1987-10-30

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, at a meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs last evening I made an intemperate remark regarding the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I want to completely withdraw that remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 29, 1987, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue debate on Bill C-87 which normally would be considered, I suppose, a housekeeping Bill, but a fairly substantial housekeeping Bill in that it is a proposal that attempts to fulfil a commitment to many other countries of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades to harmonize tariff structure and the Customs Act in our country and to make our procedures similar to those of the other countries.
This process has been ongoing for some seven years. It has been very long and tedious work to figure out each of the
procedures that will have to be put in place so that governments can adjust in a way that the tariffs will be levied consistently right across the membership of GATT. As I noted, it has taken some seven years for the initial preparation of the numbers for what has now become Bill C-87.
Early in October we were presented with reams of paper brought to us with the little trucks and carts of the House of Commons, something over 3,000 pages, I am told, of very detailed lists of the changes that will be involved due to this harmonization of the Customs Tariff Act.
After having worked at this for some seven years, the Government is now proposing that industry will have until the end of this calendar year, December 31, to digest and understand all of the changes that will affect its operations with regard to customs and tariffs and the importation of materials that it might need. The exportation procedures that will have to be followed, if they are to be complied with, will also have to be taken into consideration.
We think that this is too fast. We do not think people in the industry have had enough time to digest these more than 3,000 pages of proposals that are before them. We are suggesting to the Government that it wait at least until April 1, 1988. That is a fairly common courtesy and a common procedure in that it is the beginning of our fiscal year.
This will give industry an extra three months to digest what it is that it is supposed to be doing to make changes to procedures so that large errors will not be made in the computation of what is owed or what should be collected. As a result, perhaps, it will force some industries into a very tenuous financial position because of having misunderstood some of the changes that are to come with the implementation of these tariffs.
We have been spending some time attempting to bring this matter to the attention of the Government to point out that it is extremely important that the implementation of these procedures be delayed for at least three months so that industry has an opportunity to catch up. I say that because there are so many pages to digest.
We have been trying to make a similar type of argument with regard to an even more important, in some respects, trade arrangement that the Government has more recently involved itself in, that is, the agreement that was initialled with the United States of America. We are being rushed in respect of this one as well by the Government. It has been telling us that

October 30, 1987
Customs Tariff
we should be prepared to hold hearings on it even before the final text is available.
The position of the Government seems to be that the committee, a committee of the House of Commons, and the general public itself, will have to make do with the initial overall general statements to decide whether or not an industry or an individual company will be negatively or positively affected by this agreement. It is virtually impossible to make those kinds of calculations and analyses if all of the facts are not before one.
So here we have an instance in which the Government has in fact put all the data in front of us, more than 3,000 pages, much of it in very detailed tabular form. But it is very difficult to sift through 3,000 pages, as you can well imagine, Mr. Speaker, to assess what this will mean in terms of the operation of any particular company that is involved in importing and exporting. It is therefore our contention that more time should be permitted for these people to understand the system and to make the internal changes that are necessary so that the collection and payment of duties and tariffs is done correctly.
We do not disapprove on our side of the House of the process of having entered into these harmonizations with the other GATT nations. I think it will lead to some improvement in the trade relations between the close to 100 countries that are involved in the GATT at the moment. But we think that improvements could be made to the method of implementing it. Much of it could be corrected, we think, with a little more time being permitted to the various affected groups.
We have had representations since the tabling of those 3,000 and some pages. We have heard from important groups across Canada, such as the various industries that are members of the Automotive Industries Association whose members consist of people involved in after parts manufacturing, auto parts manufacturing, and the farm equipment industry. They are saying that they need more time to sift through this information. They have pointed out already some of the errors or omissions in the draft of the annex to the harmonization system that was made available to them back in May. They thought that the text of the amendments would be issued to them some time this November. Their committee report must now be delayed until some time in April. This makes it very difficult to fit in with the January 1 implementation date.
As a result of this delay it is very difficult for these people to even understand how this measure will impact upon them. The final wording of how each of the industries will have to comply will not even be available to them until that April 1 date. So it is really difficult to set up procedures beginning January 1. As I said earlier, three months of making the wrong choice on collection or payment of a tariff can put some companies very close to the verge of bankruptcy, if they have guessed what the rules will be on a wrong basis.
I speak for agriculture for my Party and I want to make a few brief comments with respect to the affect of trade
arrangements on farm equipment, because that is one item on which farmers spend a great deal of money.
At the outset I should point out that farm equipment has traded between Canada and the United States on virtually a free trade basis since the early to mid-1950s. So we have had more than 30 years of experience of virtual free trade. There are no tariffs or customs duties levied on new tractors, combines, or major pieces of equipment. Most smaller pieces of farm equipment cross the border virtually free of tariffs as well. I know that, regrettably, there are some people in the West who still believe that there is in fact a tariff on American equipment coming into Canada.
The rumour and the myth of protected eastern farm equipment manufacturers hiding behind tariffs is still rampant in western Canada. Regrettably, sometimes, it is fed by politicians out there. But I want to make it very clear that since the early 1950s the situation in reality has been one of no tariffs and no customs duties on new equipment.
There is, however, a difference about which we should all be aware between the Canadian and American dollars. When many producers look at the cost of a new tractor in the United States, compare the price listed there with one listed in Canada, they often forget to make the accommodation for the difference in the value of the American versus the Canadian dollar. When they do that they find that the price is virtually the same with, perhaps, some slight difference due to extra transportation costs to get the tractor from a U.S. plant into Canada.
One of the few tractor plants that we still have in Canada is the Versatile equipment plant. It is no longer Canadian owned. It went to the Ford Company. It is now an international corporation. The Government provided, I believe, something in the neighborhood of $40 million of assistance in one form or another for that deal to be consummated. The company has agreed to rebuild the plant and to make its equipment more automated. As a result of some of these changes, the Automotive Industries Association tells us that the Versatile farm equipment plant in Winnipeg will now be denied duty free entry of welding equipment for the automation of its company.
Under the proposals contained in those 3,000 pages tabled some weeks ago, we are less able to trade freely between our two countries in this important sector than we were before. In order for us to make use of the automated equipment to keep our plants competitive with American plants, we will now have to pay a duty, as the Automotive Industries Association interprets the numbers that were tabled here in early October. This does not seem fair. It seems particularly unfair when the Government has been talking loudly and long about free trade between our two countries in everything. We have an industry where free trade virtually existed in the business of farm equipment, tractors and combines in particular, and those
October 30, 1987

changes will now make it more difficult for the struggling tractor side of that market to continue functioning in Canada.
There are very important matters contained in those 3,000 pages which require far more time and attention than what has been given up to this point. 1 realize it is the intention of the Government to attempt to get as many of these types of Bills through as quickly as it can, but I think that this particular one is far too important to be permitted to go through quickly.
On the government side, there must be some thought given to extending the amount of time, setting back the implementation time, in order that the paperwork that the Government still has to do can be caught up before it becomes implemented. In that manner, the industry associations and the industries affected can make the proper accommodations and not be caught short preparing for something that is perhaps a misinterpretation or an unexpected result of what the final wording of the draft regulations might be. It is bad practice to make this type of change so precipitously when all of the paperwork has not been done.
I realize that it has taken seven years for the Government and its various agencies to get this far. Surely another three to six months could be permitted to allow the industry to catch up with Government, since it is starting from a dead start now and will only have five or six months to catch up. If the Government's proposal is put into effect now, it will only have two months to get everything in place, and it still does not have all of the final documentation and regulations in place to consult. Those will not be available from the Government until March 31 or thereabout.
It is not good administration or good government for this Bill to go through so quickly.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate because of the importance of the issue. It is the first time since Confederation that a Bill of this magnitude has been tabled in the House, and I think that although the subject matter is at times dense and complex, it deserves to be clarified for Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, this Ways and Means motion is particularly intimidating, with its two big volumes, although the principle of the Bill is quite simple. It is to harmonize the description of commodities and the coding system that are now used in the Customs Tariff.
The present system is quite complex because goods are classified in one of twelve groups, according to end use. As a result, goods will often fall into more than one category, which can cause confusion.
The decision to harmonize and to standardize so that the major industrial countries would be using approximately the same system was undertaken on a multilateral basis with the European Economic Community, our neighbour to the South,
Customs Tariff
the United States, and Japan. In Canada, work on this has been going on since 1981, although the international negotiations, according to the information released by the Department, only began in October, 1986. The Bill before us will increase the number of tariff items from 3,500 to 8,000, and that is simply the subdivision of items. Naturally, we all know that as a result of Canada's negotiations through the years with GATT, more and more of our trade is free of tariff.

It will be easier for our traders, importers and exporters, to classify the goods and hopefully reduce classification appeals. Essentially we are dealing with a simplification, since detailed categories will be easier to use. This harmonization of commodity descriptions and coding system should make it easier to trade, because major trading partners will be using the same classification system for tariffs. It does not mean that the tariff rates will be the same. It only means that the classification under which they are operating will be harmonized.
We are told by the Minister, and I take his word, that it is revenue neutral. It is not a Bill that will in any way bring additional funds to the Government, but will afford our export and import markets a better harmonized commodity and coding system.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, therefore, I will finish my comments by stating that indeed we will support this Bill, as we believe it is time that Canada acted in a co-ordinated and cohesive manner with our trading partners. We believe it is appropriate that we should today approve of this process.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.
I wish to begin by picking up the theme of facilitation of both Canada's exporting and importing trade processes. I believe that this is an objective that is worthwhile pursuing. To some degree, it characterizes the statement that is often made, that it is the nuts and bolts of the business that are important. It is the attention to detail which should be meriting better consideration than it receives. The old saw is that it is harder to find a good plumber than a good lawyer, but in many cases more rewarding to do so.
What we are looking at in this Bill is an expansion of the categories of classifications of goods imported under the various customs tariffs, and, conversely, exported to our trading partners. That expansion should not mislead us because, of course, it stands for a better level of description, a better level of detail and, in essence, a very worth-while expansion of the standard taxonomy of description of trade goods.

October 30, 1987
Customs Tariff
I would not want to go into a long, historical perspective on the development of trade or on the development of customs tariffs as they particularly relate to the North American context and the interaction with our major trading partners. However, I think it is worth while to instance that the trading classification system at which we are looking today is one that has grown up over a period of centuries. That is a fact which should give the Government some cause for reflection, because the classification system is but part of the over-all discipline of trading relationships and the limitations or barriers, as some would term them, that have grown up around the trading relationships of Canada and indeed of all nations over such a long period of time.
These classifications, along with the tariffs which will be applied under these classifications, along with such matters as quotas, dumping, countervailing procedures, measures to promote domestic industry, and import substitution programs, constitute part of an interrelated scheme of trading regulation which, having grown up as I said over a period of centuries, should really not come under the jeopardy of being arbitrarily disbanded over a period of mere years or indeed mere decades.
Turning back to the harmonized commodity coding system, the usefulness of standardized coding systems, not only on the international but also on the national and interregional horizons, really requires no great argument to convince us of its utility. Many of us will have had experience with such harmonized coding systems as the international standard book number system, which is used by libraries to facilitate identification of text, and the Dewey decimal classification system, which I believe has been in use since the turn of the century to enable the classification of subject matters. Let us not underrate the significance of such systems as a means of international communication.
Lacking as our world does an international language understood by all, although through the course of history there have been languages which had legitimate pretensions to that status, it is very often necessary to resort to the use of a metalanguage, which of course the coding system essentially is, in order to determine the accurate identification and the complete understanding in the minds of all who relate to a particular issue as to what is the subject matter.
The harmonized coding system, which is in the process of being adopted and implemented by Canada's major trade partners and indeed by the major trading nations of the world-and eventually we would assume by all nations of the world-will have another benefit that I think should not be overlooked. Of course that would be the facilitation of the measurement and description of world trade as a whole.
World trade could not be properly classified if under some countries' reporting regimes certain items were included in groups, whereas other countries under their own reporting and classification regulations either disaggregated or aggregated those items with or without other similar products.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) mentioned the usefulness of harmonized classification in reducing the appeals which would be necessary against customs classifications. We must remember that in these appeals we are talking about a two-way process. We are talking of the process of Canadian importers bringing goods into the country under Canadian tariffs and about the process of Canadian exporters selling goods abroad under the tariffs of the importing nation. These appeals can indeed at times be lengthy and arduous, and very significant amounts can hang on the success or the failure of an appeal. The whole commercial transaction which gives rise to the importation of the good can be jeopardized depending on the classification of the good which is being imported. Naturally this is even more significant when going into countries which, unlike Canada, have significant tariff barriers for whatever reason, whether it be protection of domestic industry or simply the collection of revenue.
The harmonized commodity description coding system, the internationally based system for the standardization of customs tariff classification and statistical trade data, is one of those nuts and bolts improvements which will facilitate the continued development of international trading relationships. Canada, along with other members of the GATT, intends to implement legislation on the basis of the coding system by January 1, 1988. That will not lead to a dramatic improvement in Canada's trade balances or to a dramatic expansion of Canada's trade, but the fact that we are talking about an international coding system should turn back our attention in a very timely fashion to the international, the world-wide, or global dimension of Canada's trade. I think we have been preoccupied-and certainly the Government has been preoccupied-with bilateral trade and bilateral trade issues over the past few years; "bilateral" of course referring to Canada's trading relationship with the United States.
In the context of switching our focus to international trade, I think it is quite timely that we look at some of the failures of bilateral trade arrangements over the past few years, failures in large measure brought upon Canada by the Government, and draw from that the lesson and the moral that Canada must spend a great deal more attention on international trade on a multilateral basis.
For example, on June 6, 1986, the Government imposed a 10 per cent duty on books and periodicals in response to the American 35 per cent tariff on Canadian shakes and shingles. That action, presumably intended as retaliation or notice to the United States of Canada's displeasure, injured the very industry it was designed to protect. Canadian book publishing and book distribution and printing industries were naturally outraged at being the focal point of the Government's response. They made clear that the Government's decision to impose a 10 per cent duty on books and periodicals jeopardized an already fragile enterprise. The removal of that tariff in February, 1987, confirmed that the measure had been an ineffectual response. Were it that we had been able to remove
October 30, 1987

that tariff in response to the American Government removing the American tariff on shakes and shingles; however that was not the case and the continuing damage from the shakes and shingles tariff is something with which the Government will have to live and something for which the Government has to acknowledge responsibility for having inflicted it upon Canadians.
Like other speakers I should like to turn very briefly to the objections raised by the Automotive Industries Association of Canada.
Here of course we can bring out another obvious disagreement between the Government and this opposition Party, namely, that the Government considers that the Auto Pact is a free trade arrangement, whereas we in the New Democratic Party believe that the Auto Pact is essentially a fair trade and a managed trade arrangement of the type that we would like to see more. We do not believe that it is a free trade arrangement and we can certainly produce examples to back that up.
The Automotive Industries Association makes some very telling points about the way in which the standardized coding has been introduced. It points out that the Government's legislation on this coding system has been in process for some seven years. There will be a period not of years but of two or three months to respond and analyse the proposed system. This document, as the Association points out, of 3,000 pages, will receive no more than cursory examination by the majority of the Members of the House of Commons. I must commend the Association on its faith and also gently point out its naivety. The vast majority of this House will not have the time or the perseverance to look at a 3,000 page document on customs classifications.
As the Association says, the tight schedule precludes detailed study by the industries that will need to comply with the new system, something that should be commended to the Government. By and large it is not Government that bears the largest brunt of the consequences of any particular piece of legislation, legislation is by its very nature something that Government formulates to regulate that which as a Government it cannot regulate by policy or practice. Naturally most of the internal responsibilities and concerns of Government are regulated by internal policy and practice.
Errors and omissions which the Automotive Industries Association list are significant. It believes the after-market, the farm implement manufacturing and other industries affected are not informed or prepared for the changes in duty rates that will become effective. Those changes in duty rates, as the Minister has pointed out and none of us has cause to doubt him, are revenue neutral.
Because of the change of classification, certain items will become taxable at higher rates of duty whereas others will become taxable at lower rates of duty or will become duty free. As the Automotive Industries Association says, a significant
Customs Tariff
portion of Canadian industry exists because of the end use made/not made in Canada provisions. To abandon these concepts completely without a satisfactory conversion could result in the shifting of manufacturing capability to plants outside Canada.
Another point well made by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) is that relating to farm equipment. Now some of the intermediate products, if we can call them that-the machinery required to produce farm equipment itself-will now be subject to import duty. The AIA concludes by saying industry has not had seven years to gear up for the new coding system like Government. It has had less than seven months to obtain and digest the information and respond.
This should be a charge to the Government for future initiatives to have proper division between the time needed for consideration internally by Government and the time required by the private sector. This will allow the manufacturing and commercial sectors to adjust to what the Government is contemplating.
No discussion of any trade related measure in these times could be complete without reference to the free trade deal which the Government has made with the United States of America, perhaps more accurately I should say the Government believes it has concluded with the United States. That in itself represents a dramatic turn around in the views of key members of this Government from four or five years ago when they were contesting the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. I think it would be worth while for the people of Canada to hear quoted the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as recorded in an article in Maclean's magazine of June 13, 1983;
Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They will do
so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade, which
has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades.
Another candidate to that position, now the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) is also quoted in the same issue as saying:
It's silly.
It is indeed. He went on to say:
Canada must improve relations and trade with the United States, of course.
But our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak
sister.
Indeed, if anything shows the Government's willingness to become the weak sister of the United States of America it is the free trade deal which the Government believes it has concluded.
Some of the concessions which the Government made to the United States of America before the signatures were on the deal are worthy of recording. We gave up the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the National Energy Program. We gave up our drug licensing system which had been successful in providing low cost drugs. We have allowed American truckers to get full access to Canada. A duty was imposed on Canadian

October 30, 1987
Customs Tariff
groundfish without a response. A 35 per cent tariff was put on cedar shakes and shingles. There was the export tax of 15 per cent on softwood lumber which I see costing jobs in my riding and which has cost jobs in many areas across northern Ontario, and the duties of up to 85 per cent on Canadian exports of potash. There is American trade legislation to restrict access to the American market, tariffs and quotas on our steel exports; the enhancement program for grain exports which is cutting into traditional Canadian markets. Our only enduring response is a duty on American corn for feed purposes.
I do not believe the Government has cemented a trade relationship with the United States because there is the matter of American congressional approval. There is the much more significant matter that it may be possible for a court either in the United States or in Canada to rule that no agreement in the true sense of the word "agreement" has been reached by the signing of this very preliminary memorandum of understanding, as I believe it should be more fairly categorized.
In looking at this so-called free trade deal we are supposed to be seeing the future of Canada, but it is not a Canadian future which the Government is presenting to us.
\Translation\


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the following question to the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). He mentioned the situation in 1983. Now he will have to admit that the economy and the situation in the United States have changed considerably since 1983. In fact, we can accurately say that in 1983, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made those comments on free trade, the time was not as favourable nor the need as great, especially since Canadians could not see any pressing need to embark on such an agreement. Would he not agree that the situation has changed a great deal since 1983?
The Hon. Member mentioned the corn market. The situation was not as urgent in 1983. The protectionist laws that the various state assemblies in the United States would like to see passed were not being discussed at that time. It seems to me the situation has changed a great deal since 1983, and that is why it is understandable that at the time, the Right Hon. Prime Minister queried the relevance of such an agreement at that particular time. But would the Hon. Member not agree that the situation is entirely different today?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) that the context had changed, but I disagree to the extent she would have wanted the House to understand.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the industrial structure, the international trade regulation review process which now exists in the United States has been in operation for four years; in other words, since 1983 the Americans have had their major external trade regulation institutions-both institutions and
processes-as well as the possibility of filing complaints before their various tribunals.
In the final analysis, what has happened since 1983 is that there has been a change in the attitude of the United States, of industries to a certain extent, of the American legislators, they have felt increased aversion towards trade, particularly imports.
What is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, is that the Canadian Government has been unable to change this attitude or to convince the Americans that our situation is different. As they say . . .
The man on the Indianapolis streetcar believes that American external trade is dominated by the Japanese, that it is the influx of Japanese and Asian electronic goods that represents the growing trade imbalance of the United States. That of course is not the reality and this Government has failed significantly to communicate to the United States what the reality is.
The reality, of course, is that it is not luxury products that the United States imports from Canada; it is not things that they could very well manufacture at home or indeed do without. The fact is that the bulk of Canadian imports into the United States, bearing in mind of course that the Auto Pact two-way flow is very significant, are the resource products that American industry requires as its basic inputs.
We are talking about, for example, the humble two-by-four upon which the American construction industry naturally depends. We are talking about such Canadian products as potash, upon which naturally American agriculture is highly dependent. We are talking about such products as newsprint, without the imports of which the American newspapers could not produce those fabulously fat daily and weekend editions of which they are so fond.
I would contend that the Government, in going hell-bent for a free trade deal, has ignored and neglected one of the most basic preparatory measures that I would have considered to be necessary, and that is ensuring that those on the other side are fully informed of the nature of the two-way trade relationship.
It has been said in Canada, and I think correctly, that two million jobs, particularly in the northern United States, depend directly on the production of goods for the Canadian market. What the Government has failed to do, of course, is convince the American public to sensitize the American legislative and decision-making organs to the significance to U.S. employment of that very great benefit to the United States of America, the existence of a purchasing Canadian consumer, a buying Canadian public, a Canadian market that has money to spend on the goods the United States produces.

HBB *BHHnHHnHBBHSBH
October 30, 1987


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's proposition that the only products Canada sends to the States are raw materials. On behalf of my constituents in Midland, Ontario, who work at Mitsubishi Electronics and are sending television tubes to the States, tubes which are subject to a harassing anti-dumping motion, and on behalf of my constituents who work at Fahramet in Orillia which processes high-quality steel valves for the oil industry in Texas, valves which are also subject to the same harassment, I wonder if the Hon. Member could explain why the United States is seeking protection against those high-quality, high-technology products that come from my riding.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has been around this place long enough to know that the best way to destroy an opponent's argument is of course to misrepresent it, I think he knows very well that I was talking about the total value of Canadian exports to the United States when I made the perfectly accurate proposition that the larger part of Canadian trade consisted of raw or semi-finished materials which were worked on further when they got to the United States. That is obviously not the case with all Canadian exports to the United States. It is obviously not the case with the television tubes and the valves for the oil industry produced by the Minister's constituents.
I think it is worth bearing in mind that the measures that are being taken or contemplated against the two products which my hon. colleague mentioned are being taken or contemplated under the provisions of mechanisms which have existed in the United States for many years. It is not something that has changed since 1983, and that of course was the gravamen of the question of my colleague from Gatineau.
I think I would complete my reply to my hon. colleague by citing the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who said in 1983, when questioned by Maclean's, that unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear and that before we jump on the bandwagon of continentalism-that is really what the Government is jumping on, is it not-we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If not, may we call it eleven o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


COMMUNICATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, CTV and TV A, both private networks, acquired the rights for the Calgary Games. The trouble is the TVA network reaches only a small percentage of francophone audiences outside Quebec, and then only on cable. I think it is outrageous that so many francophones outside Quebec will not be able to watch the Calgary Winter Games on television in their own language-in French.
The CRTC's solution to allow cablevision services to transmit the signal is unsatisfactory, because there are some serious drawbacks. First of all, not every francophone community outside Quebec has cablevision. In communities where the service does exist, transmission of the Games would mean depriving viewers of some of their regular programs, thus upsetting their viewing schedule. When a cable service substitutes a Canadian program in French for a regular program in English, whether Canadian or American, subscribers are quick to complain. So our language minorities are again getting the short end of the stick!
We know that the CBC has bought the rights and will broadcast the Games in English on the national network, for one hour a day for sixteen days. Why wasn't there a similar agreement with Radio-Canada which reaches 99 per cent of French-speaking Canadians, both in Quebec and outside Quebec?


EDUCATION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, this past week in Saskatoon, several of my House of Commons colleagues and I went through a tremendous learning experience. The first national forum called to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing post-secondary education through the 1990s and beyond brought together 600 educators and representatives of government, labour, the private sector and the disadvantaged.
We were brutally honest about one question: "Do we have the right education system for the 21st century?"

October 30, 1987
Along with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis), the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), and the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), I was there to hear the 600 delegates give a round of applause to Canada's Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) when the forum Chairperson, Brian Segal, noted that it was that Minister who convinced his cabinet colleagues and provincial counterparts to join him in bringing about this historic stepping stone in helping us arrive at a national education strategy.
If there was a consensus at the forum it was that you do not solve a problem simply by throwing more money at it. The forum embarked on setting out a national approach to what we want to do and who is going to do it.
Long live the spirit of Saskatoon!


HORTICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, all fruit and vegetable growers in the southwestern United States are benefiting from highly subsidized water. This impacts on all Canadian horticulture producers but is lessened by temporary seasonal import quotas designed to permit our growers to offer their prime harvest at slightly better prices.
University of Victoria Professor Derrick Sewell, in a speech he delivered on water policies in western Canada at the recent annual meeting of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, estimated that for every $350 worth of water consumed, American growers pay only $13. Our Government's negotiators did not target this item in the free trade agreement initialled earlier this month. Instead, they permitted U.S. negotiators to target our Western Grain Transportation Act as a subsidy on the transport of canola products at Vancouver. That is something the Americans will often refer to as the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, I am sure.
Why did our side not place U.S. water subsidies in black and white as well so that horticultural production can continue in Canada on a fair and equitable basis?


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the many measures implemented by the Government since it came
to power clearly demonstrate its desire to help small businesses succeed and to create a climate conducive to creativity.
This week, from October 25 to October 31, 1987, we are celebrating Small Business Week in Canada. Sponsored by the Federal Business Development Bank and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Week pays tribute to Canadian men and women who operate their own businesses.
This year, the theme of the Eighth Annual Small Business Week is: "The Creative Power of Entrepreneurship". More than 300 communities across Canada will be taking part in some 400 scheduled activities. Last year, Small Business Week attracted 175,000 visitors. This year, the Federal Business Development Bank has set up two new workshops that are being offered free: "Getting Started in Business" and "Various Options and How to Develop your Market". There will also be four special workshops: The balance sheet as management tool; Flow to run a business; Strategic planning; and How to identify business opportunities.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the 750,000 business people who employ 40 per cent of our labour force and who have created practically all new jobs in Canada in the last two years.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to Mr. Reisman's remarks that all those who do not share his views are Nazis and liars. I would suggest to this gentleman-handsomely paid as he is by the taxpayers and holding a cushy job because somebody has been protecting him-first, that he offer apologies to Canadians and Quebecers who do not think as he does and, second, that he congratulate all those who defend and perhaps fight against the Mulroney Government free trade proposals.
Mr. Speaker, these people are staunch defenders of the interests of Canadians and Quebecers alike. Are we liars because we say that textile workers will lose their jobs? Are we liars because we say that footwear industry workers will lose their jobs? Are we liars because we say that electrical appliances workers will lose their jobs? We are saying so in light of a study made by Economic Council of Canada officials who are supportive of the free trade deal and yet readily admit there has to be losers.
Therefore, I would urge Mr. Reisman to withdraw his remarks and keep the debate on a more positive note. He will be the loser in all this because he may just be the greatest liar.
October 30, 1987


FILM INDUSTRY
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec film dubbing industry is presently in a precarious situation. Last September, the French Minister, Francois Leotard, was contemplating letting Quebecers dub 20 per cent of feature films, which means a business opportunity of some $4 million for our actors. As a result of pressures exerted by actors' unions and French dubbing firms, the Minister reduced that rate to 10 per cent only and last Monday, October 26, he stated that nothing would be left to Quebec.
What a dramatic turn of events! I therefore fully endorse the position taken by the Union des artistes and its president, Serge Turgeon. 1 urge both the Quebec Government and the Government of Canada to take all reprisals required, in case of failure, against the French dubbing industry.
Our actors' job is both demanding and difficult. They deserve a better consideration. If they are refused access to the European market, let them at least live decently in their own country by further protecting their rights.
Mr. Speaker, if francophonie means anything, let us give Quebec the place it deserves.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the President of El Salvador, Napoleon Duarte, passed a law giving amnesty to his own government-protected death squads. These are the people who killed four American churchwomen after raping them; killed two U.S. agricultural advisers; and kidnapped, tortured or killed more than 50,000 Salvadorans who dared to disagree with the military. Within the last few days they killed a trade union leader and the president of the Human Rights Commission, and on Tuesday four armed men abducted a school teacher from her classroom in front of her students, and her whereabouts are unknown.
The President has given amnesty to all such thugs and murderers, and therefore the FMLN, the rebel group, broke off peace talks. That was all they could do. How could they possibly lay down their guns when the Government allows the killers of such people to walk free on the streets and even passes a law protecting them from prosecution?
I call on the Canadian Government to denounce this fascist law and cancel bilateral aid to El Salvador.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the Montreal South Shore Chamber of Commerce, in its November magazine issue, recognizes and supports free trade, and I quote:
"The South Shore is indeed a land of predilection in that regard. Our area lies next door to the important Montreal market but also, with its highway, railway and air network, is close to the huge 55-million consumer market in the NorthEastern United States.
Our 7,500 SMBs, and especially our 2,000 manufacturing industries, consider a free trade agreement as being vital to their future development. The Canadian market is limited and our businesses need access to the American market. Our future lies there.
In that regard, we must look ahead rather than back. We should not be afraid of mighty American corporations invading our market, but rather start immediately looking at how we can reap profits on their own market. Quebec's SMBs are recognized for their aggressiveness and innovative spirit. We must be able to have that opportunity."
The advertising paid by labour leaders in collusion with the NDP says, and I quote: " ... Canada does not belong to those two men." And they mean the Prime Minister of Canada and Mr. Reagan.
Business people on Montreal's South Shore have just told them that they are wrong, that they cannot be right, because they are the ones who take the risks and they are the ones who also agree to meet the challenge of free trade.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON EXPORTS OF ELECTRICITY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, no matter what the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) says in his subdued and sotto voce style, it is becoming clear that the term "free trade" is a misnomer. A better term would be "economic union" because what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is proposing is more than the lowering of customs tariffs. Many other changes are implied. For example, there is the export of electricity.
The Quebec Minister of Energy is already saying that Ottawa will no longer be able to intervene through the National Energy Board. It will no longer be able to tell Hydro Quebec at what price electricity should be sold to Ontario and

October 30, 1987
New Brunswick before making offers to Maine or Vermont. In other words, when it will be in the national interest to stop electricity exports Ottawa will no longer be in a position to do so. It is very doubtful that that is what Canadians want. Fortunately, Canadians are beginning to appreciate the real meaning of the term "free trade". It really means economic union.

[DOT] (mo)


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, "Our study finds that there have been significant improvements made in financial controls". So speaks the Auditor General in his recently tabled report to the Elouse of Commons. The gist of the report points to the real and successful efforts which have been made since September, 1984, in cleaning up accounting practices and ensuring that the taxpayers get value for money. The Government is regaining control of the public purse.
The Auditor General rightly draws the attention of Parliament to continuing problems with the cumulating deficit even though the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has performed wonders, with the albatross left around his neck by previous Governments.
We look forward to the debt management study which will be published in 1988, and compliment the Auditor General on his continuing work with the federal Government reporting study.



Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) said that the Government had created some 15,000 jobs by giving a $5 million grant to its friends, the Ghermezian brothers in Edmonton, for the West Edmonton Mall. That is nothing but a gross exaggeration. It is hyperbole and extremely misleading. It is nothing but unadulterated baloney.
If 15,000 jobs were created for $5 million, a job would be created for every $333 spent by the Government. The annual report of DRIE says that it costs about $8,000 to create one job.
If we were to take the word of the Minister, with the $1 billion budget of DRIE, we could create 3 million jobs per year. What a gross exaggeration! The Minister is living in Fantasy-land. He is the Minister of fantasy figures. We could wipe out unemployment forever in one year in that kind of fantasy. That shows why the Conservative Party is in such trouble.
The Minister is also saying that the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party are against Alberta and western Canada. I find that to be very divisive, offensive, and the worst kind of regional racism practised by the Government. It is a very petty and offensive position to take. It is very divisive for the future of the country and is certainly not becoming for the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue my comments of last week regarding the whining of the NDP about the supposed loss of sovereignty due to free trade.
There are approximately 30,000 councillors, aldermen, deputy reeves, reeves, mayors, et cetera, representing the villages, townships, counties, towns and cities in Canada. Add these to the nearly 1,000 elected members of provincial and territorial Governments and you have an impressive number of dedicated people serving this country in their various capacities.
Many in this House, such as the shy and unassuming Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), the quiet and retiring Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), and yours truly, have served in these other arenas.
There may be a few of the Liberal-NDP coalition who have no faith in this country, but I tell you that the vast majority of those I have just named are proud Canadians dedicated to service. They have no fear for the sovereignty of Canada. They know, as do I, that Canada and all it stands for will not only survive but will grow and benefit from free trade.


EDUCATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend 500 people from all over the country came together in Saskatoon to focus on postsecondary education. There is a crisis in that field and this generation is in danger of becoming a lost generation.
October 30, 1987

One clear message coming out of that forum from all those participants from all provinces was that there must be a new national focus, preserving provincial jurisdiction but bringing together all the partners in the country to arrive at a forwardlooking prospect for this situation. There is no more important issue in the country.
I challenge the House, and the Government in particular, to find a mechanism, in the spirit of Meech Lake, to forge a partnership which will focus on one of the most important issues before us, that is, the cause of young people and particularly post-secondary education.


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, there was a study on free trade published in 1984 by the Ontario Economic Council entitled "Trade, Industrial Policy and Canadian Manufacturing", by Richard Harris and David Cox. The study predicted that free trade would bring about a boom in Canadian manufacturing which would be of significant benefit to Canada, and Ontario in particular. Most major business organizations agree with the Harris and Cox assessment and are confident that Canadian companies will prosper under the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
Opposition to the initiative by the Ontario Government may, therefore, be of some political value, but makes very little economic sense. Ontario, and the Government of Manitoba, have mounted anti-free trade campaigns based on confusion, fear and uncertainty. Equally illogical is the opposition of the labour unions to the trade agreement.
A recent Environics and Globe and Mail poll showed that 46 per cent of union members think free trade is a good idea. This indicates their confidence in the expected boom in manufacturing and the resulting benefits to those employed in that sector.
Therefore, opposition to free trade obviously reflects the personal ideology of union leaders, based not on economic sense but on political opportunism.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External
Oral Questions
Affairs. Yesterday Canada's chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, said publicly that opponents of the Prime Minister's free trade deal are using "the big lie, as practised in Nazi Germany".
When asked about that this morning on television the Minister for International Trade said, "Oh, Mr. Reisman is entitled to his views I don't feel that it's very fair ... to ask me to comment on a personal opinion by Simon Reisman".
Was the Minister's colleague serious? How can she condone remarks like that made by an ambassador, Canada's top trade official, who speaks publicly on behalf of the Government? What did the Minister for International Trade mean when she said that it is all right for the chief trade negotiator, speaking publicly as an ambassador, to criticize and charge that the people who oppose this trade deal are Nazis? How can the Government put up with this, or is it condoning these shocking comments?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in the selective quotes which he has used in the House the Hon. Member did not give my views which I expressed on that television show. I said, "We are all Canadians ... we all love our country," and we are all entitled to our views.
I went on and said that those who are for free trade are Canadians confident in our future who know that we are the best in the world. Those who are against free trade tend to be protectionist and fearful. However, we are all Canadians, we are all entitled to our views, and we are all encouraged to participate in the debate.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER DISAVOW NEGOTIATOR'S PERSONAL OPINIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister must realize that when Simon Reisman speaks he speaks as an ambassador on behalf of the Government and as its chief trade negotiator. When Mr. Reisman speaks the Minister cannot make a distinction between his personal opinions and the views of the Government.
Will the Minister, here and now, make it clear that Ambassador Reisman was not speaking on behalf of the Government and that he cannot express personal opinions when he speaks as trade negotiator and ambassador? If she does not do that, she is condoning his words. If that is the case, Mr. Reisman should resign and she should resign.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member did not mean to suggest that Mr. Reisman should be restricted in any expression of his personal views.


Ms. Copps:: He's an ambassador.


Pat Carney: If he does suggest that Mr. Reisman should be restricted in his views, he has more courage than I in trying to make that point known to Mr. Reisman.

October 30, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Nunziata:: You're afraid of him, are you?


Pat Carney: I again make the point that the position of the Government of Canada-


John V. Nunziata: Tie's been pushing you around, hasn't he?


Pat Carney: They want to shut up the debate. They do not want to debate this issue on its merits, but rather on slurs, myths, and misleading statements. They do not have the courage to get up in this House and debate the free trade agreement on its merits-


Mr. Riis:: Let's have a debate.


Pat Carney: -as our Government is encouraging Canadians to do.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said: "Let Ambassador Reisman speak for Canada". He certainly does not speak for me, nor for the Liberal Party, nor for millions of Canadians. It is shocking that the Minister for International Trade, speaking on behalf of the Government, is willing to let Mr. Reisman run around this country in his official capacity expressing his personal opinions no matter how shocking and wrong they are.
Does the Minister not realize that if she continues in this unacceptable course of action-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -she is not only showing that Mr. Reisman is out of control but that she and the Government are condoning these actions? Mr. Reisman is not any private citizen. He speaks as ambassador on behalf of Canada. This Government stands accused and convicted of allowing him to call Canadians Nazis. It has to live with those words.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for the Hon. Member to suggest that Mr. Reisman does not speak for him. It is very difficult to find out who does speak for the Liberal Party.


John V. Nunziata: Simon says jump, Pat, jump.


Pat Carney: We are in the ludicrous situation where the Leader of the Liberal Party is saying that he wants to tear up the free trade agreement when a majority of his own Party supports it-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Who said so?


Pat Carney: -and when the president of the Sarnia-Lambton Liberal Association says his position is "totally irresponsible".


John V. Nunziata: Jump, Pat, jump, says Simon.


Pat Carney: No wonder it is hard to figure out who speaks for the Liberal Party on free trade.


COMMITTEE HEARINGS-CONTENT OF AGREEMENT'S FINAL TEXT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that when the Minister for International Trade says she wants to debate this trade arrangement on the merits, she is not serious. She obviously thinks it is acceptable for Canada's trade ambassador to call Canadians who have concerns, or who are worried about the trade deal, nothing but a bunch of Nazis.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not a light matter.
I want to bring the Minister's attention back to something else she said this morning on the CTV Program Canada AM. When asked why she was rushing the committee process when in fact the detailed agreement is not before the committee yet, the Minister said with respect to the details:
All they're going to get when they do get the final text is a bunch of
incomprehensible legal language that isn't nearly as clear to understand as
what they have now.
When the text arrives, the Minister is saying it is going to be a bunch of incomprehensible legal language that no one will understand, not the Government, not the Opposition, and not the people of Canada.
Given this startling admission from the Minister who says she wants to debate the deal on its merits and on the facts, how can she proceed with a committee hearing, and how can she proceed to sign a deal, when she herself describes the legal text, even in advance of seeing it, as something that is incomprehensible? That answer is incomprehensible and, frankly, Mr. Speaker, stupid.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I stand behind my quote on television.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I bet you do.


Pat Carney: The point I made, and I will repeat here, is that the "elements of the Agreement" that we filed in this House are a clear statement of what Canada is getting out of the free trade agreement.


John V. Nunziata: You are Simon's puppet, Pat.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Simon says.


Pat Carney: Waiting for the text is not helpful to those who want to debate this issue on its merits.
May I point out in terms of the amount of debate which is going on, on which the Opposition is stonewalling, there was a Royal Commission that debated free trade for two and a half
October 30, 1987

years. It travelled all across the country, cost $11 million, and reported in support of free trade. There have been Senate committee meetings, public discussion, a report supporting free trade. There have been provincial hearings and meetings on this issue in several provinces, and more are planned, on free trade.
In contrast, I would like to point out that in 1966, when the Opposition was in power, our Party asked for the Auto Pact to be referred to committee and that Liberal Government of the day refused our request.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Shame!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you would have to be an Olympic mental gymnast to follow the Minister's convoluted logic.


STUDY OF FINAL TEXT
Brian Vincent Tobin: My
supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Again I quote the Minister with respect to the detailed text this morning on Canada AM: "All they're going to get when they do get it-", that is the final text, "-is a bunch of incomprehensible legal language that isn't nearly as clear to understand as what they have now".


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It was the Prime Minister who promised a full debate on the final text. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister that this final text is going to be nothing but an incomprehensible bunch of legal language that no one can, should, or will understand? Or is the Prime Minister telling us now that his commitment to the House is broken, that Canadians and Members of Parliament are too ignorant to understand the final text, and that in fact they want to bamboozle the nation and this Parliament with this charade of a committee hearing process that is now going on in Ottawa? Is that what he is telling us?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 also pointed out that the bulk of the final text is going to be about 1,200 pages of tariff schedules.


Brian Vincent Tobin: All the more reason to look at it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You wouldn't understand it.


Pat Carney: I look forward to the Hon. Member's perusal of the tariff schedules. I have already pointed out that those tariffs are known to the SAGITs involved, to the Sectoral Advisory Committee, and that the committee had Mr. Reisman and Mr. Ritchie before it yesterday. They could have asked for them, because I am sure they would have quoted all 1,200 pages of the tariffs.
What Canadians want is information. What Canadians want is-
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is the truth. Is the text-


Pat Carney: -is for the committee to get on with the job-


Brian Vincent Tobin: -not a charade, not a sham, not a propaganda machine.


Pat Carney: -of dealing with the free trade agreement, hearing from Canadians, and making its report. That is what the parliamentary process is all about.


AMBASSADOR'S COMMENTS ON POSITION OF TRADE AGREEMENT OPPONENTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister for International Trade, after listening to Mr. Reisman's comments in which he said: "A great deal of what the opponents are engaging in is the big lie mastered by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister". Here we have a senior public servant, an Ambassador making $1,000 a day, who is going about the country. These are not his personal opinions when he is paid that kind of sum by the Government, by the taxpayers of this country. Is the Minister in fact afraid to get up and discipline Mr. Reisman for his outrageous attacks?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the record should show that Mr. Reisman was making his remarks in the context of his experiences as an honoured member of the Armed Forces in the Second World War.


Bill Rompkey: The war is over, Pat.


Pat Carney: The point he was making as a member of the Armed Forces was that he first encountered this kind of "big lie" technique in the Second World War in which he served for Canada. I see nothing outrageous in that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPROPRIATENESS OF COMMENTS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation where the Trade Minister is not just trying to explain away these comments, she is trying to defend them, and I would like to ask the Prime Minister of this country if he thinks it is appropriate behaviour for a senior official, a man who has great sums of money coming to him from the Canadian people, for such a person to use such outrageous, ad hominem attacks which draw on the sense of past indignity which people in this country have had to fight against in a world war?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had occasion to read the transcript of the remarks to which my hon. friend refers. I will do so just as

October 30, 1987
Oral Questions
quickly as I can and make an appropriate response to my hon. friend.
I know that Ambassador Reisman, who has been one of the most distinguished of Canada's public servants over some 40 years, and who culminated a brilliant career in the Public Service of Canada by negotiating the free trade agreement, has taken, understandably, exception to some of the very grave distortions and misleading personal attacks that have been made upon him and upon the free trade agreement.
Having said that, I happen to believe that one ought not to impugn the personal motives of anyone at any time. I will review the transcript in that light and respond to my hon. friend.


AGREEMENT TERMINATION CLAUSE-GOVERNMENT MANDATE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister at least for having the sense of responsibility to respond in that way.
I ask the Minister for International Trade to comment with respect to a statement which was made yesterday by Mr. Reisman to the effect that it could take three to five years' notice to get out of the free trade agreement. Are the Minister and her Government trying to freeze this country into a free trade arrangement for which they have absolutely no mandate whatsoever?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, again I say to the Hon. Member that the issue of our mandate is a curious one for the Opposition to raise.
There has been a Royal Commission on this issue that took two and a half years and cost some $11 million. It recommended free trade. There was a Senate committee, two Senate committees if I recall, that had public discussion on the issue of free trade.
This Government was elected with a mandate to create jobs, which we have done, 960,000 new jobs, since we took office. Studies of the Economic Council and other studies have indicated that the free trade agreement and free trade will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. That is certainly a mandate that Canadians understand.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is not what the Minister of Employment said.


Pat Carney: What they do not understand is the total lack of any alternative by the Hon. Member.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, anyone listening to this Government stoutly defending France's right to do whatever it wishes in the 200-mile zone south of Newfoundland might well wonder what country this Government represents. The French can now catch all the fish they want. They can take all the minerals, oil and gas that they want. They can take the entire ocean floor and all the salt water as long as they remain within that 200-mile zone south of Newfoundland, according to this Government.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this. Does he not realize that the Government's position weakens Canada's claim to these waters? Does he not agree that these are Canadian waters and that France has no more claim to them than do the Basques, the British, or the Vikings?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is serious about his concerns he will know that the agreement that was signed giving ships flying French flags the right to be in the disputed zone was an agreement that was signed on June 21, 1984, by a Liberal Government of Canada. The Leader of the Liberal Party at that time was the Right Hon. John Turner. If he wants to know why Canada was put in that position, he should ask Mr. Turner about the Turner agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REJECT FRANCE'S DEMANDS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this is not 1787, 1887, 1972 or 1984. This is 1987.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Now we agree on one point.
Any international court, according to the international precendent, would only give France an eight to ten-mile economic zone around St. Pierre and Miquelon for the use of the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon and nothing else, and the Minister knows it. I ask the Minister this. Will the Government today reject France's imperialistic demands and stand up for Canada?
[Translation)
Where is our Government? They are hiding under the diplomats' tables.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only is it 1987 but tomorrow is Hallowe'en.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 30, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: Two things need to be put on the record, Mr. Speaker. One is that we are bound with regard to the French-flag vessels in the disputed zone of 3PS. We are bound by the Turner agreement, the Liberal Party treaty signed in 1984. It is a treaty to which Canada is committed. We cannot cavalierly break that Turner treaty. As I say, if the Hon. Member wants to have further information as to why Mr. Turner signed and authorized that treaty, then he can put that question to him directly.
The other point that has to be raised is that the reaction that is coming from France now, a reaction which he somewhat exaggerates, is as a consequence of very firm actions which the Government has taken. We have closed Canadian ports to French vessels serving the fishing fleet. We have refused to reopen the Burgeo Bank. We have closed the rest of 3PS outside the disputed zone.
When the French for the second time broke off the negotiations that had been under way since January of this year, we gave notice that quotas will not be given in 1988. The reason we are hearing from the French is because of the firm, effective action of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TWO-PRICE WHEAT SYSTEMS-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Grains. The Government has been less than straightforward in its comments about the elimination under the trade agreement of the two-price wheat system.
Can the Minister explain why on the one hand the federal Government says that the two-price system for wheat will not be affected by the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, while on the other hand the Premier of Saskatchewan has taken out ads in the Saskatchewan press stating that Canada's two-price wheat will be eliminated, and that the federal Government will provide compensation of $280 million for the annual loss to farmers? Will the Minister explain this difference of position?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that it was this Government that took the decision back in April of 1986 to see that the domestic price went to $7 per bushel. So it is this Government that is responsible for seeing the benefit of the two-price system go to Canadians farmers.
Also, the Hon. Member will know that the agreement does not come into effect for a little over one year. As tariffs come down there will continue to be pressure on the two-price wheat system, pressure which, as he is aware, is there now. If he
Oral Questions
wants to be fair about it he will also know that we have said that if there is going to be a change in the two-price wheat system we will see that producers are compensated for the benefit that they now have under the two-price wheat system.


SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER'S POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the Premier of Saskatchewan does not understand the agreement? Or is he saying that the Premier is taking this political route because that might be the easiest way to sell the agreement? I would like the Minister to make it clear to the Premier of Saskatchewan exactly what it is, or go to the Premier of Saskatchewan and explain what it is so that we get the right story out there.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the Hon. Member fully understood what I said in response to his first question.
Very simply, to say it again, it has been this Government that has been responsible for the benefits flowing to farmers under the two-price wheat system. It is farmers like himself and his neighbours who have benefited as a result of actions by this Government.
The Hon. Member will also know that agriculture, especially western agriculture, stands to benefit substantially under the terms of the free trade agreement initialled at the beginning of this month.
I will say again that, as a result of benefits received under the two-price wheat system, and as a result of actions by this Government, if there are going to be any changes to the two-price wheat system for whatever reason-and there are all types of domestic pressures coming from the two-price wheat system that have nothing to do with the free trade agreement-we will see that our farmers are compensated for any changes that we make in the two-price wheat system. That is very clear.
The Hon. Member does a disservice to farmers who are suffering from many uncertainties by attempting to cloud the issue with nothing more than political nonsense.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Considering that the sale of new Canada Savings Bonds has an announced cut-off date of October 31, what action is the

October 30, 1987
Oral Questions
Minister taking to ensure that Canadians will be able to rollover the bonds that mature on November 1?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, we have given 48 hours' notice of our intention to cease cash sales at the close of business this evening.
The holders of outstanding issues that mature on November 1 will be able to roll those over on Monday, November 2. That will provide them with the protection that they can keep their funds invested in Canada Savings Bonds.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In response to my question on Tuesday about the tax treatment of a $200 million payment by a Crown corporation which did a circle via a bank in the Bahamas to the Hongkong Bank of Canada, the Minister of State for Finance replied, and I quote from Hansard, October 27, page 10437:
This particular transaction was a complicated one, structured in such a way
that no one ... would have been able to figure out the tax implications of the
transaction.
Will the Minister be kind enough to explain to the House the contradiction between that answer and the fact that several days before the transaction was completed, the district office of taxation in British Columbia provided the purchaser with a letter of comfort to the effect that the $200 million would be not taxed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member is well aware that the relationship between a taxpayer and Revenue Canada is confidential, and only known by those two organizations.


INQUIRY WHETHER SIMILAR OFFER MADE TO CANADIAN INSTITUTIONS
Aideen Nicholson: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
At the time that the Bill on the Bank of British Columbia was introduced in this House, the Minister of State for Finance stated that a number of Canadian financial institutions were canvassed about taking over that bank.
Was the same $200 million tax-free sweetener offered to those other Canadian institutions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the process at that time, there were a number of banks contacted to see whether they had any interest. Off the
top of my head, I do not recall if any of the other banks were sufficiently interested in principle to embark upon any further discussions with them.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Vancity Credit Union was.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hongkong Bank was interested. It was on that basis that discussions were commenced.
As the Hon. Member is aware, the CDIC is empowered to make offers to potential purchasers if, in its judgment, it is cheaper for the CDIC to make a direct commitment, as it did in this case, than it would be to allow the bank to go under.
Clearly, the second option was something that the CDIC and certainly the Government wished to avoid, and in the event it was cheaper than the judgment that the CDIC had made-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Did you offer that deal to Vancity Credit Union?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -as to whether the bank would have gone under.


ROLE OF CDIC IN STRUCTURING DEAL
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same matter.
I wish to ask the Minister of Finance whether it was CDIC that suggested the deal be structured in such a manner that the parent company in the Bahamas would receive the $200 million rather than the Hongkong Bank of Canada? If that is so, surely the Minister cannot stand in this House and tell us that the tax implications were not known to the Government.
Again, I repeat the question, and I think it is a question of integrity, why does one Minister stand up in the House, in this case the Minister of State for Finance, and tell us that the deal was structured in such a way that no one could figure out the tax implications, whereas officials from the Bank of Hongkong of Canada have stated quite publicly that the deal was structured in such a way to save them paying taxes? They knew several days before the deal was okayed that this was going to be the manner in which the $200 million was to be paid.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Minister of State for Finance and I have made the point that our primary motivation here was to save an important regional bank that, had it gone under, would have had very powerful repercussions in the financial community in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia.
Our primary motivation was to save that bank. We did not get into the details of the tax considerations of that transaction. We knew that the cost of $200 million was significantly less than the cost the CDIC had indicated it probably would be had the bank gone under. That was the motivation that we had, and that is why the deal proceeded on that basis.

October 30, 1987


POSSIBLE IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
Simon Leendert de Jong: My supplementary question is the following. Surely the Minister must recognize that by structuring the deal the way it was structured that in essence the Canadian taxpayer ended up paying because of the loss of approximately $100 million in tax revenue. Otherwise, CDIC would have had to pay more, and that would have come out of CDIC which is financed by premiums from the banks in the trust.
In essence, part of the load of bailing out the Bank of B.C. was shifted from CDIC to the backs of the Canadian taxpayers.
On November 26 of last year the Minister of State stood in this House and said that the bail-out of the Bank of British Columbia would "have no impact on the Government's deficit". He stated this knowing that Revenue Canada had already calculated that this deal would give this bank a $100 million tax gift.
Why did the Government not have the integrity to tell Canadians the whole truth about the deal? It is a question of integrity.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I totally reject that. If the Hon. Member wishes to have a reasonable debate on the facts of the issue then fine, we can have that debate. But the Hon. Member should not bring in these red herrings of integrity on a deal when we are trying to explain it clearly to the Hon. Member.
Earlier this week my colleague stated that the purpose of the $200 million payment was to get that money into the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank which had the capital, the financial resources, and the strength around the world to provide the backing to the Bank of British Columbia in a way that would ensure the continued existence of that bank. That was why the money went to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank. That is why the deal was structured that way. It was not motivated for tax reasons.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, whom I had occasion to travel with across the length of the Arctic this fall, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Northwest Territorial Airlines that flies across the Arctic coast has now been bought by Air Canada. Because Air Canada is a public airline it should be much easier for the Government to provide subsidies for northern travel to
Oral Questions
promote tourism and economic development in the eastern Arctic.
Could the Minister tell the House whether the federal Government, in conjunction with the Government of the NWT, will be willing to provide subsidies to the northern segment of Air Canada?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, and his interest, which continues to serve the people of the eastern Arctic.
As the Hon. Member knows, the ability of Air Canada now to be represented in the 10 communities in the Northwest Territories, the direct links to over 100 destinations in Canada which Air Canada serves, and the international links will surely serve the people of the Northwest Territories and the cargo which is needed and, in the reverse, the tourism industry in the Northwest Territories that he so strongly supports.
However, I would make a commitment to my colleague to discuss with the Minister of Transport and take the responsibility of discussing with the Government of the Northwest Territories a way of assuring that travel, which is so necessary in northern Canada, can be implemented with this takeover or this merger of Air Canada and NWT Airlines.

[Translation)


FREE TRADE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the comments and statements of Mr. Reisman that those who do not share his views are Nazis and liars.
I think that it is important to point out that, contrary to what the Minister for International Trade has said, the fact that Mr. Reisman is a veteran does not allow him to call all those who do not share his views liars.
My question for the Prime Minister is as follows. If someone objects to this agreement and says that there will job losses in the footwear, textile, clothing and electrical appliances industries, do you think that he or she is a Nazi, a liar, or simply someone who, just like you, wants to defend the interests of Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, according to the Hon. Member, Mr. Reisman said that those who do not share his views are liars and Nazis. He never said such a thing. This is a fallacious comment on the part of the Hon. Member, but he is quite used to spread false

October 30, 1987
Oral Questions
rumours about other people. Mr. Reisman never made such a statement.
I have already replied fully to another Member who asked a question about this. I shall examine the transcript closely and report to the House afterwards. However, I believe that it is important for us to deny vigourously such allegations as that just made by the Hon. Member.
In reply to the second part of his question, I would simply repeat to the Hon. Member what the Liberal Government led by the Hon. Robert Bourassa said as recently as yesterday and the day before, namely that the free trade agreement would have very beneficial effects for Quebec and Canada and that everyone, starting with the responsible leaders of this country, should support Quebec in this initiative.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REQUEST MR. REISMAN TO APOLOGIZE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister-I am not sure he can even understand himself-has just said that what I said is false, but he added that he will read the transcript because he is not sure what Mr. Reisman did say. I think he is rather confused. Once you are in a position to read the transcript and learn what Mr. Reisman said, the way he treats those who do not share his views, when you find out that he said twice what you do not know he has said, all this time thinking that what I am saying is not correct, but when you discover that what he said is not fair to Canadians, are you going to ask him to apologize to all Canadians and Quebecers who do not think as he does, and to admit that Canadians who are trying to protect jobs are just as good Canadians as Mr. Reisman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: True, Mr. Speaker, I did not read the transcript. But I know full well that Mr. Reisman did not say that those who do not think as he does are liars and Nazis.
So I would ask the Hon. Member either to produce the transcript showing that Mr. Reisman said these very words or to apologize to all Hon. Members and to Ambassador Reisman not only for misleading the House but also for repeating a lie concerning a public servant.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I have in my hands notes prepared for the national caucus of the Progressive Conservatives, as well as the Quebec caucus, indicating an announcement to Tory Members of a
reallocation of job development funds, an announcement which evidently is not being made to all Members of Parliament.
My question to the Prime Minister is a simple one. Is this another example of Tory patronage in preparation for an election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Did you get those from Toupin?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member got the documents to which he referred. However, if there are any announcements in respect of job strategy or job programs, they will be made in the usual manner.


ELECTION POSSIBILITY QUERIED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, these notes are not prepared as a presentation to the House of Commons, nor to the public at large, but to the Quebec caucus and the national caucus of the Conservative Party. We have the numbers.
Are we looking now toward an election pretty soon? Is this a repeat of the 1984 Special Employment Transition Program under which the Liberal Government created first-class unemployed and second-class unemployed? Is this a new Tory slush fund?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member would like to receive notes with respect to his own Quebec caucus. Unfortunately that was demolished in the last week or so, so he should not be so jealous.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Nearly one million francophones outside Quebec will be denied the right to watch the televised reports of the Calgary Winter Olympic Games, yet these same Canadian men and women will have to pay their share of the $200 million earmarked by the federal Government for financing the games.
Can the Prime Minister explain how he intends to maintain equity and cultural identity in this country when we have shameful evidence of discrimination towards almost one million Canadians? How can this Government behave so
October 30, 1987

unfairly after the kind of promises it made when the Constitutional Accord was signed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with the federal Government, quite the contrary. Unless 1 am mistaken, the contracts were awarded by the organization which manages the games, and it was only after that we in the Government and others came to realize that certain Canadians, mostly francophones, might be deprived of as complete a coverage as that available to their English-speaking fellow citizens. The moment it was brought to my attention I got in touch with the Minister of Communications and asked her to devise some kind of formula to correct this unfairness, this injustice. As soon as the Minister reports to me I will hasten to get back to the distinguised Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


QUERY ON MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I raised the matter on several occasions in this House and 1 already asked a question that was related to it. But since you know very well the situation of minority groups in the provinces, do you not find it shameful, not to say discriminatory and unfair that close to one million French-speaking Canadians are to be deprived of their right to coverage of the Winter Games in Calgary? What will the Government do to help the CBC, the CRTC and the cable networks so that in the provinces, whether it is Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or elsewhere people may watch the Olympic Games in French?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, actually the TV A Network, which obtained the rights to broadcast in French, unfortunately does not cover the whole country. That is unfortunate, that is a situation however that has developed over the years, and in which the TV A network does not have the resources needed to cover-


An Hon. Member:: Channel 10.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -yes, Channel 10-to cover all. The CBC was one of the bidders, and I take it that the contract was awarded elsewhere.
This being said, and despite the fact that contracts would have been awarded according to very objective criteria, it is a fact that the French TVA network does not serve all of French-speaking Canada. So, this is a gap that should be filled in the spirit of such an important event nationally. This is more or less what the Government is attempting to do, in cooperation with TVA and the CBC.
Questions of Privilege LABOUR


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR ELDERLY WORKERS-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF NEW FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COST SHARED PROGRAM
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program, which provided financial assistance for older workers who were laid off in the textile, clothing, footwear and tanning industries and in some communities came to an end in August, 1985, and was to have been replaced by a new federal-provincial cost-shared program. Can the Minister tell this House what progress has been made in the negotiations with the provinces for this new program? Also, will the workers laid off since that date be penalized by the absence of an agreement?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as concerns the former LAB program, I should point out to my colleague that, while this program was supposed to come to an end in August, 1985, it was kept in place by this Government until August, 1986. Since June, 1986, I have consulted all my provincial counterparts about the new POWA program and those discussions are still going on. As concerns Quebec, I made a formal offer to my provincial counterpart last summer, and in our latest discussions, he informed me that he wanted to consult his colleagues before giving me an answer.


QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe my privileges as a Member of Parliament, particularly as an opposition Member of Parliament, have been breached when I am likened to a Nazi and associated with individuals such as Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister for Adolf Hitler.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, that allegation has been made against not only myself but all Members of the Opposition-


Charles Joseph Clark: Quote the allegation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -who have indicated their opposition to the free trade agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Quote the allegation precisely.

October 30, 1987
Questions of Privilege


Nelson Andrew Riis: I refer to a report headlined:
Reisman likens free-trade foes to Nazis
Mr. Reisman as a senior public servant, an individual with ambassador's status, has likened free trade foes to Nazis.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order, Mr. Speaker. This is an abuse of the rules.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When the question was put to him he said that he does not regret his remarks.


Charles Joseph Clark: This is abuse; another NDP abuse.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It seems to me that I am constantly being interrupted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Perhaps if he has an observation he will rise and make his point.
It makes my job as a Member of Parliament very difficult in terms of my constituents and others, having heard from one of the senior public servants of our country-


Charles Joseph Clark: This is an abuse of the rules.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -an individual paid by the taxpayers of Canada presumably to represent all Canadians and all taxpayers who has indicated and referred to those who oppose the agreement he has negotiated-


Charles Joseph Clark: Another NDP abuse.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -namely, all of the Members of the Opposition, as Nazis and has-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -referred to them as having the same status as Joseph Goebbels.
I ask you to consider this matter, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that Ambassador Reisman is not a Member of the House of Commons. I realize also that when you examine Beauchesne's Fifth Edition you will find that calling anyone a Nazi is certainly unparliamentary.


Charles Joseph Clark: Give us the quotation. Follow the rules of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: To refer to anyone as "Goebbels" is also unparliamentary. I ask that you look into this matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Such contempt for the House of Commons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have been constantly interrupted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I usually give him the benefit of listening when he makes his statements and I look forward to him standing in his place, someone who has played a significant role in the negotiations, and explain, if he believes that Ambassador Reisman calling opposition Members
"Nazis" and likening us to Goebbels is an appropriate use of the term.
I do believe that our privileges as Members of Parliament, particularly those in the Opposition, have been breached by this senior public official.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the same question of privilege. I want to draw to your attention that apparently Mr. Reisman repeated and confirmed-


Charles Joseph Clark: Apparently.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -his remarks in committee yesterday. At that time he said, according to a press report:
-that one doesn't try to deal "rationally and logically" with these people
who "deliberately set out to defy fact and reason."
Mr. Reisman not only accused those who do not agree with his and the Government's free trade agreement as being Nazis but he has accused them, in effect, of telling untruths when they oppose the Government's policy.
Mr. Reisman speaks as ambassador, as chief trade negotiator. He is not only speaking as a private citizen on behalf of the Government when he says those things, but he is accusing those people who do not agree with the Government's position as people who "deliberately set out to defy fact and reason". He, Ambassador Reisman, is saying that they are untruthful and he is accusing as being untruthful Members of Parliament to whom the Government and its servants, including Mr. Reisman, are accountable and responsible. He is accusing also of untruthfulness not only parliamentarians, like the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), and dozens and dozens of other Members of Parliament, but he is making the same accusations against millions of individual Canadians.
With respect to Members' privileges, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to examine what Ambassador Reisman said. I want to tell you that if you find there is a prima facie case of a breach of Members'privileges I for one would be quite prepared to move the appropriate motion immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not the Chair's intention to have the House enter into a long debate on this matter. The Chair with regard to this particular matter is willing to hear the different House Leaders.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a different point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will come back to the Hon. Member. On the same matter I believe the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is rising.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that my colleagues have tried to raise this as a matter on the floor of the House. I think it demeans the debate. We are prepared to have a debate on the substance of the matter.
October 30, 1987

Questions of Privilege PRIVILEGE


Brian Vincent Tobin: No you are not.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If one were to examine fairly the words quoted in the press one would find that no such comment was made. The best evidence I could give you of that are the remarks of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). If you check the blues you will find that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor quoted properly the text of what was said as I read it in the newspaper. The best evidence of this comes from the very Party, the New Democratic Party, whose House Leader raised the matter. I would quote those same words but I do not have them in front of me. As I read the text in the newspaper this morning the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor, a Member of the New Democratic Party, was right on. He quoted accurately. He did not distort words and then went on to a question from that. The best evidence before you comes from the New Democratic Party-the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. I submit there could be no point of personal privilege resulting from a broad comment made outside the House; that it can be said to affect a Member's privileges inside this House and thus be a question of personal privilege which either offends the Member because it was said in this House or prevents the said Member from doing his or her job properly as a Member of Parliament. It happens. We are in the public milieu. Comments are made.
Hon. Members in an effort to raise, not the substance of the issue, not the substance of the free trade debate, but mechanics, have made an effort to associate themselves with remarks they found offensive.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That doesn't have anything to do with the question of privilege.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are all big people. This happens all the time. One could associate oneself for example with the remarks of Senator Hebert who referred to the Tory Party as "fascist". We did not raise that matter because we would not put a specious point of order or a specious question of privilege before you, Mr. Speaker. We know it happened in the other place where they have other problems. The remark was not made here and, therefore, we did not raise the matter. I still submit that the best evidence of exactly what was said, the evidence I ask you as a Member of the government side to base your decision on, is the evidence raised in the House of Commons by the Hon. Member from Essex who quoted correctly the remarks of Ambassador Reisman in the Journals today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair, I believe, has the point with regard to the matter which we called this morning the "Reisman matter". The Chair will first find out exactly what was said. The Chair will reserve on the matter and get back to the House as soon as possible.
On a different question of privilege, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


ALLEGED ASSOCIATION BY MINISTER WITH UNACCEPTABLE REMARKS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair, in reviewing the comments made and repeated on the Nazi question, that a Minister of the Crown this morning here in the House, specifically the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), associated herself with those remarks. I believe this is an important question of privilege and a different question of privilege because, while Mr. Reisman acting as an ambassador made comments outside the House, this morning in defending the ambassador, the Minister associated herself with remarks which, frankly, not only insult Canadians but, in particular, insult Members of Parliament and prevent us from carrying out our responsibilities. If there is supposed to be-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are you against war veterans?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister asks if I am against war veterans. The very point that must be examined vis-a-vis the Minister's association is why did we fight in those wars if not to prevent people, including the ambassador and representatives of the Government of Canada, from making the kinds of remarks that were made outside the House and that the Minister associated herself with in the House. That is why we fought wars.
When the Speaker is reviewing today's Question Period in Hansard, could he please examine the specific remarks made by the Minister for International Trade associating herself with the campaign attacking those people, who are opposing the bad deal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), as Nazis and as being part of "the big lie" and Goebbels' information machine? By defending those remarks in the House, she did not dissociate herself from them. In fact, it took the Prime Minister to pull her up short in her seat and to ensure that he will review the matter and put this whole thing to rest.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief and technical on this.


Charles Joseph Clark: On what point?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On the point of Mr. Reisman and the comments of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, the Chair does take as a separate point the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). The Chair will look into the matter and will return to the House on that point.
The Chair has mentioned before that we do not want the House to get into a debate over what I called the "Reisman matter" this morning. However, I am willing to hear the Hon. Member on a specific matter on which I believe he wishes to cite Beauchesne's. But certainly the Chair is not in the mood

October 30, 1987
Questions of Privilege
to entertain further debate on the matter. I would be willing to listen to a legal argument if that were the case, albeit a short one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is the same matter raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Brian Vincent Tobin: I rise on a point of order. I would like the Speaker to know that it was my intention to rise on the same point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) with respect to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). I do not know if the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is on a different point or not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member on the second question of privilege. We are back for a minute, the Chair hopes, on the first question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


PRIVILEGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will be very brief. The comment has been made that no specific accusation has been made against a specific Member. I want to refer to Mr. Speaker Jerome, a highly respected Speaker of this House back in the 1970s, who responded to a question of privilege raised by Walter Baker, a very distinguished House Leader of the Conservative Party. In that case a Mr. August Choquette had made a slanderous accusation against the House while giving testimony. Mr. Choquette was quoted as saying in open court that if everyone who had ever taken or given $600 or $700 in bribes in their life was arrested, 50 per cent of the MPs would no longer be sitting.
After citing various authorities in support of his position, Mr. Baker of the Conservative Party moved that the accusation that a substantial portion of the Members of House of Commons were receiving bribes be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. While the Speaker stated that he had no difficulty in agreeing that there was a question of privilege, he expressed some doubt as to the form of the motion.
Mr. Speaker Jerome said that in this case, the motion having been amended to include the name of Mr. August Choquette, constituted a question of privilege, and the Baker motion was adopted by the House. Mr. Speaker Jerome cites a whole number of Standing Orders and citations from Beau-chesne's, but I will not bore you with those. They appear on page 26 of his book.
I think we should look into this matter because what the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has said today in reference to the Reisman statements does have an impact on
the privileges of all Members of the House. I think in this case, you should decide whether or not Walter Baker's motion of May 7, 1976, is indeed a precedent.
My last point is that I think the Minister for International Trade, in supporting what Mr. Reisman said, is also making a reflection on other Canadians who are not in a position to defend themselves on the floor of the House. They refer to a lot of ordinary Canadians who feel very strongly on this particular issue and are not able to defend themselves.
There are some precedents for that that I recall from my experience in the House as well. In those days, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was a staunch defender of those ordinary Canadians who are not here in the House and not able to defend themselves.



Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the record should show clearly that the point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), indeed repeated by myself, is not directed at the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister made what I believe to be an appropriate response in the House today when he undertook to check the record and respond back to the House at the first opportunity, presumably next week.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was confronted as the Minister responsible for the ambassador with these remarks. Hansard will show, as soon as the Speaker has a chance to review her comments, that when confronted with the remarks reportedly made by the ambassador, the Minister did not dissociate herself from the remarks in responding to an NDP questioner. She did not take the position of the Prime Minister, who said that he would check the record and make an appropriate response in due course, but rather said that if the ambassador is suggesting that those who are engaged in a campaign against free trade-I am sorry, a separate point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not want to cut off the Hon. Member, but I think he is again getting into debate. If the Hon. Member has a specific point to raise, as did the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), I am certainly willing to hear it, but as the Hon. Member understands, the Chair does not want this debate to continue.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I am advising the Chair that if he checks the record, he will find that the Minister for International Trade has defended the notion that opposition Members are Nazis and are engaging in "the big lie", as was done by Nazis in World War II, in opposing the Government's free trade initiative. I advise the Chair that

October 30, 1987

Hansard will show that, and I am asking the Chair to find that not only were those comments made outside the House by a Government representative, Ambassador Reisman, but that those comments have now been defended and in fact repeated in the House by a Minister of the Crown. That is beyond any doubt clearly in violation of the privileges of Members of this Chamber.
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis) has referred in such glowing terms to the setting forth of my question, I simply want to indicate that in my view it would be very important to look not just at the original stories dealing with Mr. Reisman's comments but at the stories which followed from committee yesterday in which Mr. Reisman first backed off from his statements and then appeared in press comments subsequent to the committee meeting to have reinforced and restated his opinions. I think it is both sets of newspaper reporting that should be examined.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just one reference to Hansard in order to aid you in your decision-making. It is found at page 10166 of Hansard, October 20, 1987:
Canadians should be asking which is worse, genuine racism or using racism
as a tool? I suggest that this Government has been using racism as a tool to
pass repressive legislation.
No one ever raised a question of privilege about it, but those words were spoken by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Mr. Manly:: Very true!


Benno Friesen: How is it that if a government Member is purported to have made that statement, it is seen as bad, yet when an opposition Member stands in this House and makes an accusation like that against the Government that is seen by members of the Opposition as being okay?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their representations. The Chair will, of course, look into both questions of privilege and report to the House.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Period today, when I referred to the agreement sanctioned by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) during his very early days as Leader of the Liberal Party, I referred once correctly to it as an agreement and once incorrectly as a treaty.
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
It was an agreement. It is nonetheless binding, but I want the record to show that my reference to the word "treaty" was an inaccurate reference.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on a point of order?


Mr. Fulton:: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, word made its way to me just prior to eleven o'clock this morning that I was not going to be recognized during Question Period. I had a very serious matter to raise with respect to the Lubicon Indian Band. What I want to find out is precisely what the ruling is. The matter I was directly linked to was adjourned yesterday and my understanding of a matter that is adjourned is that a ruling is being considered, one way or the other.
It seems clear to me that once word arrives to me that I am not going to be recognized during Question Period, when there are important matters to raise, such as those affecting the Lubicon Band because of the decision made last night by the Government of Alberta-


Charles Joseph Clark: There are consequences to your actions, Jim.


James Ross Fulton: -it means that my rights as a Member are being tampered with.


Charles Joseph Clark: By yourself.


James Ross Fulton: I would like some clarification from the Chair as to exactly what the ruling is with respect to the matter raised on Wednesday. As I made clear to the Chair yesterday, it is not my intention to withdraw the remarks I made in relation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) took a position with the Chair that he would not withdraw remarks which are clearly unparliamentary, the kind of remarks which are not permitted here, never have been permitted here, and I think the wish of this House is that they will not be permitted here. Having done that, the Chair has one option; the Hon. Member could be named and put out of here for a couple of hours. In the opinion of the Chair that is no discipline whatsoever.
Second, I have asked the Hon. Member to reconsider his position. I have not put any time limits on it. I should also say that the Hon. Member for Skeena is very well and honourably

October 30, 1987
Tabling of Documents
known to me, not only as a colleague here, but personally. I have the very highest regard for the Hon. Member. I also think 1 can have some understanding for his feelings in this matter. However, no individual Member's feelings can take precedence over the rules and traditions of this place.
If the Hon. Member wishes to serve his constituents, then he must put himself back in grace in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report to Parliament on future immigration levels.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, a special report to Parliament, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, on income replacement benefits for new parents.


JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. This interim report deals with the very important problem of missing children. It is important to note that the study of this issue was brought about in no small measure by the deep concerns of the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). He should be commended for his efforts.


IMMIGRATION
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the annual report to Parliament on immigration levels for 1988. This report embodies the view shared by many of my provincial counterparts and consultative partners in the private sector, that continued increases in immigration represent many benefits for Canadians, both from the practical standpoint of economics and in social and demographic terms.
For 1988 we are announcing a level range of 125,000 to
135,000,	an increase of 10,000 over 1987. As Hon. Members know, this does not represent a target, a quota, or a ceiling, but simply a planning range supported by financial and human resources for our immigration program.
It should be noted in this regard that for the first time in many years it is anticipated that the 1987 actual landings will meet if not exceed the level set for this year. We expect a similar accomplishment in 1988 as well.
This kind of success demonstrates to Canadians that we place a great deal of importance on immigration as a vital part of Canada's development as a nation. There has been some discussion of increases being spread over a three-year period. While I considered this approach, 1 concluded a one-year announcement was appropriate. The basic reason for that is that my department is currently conducting a productivity review with External Affairs to consider ways in which a greater efficiency in processing immigrants could provide for a greater number of admissions. I would like to await the results of this review next year before considering what levels we should have in 1989 and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians still believe the old story that immigrants steal jobs from Canadians, which is just not true. The increased consumption of goods and services due to immigration has the further effect of providing for a net increase in jobs and economic activity in this country. Canadians should realize that immigrant business people alone, who represent less than 3.5 per cent of all immigrants, annually inject more than $1 billion into the Canadian economy.
However, aside from the very significant economic benefits for Canada, the primary objective of Canada's immigration policy is still family reunification, which is reflected both in the principles underlying this report and in the increased levels forecast for 1988.
Mr. Speaker, we expect that 50,000 immigrants in the family class will be admitted to Canada in 1988. If more are eligible, they are welcome.
This figure is the highest one for family class immigrants since 1981. I may add that under the present Government, this figure has increased by more than 25 per cent since 1984.
October 30, 1987

I think it clearly shows how important family class immigration is to this Government, a policy that will be further reflected in changes that will expand the criteria for this class. These changes in the regulations will mean that individuals selected for immigration to Canada or being sponsored by family members already in Canada may include sons and daughters aged 21 or over, if they have never been married. Previously, children over 21 were not considered dependents and were assessed as assisted relatives.
In addition, the assisted relatives selection criteria will be amended to increase the additional number of points for married children and brothers and sisters from 10 to 15. These measures reflect the spirit and the intent of the recommendations of the standing committee and provide more opportunities for family members to be reunited.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the subject of immigrants and refugees has provoked some very lively debate in recent months. The policies and procedures inherited by this Government proved inadequate to cope with the new situations and new challenges, due especially to the general and increasing pressure of economic migration and to the ongoing question of genuine refugees.

The Government has therefore been required to take major initiatives to strengthen Canadian policy and to reaffirm Canada's obligations and responsibilities in these areas, both nationally and internationally. These measures ensure that Canada's immigration policy will remain open and outwardlooking to all peoples of the world. We have opened up new opportunities for families to reunite. We have responded to the family reunification recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. We have streamlined the processing system for the family class.
At the same time, we have signalled clearly that Canada's refugee policy will no longer be available as an alternative avenue for immigration. We have taken interim control measures to manage the flow of illegal migrants. We have tabled a Bill on refugee determination designed to streamline that process and to curb abuse of the system. We have tabled a Bill to increase penalties for smugglers and prevent organized fraud.
We have also begun the productivity review I referred to earlier. In conjunction with the Department of External Affairs we are seeking ways to do more for less in the area of processing which it is to be hoped will lead to marked improvements in service for all our clients.
I would like to turn now to the annual refugee plan which is included in the report. I am concerned that recent criticism of the proposed refugee legislation has coloured the perception, not only of concerned refugee aid and advocacy groups, but of the average Canadian. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the longstanding generosity of the Canadian people to the
Statements by Ministers
legitimate refugee in need of Canada's protection is not only reaffirmed by the Government but enhanced.
The levels for landings of government-assisted refugees have been increased by 1,000 to 13,000 in 1988. This is an increase of some 30 per cent in direct government-sponsored refugees since the Government took office.
It is also expected, Sir, that some 2,000 people will be landed as refugees in the course of 1988 after determination by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee. As well, a planning range for humanitarian admissions under special circumstances has also been established and set at between 3,000 and
6,000.	Finally, as all Members know, there remains no level or limit to private refugee sponsorship.

There are about 10 to 15 million refugees throughout the world. However, resettlement far from their country of origin is seldom the answer to their problems. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees prefers other solutions such as voluntary repatriation or resettlement in countries of first asylum in the same region.
However, for those who have no other option, resettlement in a third country, with the help of government and private sector, may be the answer.
Canada uses its acceptance program abroad to help refugees who are in greatest need and also to urge other resettlement countries to follow its example. In this respect, a concerted effort by the international community removes some of the pressure on countries of first asylum and encourages them to keep playing their essential role.
I may add that in response to concerns expressed by Canadian non-governmental organizations, the Government will sponsor increased numbers of refugees from Latin America and Eastern Europe in 1988.
I can, therefore, state before the House without any hesitation that since the present Government came to power, Canada's commitment to refugees the world over has never been as serious as it is now, and that as long as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) leads this Government, this trend will continue in the future.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a coincidence that nearly 100 countries, members of the Commonwealth and the francopho-nie, now see Canada as a source of moral leadership. These countries have placed their confidence in the courage and determination being shown by the Leader of this Government and of our country, never to compromise our principles on human rights.

We will fulfil, to an ever greater degree in the future than we have in the past, those humanitarian obligations we have freely entered into which have now become so vital a part of our national identity. We will continue to lead the world in seeking constructive solutions and answers to these critical

October 30, 1987

Statements by Ministers
international problems. This may prove to be especially significant as we begin to consider our own demographic situation in the years ahead.
If current below-replacement level fertility rates continue- and there is no reason to think they will not-Canada's population will begin to decline shortly after the turn of the century. Present net immigration levels-by that I mean immigration minus emigration-only slow and do not stop such an impending decline. A policy of long-term moderate and controlled growth in immigration established in the near future may deflect this outcome. It is something we must consider.
The growing complexity and urgency of this and other immigration issues, both national and international, underline the importance of the consultative process. It is my hope, therefore, that in the course of the coming year we shall find ways of broadening and expanding that process, new and better ways of communicating with our partners in the provinces, the non-governmental organizations, the legal and academic communities, and with Canadians themselves.
It has become fashionable to ridicule and belittle the words and phrases of political debate. That criticism, however, makes them no less valid, no less true. I should like to conclude this report with a reminder to all Members and all who may be listening of just how important immigration is to this country.
Immigration is one of the fundamental supports upon which Canada was founded and upon which we have developed ever since. It remains a powerful force in the lives of all Canadians. The benefits brought to the immigrant and the refugee, both economically and socially, can be seen in the kind of society we are-dynamic and industrious but compassionate and considerate as well. Respect-respect for one another, respect for the traditions we perhaps do not share in common, respect for the heritage we are creating together, and respect for the Canadian way is the gift of immigration.
The integrity of our policies is, therefore, absolutely vital. We have established ways and means, and they must be respected and upheld because it is through them that we stand ready to share our opportunities and the benefits of life in Canada, and to welcome them with a warmth unequalled by any nation. This is never more true than when it comes to the reunion of the family and the extension of sanctuary to the genuine refugee.
This report anticipates that Canadians will share this positive view of immigration, that they will be reassured by the steps the Government has taken to reaffirm its importance and, not least, that they will join us in realizing the importance of immigration to Canadian life.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may rejoice and be pleased in tabling his report today, but that should be the extent of his pleasure because
whatever his Government says these days, be it on trade, drugs, environment, science and technology, fisheries, cruise missiles, you name it, it lacks credibility, and the same must be said about immigration. We on this side of the House believe that the Government once again is misleading Canadians, and I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
First, today the Minister announces the increase from
125.000	to 135,000, yet only a few months ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proclaimed that Canada should let in up to 200,000 immigrants. A few months ago the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) proclaimed 175,000. Today the Minister deflates his own Prime Minister's figures. Which are we to believe?
I will give another example. We all know how anxious Canadians are to reunify their families. Last year the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) projected a total of 105,000 to
115,000.	Yet he admitted only 86,000 people. The Minister today is promising 50,000 family reunifications, yet he knows deep in his heart that he does not have the financial and personnel resources that are needed to process these people. In addition, last year he promised, for 1987, 45,000 family reunifications and delivered only 35,000, which represents 20 per cent below that projection.
Another area where promises were not kept is in humanitarian immigration. Last year the Minister promised 5,000 to
8.000	people. This year he back-pedalled to somewhere between
3.000	and 6,000 people.
The Minister's statement also lacks credibility because it deals only with figures. It contains not one word about services for an increasing number of projected new arrivals. Immigrants are more than just numbers, we must remind the Minister. In his statement he does not devote one word to immigration adjustment or to the services which are needed upon arrival by an increased number of people. What a shame.
To be taken seriously, the Government and the Minister have to rebuild lost confidence. Church groups, volunteer organizations, minority groups and immigration and refugee aid groups sharply and understandably criticized the Government last summer for its regressive and ill-conceived policies. A Bill introduced in this House in August, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, as an emergency measure, is still waiting to become law.
The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and I welcome the two promises made today. Persons selected to immigrate to Canada, or who are sponsored by family members already in Canada, will now be able to include their sons and daughters who are 21 years of age and over if these children have never been married. We welcome the promise made that the immigration selective system will be modified so that bonus points awarded to married sons and daughters and brothers and sisters will be increased from 10 points to 15 points. These are recommendations stemming from the standing committee and we now wait to see when and if these measures will be implemented.

:
October 30, 1987

Basically, there is a profound question of confidence at stake. It boils down to the question, can we have confidence in the promises made by the Prime Minister and this Minister in light of the performance of this Government? Canadians are wary of these promises.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by thanking the Hon. Minister for both the prompt and early delivery of his 1988 levels report to the critics and also for a generous appendix of useful statistics.
His report brings one important piece of hopeful news but unfortunately ducks or obscures most of the issues. The hopeful news, is that unmarried children over 21 years of age, we are told, will now be admitted as members of the family class. We understand that to mean without employment criteria, without being screened for education, skills, job offers, or any of the criteria which apply to independent immigrants and assisted relatives. If they are married, we are told, and come as independent immigrants, they will receive a 15 point bonus for kinship instead of a 10 point bonus, and we welcome that also.
We are also assured that if more than the planned 50,000 apply-and 1 welcome the increase in the planning from
45,000	to 50,000-and are eligible, they will be welcomed.
However, there is no promise to increase the overseas staff which a year ago was planned to be increased but was cut back by the action of the Department of External Affairs, and no promise to redeploy the overseas visa officers so as to reflect the actual volume of applications in different parts of the world. Therefore, it is very questionable whether the Minister can succeed in the increase he has promised.
The news, however, of the enlargement of the concept of the family is good news. It not only helps immigrants to settle into Canada, that is, by bringing in immigrants who already have a family to welcome them, it also directly benefits families in building family life, reflecting the Government's attention to the values of family life, and enabling Canadians to develop those small support systems that are centred in the family. For that the New Democratic Party is grateful because we have urged this change for several years, and we do commend the Minister for this move.
Otherwise, the news is mostly gloomy. It is mainly that the brain drain still reigns as the chief concern in Canada's immigration policy. The point system still tries to scoop the skilled and educated elite from around the world to Canada's benefit, regardless of what is done in the former colonial countries. Furthermore, there is very little practical result yet to be seen for the Minister's claim that he has streamlined and speeded up the immigration procedures.
There is also an interesting contrast. While the Minister has increased family reunification a little, the increase for refugees is stingy considering the needs of the persecuted and Canada's unusually rich resources. The Government is increasing the over-all planning level for Government sponsored selected
Statements by Ministers
refugees by only 1,000. It is cutting back by 3,000 on the planning level for humanitarian admissions. In other words, the Government, while it brags about stepping forward by 1,000-from 12,000 to 13,000-is in fact stepping backward by 2,000. That is in light of the fact that Canada's commitment is not merely narrowly to the UN convention on refugees but more broadly-which in the past years Canada has honoured-has a statutory commitment to a humanitarian goal in our immigration policy. That goal is being sharply reduced by the Minister.
We also have no assurance that there will be action to respond to the complaints of the churches, which have advised the Minister and the legislative committees that studied the Minister's repressive refugee legislation, of very specific details of how seriously the Government's red tape cuts back on the number of people that churches are able to sponsor. The churches, when they have undertaken a certain number of sponsorships, find that they cannot bring in all those people because of the Government's red tape.
For example, Chileans I know of in Buenos Aires, who have been recognized by the UN as refugees and sponsored by Canadian churches, have been refused by the Minister's Department for reasons that were never properly explained. Therefore, when the Minister says that he hopes that the churches will sponsor perhaps 7,000 or 6,000 refugees, he should have undertaken to cut the red tape which hinders them from doing that.
The third point is that while the Government has promised
2,000	refugee claimants to be landed by the refugee status advisory committee during the year 1988, he conceals the fact that these are cases left over from previous years. If Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 ever become law, that flow of claimants recognized in Canada will dry up very sharply since nearly all the claimants will be turned away unheard.
The Minister has bragged about the example that Canada sets to other countries of resettlement. The example that Canada will set, if Bill C-55 becomes law, is that a large number of people-according to the Government's estimates probably the majority-who come to Canada claiming refugee status will be sent away without the full oral hearing that is required by the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
They will be sent away without Canada having decided whether or not they are in fact refugees. They will be sent away to some other country, perhaps a country to which they passed through. The example Canada is setting is that we will not even ask, we will not even listen to their refugee claims. We will send them on, whether it is to Germany, France or wherever. We expect those countries to deal with that hot potato that we will not deal with. That is a disgraceful example. It is a denial of Canada's signature on the United Nations's Convention regarding the status of refugees.

October 30, 1987
Committee Reports
There is another irony associated with the refugee policy of the Government which the Minister fails to acknowledge in his report. That is the role of the much attacked administrative review of the people who applied for refugee status. These people were examined for possible landing on non-refugee grounds by a decision a year and a half ago. They have been attacked by Ministers and by Members of the government Party as queue-jumpers. The fact is that without 6,500 of those people who were landed in 1986 from the administrative review, the Government would have fallen not 5,000 or more short of its 1986 planning level but about 11,000 short. So the Government's pride in almost reaching its level in 1986 is based in part on these people that it despises and calls queue-jumpers. In 1987, nearly 14,000 have already landed from the administrative review. Without that it is very doubtful that the Government would come close to this year's planned level of landings.
In the Government's allocation of the 1,000 increase planned for refugees selected overseas, the Government fails to take account of the situation that is mushrooming in Central America. With the increase of the death squad killings condoned by the Governments of Guatemala and El Salvador, which have yet to prosecute anyone for those killings except when they went so far as to kill American churchwomen in El Salvador, with that rise in the level of fascist-type terror in El Salvador and Guatemala, there needs to be a substantial increase in the planned levels for Central American refugees in Canada. There needs to be an increase at least in line with the 1986 totals from Latin America which were 4,735. Instead, the Government has provided only an increase from 3,200 to 3,400 for all of Latin America.
As well as ignoring what is happening in Central America, the Government is ignoring what is happening with one of our trading partners, Chile, a country to which this country has from time to time shipped war goods. The Government now, through its so-called access to information law, prevents people from finding out what is being shipped there in the way of war goods. Chile has intensified the repression even beyond anything that has existed in the last dozen years in that country. That is not recognized or taken into account by the Government's proposed planning for refugee acceptance.
I do recognize, and I strongly support, that the Government has doubled the Middle East and West Asia planned level. It has brought it up from 900 to 1,800. I hope that this will include a substantial increase of several hundred for Afghan refugees in Pakistan, India or other nearby countries. The designation of West Asia-Middle East is a very broad designation covering an area that has many millions of refugees from several different sources of conflict. But the record of Canada in failing to consider Afghan refugees is another disgraceful record. I hope the Government is on the way to remedying that.
Therefore, I thank the Minister for his report, particularly in the matter of enlarging the concept of family reunification. I hope he will take the administrative measures and provide the
resources to carry out the plans he has announced. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the administrative changes and even legislative and policy statement changes which do not reflect the reality of Canada's obligation to refugees and to the people in humanitarian need that come to Canada or desire to come to Canada. These are people who would have a good case for coming to Canada, if the Minister would listen to them.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Thirty-seventh Report of the Striking Committee.
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*
[DOT] (O00)


JUDGES ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister 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.
* *
*

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mrs. Vezina, that the
October 30, 1987

Thirty-seventh Report of the Striking Committee, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a group of citizens from the City of Prince Albert. The petitioners suggest that certain areas of the City of Prince Albert should have mail delivery service equal to the service provided to every other area in the city, and that the imposition of supermailboxes lowers the value of property. They suggest that there be a halt to the installation of supermailboxes, that carrier service be provided, or the level of service in group boxes with no charge maintained.
This petition is signed by approximately 60 petitioners.
I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, which states that the petitioners in this particular area would rather have the old boxes than the new ones.
I am unable to present this petition because of a technicality. It is signed by 200 petitioners.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I request that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 2.32 p.m.
Customs Tariff