dealt with expeditiously.
I was rather disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has not seen fit to appear in the House this afternoon on this issue. It may be that he is still pondering his political future after the events of the weekend before last. However, I would have liked to hear from the Minister personally with respect to Bill C-49. It is also disillusioning, Sir, when we have to wait for several minutes before we get two Ministers of the Crown sitting in their seats so that the motion for second reading could be properly moved and seconded. I guess it just goes to show the importance which the Government attaches to these issues.
When we consider the COPE agreement and the resolutions of various outstanding comprehensive land claims, Sir, we know that it is an agonizingly slow process. I am disappointed with the rate of progress which has been made over the last five years or six years in particular. When the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took on his responsibilities in 1980, he put out a press release wherein he said he was going to resolve these outstanding land claims in a

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
matter of six months. So far to date, since he has been in that portfolio, this is the first claim which has reached the point of resolution. And there are many more yet to come.
I do not know why this is so, Sir, but I can guess at several reasons. It might be inherent difficulties involved in the negotiation of land claims. It might, however, be deliberate stalling on the part of the Government. Alternatively, it might be ministerial incompetence. I will leave it for others to make that determination.
However, we have the COPE agreement before us now and we find ourselves in the position that it is virtually a fait accompli. We have the agreement before us today which has been ratified by the Cabinet, agreed to by the Government, and which has been ratified by a substantial 80 per cent majority of the Inuvialuit. Whatever we do with it in this House at the present time, we are unable to alter it in any substantial way, or in any way whatsoever, as far as I can determine. Therefore, it falls upon us to allow the passage of Bill C-49 without undue delay and that is the course of action which we on this side propose to undertake.
I want to say a few words about the public perception of this agreement in the area involved, the western part of the Northwest Territories, in the Delta area. The agreement is generally regarded by everyone as something which is second or third best. Most people would have liked something else but I suppose they can live with this if they really have to. That is the type of attitude which people have about it.
They are also tired of talking about it. Negotiations have gone on for so many years and caused so many dissensions that what we have now is what might be called "an agreement by attrition". People are so tired of talking of it, going into it, renegotiating it and then going back again, that they more or less are ready to accept anything that is put before them. It is not the first time I have seen this happen with the present Government.
There are some things to be said in favour of the Inuvialuit settlement. In my personal opinion, I feel it is better than the James Bay settlement. It is still a lengthy document but it is a little easier to read than the James Bay settlement. It is complex but not as complex. The provisions in it tend to be a little more specific. I believe we will have some problems with interpretation in the years to come but I do not feel the problems of interpretation will be as bad as those experienced with the James Bay agreement. The Inuvialuit settlement agreement does not envisage further legislation which will have to be passed several years hence.
You will recall, Sir, the passage just a few days ago of the Cree-Naskapi Act which was something contemplated within the James Bay agreement but which took some additional eight years to negotiate. In the meantime things were left up in the air. That situation is not contemplated in the Inuvialuit agreement, although it might arise. That is something we cannot tell at the present time.
I believe that the negotiating process ran into many difficulties because of the secrecy involved. The Government insisted
that virtually everything be done behind closed doors. It did not want the general public in on it. It chose the people with whom it wanted to negotiate, kept everyone else out of the negotiations and would not tell them what was going on. I do not believe this is the right approach. The public somehow always finds out in the end what is going on and what is going to affect them. The process in my opinion, should be open so that mistakes do not occur, or so that they can be nipped in the bud.
I will give you, Sir, some examples of avoidable mistakes which happened during the COPE negotiations. First of all, going back to the time of the agreement in principle, way back in 1978, there was the question of sand and gravel. As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, sand and gravel is most important in an area of permafrost. When one is doing civil work such as constructing roads in a municipality, one cannot use cut and fill techniques. It is all fill. One must dump four feet or five feet of gravel on top of the permafrost in order to preserve the frozen nature of it. Therefore, sand and gravel is very important.
Under the original agreement, the municipalities found themselves without access to sand and gravel. Had we not had that secretive process, that mistake would not have been made and we would not have beaten our heads together for months on end over a question of sand and gravel, a question which could have easily been resolved during the course of the negotiations. Subsequently we had the problem with the overlap in the Aklavik area, the overlap between the Inuvialuit claim and the Dene-Metis claim where two sets of people have traditionally used the same area. That would not have happened had the negotiations, or the partial result thereof, been made public as we went along. Instead, once people found out what was proposed to be written into the final agreement, everything blew up in the air because this matter had not been properly considered and those other people with a very real interest in that area of land had not been brought into the negotiating picture.
Another very good example of this is the 10 per cent differential which I understand was put in expressly at the request of the federal negotiator. I understand that other people involved in the secret process told him that if he did that, all hell is going to break loose. He would not believe them and that is precisely what happened when people found out what was to be in the so-called final agreement. All that could have been avoided had the Government undertaken negotiations in a proper open manner rather than trying to keep everything secret. The issues to which I referred have now been resolved, but they need not have arisen in the first place.
This Government's penchant for secrecy extended even after the final agreement had been initialled. Even though the other party to the agreement was quite willing that the document be made public, the Government insisted on secrecy. It would not even let Members of this House have access to a copy of the
June 26, 1984

agreement. I find that deplorable. It is not the way for a government to act.
When people found out what was in the proposed final agreement, they complained, as they knew they had to, in order to get things changed. Senator Austin went up to the delta and made promises to all the people in that area that they would be able to present their case in some kind of public debate on the issue. But the proceedings from there on in remained secret, and Senator Austin's promise was proven to be just another Liberal promise: worthless.
There is with this agreement one unresolved and very important problem. It does not involve that many people but it rests on a principle. The prior rights of all the people of that area have not really been recognized and dealt with properly. One particular case is that of Canadian Reindeer and one Mr. William Nasogaluak. The reindeer herd, which had been owned and controlled by the Government of Canada for many years, was sold quite a few years ago to Mr. Nasogaluak. He was and is a very enterprising gentleman. He made a viable commercial success of reindeer herding in northern Canada, something that had never been done before. The idea had been started by the Government but it had never been commercially successful until it got into private hands. When that reindeer herd was sold to Mr. Nasogaluak it was quite evident that the Government had transferred to him the right to graze those reindeer within the reindeer grazing preserve established by Order in Council. Quite a proportion of that land had been transferred to COPE without consultation with Canadian Reindeer or Mr. Nasogaluak.
I consider this to be shabby treatment of a Canadian citizen by a shabby government. It is incumbent upon the Government of Canada to work out a deal with Canadian Reindeer, not tell them to work out some deal with COPE. They made their original deal with the Government of Canada. If the Government refuses to do this, it would be my suggestion that Mr. Nasogaluak has an extremely good case in law because I think the Government has broken its contract with him. Certainly he has an extremely good moral case.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has gone out of his way in this agreement to protect the prior interests of oil and mining companies, as well as the Government itself; but when it comes to an Inuvialuit, he finds himself completely out of the picture. This has to be resolved.
To go back to the agreement proper, it has some good points. It is not my job as a Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to overly dwell on the good points; they have all been presented to this House by the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), so I will concentrate on some of the points that are not quite as good.
I think those bad points were summarized for me by an old pensioner, an Inuvialuit himself, whom I visited in the old folks' home in Inuvik-shortly after the signing of the agreement in Tuktoyaktuk. He said that the only thing the agreement means for hims is that once a year he will receive in the mail a little piece of paper that is going to tell him how wealthy he is. That is all he is going to get out of it. He is not going to get a piece of land, a house or any money for the few
Western Arctic Agreement
remaining years he has to live. All he can see himself getting out of it is this piece of paper telling him he has lots of money. But where is it? There are no dollar bills for his pocket. He does not get a cheque; he gets nothing.
That is the other side of the story. In my opinion, this results from the rather socialistic and collectivist nature of the agreement. I can see why we have that type of agreement dealing with collectivities rather than individuals. First of all, that is the policy of the present Government of Canada and especially that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who ran as a left-wing candidate in the recent Liberal leadership convention. Negotiatiors and advisers to native organizations are frequently of this bent. It is unfortunate, but I guess of necessity native organizations very often become mirror images of the bureaucracies with which they have to deal.
In the Inuvialuit community, many individuals have excelled in many fields, such as industry, trade and commerce, in the arts and many others. I venture to suggest that there are more millionnaires per thousand of population among the Inuvialuit component of our population than any other. But in the negotiating process over many years these people were generally concerned with their own affairs. They did not really get involved in the long, slow process. As a result, the individual point of view was lost because people who are individualistical-ly inclined were going about their own business. It is only when the final agreement was initialled that an action group was put together.
I would like to present some of the views of that Inuvialuit action group to the House. We know that 80 per cent of the population found in favour of the agreement and voted in that way. However, there is still one-fifth of the population with a different point of view. That point of view deserves to be heard. There was concern about the institutional nature of the agreement. One has only to look at a list of the institutions which are to be set up pursuant to the agreement. There are six or seven community corporations, each with a game council. There is the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Inuvialuit Land Corporation, the Inuvialuit Development Corporation, the Inuvialuit Investment Corporation, the Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Review Board, the Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Screening Committee, the Inuvialuit Research Advisory Council and the Inuvialuit Wildlife Management Advisory Council. There are two of those, one for the Territories and one for the Yukon. There is the Inuvialuit Comprehensive Settlement Arbitration Board and various panels made up under that Board. There is the Inuvialuit Approval Authority, the Inuvialuit Game Council, the Porcupine-Cariboo Management Board, the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, the Yukon North Slope Annual Conference, the Inuvialuit Social Development Fund and its trustees, the Inuvialuit trust, the Inuvialuit Land Administration and the Inuvialuit Land Use Planning. There are two sub-groups of that, one for the Territories and one for the Yukon.

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
You can see from that, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very institutionalized approach to life. It was a concern that any profits derived from economic development ventures or disposition of land or anything else would be eaten up in administrative costs. The 20 per cent of the people who opposed the agreement argued in favour of a cash settlement with some cash coming into the hands of individuals. They wanted guaranteed hunting and trapping rights. Other Inuvialuit wanted individual title to land rather than collective title to land. I think it is incumbent that the other side of the argument be heard at this time as well as the majority view.
Under this agreement, the 2,500 beneficiaries will share in some 5,000 square miles of 71-A land-that is land with mineral rights-and some 30,000 square miles of so-called 71-B land to which the mineral rights are not attached. This land will be free from the power of expropriation by any government other than the federal Government. It will also be free from taxation. However, that does not mean to say that improvements made upon the land will be exempt from taxation.
Just to put it in perspective, the land part of the over-all settlement area, a lot of it being water, is about the same size as the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and you can throw in Prince Edward Island for good measure. That is the type of area we are talking about under this agreement. In addition to that there will be cash payments of over $152 million over the period of time up until 1997. There is also the economic enhancement fund of $10 million, which was the buy-out for the 10 per cent bid differential which the Parliamentary Secretary has already referred to, and a social development fund of some $7.5 million. That brings the cash payments up to a total of $169.5 million, if my arithmetic is correct.
In addition to that, through one of their institutions the Inuvialuit have the right to borrow at an 8 per cent rate of interest to a maximum outstanding amount of $87.5 million. In financial terms you can see that the settlement is reasonably generous.
There are some additional concerns with this Bill which I have raised previously so I do not want to go into a great deal of detail about them. However, I would like to have them on the record. First, there is a very unusual nature of the tenure to some of this land. I foresee difficulties in the future. If you cannot sell something, do you really own it? That is a question which has always bothered me. There are constraints put on the disposition of some of this land. I do not know what could happen if you wanted to mortgage some of it to get funds with which to develop the land. I do not know whether that is possible. Just the other day we dealt with that problem with respect to the Cree-Naskapi Act and the necessity of writing provisions into the Act so that mortgages could be held on the land. I do not know if we are going to run into similar difficulties here.
There is a very complex regulatory process set up pursuant to this agreement. There are a number of advisory boards in addition to the regulatory system which presently exists. It is
going to slow things down and make it very difficult and expensive to go through this process. I suspect that at some point in the future people will look back and realize that they have tied themselves up so badly that they cannot then do the things they want to. That possibility also arises.
Another criticism which I have of the Bill is that there is nothing in it immediately for the elderly people. The old people had tough times in the past because it was pretty hard to make a living 50, 60 or 100 years ago in the Arctic areas before we had proper transportation and the other things we have today. Some of the old people went through some rough times and I do not see them getting anything out of this agreement. In my opinion, the old people should benefit more than anyone else. They should at least receive a half decent pension. The younger folks have education and the opportunities which we have in Canada today. I would prefer that the old people get something out of this rather than being neglected. That is what it looks like is happening to me.
Let us take another brief look at the proposed corporate structure. It is important to do this. Several things happened with the Alaskan settlement which was made some time ago. The old couple who were living in an old shack somewhere out in the bush before the settlement are still there with a fish net. Their lot does not seem to have improved very much. The settlement in Alaska created a new class of elite. The people who are involved in the corporate structure sit in their cork-lined boardrooms, draw big salaries, deal with millions of dollars and have a great old time. Somehow that has not filtered down to the little people.
Many objections have been brought up in Alaska. Tom Berger has been appointed to look at the agreement. That is something we want to avoid in Canada. If we make an agreement we do not want to have to say 15 years later it was a mistake. It is pretty important to study this. If you take the agreement and try to put all these institutions and bodies corporate in order, it comes out in kind of a spider's web pattern. The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation is stuck in the middle. One way or another it controls all the other organizations. It controls the Inuvialuit Development Corporation and the Inuvialuit Investment Corporation. Those two are set up to receive the cash payments. The Inuvialuit Land Corporation controls that too in a roundabout way as well as a direct way. The Inuvialuit Land Administration, which reports directly to the regional corporation, administers the land which is held by the Inuvialuit Land Corporation. Presumably it appoints directly the administrators and the ILC does not get to appoint the administrator.
Although in theory the community corporations are supposed to have some control over the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, in reality I expect that it will work out the other way around. Even that is contemplated in the agreement. For instance, 71A/1 lands are supposed to be under the control of the various Inuvialuit community corporations, but the disposition or the control is always subject to the Inuvialuit Regional
June 26, 1984

Corporation. The trust, which is the repository of the funds that may be made available to individuals, is also subject to a substantial amount of control by the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
We can see that whoever controls and exercises this power within the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation will exercise power and control moneys of a magnitude undreamt of by anybody like myself. It will be a fantastic amount of control and power available to whoever manages to usurp that organization.
If that control is misused, then we can expect discontent. There is always a problem when a collective approach is taken, as we see in this agreement and in the Bill, instead of an individual approach to matters. Of course, there is some potential for abuse in every way it is done but I believe that by using the collective model or socialist model, that potential for abuse is exacerbated. All one needs to do is to see the various states in the world today. We find that those that have adopted that model can be far more abusive of the citizens of those countries than those that take an individualistic approach.
That is the gist of my presentation this afternoon. In conclusion, I repeat that the agreement is finished. What we have to do now is to try to make it work. That will be pretty tough. I suspect that making it work will be just as difficult a task as negotiating the agreement in the first place, if not more difficult. I simply want to add my rejoinder again, that I hope that the little people will not get shafted as has happened before. I fervently hope that we do not find ourselves, five decades down the road, standing up again in the House and saying that this did not work, let us try to renegotiate it again. I sincerely hope that this agreement works out to the benefit of all the people who live in the settlement area.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of reports from standing and special committees on behalf of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. The Chairman consulted with both opposition parties and received their approval on this. I would ask at this time if the House would give its unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have the
Western Arctic Agreement
honour to present to the House the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Canada Post Corporation-Auditor's terms of reference, (b) Weekend overtime: the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-Museums and Art Galleries-Canada Museums Construction Corporation-Fund raising campaign, (b) Minister's correspondence; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Bilingualism-Education of immigrant children, (b) Native Indian children-Access to aboriginal language education.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Campbell (Cardigan) (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) that Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National Parks Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Standing Orders do not provide for questions and comments following the first three speakers.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-49 which gives effect to the agreement that was reached between the Government of Canada and the Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories, reaching into the Yukon.

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
First, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Inuvialuit and the Minister. Our Party supports speedy passage of this legislation and the implementation of the agreement. While we support the speedy passage of this legislation, we want to note the very slow and painful process that has generally marked land claims and aboriginal claims negotiations and settlements in Canada over the past few years. That is especially true with regard to comprehensive claims.
It has been noted that this is only the second comprehensive claim to be settled, the first being the James Bay Agreement. I think every Member of the Flouse is aware of the frustration and problems that were involved in terms of implementation of that agreement, problems regarding the flow of funds, with regard to relations between the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the new establishment of government by the James Bay Cree and Inuit.
I have particular concern in this Bill over Clause 3 which is really at the heart of the principle of the settlement of claims in the present government policy. Clause 3 states:
All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the Territory, of all Inuvialuit, whatever they may be, are hereby extinguished-
Our Party has a great deal of concern over the idea that aboriginal claims must be extinguished before any settlement can be reached on those claims. Aboriginal people have been moving toward the concept that an aboriginal right per se is something that cannot be extinguished. Rather, it is something that should be recognized. Having recognized it, the Government of Canada or the province or territory should negotiate for use with that aboriginal people. We should be involved in a process of recognition of rights rather than seek to terminate those rights. The termination of rights smacks too much of a real estate process. Real estate processes do violence to the concept of land that the aboriginal peoples of Canada have. Their relationship to the land is more basic and cultural and spiritual, in such a way that a real estate process often does violence to it. For that reason we support them in their concern to find some other approach rather than out and out extinguishment.
I note that the Minister has said he would explore alternatives to extinguishment. I hope that an alternative can be found and that that alternative can be applied to the Inuvialuit as well as to other aboriginal peoples. We were very concerned about the slow progress in the settlement of comprehensive claims in British Columbia, for example, when the Haida, Heltsuk and Nuu Chah Nulth submitted claims both to their land and to some offshore resources. It took months and it stretched into years before the Government even accepted these claims for negotiation. This slowness in processing is very discouraging for aboriginal peoples. It is one of the reasons this is only the second agreement to be reached. I suppose it returns to the fact that the Department, through the Office of Native Claims, is really the judge, jury and executioner in terms of the entire aboriginal claims process.
Aboriginal people coming up against the Department find that it is very easy for them to be stonewalled. When they are stonewalled, they have no real process of appeal. We would like to see the entire claims process opened up and made more fair, in a way that aboriginal peoples would know that they had certain rights and processes to follow by law instead of being at the good favour of the Government.
When claims are recognized and accepted for negotiation, the Government is very slow in its different processes. For example, we are concerned about the Kaska Dene in northern British Columbia. They received only a quarter of the funding which they recognized as being necessary if they were to do an adequate job of researching their aboriginal claim. Having received only a quarter of their funds, their entire claim process is now in some difficulty. We must recognize that it is a very expensive process to establish what is a claim, to establish traditional patterns of land use and occupancy, and to establish traditional hunting, fishing and food-gathering processes. The research involved is very expensive. Having established a pattern of research, it is important that there be continuity, that it not be interrupted. As the Kaska Dene received only a quarter of their funding, and unless further funds flow fairly quickly, they will have some difficulty maintaining continuity. There is a possibility of fairly rapid development of the mineral, timber and hydroelectric resources in their area. It is important that they be able to conduct the research now rather than have to wait. Also they are in a situation where some of their traditional lands overlap some of those under claim by the Council of Yukon Indians. It is important that they have funding now so that they can conduct the necessary research to solve any overlap situations on a fair and equitable basis between themselves and their good friends in the Council of Yukon Indians.
The Special Committee on Indian Self-Government recommended that there be a new claims process. This is something that we in our Party would heartily endorse. It recommended a claims process wherein the Department was not the judge, jury and executioner, a claims process which recognized the legitimate claims of Indian peoples and other aboriginal peoples in settled areas. Presently there is a concept, which the Government follows, whereby it says that aboriginal claims in settled areas such as in southwestern British Columbia have been superseded by law. In effect, what we are saying by that process is that aboriginal rights, claims and title have been superseded by might. Might makes right is what the concept superseded by law means. We should open up the process to recognize that if people had basic aboriginal rights 200 years or 300 years ago and if they never negotiated those rights away, they are still intact. The concept that they can be superseded by law really says that they have been taken away by force. That is not a concept of justice to which most Canadians would want to subscribe.
Another area which we would like to see changed in a future land claims policy would be the removal of the present separation between settlement of land claims and settlement of
June 26, 1984

political issues. For aboriginal people, political rights are an integral part of the claims which they are seeking to put forward. Also the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government, through a long series of hearings, established very clearly that aboriginal peoples had political rights and exercised those political rights long before the coming of European colonists to this continent. Those political rights are the essence of their aboriginal rights. To talk about an aboriginal land claims process which neglects those political rights does violence to their whole concept of the land.
The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs has a slogan: "The land is the culture". Basically, land, culture, spiritual values and political rights are interrelated among aboriginal peoples. To say that we are willing to negotiate land rights here but that we are not willing to discuss political rights which have to be resolved in a separate forum, is to do violence to the basic understanding of aboriginal peoples of themselves and of their relationship to the land.
We support the whole concept that political rights should be involved in the settlement of aboriginal claims. Coming from British Columbia, I am concerned that while the federal Government moves very slowly in the settlement of claims, the Government of British Columbia is actively stonewalling and preventing the claims.
For a number of years now significant progress on a number of claims had not been possible until the Province of British Columbia moved on the claim of the Nishga people. The process has been very slow and very painful. Anything the federal Government or the Canadian public could do to move the reactionary, right-wing Government of British Columbia toward a more positive recognition of aboriginal claims would be helpful. It would help to solve a long-standing injustice. It would help Indian people of British Columbia to take their rightful place in the culture and economy of British Columbia.
We want to see the claims process speeded up. It should recognize the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. Whether it be the Indians, the Metis or the Inuit, they should have their rights recognized. They should have a decent land base from which they can operate economically so that they will no longer be at the bottom statum of society in terms of the economy. There is no reason that being a member of the aboriginal peoples should be equated with poverty. However, that is the situation in Canada, because in effect these people have been robbed of their rights.
It is important to institute a new and more speedy land claims policy which will not extinguish those rights but will recognize them. This policy should not try to separate those rights from their political rights. It should see them as being integral and it should recognize their rights to a decent economic base.
With those few remarks, I am pleased that the Inuvialuit have made some progress in the negotiation of their claim with the federal Government. They negotiated, as most aboriginal people have had to do, under considerable pressure. I congratulate them on their settlement. Like all Members, we hope
Western Arctic Agreement
that it works for their betterment. We look forward to speedy passage of this Bill.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adop 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. Herbert in the chair.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National parks Act in consequence thereof.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I assume that this is the opportunity for me to ask questions of a general nature. The document entitled Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement dated March 27, 1984, the one I have in my hand, and I would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be familiar with it, is this the agreement that was voted on by the Inuvialuit?


René Gingras: If the Hon. Member will wait a few moments, the officials will soon be here.
In the meantime, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that I quoted a figure of 91,000 square kilometres earlier, which is 35,000 square miles, according to my calculations. I do not know whether the translator said 91,000 square kilometres- [English]
Would the Hon. Member please repeat his question?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, the document entitled Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement, dated March 27, 1984, the one that I have in my hand, and with which the Parliamentary Secretary should be familiar, is that the agreement that was voted on by the Inuvialuit?


René Gingras: I can assure the Hon. Member that the people voted on the basis of this document, Mr. Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Which agreement was signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and by the COPE representatives and everybody else at the grand signing

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
ceremony? Was it this document, the one to which I have referred, or was it another document?
[ Translation]


René Gingras: Yes, it was the document entitled "The Western Arctic Claim. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement", which is dated June 5, 1984.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what I thought. The document that was voted on and ratified by the Inuvialuit was this document, the one dated March 27, 1984. The one that presumably was signed by the parties to the agreement-and we have just been told by the Parliamentary Secretary that that was indeed the case-was a different document from the Western Arctic claim, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. That is the title of it. Is it a different document altogether. There are several discrepancies between these two documents. How can it be held that the document that was in fact signed was the one that received the approval of the Inuvialuit?


René Gingras: I can assure the Hon. Member that every minor differences between this document, which comes from the Department, and the one on which the Inuit voted was agreed upon by all concerned.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, although I am not going to pursue it at this time, I would suggest that it could leave some doubts in the future as to the validity of this agreement when you have people voting on one agreement and then signing yet another agreement. I want to make one observation on the same point. Members of Parliament had circulated to them the Western Arctic claim, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Then we had a separate sheet of paper, not attached to this document at all, with the signatures thereon. Why is a copy of the agreement not available, the one which was presumably signed, with the signatures attached thereto? Why do we have a separate sheet of paper, which really does not say what it is all about, floating around with the signatures on it?


René Gingras: I am most surprised at the nature of the question asked by the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. The only difference between the copy which will be distributed and the copy which we have here today is in the format. This page will be inserted inside the document, like this. I do not know how this is done technically, but I know that when the document is distributed, the signatures will be inserted inside, like this, and will form an integral part of the document. I must point out
that the difference between this document and the other one is that this one is the legal document.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, how many beneficiaries are there under the Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, there are now approximately 2,500 registered Inuvialuit.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, how many of the beneficiaries under this agreement are already receiving benefits pursuant to the Alaskan settlement?
[ Translation]


René Gingras: There are four, Mr. Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary misunderstood my question. I think that there are considerably more beneficiaries under this agreement, who are at the same time receiving benefits pursuant to land claim settlements made outside of Canada, particularly in Alaska. Very many of the Inuvialuit originated in what is now Alaska and came into what is now Canadian territory in the early part of this century. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could reconsider that figure.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Because I have to interrupt the proceedings, maybe the response could be given when we resume discussion on Clause 2 at six o'clock. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the Bill later this day.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items preceding item No. 127 stand, with unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Stand.
June 26, 1984



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Blaker:: Thank you for recognizing me on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on June 4 of this year, the House considered a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-215, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). As debate continued during Private Members' Hour, it was proposed by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Foster) that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. There was then a subamendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). That subamendment was in fact passed by the House unanimously.
In order to continue with this effort of assisting the staff of Members of Parliament, the proposal would now be for you, Mr. Speaker, to seek the consent of the House, the consent of the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) on behalf of the Official Opposition, as well as the consent of the Hon. Member for Beaches. To the best of our understanding, there would be unanimous consent to accept the amendment made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board that the Bill be withdrawn and the subject matter referred to that committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The House has heard the proposal made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The question is as follows: Mr. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan) moved that Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons) be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Maurice Brydon Foster: an amendment thereto that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Neil Young: That the said committee submit a report to the House of Commons within a period of 10 days.
Public Service Employment Act
The question is on the amendment as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was my understanding that the question being put to you for unanimous consent by the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) was that the subject matter be sent to a committee without time restrictions or that the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) be treated as though it were never made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The problem the Chair would have is that the amendment as amended has already been approved by the House in that form. In effect, I would submit that it would require a change to eliminate that time restriction.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said is absolutely right. The time remaining to us between now and Friday obviously does not amount to 10 days. If the motion to have the Bill referred to committee presents any difficulty to the House at all, then to accommodate that concern, I would be prepared-I am not sure what form it would take and I do not wish to get into a procedural hassle-to move an amendment to strike the requirement of 10 days, if that is a proper procedure.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, it is the understanding of the Official Opposition, through discussions with our colleagues, that we would prefer that the amendment be deleted and if the Chair feels that the proper way to do that would be to pass a motion in the House deleting that amendment, then we would concur with that ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Chair is in some difficulty procedurally. In fact, the irregularity is such that all I can suggest at the moment is that there might be a disposition to give unanimous consent to eliminate the amendment to the amendment, it being the requirement for the submission of the report within 10 days. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member who proposed this particular motion is not present at this time. It imposes some difficulty on the Chair, but if Hon. Members of the House wish to give unanimous consent for this rather unusual procedure without setting any precedents, then under the circumstances, perhaps the Chair would be willing to accept that unanimous consent. In that case, the amendment would be amended by deleting the amendment to the amendment and the Chair would then read only the amendment without the amendment to the amendment. Is that clear? It is not clear to me but if it is clear to the House, I shall read the amendment as amended.

June 26, 1984
Canadian Wheat Board
Perhaps in order to save time, may I assume that the House is giving its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Agreed and so ordered.
Just to clear everything up, the question is on the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



MOTIONS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of (a) changing the Canadian Wheat Board's name to the Canadian Grains Board (b) expanding the Board's responsibility by placing the major grains-barley, corn, flax, oats, rapeseed, rye, soybeans and wheat-under its jurisdiction and by giving the Board full responsibility for marketing all feed grains delivered to primary elevators in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the other matter was cleared up in so short a time.
The agricultural industry across Canada is in trouble. In the last three or four months, there has been an increase of almost 150 per cent in the number of farm bankruptcies. At the rate we are going, there will be fewer and fewer farms across the country every year to the point where the agricultural industry is bound to suffer. It is too bad that an industry the workforce of which at one time made up approximately 90 per cent of the population of Canada is now down to a workforce of 5 per cent of the population and dwindling fast.
The situation is particularly bad because the industry could support many, many more farmers than it is now supporting. The consolidation that is going on may be good for the individual farmer but is not good for the country as a whole. Therefore, although this particular motion deals with one small part of the problem, I feel that it is important to put this
motion before the House and have it discussed as part of the solution to the problem.
This particular motion deals with only one part of the agricultural industry, that part of the agricultural industry which is the growing of grain on the Prairies. That grain is the key to a great portion of the money from foreign exchange which Canada earns every year. Therefore, it is very important that we have a stable structure which will allow grain to be gathered, shipped and sold. That is the duty of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board is to buy the grain, sell it at the best possible price and turn over as much of that sale money to the farmer as is possible. That is the key to the Wheat Board. It operates in the best interests of the farmer, not in the best interests of a variety of other people who handle the grain between the farmer and the consumer.
The global problem is that we do not have a system in place which allows income security for farmers. To some extent, I suppose I am being remiss in my duty in treating only a small portion of the problem rather than the total problem. A couple of weeks ago my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), brought forward Bill C-232 which dealt with parity of prices for farm products. That Bill was sent to committee to be discussed. The very fact that that Bill was sent to committee indicates that the House recognizes that agriculture generally is in trouble and that we must take a good global look at what should be done.
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) were here today, he would stand and say that agriculture in Canada is doing better than agriculture in any other country in the world. Then he would list all sorts of good things which he is doing for agriculture or which the Government claims it is doing for agriculture. Let us look at a few of the things which the Government says it is doing.
It claims that the farmers are being well financed and are better off because the Farm Credit Corporation is in place. It can be interpreted that way, but it can also be interpreted that the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corporation are probably the biggest factor in the number of farm bankruptcies.
In the last year the Government has dealt with freight rates. That is a very important factor in the bringing of grain to market. How did the Government deal with it? It increased those rates. If we take a look at that process to find out what the rates will be in the next few years, we will see that the increase has only started and that there will be many more increases. Every one of those increases puts farmers in the position in which there will be a much smaller chance of
June 26, 1984

making a living. Many more farmers will leave their farms because they will not be able to make an adequate living.
Both opposition Parties have often asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Agriculture if they would relieve some of the pressure on farmers by taking the tax off fuel. They tell us that it sounds like a good idea, but they will not do it. The Government has made no effort to improve the situation as far as farmers are concerned.
That seems like a rather convoluted approach to a motion which deals directly and specifically with the Canadian Wheat Board, but I am trying to put forth the idea that what we need in all approaches to agriculture-if we are to deal with tax on fuels, freight rates and interest rates-is an income security structure which will allow farmers to know that they will get the best possible return for their labour. We are talking about a structure which the farmer can recognize as fair. That was the basis of the development of the Wheat Board initially and it is still the basis of its operation. It seems incongruous that what works well for wheat should not be extended to other crops.
For example, at this moment we probably have the best example in years of what can happen to grain if there is not a structure which protects the farmer. Last fall when farmers began selling rapeseed and canola, they received approximately $5 per bushel. Since that time, the price has increased to as much as $16 per bushel. Most of that grain was sold by farmers at $5, $6, $7 or $8 per bushel. That grain was stored. Recently it was released into the market at $16 per bushel. Who received the profit? Not the farmers who planted the grain, took the risk, hauled it into town and sold it to pay for their production. The people who received the advantage of the increase were those people who speculated on the price of grain. They bought the rapeseed and held it. They did nothing. They did not work. It was no effort for them. Sometimes they did not even hold the grain. They simply held a piece of paper for a six-month period and then sold the grain at $16 per bushel. They received a profit of approximately $10 per bushel. Had that money been turned into the system, as it would have been had the grain been sold under the Wheat Board, it would have been spread out among the farmers who produced rapeseed last year.
I grew up on a farm before the Wheat Board was established and I can remember very vividly my father selling wheat at 75 cents per bushel in the fall. At that time he hoped that he could hold on to at least half of his grain in order that he could sell it for $1.75 in the spring. In the spring, the Winnipeg Grain Exchange would have manipulated the market to the point where the grain which they had held and had bought from the farmers for 75 cents per bushel in the fall would have increased in order that the Grain Exchange could make $1 per bushel. Again, that profit was made with no effort and no risk. The grain was bought and they sold it when they had manipulated the price of grain upward. That was the reason the Wheat Board was established, by the Conservatives. The same thing is going on right now.
Canadian Wheat Board
My motion suggests that the Government take a look at extending the structure, which now controls wheat, barley and oats sold for the export market, to cover other grains in order that other farmers are not ripped off in the same manner as they have been in the past; as they were with the change in canola grain costs from $5 to $16 per bushel. Possibly the return would have been less than $16 per bushel, but if some farmers could afford to keep enough to receive $16 per bushel, they would be the only ones in that whole block who probably did well.
What I am really doing in this motion, Mr. Speaker, is plunking for fairness and against speculation. Farmers who did not grow up in the days when speculation ran rampant, do not realize how well they are served by the Wheat Board. Many of the younger farmers feel that they could go out on the market themselves and do better. I would challenge any of them to do so. A number of years ago we had a rather long discussion on the possibilities of putting all of the feed grains on the open market. The result of those discussions was very interesting. Although a portion of the feed grain is sold on the open market, Mr. Speaker, there still is a certain amount of it sold through the Wheat Board. It is not surprising that when the Wheat Board does well, when it sells well on the export market, the open market then does well, because what is happening is that the Wheat Board is taking off the domestic market a certain amount of feed, which allows the prices to go up. That would not happen if that dual system was not in place. Prices for the cattlemen in years when the Wheat Board sells a lot of grain overseas would not go up the way they do. And in those years when the Wheat Board does not sell well overseas, the price of grain goes down, which is good for the cattlemen but not for the producer of feed. That kind of up and down roller-coaster approach to agriculture is what we had back in the 1930s, but it is not what we want now. It is still happening with canola. It would be a good approach to put before the grain growers of Canada at least an opportunity to take a look at how that kind of market would work.
The Winnipeg Grain Exchange is a well established group of people. It claims it is helping the farmers. It buys as low as possible and sells as high as possible. In the process it makes money. It gets that money from either the consumer, because he pays more for his grain, or from the producer, because he receives less for his grain. No one can argue with that. The grain exchange will tell you that sometimes it loses but, obviously, on the average it does not, because if it lost or even if it just balanced out, the grain exchange would soon disappear. Therefore, it is there to make as much profit as possible, and that profit must come either from the producer or from the consumer. The grain exchange will tell you how good it is for the market, but it has never proven that it is anything other than a parasite on that market because it takes money out of the pockets of the farmers and the consumers.
The Canadian Wheat Board, Hon. Members will say, is a good operation. It buys its grain from the farmers and sells it on the world market. It returns as much of that profit as

June 26, 1984
Canadian Wheat Board
possible to the farmer. Why is it then not possible to take every grain which is produced and put it through the same kind of structure so that the farmers receive the maximum return from their efforts and labour? This habit of living off the farmers should not go on. What is happening, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, is that we have a situation which becomes less fair as time goes on, to the point where fewer and fewer farmers are going to survive. It is very disappointing to realize there are places where a few years ago ten farmers lived quite well on what now only support two farmers. The surprising part of it is that statistics show that the amount of income tax paid by the farmer who is now ten times as big as he was before, is actually less than paid by the farmer next door to him with the half section or the section. We are developing an agricultural system in the grain country which is not providing for as many people as it possibly could, and that is not good for the country.
Let us take a look at the organizations and the global structure of agriculture and try to develop some sensible and logical ways of making sure that the farmer will get enough to survive on. One of the ways we might help is to take a look at the Wheat Board and at least develop a stable structure for our marketing.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion which has been put before the House by the Hon. Member. I wondered, listening to the Hon. Member speak, how many farmers who operate in the free market system would still be alive if it is true that they are all broke. However, that is not the case. The Hon. Member has put forward a reasonable argument for his motion and I understand that the strong argument for the motion is the concept upon which the Wheat Board has operated since its beginning, that is the concept of pooling, of sharing, so that the price at the beginning of the year for the farmer is the same as at the end of the year. That process-of which we are very proud-was put in place by a Conservative Government to meet a problem which was in place some 50 years ago. Of course, many things have changed since that time, but something which has not changed is that the Canadian Wheat Board has served the western farmers well.
I want to put forward a couple of suggestions to the Hon. Member. First, we object to his suggestion that the name of the Canadian Wheat Board be changed. Every farmer, whether old or young, recognizes the good service of the Canadian Wheat Board in this country. The Canadian Wheat Board has an international reputation of being able to sell the farmers' grain at a reasonable and often better price than other countries have been able to get on the international market. I know that the Hon. Member is somewhat jealous that the Progressive Conservative Party brought in the Canadian Wheat Board. Of course, every time he gets on a political platform in Saskatchewan, I know he has trouble swallowing the fact that a Progressive Conservative Government brought this Canadian Wheat Board into being. That is probably why he wants to change the name. He is not satisfied to just bring other grains into the market and leave the name the same. He would rather
change the name and hope that the New Democratic Party could then take some credit for it. We take exception to that for two reasons: first, it was brought in by an excellent government some sixty years ago, and, second, the international reputation of the Canadian Wheat Board is well known; there is no need to change the name and try to get other countries in this world to understand that we now have a new operation in Canada which is attempting to sell wheat, oats and barley in that market.
That is one part of the motion with which I have difficulty. The second part is this. The Hon. Member was not clear, and I would like to have asked him this question. If the NDP were in power would they impose this on Canadian farmers? We all know their record of defending western farmers when it came to a change in the Constitution. Their leader was all too willing to side with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and impose a Constitution. When it came to the National Energy Program, the NDP could not run up behind the Government quickly enough to impose that on western Canada. Therefore I ask if they would impose this on the farmers of western Canada if they were in power.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Party would not do that. We want to try to get farmers to work together rather than against one another on how to market their grains. This was the difficulty we faced during the Crow debate. The solution to the problem is that if the farmers of western Canada make the decision that they want to market canola, rapeseed or flaxseed through the Canadian Wheat Board, then we ought to respect that decision. But that is not the message the Members of my Party have gotten from their constituents. The question is still open. In fact, when the wheat pools did a survey in 1981 they found the majority of farmers were opposed to this move.
Today many farmers have the opportunity to judge the performance of the Canadian Wheat Board. The most important crop in this respect is canola. It is a cash crop to many farmers. They are not interested in getting an initial price; they want the cash up front. Canola is not the sole crop for most farmers. It is grown as a cash crop because in the West, particularly on the Prairies, a farmer does not have the opportunity to grow a variety of crops. He is limited to a certain number, and that is one of the reasons that most of the canola growers in western Canada are satisfied with the present system.
The assumption that if you grow canola and sell it at the beginning of the year the price will be less than at the end of the year is just that, an assumption. In some years that is the case, in some years it is not. The assumption that the grain companies are always the winners, along with the speculators on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, if you want to call them that, is not true. They establish a market, a price, which in turn establishes freedom. The strongest argument by farmers opposed to putting these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board is that they want some element of freedom.
June 26, 1984

Then we have the argument of the feed grain users, the cattlemen, hog and poultry growers. They also question the value of having feed grain under the Canadian Wheat Board. This was the case up until 1974, when the decision was made to allow feed grains some freedom. The question is still open as to whether that is the way it should stay, or if it should revert to the Canadian Wheat Board. The 1981 survey showed that 55 per cent of the farmers in western Canada wished the system to remain the same as it was in 1974. I have to say again that I respect that decision.
There is a point I think the Wheat Board ought to take very seriously. If they want the feed grains under their jurisdiction they ought to show some flexibility. Many farmers along the southern part of the Prairies have been able to find markets in the U.S. for their feed grains at substantially higher prices than they could in their own locales. Yet the Wheat Board turns down every one of those export permits. That is totally unfair and it does not show the kind of flexibility which is needed in the interests of western farmers, should the Hon. Member's motion turn into reality and all feed grains go under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Farmers say it is nice to have the advantage of pooling and sharing, it is nice to have these experts out in the world selling their grain, but then they are faced with this situation and they wonder about the flexibility of the Wheat Board.
I think it is clear that while the Member's motion has something to offer, it is an open question which farmers ought to be discussing. They ought to be giving their elected representatives their views on whether the system should change, but there is no way it ought to be imposed upon them.
There are arguments on both sides of the coin, both of which are very important, such as imposing a name change on the Canadian Wheat Board. Cash cropping is important to many western farmers, but they will not be able to do that under the Canadian Wheat Board. Western farmers are concerned that the initial prices set for grains are far too low given the international market. They question the kind of service they would have if everything was under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. These things have to be addressed, so rather than move too quickly on this motion, there are many other things we should look at. I have in mind things like the Bracken formula, things like producer cars, revisions to the Crow rate, updating of the elevator system, branchlines, West Coast and East Coast efficiency in moving grain, and the opportunity to have value added industries on the Prairies such as meat, grain and canola processing. These are all very essential things which we must move on very quickly, perhaps even more quickly than on the suggestion the Hon. Member is making.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today proposes that the government should consider the advisability of changing the Canadian Wheat Board's name to the Canadian Grains Board and expanding the Board's responsibility by
Canadian Wheat Board
placing the major grains-barley, corn, flax, oats, rapeseed, rye, soybeans and wheat-under its jurisdiction and by giving the Board full responsibility for marketing all feed grains delivered to primary elevators in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this motion may have substantial repercussions on the Canadian grain and oil seed industry and on the producers, organizations, government and non-government boards and private companies that constitute the industry. At the present time, the Canadian Wheat Board, and I may add, Mr. Speaker, that in 1985 the Board will be celebrating its fiftieth birthday and I think it would be appropriate to wish the Board, somewhat in advance, a very happy birthday and offer it our best wishes for a successful future.
The Board is the only marketing body for wheat, oats and barley grown in the Prairies and destined for export or for human consumption in Canada. The Board may also sell feed barley, oats and wheat on the domestic feed grain market. The Canadian Wheat Board's primary purpose is to sell as much grain as it can at the best possible price and to maximize returns for Prairie wheat, oats and barley producers.
Although the Canadian Wheat Board plays a major role in the Canadian grain industry, we must not forget that the industry includes a wide range of government and non-government bodies that work together to transport grain to Canadian exporters and consumers. I shall, if I may, take a few moments to talk about the principal members of the Canadian grain industry. I shall, of course, leave enough time for the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) to make a few comments before six o'clock, because I would be very interested to hear what he has to say.
Producers are the most important group in the industry. Without them, the Canadian grain industry would not exist. Grain is produced in all Canadian provinces. According to the 1981 Census, and this is very important, Mr. Speaker, Canada had 162.8 million acres of farm land in 1981 with 76.5 million acres being farmed and 24 million acres in fallow, most of the land being used for growing grain and oil seeds. Still in 1981, 127,359 farming operations stated they grew wheat, 81,417 oats, 102,190 barley, 33,543 corn, 12,819 rye, 12,083 flax, 10,655 soya beans and 14,804 canola. This shows how diversified grain production is in this country. Farmers in all provinces stated they grew at least one of these grains or oil seeds. The four provinces where most of these farmers are concentrated are, of course, the Prairie provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and Ontario. Quebec, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island also have a substantial number of grain operations.
According to estimates, total profits from grain and oil seed amounted to $7 billion in 1983. Grain producers are therefore a major force in determining the structure, components and functioning of the grain industry. Although the Canadian

June 26, 1984
Canadian Wheat Board
Wheat Board is a federal body and is subject to federal laws, it is above all an organization that is concerned with selling wheat, oats and barley on behalf of Canadian producers. Over the years, producers have established the marketing system they want to facilitate grain sales. In his motion, the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Government consider the advisability of changing the name of the Board. Mr. Speaker, I think most Hon. Members would agree that it would be very high-handed of the Government to want to set unilaterally the conditions for the sale of a specific grain or oil seed.
We recall that in the seventies, producers decided, by referendum, to maintain a free market for canola. Today, canola is sold on the free market. Rye and flax grown in the Prairies are also sold on the free market. Grain corn produced in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba is also sold on the free market. Oleaginous grains marketing boards do not sell all the harvests of producers, as do the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. This board is responsible for buying and selling the wheat grown in Ontario, except for wheat sold among producers for agricultural purposes. The Ontario board must seek the best market price for any Ontario-grown wheat, in accordance with well-established marketing principles. There is another kind of board, such as the Ontario Soybean Producers Marketing Board which negotiates for producers rather than representing them.
Just to say a few words about the Ontario Soybean Producers Marketing Board, it was established in 1949 to improve marketing conditions for Ontario-grown soybeans. Every year it negotiates the conditions of soybean sales to dealers. However, the producer sells his harvest directly to a processor, a cattleman or a grain agency. Cooperatives and companies which buy and sell grains in their own name also provide worthwhile services for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board. Cooperatives and private companies own and operate primary and terminal elevators as well as sales outlets for farm and processing equipment.
Mr. Speaker, I think 1 do not have enough time to explain to the House the ideal way in which the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board operate. Keeping in mind the outstanding business done by grain producers and the quality of services offered over the years by the Canadian Wheat Board to all the producers who joined together within organizations or institutions to market their products, it does not seem advisable, as suggested by the Hon. Member of the Official Opposition who spoke before me, to change anything in the structure of the Canadian Wheat Board.
In Canada, there are also grain companies, the first and foremost being farmer co-ops. There is no need to insist on the value of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Pool Elevators, the United Grain Producers in the Prairies, United Co-ops in Ontario and the
Cooperative federee in Quebec. It is my view that all those groups, working for the welfare of grain producers, have demonstrated their worth.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave some time to the Honourable member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), who wishes to speak on the matter, but I want to state that the motion put by the Honourable member for the new Democratic Party is rather well stated, although I wonder if all the possible ramifications have been examined. Although farmers are not unanimous, and indeed other interested groups, and this has been a fact for a long time, the same motion has been put forward on various occasions by the New Democratic Party. In fact, the same member introduced a motion that was almost identical in 1980. It has been said that his motivation was sincere, which I do not doubt. But since he keeps reviving the idea, it seems to me that his party is not aware of all the evidence pointing to the practical problems that the implementation of that concept will raise. Books and treatises have been written on the pros and cons of a marketing board and other systems. And although the Canadian and provincial governments are giving much attention to the issue, the choice finally should rest with producers. They are most directly involved. As has already been mentioned in the debate, there is no evidence that the establishment of a national Board would get significant support accross the nation, and even among the main crop growers. Clearly producers still want some flexibility in their operations.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is clear to us that after 49 years of existence, the Canadian Wheat Board has been fulfilling its mandate. I was happy to hear the honourable member from the Official Opposition, who spoke before me, state the Canadian Wheat Board was an internationally famous agency that was a credit to Canada and Canadian grain growers.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has put forward a Private Members' Motion in two parts. The first part is to change the name of the Canadian Wheat Board. Let me quickly and simply say that I cannot support that, primarily because of the implications that flow from the second part of his motion. That is what I propose to comment on briefly.
The second part of the motion proposes to expand the board's responsibilities by placing the major grains; barley, corn, flax, oats, rapeseed, rye, soybeans and wheat under its jurisdiction and by giving the board full responsibility for marketing all feed grains delivered to primary elevators in Canada. Of course, by implication, that is primarily in western Canada.
Let me say that I cannot support this proposal that would put our domestic feed grains delivered to our western country elevators completely under the authority of the Wheat Board as the Wheat Board's total responsibility.
June 26, 1984

This proposal quite properly invites comment on our so-called domestic feed grain policy. This most important issue, especially for western Canada, was deliberately and skilfully avoided during the six-month Crow debate last year. It is an issue that should the debated publicly and here in Parliament, along with the so-called Canadian Livestock Feed Board, when an appropriate occasion should develop.
All domestic feed grains may now be delivered to our western country elevators by producers with the appropriate permit book. But for livestock feeders to get that feed grain out of the elevators for local livestock feeding is quite another matter.
Of course, the Board's policy is to eventually ship all or nearly all of the feed grains for export. It can be purchased from the country elevators after the necessary permit is obtained from the Wheat Board, but at substantially higher prices than is available for deliveries of that same feed grain, even after allowing for a modest elevator charge.
It must surely be obvious that our domestic feed grain policy must be thoroughly reviewed and changed significantly to serve its biggest total market for that feed grain. Surely that is our total livestock feeding industry, essentially cattle and hogs, especially in western Canada.
It should be obvious to all of us that the greatest potential value-added industry for our grain sector in western Canada is not our flour milling, our meat packing and processing industry or even the oil seed crushing industry. It is by far the total livestock feeding industry for cattle and hogs and utilizing huge amounts of western barley and oats right in western Canada. That is by far our most important value-added industry in agriculture in western Canada.
If we are going to change our feed grains policy in the West, let us allow our country elevators to serve this industry by taking it in for local storage and also selling it locally on an open market, right out of the same elevator.
The well known and outdated corn competitive pricing formula should be scrapped. If a new feed grain pricing formula is necessary it could be related to the barley export price worked back to the country elevators.
The proposal by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert would be the kiss of death for this tremendous potential for a total livestock feeding industry all across western Canada. Let us make some changes in our feed grain policy, but let us make those changes work for our western agricultural future, where the feed grains are produced and where the value-added industries are logical and can be done most efficiently.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 127 seeks government consideration of the advisability of changing the Canadian Wheat Board's name to the Canadian Grains Board and expanding the Board's responsibility by placing the major grains under its jurisdiction and by giving the Board full responsibility for marketing all feed grains delivered to primary elevators in Canada.
Canadian Wheat Board
In essence, the motion seeks the universal adoption of the Board marketing system for the grains marketed commercially in Canada and consequently the elimination of the open market system which continues to be used for many of the major grains sold for domestic use in this country.
Public controversy over the relative merits and shortcomings of these two marketing systems has waxed and waned with strong feelings held on both sides, ever since the Board marketing system was first employed as a temporary measure to tide over a period of market uncertainty at the end of World War I. Thus, the debate on this motion is simply the revival and continuation of the debate on an issue which has not been resolved to the satisfaction of all producers over the past 60 years.
Let us review that debate. It should be recognized that the development of the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system was related closely to the importance of wheat exports to the economy of the West and the history of efforts in western Canada to develop a marketing agency to deal with its major customers abroad. It had little to do with the appropriate marketing systems for sales within Canada. In considering the motion which is simply a continuation of the historic debate, the debate over the best marketing system for grain is often influenced by the nature of grain or oil seed under discussion, the type of markets to which this is to be sold and whether domestic processing is an important part of that market. A further development of this debate relates to the discussion over domestic marketing of feed grains in Canada.
The decision by the Government to modify the marketing system for domestic feed grains in 1974 was mainly in response to problems perceived by users of food grains in Canada with respect to price equity and assurance of supply. At that time some producers again considered that the Government should place the marketing of all western feed grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Others considered that the open market system should be retained both for sales within the Prairie region and in the rest of Canada.
Some believed that the Canadian Wheat Board should be the only seller of feed grains to parts of the country outside the Prairies and that the Livestock Feed Board of Canada should be the sole buyer. However, the price would have to be negotiated between the two boards and no effective method for doing this could be found. Consequently, a new policy was developed to provide a national market for feed grains with prices established by the full interplay of supply and demand. This provided all users in Canada with access to feed grains in all regions of Canada.
The marketing system was changed to provide direct access to western supplies by users in all parts of Canada through the open market. Subsequently, arrangements were developed involving the Canadian Wheat Board and the Livestock Feed Board of Canada on a basis for sales of Canadian Wheat Board grains into the domestic feed market at corn competitive prices. This is a very condensed review of facts concerning

June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement
the evolution of the open market and the board marketing systems.
However, the hours provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired. Pursuant to the order of Thursday, June 14, 1984, the House now resumes the consideration of Government Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please! Pursuant to Standing Order 58,1 now leave the chair for the House to go into a Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the Agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, and the Government of Canada and to amend the National Parks Act in consequence thereof-Mr. Campbell (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)-Mr. Herbert in the chair.
On Clause 2-Definitions
Harold Thomas Herbert: At five o'clock when we interrupted the discussion, Clause 2 was before the committee and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic had put some questions.


René Gingras: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a correction to the answer I gave earlier concerning the number of Inuvialuit covered under the Alaska agreement. They are included in Canada if they are not party to other claims within Canada, but for those Inuvialuit who are registered under the Alaska agreement, practically ... those are "cash basically, cash payout" settlements and, generally speaking, the number is insignificant compared to the problem which would have faced the department or the agreement with respect to discrimination against people who receive $6.88 or $7 a month, or about $600 a year, I believe. I wanted to correct the answer I gave earlier to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to butt in on the questions of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, but the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary begs a further
question as to what were the numbers. He did not give the numbers. Also, what kind of research was done to determine the cross-over between the two countries, between Canada and the United States? How much and what kind of research was done?


René Gingras: Mr. Chairman, there were 179 all told, more or less, and according to the research that was done, it was noted that even Old Crow Dene were covered under the Alaska agreement. As to the kind of research it was done by inscription. Concerning the settlement of native people claims, under the terms of the ONC settlement, it does not matter whether they are beneficiaries under other treaties outside Canada, the important thing is to know whether they are beneficiaries under another treaty within Canada, in which case it would not be allowed.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I am to assume by the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary that an individual could be the beneficiary of the COPE agreement as well as a beneficiary of the agreement in Alaska. If the Government is not concerned about an individual being the beneficiary of a claim other than the one in Canada, it is possible for a person to be a beneficiary of both claims-one in Canada and one in Alaska.


René Gingras: The hon. member is quite right. Undeniably, the act makes it possible for a person to be a beneficiary of two claims, provided they are not both in our country.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, my questions relate to a different subject. If the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin wants to pursue this particular point, I will defer to him.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I have one further question. I have always been concerned that there could be a transfer of beneficiary for a person who followed herds in the North for the purpose of hunting. Any individual could claim that in fact he had travelled in both countries. Therefore, it would be very important for our Government not to provide benefits to an individual who in fact was a resident of Alaska, even though he perhaps hunted in this country. That would not seem to be fair.
I would assume that the Government and the negotiators have found out the principal residence of individuals and whether the people involved in the COPE agreement agreed that they ought to be beneficiaries. If that has been done, I have no concern about individuals being beneficiaries in both areas. However, it does not seem fair that Canada should be so gracious and generous as to provide an individual with a principal residence in Alaska who received settlement there with the same agreement here. The people in the North are beneficiaries of the agreement.
June 26, 1984


René Gingras: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to paragraph 5(1) of the agreement which reads:
The Inuvialuit are best able to determine who should be eligible under the Inuvialuit Land Rights Settlement-
Paragraph 5(2) reads:
A person shall be eligible to be enrolled as a beneficiary if, as of the date of the Settlement Legislation, that person is a living Canadian citizen-
An individual is eligible if he can vote here, was born here, or qualifies under any of the other conditions listed on page 4 in the section entitled "Eligibility and Enrolment".


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions dealing with Annex E which appears in the two separate documents before us.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that we are discussing Clause 2 and that the subject he wants to discuss will be coming up at a later date.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to let the opportunity pass. Normally there is a general discussion on Clause 2. Rather than go on to a clause because there is an interrelationship between several clauses in the Bill and several paragraphs in the agreement, if it meets with the approval of the Chair, I would prefer to do it all now.
If the Parliamentary Secretary would compare Annex E, which is a map of the north slope of the Yukon, as it appears in the Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement, with the one in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, he will see a significant change has been made in the drafting of the maps. I am given to understand that the Government of the Yukon approved the map as it appeared in the inuvialuit Settlement Agreement. However, if we look at the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which is presumably the one that will come into law, we find that the dividing line between the western portion of the north slope and the eastern portion of the north slope has been moved quite a bit eastward and that an additional area in excess of 100 square miles is to be included in the western portion.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why this discrepancy exists? Why has that change been made as between the two agreements?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, what I find in this book entitled "Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement" is not a map but rather a sketch; and in reply to the hon. member's enquiry, I can assure the committee that it is the description which appears in Part XI which shall prevail over any sketch. And in the French text, they refer to the north slope of the Yukon-approximately. I can also assure the committee that from now on in any future document, the map will match the description exactly, and the dividing line will follow the Babbage River, as indicated on page 5 of the Bill, line 5: "to its intersection with the right shoreline of the Babbage River".
Western Arctic Agreement
That is the right definition of the boundary of the national park. It is the centre line, the right side of the river Babbage. The description in the Bill takes precedence over the sketches. Be sure that what is in the law is not in the sketch. Maybe I see a difference between them, but I can assure the Hon. Member that in the final distribution we will have the correct point on the map.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, it looks like we are going to have three to choose from. I have read the description of the western portion pursuant to the two agreements, Section 12(5) in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and it would appear to me just by looking at this map that the correct map or sketch, as the Parliamentary Secrectary cares to call it, is the first one if you go by the description in Section 12(5) of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Therefore, I would suggest that the map which corresponds to that is to be found in the Inuvialuit Settlement Agreement and not the map that is to be found in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
When things are brought before Parliament, we should not have these discrepancies. The Department should do its work in a more accurate fashion. The western portion of the north slope is to be set aside as a national park. If you contrast that description to the description found in the Bill that establishes the national park you will see there is a considerable difference in the description of this land. Major changes have been made. Why has this been the case?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, it is not on the floor of the House that I could determine whether the river really appears on the sketch where it should be, but I can assure the House that the description of the Northern Yukon National Park in the Bill is really the official text which I could read . . . but it is so technical ... I can assure you that that is what we have right here. However the sketches which appear in the Schedules of the Act or the Schedule of the Agreement are not official. But I cannot, on the basis of these technical descriptions, determine where the river should be.


Dave Nickerson: June 26, 1984
Western Arctic Agreement


René Gingras: 
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, there is no question of deliberately misleading. What we are doing today is establishing in law the boundaries of the Yukon North Slope Park. People who have gone over this description in the Yukon, in the employ of the Government of the Yukon, question whether that indeed is the correct latitude. I was just making sure that we do not pass into law something that is erroneous. That is the point behind it. We will go on to-


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, before the Hon. Member switches to another subject, I would like to clarify this point. In Canada, we have a General Surveyor who does the surveying of the land. He then submits his report and tells us where the boundary will be. This description is accepted by the parties involved, the Yukon Government, the Canadian Government and the other interested parties. Then, I am asked in this House whether the land measurement are accurate. Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether you have ever been to the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, but if you ask me whether or not the boundary is in the right place, I cannot answer this question. I rely on what the General Surveyor of Canada says.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, nobody is questioning The Survey General, not the general survey but the Survey General. We are questioning whether there is another misprint in the Bill. It has come to light that the Bill contained misprints when it arrived before Members of Parliament. There is a possibility that there might be another misprint in the Bill. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how many square miles are contained in the national park that is proposed to be establish pursuant to this Bill?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, we could perhaps start from the description and walk around to determine exactly how many square miles there are. I did this when I was at school.
I do not know the figure in square miles or square kilometers, but one thing is certain, the area of the Park lies within the boundaries specified in the document.


Dave Nickerson: It is almost incomprehensible, Mr. Chairman, that the Government should come before us today to establish a new national park and not be able to tell us how many square miles are in it. It is evident that the Government has not done its homework on the matter that is before us today. I am very disappointed in the performance of the Government.
I have another question to ask which deals with a matter I brought up in my presentation on second reading of this Bill. It deals with a reindeer grazing preserve and the rights to graze reindeer in certain areas of land that have now been transferred to the COPE jurisdiction. May we have the assurance of the Government that it will deal honestly and faithfully with the owners of the reindeer herd so that those owners do not find themselves at a loss as a result of the passage of this Bill?


René Gingras: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that, because the treatment that has been meted out to these people so far has left a great deal to be desired.
My final question deals specifically with Clause 8, but I might as well ask it now since you have been so lenient with me, Mr. Chairman. The coming into force of this Bill is to happen on a day fixed by proclamation. I wonder if we could be advised of when the Government contemplates that proclamation will take place?


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, if we could pass this Bill quickly this evening, the Senate would have it for consideration tomorrow. In fact, they have already looked into it today. I believe that the Bill could become law before the end of the week.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is that he would expect the Bill to come into force upon the giving of Royal Assent. That is the normal way of doing things when a coming into force clause is not included in a Bill. If he is telling us that that is the intention of the Government, why has a coming into force clause been included in the Bill at all? The only time such a clause is included is when something must be put into being before the Bill can become law; something that usually takes a matter of several weeks, several months or, on occasion, several years to happen before the Bill is proclaimed and comes into law. The answer he just gave to my question simply does not make sense.
[ Translation]


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific reason why no date was mentioned in this Bill. Many of the Bills passed by the Government of Canada specify in their final
June 26, 1984

clause that they will come into force on the day of their proclamation. I cannot anticipate the wishes of the Senate or of His Excellency the Governor General and say when the Act will be proclaimed. I am still waiting for the Bill to be passed, and I hope that the people in the Western Arctic who have accepted this agreement will be happy to see it enacted.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely why I asked the question. The people in the area affected would like to see this Bill passed into law. It is rather passing strange that there should be such a coming into force clause in this Bill, a clause which would enable the Government, even with the passage by both Houses of Parliament and the giving of Royal Assent, to delay having this Bill actually become law and the terms of the agreement become effective. That is precisely the reason why I asked the question. It is very apparent that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know why it was necessary to include that particular clause, and neither can he give us any indication of when the Bill might come into force and have the strength of law.
[ Translation]


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, I still do not know what the Hon. Member for Western Arctic is trying to say. We have here an agreement signed by the people of the area, who are partly represented by the Hon. Member, and ofwhomagreat majority have voted in favour of this agreement, which clearly provides that the Government agrees to have legislation passed to bring the agreement into effect. I really do not know what the people of Western Arctic will tell him. There may be a few people in his constituency who are against this Bill, but this does not mean that the majority of the people are against it. I would even say that the majority of the people are in favour of it, and I hope that, during the summer, they will have an opportunity to say so to the Hon. Member.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Chairman, this is becoming an exercise in stupidity. I am asking questions and receiving no answers whatsoever. I am simply receiving stupid statements that do not make any sense whatsoever. Precisely what I am saying is that the people of the western Arctic, after many, many years of negotiations, want this Bill to come into force. All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary is why it will not come into force upon Royal Assent, which is normally the case with a Bill which does not include a coming into force clause? This clause is included in the Bill. Why is it included in the Bill? Why does the Government contemplate some form of delay and how long will that delay be? These are very simple questions.


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, Clause 8 specifies that this Act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 2 carry?
Interest Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall the Bill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


INTEREST ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Interest Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to review a few problems which regard the Interest Act and to relay a few of my concerns with regard to the Bill. First, I would like to state that mortgage interest rates have been the disaster of the eighties. Interest rates have caused very unsettling conditions for the housing market and have created an unsettling condition for Canadian citizens who want ot own homes. This Bill is not solving the problem. The problem is deep and, as I have previously mentioned, home ownership on a percentage basis has declined from in excess of 68 per cent during the last seven years. My concern is that homes are something which every Canadian citizen should be permitted to own, live in and enjoy.
Part of the trouble with the housing industry has been brought about by the Government. At the present time the Government is consuming approximately 92 per cent of savings. That affects the interest rates. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) tells us every day that Canadian interest rates are tied to American interest rates. If the management of this economy had been better, I believe that we would have been in a better condition and we would have retained the equity which fled the country between 1977 and the present time. Another problem is housing starts, which are currently at 50 per cent of demand. It is interesting that every time 1,000 additional housing starts are created, 2,300 additional jobs are created.
This Bill was partially brought about as a result of the change in the Bank Act which permitted federal banks to become involved in mortgage financing. Prior to that, mortgages were principally handled by trust companies, building

June 26, 1984
Interest Act
associations and similar vehicles. The change in the Bank Act permitted the banks to become involved. Prior to that time, because there was not the variation in rates that there is today, the traditional understanding was that in order to cancel a mortgage there would be a three-month bonus to the mortgagor. During the recent period of dramatic increases and falls in interest rates, the three-month bonus was hidden in the body of the mortgage. It was used as another explanation for the penalty the person would have to pay to readjust a mortgage which would be based on the interest rate which was in effect at the time it was to be rearranged. Therefore, if a person took out a 20 per cent mortgage and the rate dropped to 12 per cent, that person would be required to pay 6 per cent on the commuted value of the mortgage over the life of the mortgage. That has created a misunderstanding. The public has been faced with the tremendous burden of serious penalties. Those penalties were imposed upon them and hidden in the body of the mortgage document. That has caused financial losses to a number of people.
I know of a number of people who wanted to move in order to upgrade their homes. When they attempted to sell their home, they found out that they had lost $3,000 to $6,000 in penalties on which they had not counted. Some of those people had received information which was incorrect, not from the lender but from the general public. At least this Bill spells out what they will encounter. However, I do not believe it is fair. It is legitimizing the clauses which were included in mortgage documents by the banks and the trust companies to protect themselves against great losses from a change in the interest rates. We must keep in mind that the banks have billions of dollars of non-interest bearing deposits. The banks can better afford losses than can the individual home owner.
We need to have mortgage interest stabilization. This subject has not been addressed nor has it been dealt with. However, we require stabilization to encourage home ownership which will bring it back up to the 70 per cent level. If that were done, it would create at least 100,000 additional housing starts per year, which would take close to one-quarter of a million people off the unemployment ranks. If we could get six of those, we could solve the major effect of unemployment in Canada. 1 do not believe it can be done by the Liberal Government. It has been unimaginative in its legislation. It has done nothing to help the people of Canada. Farmers have suffered and home owners have suffered.
On Friday, I spoke on Bill C-37. That legislation was intended to protect the mortgagee against an increased rate upon renewal. I gave statistics which indicated that the Bill would do very little for those individuals unless they had a five-year mortgage on a 10 per cent rate. If rates went up to 18 per cent they would get the difference between 12 per cent and 18 per cent, for a net of 6 per cent. In that case, the mortgage insurance plan would work, but it is being implemented at the wrong time.
During this period there have been some companies which have been extremely helpful. I would like to mention them because I have had hundreds of complaints from people who
could not afford the penalty which was imposed. I have had co-operation from a number of institutions. There are three institutions in particular with which I have had some success. One is National Trust. I went to the regional vice-president and he, in turn, sent me to the regional manager. I had success with the Canada Trust which, through its executive vice-president, gave me some consideration. I had great help in several cases from the Bank of Montreal. But the examples I give you were in the minority. There were many other financial institutions which just said, "Tough bananas. Tell your constituents to lump it". Those institutions were totally unfair and unrealistic with these people. However, I did want to mention the three institutions I had success with because they were a great help to my constituents. They were fair to them and have assisted them.
The Hon. Member from British Columbia-I cannot think of his riding-has brought out the fact that we have to provide somehow long-term mortgages with reasonable interest rates. There was a committee hearing today at which, unfortunately,
I was not present. The hearing related to agri-bonds to help lower interest rates for farmers. A possible expansion of that may be one route which could be taken. I have not investigated this route nor have I reviewed it, but possibly through that system we could experiment with providing long-term interest rates so that when a man bought a home he could buy a 20- year mortgage, as he was able to do in the past. In the United States until recently, that 20-year mortgage meant that the rate you established when you bought that home lasted for the full life of the mortgage, and at the end of 20 years your mortgage would be paid off unless you refinanced. We must provide some stabilization in the interest market along those lines in order to help people to own homes.
What this Bill provides is a rate differential between the mortgage and the prevailing rate. As you know, mortgage rates are traditionally at a higher rate due to the risk factor. And there is a risk in a mortgage as compared to a money instrument. But the interest rates are higher. Part of the mortgagor's risk was taken into consideration through this higher interest rate. I feel that we should maintain the three-month penalty. I understand that it cannot be done. I understand there must be some compromise between the three-month penalty and something to assist the large mortgagors, but possibly a formula cold be developed where all mortgages, no matter of what length, could have a three-month penalty. On top of that there could be an additional penalty of one-half month for each 1 per cent variation in interest rate, up to a maximum of a six-month penalty. The reason I suggest this is that it is a compromise to help the mortgagors and it will help the mortgagees. It is something which would work for both of them. The mortgagor would know that the maximum penalty he is going to suffer is six months. At least we have gone from the potential of three months at the low end to a six-month maximum penalty at the high end.
I believe this is a plan which should be investigated in committee. I will bring it forward myself in committee. I am
June 26, 1984

delighted to hear the Minister of State for Finance agree that there could be some compromise plan which would help all people.
We cannot afford this interest rate variation, the peaks and the lows. It can be stabilized if we get economic growth back in Canada, but I have seen no Bills go through this House which will encourage economic growth in the medium and small business sector. I must admit that our present upswing has been basically caused by the multinationals, particularly the automobile industry which is selling bigger cars. Chrysler came out with a new product which it is producing in Canada. That is the only thing which has brought us around. I noticed an article in the local Whitby Chamber of Commerce bulletin which says that bankruptcies were down this March from last March. My answer to it was to keep in mind that there have been so many bankruptcies over the last four years that there are fewer businesses to go bust. That is a critical problem with which we are dealing here in Canada. We need more entrepreneurs to create business and in turn to create jobs. Nothing has come down the pipes from this Government which is going to create jobs. It has made some minor adjustments in the Income Tax Act, of which I approve, but they are minor adjustments. They have made some minor adjustments in the research and development allowances for tax relief. But there is nothing to say to the Canadian people, "This is a great country. We will be behind you. We will simplify your life and make it easy for you to become an entrepreneur and to be successful".
To be competitive with the rest of the world we must put some things in place now. I do not think we have time to do so before we recess. We will not block this Bill any more, but we would like to discuss it extensively in committee. We would like to find another solution, because the average citizen, when he reads this Bill and reads his mortgage document, would not understand what the cost is going to be. Give him a fixed sum of money based on certain interest variations. Do not leave it the way it is, because the mortgagee would not know he has a chance of losing his home if the interest rate goes up beyond a certain point.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about Canadian ownership and I would like to see this Bill in committee so that we can review it and come up with a solution.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking briefly to Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Interest Act, I would first of all like to read briefly from the explanatory note to the Bill as it appears in Clause 2 on page la of Bill C-36, and I quote:
Clause 2: These amendments would require certain terms of mortgages on real property to be disclosed if any interest and certain charges are to be payable on or with respect to any money secured thereby. These amendments would also provide a new statutory right to prepay moneys secured by mortgages on real property and further provide that prepayment charges can be recovered only if they are disclosed in the required manner.
That is one of the items in the Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, and of course this Bill is very limited in its impact, but it does
Interest Act
do some things. It can perhaps be said that it is an example of the classic definition of a Liberal, which is that a Liberal is a person who believes in reform as long as it does not cost him or her anything; in other words, the impression and perception of change without any real substance. From now on, thanks to Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Interest Act, when a home owner finds himself or herself, due to a change in rates, faced with the choice of prepaying moneys secured by a mortgage on real property, he or she will have less call to complain legitimately about the cost. He will at least be required to be told in advance what the cost of any penalties will be. In that sense it will be a plus in terms of the fact that it is a public relations job for the banking industry and the trust companies. Home owners may still get shafted, but at least they will have the right to see the shaft coming. It is also, to be fair, a concession to the rights of the public and consumers to know. That is a plus, albeit perhaps a minor plus, to the Bill.
No one can oppose it and no one in the House will be opposing it. There will perhaps be some attempts at change, slight adjustments, but the Bill is of course doing nothing, nor does it pretend to, to solve the interest rate crisis looming once again before Canadians. Interest rates have again been rising in the last few weeks to the same astronomical levels which caused the electoral defeat of the Conservative Government in 1979. They refused to act at that time to protect Canadians, just as the Liberal Government has been refusing to act to protect Canadians in the last few months. They failed even more miserably going back to the period of the absolutely devastating rates of 1981 and 1982.
My colleagues and I in the NDP made a number of proposals over the last few months, and I do not intend to repeat them now. There is no point. We will be raising this subject again, and our proposals to attempt to deal with the interest rate crisis, with the electorate over the next few months. I do not think anything I could say now would convince the Government or the Official Opposition to act in a way other than the way they have acted over the last five years. Their record has been one of failure.
In any case I will not take up any more time of the House at this juncture except to say that here we are getting the appearance, but no real action. It will not stop anyone from being shafted, but at least they may be able to see the shaft coming. I suppose that is a bit of a plus and we ought to be thankful for small mercies.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a very few remarks to this Bill which will be going from here to committee. I think that is the very least that should happen to it. The Bill is symbolic of what is wrong with this Government. What is the Liberal Government's approach to the question of the right of people to prepay interest on their mortgage loans? It is this abomination, this bureaucratic, mind-boggling, impossibly complicated abomination. We have to say to ourselves that we are simply passing this legislation in the last stages of a dying Parliament because

June 26, 1984
Interest Act
this is the best shot the Liberal Government can give to a very serious problem. When I look at this Bill it is obvious that it will take every Rhodes scholar who ever came from Canada to explain what the Liberal Government had in mind with respect to this legislation.
The Bill removes a very simply concept with respect to existing prepayment provisions. Everyone in this country understands that after five years a mortgagor has the right to prepay the amount of his loan with three month's interest as a bonus. Under this legislation the whole thing is now committed to regulatory law. It makes you wonder what these people are thinking about.
I was interested to hear the NDP point of view again with respect to interest rate policy. I remember when the NDP stood cheek by jowl with the Liberal Party in their traditional role of support. At election time they always try to make sounds as if they were moving separate and apart from the Liberal Party, but they were there to help bring down a government at a time when they said the interest rates were at an unacceptable level. They were there standing by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) when he said that anyone in government who had any principles would resign if interest rates exceeded 14 per cent. That is what he said he would do if he were part of any government which allowed interest rates to escalate to what? I think they were 13 per cent at the time I was part of the Government. There they were, the Liberals and the NDP, conspiring together. This is outrageous, the NDP said, and supported the Liberals in bringing down our Government. Now they are trying to dissociate themselves from the Government. But where were they when interest rates went up to 22 per cent? These people were still supporting the Liberals on every important vote.
I only mention this to put things into perspective, because I think the previous speaker may have left the impression that somehow he was "Simon Pure" with respect to the matter of support of the Liberal Party. I do not want to put too much of a blot on the record of the NDP by bringing these facts out. But we should remember these facts, because the people of Canada remember what that Party did to a sane and reasonable government with a sane approach to the interest problems of this country.
There is apprehension and concern on the part of the average Canadian about the future of interest rates in this country. People across Canada with mortgages on their homes have every right to be concerned. Interest rates in the U.S. will have an impact here. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) has been very vocal about the suggestion that we are the slave of what happens down in the U.S. and we have absolutely no ability to protect Canadians. If American interest rates go up, we stand ready, aye ready, to follow. Well, we know what is happening in the U.S. and we know what has happened with this Liberal Government. Interest rates went up to 22 per cent, a fantastic level. We know the hardship that caused many people. We know they were put in an impossible situation. Now the Liberal Government has spoken with the approval of its new leader. I am sure Mr. Turner must have been consulted on whether this Bill should go forward in its
present form. If I were Mr. Turner, I would be looking at the legislation package for the end of the session and saying, I will take that one, and kill that. I will take this one, and kill that. I am sure the Government has gone through that consultation process. If they have not, Mr. Turner will still not be able to say that this belongs to another government, another era, and he had no part of this. Ele is leader now, this legislation is his best shot on mortgage interest policy in this country, and I hope that when the election takes place this summer we will not have the unfortunate scene of Mr. Turner trying to say, "well, this is all part of the Trudeau era, I have other ideas." It will not wash. Mr. Turner is in control of the Party and if he said this Bill was not to go through, it would not go through.
We have some very serious concerns about this legislation. It is muddying the waters. The people of Canada should not expect these proposals to be anything more than a panacea for the difficulties they face. In fact, I suggest it is going to complicate their lives. People who have mortgages will not have their expectations met. It was pointed out by a number of my colleagues that this legislation has serious defects. No one has any objection to disclosure; what the people of Canada want is a simple formula which will let them know what their rights are on prepayment. They do not want some cockamamie piece of paper which says that some bureaucrat somewhere in the bowels of Ottawa is going to devise a set of rules to allow them to somehow know what their rights are or what their mortgage interest rates are going to be. We now have smoke and mirrors. This Bill personifies pretty well what is wrong with the Liberal Government. It is beyond belief that the government Members would bring this Bill forward at this point in time in the session. We will let them have their best shot. We will put it through to committee. We will be asking some hard questions in committee. We will expect the Minister to be there with his officials to explain what this means and how this is going to be of any assistance at all to the mortgage holders of Canada. There is concern.
One way that the people of Canada will be able to get good legislation through with respect to various problems is to have a real change. They do not want a cosmetic change or a Liberal Party with a new leader. They want a new administration that is going to deal in a responsible manner with respect to two elements. A Progressive Conservative Government will let people know what their rights are, in very simple legislative terms, in terms of prepayment of their mortgages. Not only will the people know, the people involved in the mortgage business will have a very clear legislative direction.
All the people sitting on the Liberal benches will be able to watch Parliament after the next election from their living rooms in their own home constituencies. I want them to understand that we tried to tell them that this legislation is not adequate to meet the problems faced by people with escalating interest rates on the mortgages on their homes. We tried to be constructive. We tried to tell them to come to their senses before it was too late. We will pass this legislation if the
June 26, 1984

Government wants to ram it through with its majority. We will deal with the matter. We are not going to be obstructive. It seems to me that this is an indication that the Government has run out of ideas and perspective. It is out of touch with the Canadian people. If the Government had consulted with the Canadian people and found out what they were saying, this abomination would never have been presented to Parliament for swift consideration. We tried to tell them what to do and we tried to be helpful. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this is their best effort. We will have the matter go to committee, at which time we will have some questions to ask and some positions to put forward. If this is the best they can offer, it is a sad commentary on the kind of Government they are presenting to the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? For debate, the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to participate in debate on Bill C-36, and Act to amend the Interest Act. Clause 2 of the explanatory notes reads:
These amendments would require certain terms of mortgages on real property to be disclosed if any interest and certain charges are to be payable on or with respect to any money secured thereby.
I listened with interest to the Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). It was interesting to note that he tied the New Democratic Party with the Liberals. In fact the newly elected Leader of the Conservative Party was a director of the Bank of Commerce. The newly elected Leader of the Liberal Party also served as a director of the Bank of Commerce.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are wrong.


Sidney James Parker: Well, one of the major banks. There are very close ties in industry as well as in banking.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Get your facts straight and come back later.


Sidney James Parker: There are ties with one of the major banks. We see some very close ties there. Until we start to address the problems with regard to mortgages and interest rates, those are the kinds of ties that will have to be addressed. We see political Parties tied with major banks and major industries through directorships. How is the ordinary individual going to get anyone to stand up in the House and really address the question of interest rates?
The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are the same. They are the same as they are in British Columbia where the Liberals and the Conservatives sit together and call themselves Social Credit. This afternoon we are debating interest rates. It is a token program introduced by a dying Government in the last stages of our session. It is a token program to address this very urgent and pressing requirement of the Canadian people. Mortgage interest rates must be addressed in a positive way. There is only one way it can be done, that is, through the Bank of Canada. Mr. Bouey of the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Government must come up with a policy setting out
Interest Act
mortgage rates as they were after the war when the Veterans Act was passed and special consideration was given to mortgage rates. If it could be done then, it can be done now.
As elected people we can sit down and develop a program through the Bank of Canada. Our problems lie in the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the newly elected Leader of the Liberal Party have histories of sitting on the boards of directors of major industries and major banks in Canada. We must recognize that Canadian people need affordable housing. Interest rates must be such that when mortgages are taken out the people will have confidence that they will be able to carry them through.
We talk about interest rates. We talk about the various governments and their policies and we talk about equality. Where is the equality in people not being able to live in affordable housing in Canada with proper interest rates? Where is the equality in someone being forced out of his home because of a Government that does not recognize that a person's home is his sanctuary? There must be a program put in place to meet those financial needs. Mortgage interest rates must be kept at affordable levels. There is virtually no protection of any long-standing nature in this Bill. When are we going to present something concrete which will allow people to enter a long-term mortgage with the confidence that they will be able to fulfil that agreement?
Until we address that problem and separate the Leader of the Official Opposition and the newly elected Leader of the Government from their ties with the corporate structure and the banking industry, we are going to be faced with this kind of problem. This Bill will not address that. We strongly oppose this kind of measure which really has no significance to any of our people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Dionne):: Questions or comments? Debate? Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We on the Government side are fully prepared to move on to the next order of business as indicated by the Government House Leader, which I believe would be the Bank Act, Bill C-30. However, I understand that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) wants to talk on that. As a result, I believe there were discussions to the effect that, notwithstanding the House Order on extended hours passed some time ago, we should call it nine o'clock at this time.

June 26, 1984
Interest Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the House or anyone to be under any misapprehension. The Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) clearly stated the order of business today. I responded by saying that it was satisfactory.
There has been no consultation or discussion about dealing with any other items of legislation. Of course, we are prepared to proceed on the basis of having some advance knowledge about government Bills that are supposedly coming up. There was no back-up Bill with respect to the Bank Act.
The Government House Leader was quite clear and unequivocal. He has not consulted with me about any other legislation. To be quite frank, I asked him what would happen if we finished before nine o'clock and he said that will be the end of the day.
1 do not want it to be laid at my Party's doorstep that we are not prepared to work. We are prepared to work in the interest of Canadians morning, noon and night. We will consent to it, but it is not because we are not prepared to sit here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I gather that there is unanimous agreement to adjourn the House at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed by unanimous consent to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow-


An Hon. Member:: The late show?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but there can only be debate on the adjournment motion if Hon. Members are here to debate. Of course, it is not for the Chair to indicate what the wish of the House is at the moment. My interpretation of what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said, which seemed to be confirmed by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), is that the House now ajdourn for the day.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 27, 1984