1987-12-03

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2) and Standing Order 99(2), I wish to table in both official languages the comprehensive response to the recommendations of the report of the Special Committee on Child Care entitled Sharing the Responsibility.
May I take this opportunity to thank you personally for the manner in which you handled this issue. I know that it was a new one in respect of the rules and I want to thank you for the care that you took on this issue.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-3265, 332-3281, 332-3282, 3323316, 332-3339 and 332-3357.
[DOT] (mo)



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-fifth report of the Striking Committee.
Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I intend to move concurrence in the forty-fifth report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN FORTY-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['I suppose I could say your wish is my command, and I do so wish to be commanded.']
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I move that the forty-fifth report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 83 residents of the Arctic Coast communities of Sachs Harbour, Holman Island, Coppermine, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Spence Bay, and Pelly Bay. They are petitioning the House concerning the high cost of freight and the high cost of living. They wish the House to consider a way in which the high cost of living and the high cost of freight can be dealt with and rectified.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few minutes ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled a document. I believe it is the response of the Government to the committee report on day care. I have asked for a copy of the document from the Table Officers. I am told that it is not available. Could we be assured that that document will be made available to us in the near future, that is, within the next few minutes?

December 3, 1987
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has raised a matter which, of course, is important. I assure the Hon. Member that I will immediately do everything I can so that the Hon. Member has the report, I hope within minutes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 175 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 175 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-LOANS TO METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA
Mr. Redway: Since September 4. 1984, did the Department of External Affairs make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-gouvernmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since my Private Member's Bill C-269 is now redundant, I request unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my Private Member's Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out how efficient and effective you are. I just got a copy of the document which I requested, and it was in less than a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose I could say your wish is my command, and I do so wish to be commanded.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 1, consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and the following motions of Mr. Cassidy:
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 43 and 44 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"other Act of Parliament.
(3)	The rates of customs duty set out in Schedule I and section 46 and the customs duties imposed by this Act are further subject to such increases, reductions, removals or other exceptions as may be specified in any regulation or order made under this or any other Act of Parliament, provided that no such regulation or order shall have effect for more than sixty days unless it is adopted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 11 to 17 at page 7 and substituting the following therefore:
"22.(1) Subject to sections 23 and 24, goods that originate in a country listed in Schedule III as a beneficiary of the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff are entitled to the rates of customs duty set out with respect to those goods in the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff in Schedule I.
(2) No country listed in Schedule III shall be granted rates of customs duties lower than those of the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff without prior approval of the new tariff rates by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 36 by adding, immediately after line 11 at page 12, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4)	For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 6.
December 3, 1987
[Stage Direction]
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 38 by adding, immediately after line 7 at page 13, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 54 by adding, immediately after line 31 at page 16, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line 4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (2), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by striking out lines 9 to 45 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1) on the basis of a report of the Minister of Finance, an inquiry made by the Canadian Import Tribunal under section 48 of the Special Import Measures Act or an inquiry made by the Textile and Clothing Board under the Textile and Clothing Board Act, the order ceases to have effect on the expiration of the sixtieth day from the day on which the order is made if Parliament is then sitting or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on the expiration of the fifteenth sitting day after that day, unless before the order so ceases to have effect it is approved by a resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by adding, immediately after line 27, at page 21 the following:
"(9) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (7), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 for debate. These are on a number of clauses which basically deal with the same subject.
Customs Tariff
We have expressed our concern about the way the Government has been dealing with the whole issue of its trade deal with the Americans.
Presently, the House of Commons committee studying this question is hearing witnesses from all across the country without having the final text before it. We are in a situation where the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) in the House on October 5 has been ignored by the Government. At page 9632 of Hansard, the Prime Minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, I shall table the complete text of the Agreement as soon as the
wording is finalized. It will then be referred to the appropriate committee of
the House for analysis, study and debate.
On October 5, the Prime Minister promised the House and the people of Canada that the House of Commons committee would have the finalized document before the committee hearings in order that the committee could hear from witnesses from all parts of the country who had the document in front of them before he rushed off to Washington to sign the final trade deal.
It is now December 3, two months after the Government signed the Elements of Agreement, and we still do not have a finalized copy. Negotiations may or may not be taking place today to try to get a final copy of that document ready. It is now less than a month before the Prime Minister wants to sign a document which not one of us in the House has seen. This document is not even ready. Yet we know that it is a document which will fundamentally change the economy of this nation.


Mr. Jelinek:: Improve.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Some say it will improve, some say otherwise. But the problem is that we do not have the document. There is presently a committee of the House in Halifax, and it does not have the document. There are witnesses appearing before that committee, and they do not have the document. It is not acceptable for us in the House to pass any legislation at this time which gives the Government a blank cheque when it comes to trade deals and tariff reductions. We will do nothing to make it possible for the Government through Order in Council to do what it should be doing through proper legislation, debate, our committee system, and through the House itself.
As I stated in an earlier speech, we will not expedite the passage of Bill C-87 because it helps the Government move along the road to its trade deal. We do not believe that, in any sense, passing legislation in a legitimate and orderly process is happening at this time.
If the Government was able to negotiate a deal with the Americans, as it claims it has done, all that had to be done was the following, to use the Prime Minister's words when he stated:

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
I am advised that there may be a minor typographical error in this document, but that the document itself represents the fundamentals of the agreement arrived at by the parties.
These elements are the agreed basis for the agreement and will be translated into a legal document, as agreed, in appropriate time frames by the negotiating teams.
The trade negotiators met late into last night and it is obvious that they failed to come to some finalized wording, and we are not talking about "minor" amendments. We are talking about negotiations which are ongoing and which could fundamentally alter the Elements of Agreement that we were shown two months ago. Obviously, the people of this country are very concerned about the agreement, regardless of whether they are for or against it. The Government has boasted how important it is. The people recognize it is important and we need a process, not a three, four, or five day debate prior to the Christmas recess, which the Government wants, a debate where the people of Canada will be excluded because they will not have seen the document, a debate which will occur after the committee has held hearings but without a final document in front of it.
When minor pieces of legislation are passed through the House of Commons, there is first reading one day, second reading later, a debate in the House, and then the Bill goes to committee. A finalized version of that Bill goes to committee, even if it is a minor piece of legislation. Witnesses are allowed to appear, pro and con, and then amendments can take place.
The Bill comes back to the House of Commons, as does this legislation that we are dealing with today, with other amendments being possible at report stage, as we call it. Following that there is third reading. Even for minor pieces of legislation, we are in the situation where the public has a final document, and they have the time to appear in front of a committee. In some cases even what we may call minor pieces of legislation have more witnesses appearing in front of a committee than is happening in the case of the trade deal.
I repeat, at least the witnesses who appear have a final document in front of them. The House of Commons at report stage, and later at third reading, is in a position to debate the merits of the legislation and to try to make amendments to it. Quite often ordinary legislation, some of it minor, some more important, takes a long time to get through the House of Commons. It is very seldom that we circumvent that route.
When it comes to the trade deal, the House of Commons cannot allow the Prime Minister to break his promise that we would have the finalized document and that that document would then go to the committee for study. The Prime Minister made a promise on October 5 and during later speeches he implied that it would be fulfilled some time during the month of October and there would be a final document. Therefore, when the committee travelled that final document would be in front of it.
October passed and we did not have a finalized document. November passed and we did not have a finalized document. It
is December and still there is no finalized document. Obviously, the committee which is scheduled to finish its work next Monday, will never have a finalized document in front of it. How can the Government, as it is doing at the present time, say that there will be a few days' debate just before the Christmas break, and it wants then to allow a vote on free trade so that our Prime Minister can go running off to Washington and say that he has the consent of the House of Commons? We do not do that for minor legislation. We certainly do not do it for major legislation. We will certainly not do it for the Prime Minister's trade package. The people of Canada deserve to have the information in front of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that there is such a thing as relevancy. I hope that he is returning to the relevant part of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a customs matter; the amendments before us deal with restricting the ability of Cabinet to act without the consent of Parliament.
[DOT] (i no)
In introducing these amendments for debate on Tuesday of this week, we stated that the intent of our amendments on Bill C-87 was to restrict the right of the Government to implement any part of its trade deal through any Order in Council mechanism. Therefore, the amendments which are before us are part of a deliberate strategy by the New Democratic Party caucus to ensure that the Government, which has already broken its word to the House of Commons with regard to the trade deal and in terms of us having a finalized document, does not use Bill C-87 and other pieces of legislation to get around full parliamentary approval or disapproval.
In talking about these amendments, I am talking about why we have presented them to the House of Commons. It was to make clear to members of the Government and members of the Opposition why we believe they are important. It is because we do not trust the Government when it comes to the trade deal. It is because we have already been told something by the Prime Minister in terms of our having the finalized document, which he has not been able to deliver. It is because we know that there are still ongoing negotiations on the basis of what the Americans want to do to improve the deal as far as they are concerned.
We have a Prime Minister who denies that the negotiations are going on, yet we know that they are happening. We also know that the House of Commons committee is in Halifax today and does not have the final document. In many cases the witnesses are wasting their time.
We want to make abundantly clear-and I know that my time has run out as far as this debate is concerned-that the procedure the Government is trying to foist on the House of Commons is unacceptable. We will certainly make sure, through debate on the motion, that we do not allow the
December 3, 1987

Government to do through the back door what it is afraid to do through the House of Commons.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, Tuesday I heard what Members opposite had to say about Bill C-87. Unfortunately, not one actually spoke to Bill C-87 and the motions tabled in this House. Attempts were made to discuss free trade, although Bill C-87 is a strictly administrative measure. It is really unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, and I will start with Motion No. 2-


Mr. Cassidy:: That is absolutely false!


Pierre H. Vincent: I will start with Motion No. 2, Mr. Speaker. They don't like to hear the truth on the other side of the House, but what do you expect?
Motion No. 2 demands parliamentary approval for increases and reductions of certain tariffs. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you realize this motion would be disastrous for the administration and development of this country. In certain cases, decisions must be taken quickly, including decisions on increases or reduction in tariffs and that are vital to the development of this country and its individual regions. That is how things are done, Mr. Speaker. It has always worked that way, and the public interest has always been protected. So I think Motion No. 2 should be rejected on those grounds.
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 3 would deny the Governor in Council the right to reduce rates or give certain developing countries lower preferential rates. Mr. Speaker, to vote in favour of this motion might distort international trade, and I want to say that I am speaking strictly about the substance of Bill C-87 and not about free trade.
Motion No. 3 refers to developing countries, and when I heard the debate on the motion this week, Hon. Members were talking about free trade. I do not think the United States is a developing country.
Motion No. 5 would prohibit the Government from quickly taking a position when imports are harming our Canadian producers. That is what the motion intends to do, Mr. Speaker. That motion was presented by the socialist party that wants to prevent quick action to help our Canadian producers when they are harmed by imports.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is just not true! There is no restriction.


Pierre H. Vincent: This is the position of the New Democratic Party: Kill our Canadian businesses as soon as possible! That is their position.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is absolutely false!


Pierre H. Vincent: That is their position. That is what the motion is about. If the Hon. Member would care to read it and understand it, that is what it says.
Customs Tariff
The same thing applies to Motion No. 6. Again, they want to restrict government intervention with respect to imports that are harming our Canadian producers. That is what Motion No. 6 is about. Read it carefully-


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), on a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the Hon. Member made statements that are absolutely untrue. There is no interference with a government's authority to adopt motions to block imports-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants the floor, he will have his chance. Now perhaps he should find out how the system works. If certain goods arrive in Canada tomorrow morning which could harm our businesses, and if we have to get parliamentary approval, and if the Opposition Party acts up as usual and tries to obstruct the proceedings, even when the issue is urgent, I do not think the motion proposed by the socialist party would be a good thing for Canadian business. The truth always hurts, and I notice that at least the Hon. Member was not asleep and that he listened to what I had to say.
Motion No. 7 boils down to the same thing. Here again, they want to prevent Canada from acting quickly in case of imports from the Caribbean Commonwealth.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is a lie, that is absolutely false!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, Tuesday I listened to him and I did not interrupt. I trust he will have the courtesy to do the same.
Motion No. 9 is intended to keep the Government from conducting its foreign policy in a sensible and orderly fashion while protecting Canada's interests. Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 9 does not consider the fact that the Minister of Finance must advise Parliament of what he has done within two weeks. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the interests of Canadians and the interests of this country are well protected, while Canada has requisite flexibility to apply its foreign policy.
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 10 suggests setting up a tribunal. Another socialist invention that will harm Canadian business. Mr. Speaker, here again, and this is a very important point, when imports are dumped on our market, we must have ways to deal quickly with the situation. Motion No. 10 would merely make existing procedures take much longer.
As for Motion No. 11, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could give you a quick summary. They simply want to paralyze the administration of this country and with it, Parliament, by
1 1444

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
demanding that purely administrative work should be submitted for parliamentary approval. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would invite all Hon. Members to vote against Motion No. 11 as well as Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last 10 minute presentation of the Parliamentary Secretary. That same argument has been used many times in history to defend the divine right of Kings, to defend the courts of Star Chamber, to defend enlightened despots, to defend the Inquisition, to defend various forms of bodies to make judgments on the basis of efficiency, to keep the country running, to keep the trains running, and all those wonderful slogans that have been used to defend ways of making decisions without recourse to democratically elected bodies and legislatures.
It would be important for Conservative Members of Parliament to recognize why such amendments are necessary. Let us presume for a moment that you were Jonathan Swift and you had the opportunity to pick a subject in the contemporary world of satire and you wanted to find a particular object which could bring out the absurdity and ludicrousness of the world. What would you choose, Mr. Speaker? Probably number one on the agenda would be a government that signed a deal that is not yet a deal, that got down to that finger-lickin' good Kentucky fried chicken summit meeting in Washington on October 4 where all the Ministers got together and announced with great fanfare and flourish, "Hey, we have a deal". Two months later to the day, on December 4, the American negotiator said, "We may have a deal and we may not have a deal". This gang still has not decided two months later on the most significant initiative within decades. This gang, who cannot shoot straight, still has not got itself a deal. To compound the problem, the Government has the incredible gall to initiate a parliamentary committee to consult with Canadians about a deal not yet made.
Jonathan Swift would have a wonderful time this far by asking "How can you comment on something that is not yet completed?" By some great leap of imagination, Conservative Members of Parliament are able to visualize what may be in the deal, not that they are going to tell anybody else, but it is that leap of faith that implies, "You have to believe what we believe" in order to agree with them.
Then the Government sends a committee across the country for public hearings, one day per province. The million people in the Province of Manitoba get to make six representations on a deal they have not yet seen. Nine million people in the Province of Ontario get to make six representations on a deal they have not yet seen. The committee is asked to report its findings to this Parliament on the basis of a document it has not seen, on the basis of presentations that are not relevant because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member because I enjoy listening to his debates in the House, but I must bring to his attention the fact that we are dealing with Bill C-87, an Act respecting imposition of duties, customs and other charges to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding system. I would appreciate very much a slight bit of relevancy to the Bill. I do not wish to interrupt the Hon. Member because I sincerely appreciate his debates, but I would appreciate also, so that other younger Members in this House will be able to take into effect exactly what he is saying, if he were a little more relevant as far as the Bill is concerned.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, this type of Bill is ordinarily, as you have indicated, technical and fairly routine, but it is the contention of opposition Members on this side of the House that we are dealing with an entirely different situation because the free trade agreement signed between the Government of Canada and the President of the United States changes the whole trade situation in fundamental ways. Therefore you cannot discuss this without discussing the implications of free trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the other senior Member of this Chamber is saying, and I am also looking forward to his participation in the debate, but the Bill now being debated goes into the matter mentioned by the Hon. Member. Nevertheless, I would like the Member to come back to the meat of the Bill, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in order to be of assistance to the Chair I would draw your attention to Clause 22 of the Bill which is one of the clauses amended in the series of amendments currently under debate. Clause 22 reads:
Subject to Section 23 and 24, goods that originate in a country listed in
Schedule III as a beneficiary of the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff are entitled
to the rates of customs duty set out with respect to those goods in the MostFavoured-Nation Tariff in Schedule I.
That allows in a subsequent section-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have no problem with that. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has the floor for debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would only say in response to your suggestion of relevance that the argument I am attempting to build in 10 minutes is somewhat akin to building a cathedral. One must lay the foundation and the flying buttresses before one completes the superstructure. Therefore, if you will bear with me for a moment or two longer, I will then complete the full structure of the case to be made.
I am alluding to the document we have not yet seen which will contain within it a number of annexes setting out a series of tariff rates. We do not know what is in it. We have not seen it yet. We do not know which commodities, goods or services will be given a series of tariff reductions over the 5 or 10 year period. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy)
December 3, 1987

has pointed out, we have in this particular Bill a very clear indication that most-favoured-nation treatment, which is based upon the principle of non-discriminatory tariff rates for other countries, may run contradistinction to the kinds of proposals being made under the trade proposal with the Americans. We are concerned about the manipulation of those different rates, which could take place without any public understanding or recourse to this Parliament, to determine whether a change is in the public interest.
The harmonization of rates that were agreed to under the previous GATT round, to which this Bill is giving implementation, is based on what I think is a crucial, fundamental principle of Canadian trade policy, that is, the application of non-discriminatory tariffs to all countries, and one of the unfortunate and debilitating effects of the proposed agreement with the Americans will be to set out discriminatory trade tariff rates that will work against that basic principle. Therefore, we would put ourselves in danger, I believe, of not only undermining our own trade relations with other countries who all of a sudden will wake up to find that countries which have been good customers of Canada are now treated to a discriminatory set of tariffs and that the Americans will get preferential treatment to the Japanese, the Russians or the Europeans.
This Parliament itself has not had the opportunity to comment on that to determine whether that version of trade may be a serious danger. Aside from our own specific trade relationships, I believe this dichotomy that we now have presents an erosion of the international trade system.
I would cite for Your Honour the statements made just last Sunday night by Paul Volcker, probably one of the most highly respected financial analysts in the world and head of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank for close to eight years. He said very clearly that the emergence of regional trading blocs in North America, Europe and other places will undermine the international trading system through discriminatory trading practices.
That is the contradiction in this Bill when compared to the free trade agreement. You are saying to one class of customer that they will get preferential treatment. If that happens we will be back to where we were in the 1930s. Rather than having individual countries raise tariff barriers or treating one country differently from the other, we will now be doing it on a regional basis. We have brought the jungle-like atmosphere of the 1930s into the 1980s and 1990s and with the same effect, that is, trade wars on an international level between regional trading blocs.
The problem we have in this Parliament is that it is hard to get at the issue, which is what I was saying earlier. How can we raise these kinds of problems when we are subjected to a flying circus approach to the whole deal? We do not have an agreement, but we have a committee going through a farcical
Customs Tariff
exercise of holding hearings. Yet there will be no opportunity to raise these very relevant questions.
We have in front of us an important Bill which deals with harmonization of international trading rights, which the Government wants to pass before we have an opportunity to determine the impact of the free trade agreement. We cannot do that because we have not seen the final agreement. That agreement will contain all the tariff rates and schedules. When I referred to an absurdity, that is the point I was trying to make. We are once again facing a legislative conundrum. We do not have an opportunity to look at an important piece of legislation from the perspective of how it will be affected by the free trade proposals now being made because they are still up in the air.
In conclusion, I can only say that, contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary was saying, these are important amendments and should be supported.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the basic purpose of this Bill is to establish a new harmonized system of tariffs between major trading nations, including Canada. There is no country for whom the question of tariffs and their effect on trade is more important than Canada. To a large extent we live by our ability to trade. Unfortunately, in recent years we have been faced by large groups of countries that are using tariffs and non-tariff methods to improve trade between themselves and restrict trade with other countries.
The European Economic Community has been extremely effective at removing tariffs between countries that belong to the community, and making it more and more difficult for other countries, including Canada, to sell to that community. The U.S. has followed a similar policy. Japan, that country to which we are urged to look as an example of how a free enterprise economy operates, has the most efficient and effective system of tariff and non-tariff barriers in the world. These include impossible standards which have to be met before one can sell to Japan. This has created tremendous difficulties for us.
A whole new set of difficulties will be created when this so-called free trade agreement with the U.S. is finally signed and put into effect. In the period before the 1984 election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) derided the possibility of a free trade agreement with the U.S. On one occasion I think the Prime Minister compared it to an elephant dealing with a rabbit. That was the relative strength and power of the two countries as the Prime Minister saw it at that time.
During the election campaign, there was not a single mention of the possibility of a free trade agreement with the U.S. Then, because the Government saw that for more than a year it had been down at the bottom in support, based on polls done by Gallup, Angus Reid and The Globe and Mail, and looking for an issue which might bring it back, suddenly it brought forward the concept of a free trade agreement.

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
No one in this country, no Member of Parliament, is opposed to improved trade arrangements between Canada and the U.S, or any other country. In October we had a lot of publicity-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been a long-standing tradition of this House that debate at all times should be focused, but particularly so at report stage when we are considering amendments moved by the Party to which the Hon. Member belongs. I think it is incumbent upon us to speak to each of the amendments. Some of them are grouped for debate. We on this side are having a great deal of difficulty understanding that the Hon. Member is speaking to the amendments proposed by his Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying. I know the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) will be coming to the point.
Now we have another point of order from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we have eight or nine amendments in this particular grouping. They all encompass the principle, according to the amendments, that these important tariff and trade actions taken by the Government of Canada should be subject to parliamentary accountability, just as a number of other matters in the customs and tariffs are subjected to parliamentary accountability. However, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will realize-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. McDermid:: Order, Mike!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) realizes what the amendments are and I think he will be coming to the relevant point.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am discussing, quite briefly and in a general way, the effects, as I see them, of this free trade agreement is that I will go from that to show how the agreement will actually have an adverse effect on various groups in Canada. It is for that reason that we are opposed to giving the Government the ability to change tariff schedules by Order in Council.
As I said, this agreement was signed on October 3 and we were assured repeatedly that it would only be a few days or a week or two before we saw the final text. It is now almost two months since the agreement was supposedly signed and there is still no text. Our partners, the Americans, have continued to bring up important issues on which they want amendments. According to reports we have heard in the last couple of days, they want to change the section on the Auto Pact. They want their shipping industry excluded from the provisions of this agreement. They are calling on Canada to change its procurement policies.
They say that both the federal Government and provincial Governments of Canada give provincial suppliers an important advantage over others, including American suppliers. The fact is that the American Government and 49 of the 50 American States do exactly the same thing. The Buy American Act provides that American companies will have an advantage over foreign companies when the American Government is making purchases. The American Government makes purchases of hundreds of billions of dollars. Every state in the United States gives an advantage to companies in its state over companies in other states when making purchases. If they do that, they will obviously create difficulties for Canadian companies which want to make sales to the American federal or state Governments. We do not hear our negotiators talking about that.
The Montreal Gazette today reported on the issue of agriculture. The Prime Minister the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and our chief negotiator Mr. Reisman, have been asked repeatedly what effect this agreement will have on our farmers. Mr. Reisman said that it will not have any effect because our agricultural marketing boards and our supply management system are not even mentioned.
Mr. Reisman is a very able, clever, knowledgeable, and aggressive negotiator. I will not say that when he made that statement he was lying because, first, it would be unparliamentary and, second, because I do not want to say anything here to which he cannot reply directly. However, I say here, as I will say outside the House, that when Mr. Reisman said that agricultural producers will not be affected because supply management and marketing boards are not mentioned-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Chair has wisely chosen to group several motions for debate. I wish to address the principles of these motions today. I hope to be able to address as many of the motions which are before us as possible.
They all reflect a continuation of the struggle which began between the people and the monarchy as long ago as 1215 when King John was forced by the Lords of the day, who acted on behalf of the people, to sign the Magna Carta, which gave the very basic right for which we are fighting today with these amendments, that being the basic right of the Parliament of the country to establish what the rules should be with regard to the collection of taxes, the collection of government funds.
Under this particular Bill, approximately $2 billion worth of government revenues is at stake. The Government is proposing to do away with that revenue. Canada spends in the neighbourhood of $110 billion to $130 billion per year and has incurred a deficit in each year for the past three years in the neighbourhood of $30 billion. We are, therefore, not in a position to be giving away $2 billion worth of revenue.
December 3, 1987

Even more at issue is the fact that under Bill C-87 the power to reduce the amount of funds coming into the government Treasury by way of customs tariffs and other such revenues is being left essentially with the modern-day representative of the monarch, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. We are seeing the age-old attempt under a constitutional monarchy by representatives of the Crown to make decisions with regard to the collection and expenditure of taxation without reference to the House of Commons which, under our system, is supposed to represent the people.
The principle which we are trying to establish with this series of motions is that within 60 days of the signing of an agreement which changes the procedure for the collection of tariffs, that agreement shall be submitted to the House of Commons for ratification. One would not think that this is a terribly radical initiative until you see the horror with which Members on the government side react.
We are attempting to continue a practice which was set in motion in 1215 and has been slowly and painfully continued through the centuries since then of putting the power to impose and collect taxation back into the hands of the House of Commons, which is the true representative of the people, rather than leaving it in the hands of the representatives of the monarch, namely the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
We are not in any way restricting the monarch and her representatives, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, from undertaking initiatives by way of international treaties or by proposing changes to the amount of taxation which they will be levelling at or within our borders. We are simply asking for the maintenance of the ancient right that once decisions are made they cannot continue after 60 days without the approval of the House of Commons. This is not even as strong in some ways as that which the Lords demanded at Runnymede. We are saying "within 60 days" which seems to me to be a very reasonable request.
Two or three of these motions already in the first draft of the Act indicate that the Government is prepared to do so, would deign to do so, after 180 days. We are simply saying that we should speed up that process. This is consistent with some of the proposals made by both the McGrath commission and the Cooper commission, if I could call it that, two parliamentary groups which studied the activities of the House of Commons. The McGrath committee made proposals to strengthen the power of the back-benchers and of the Commons itself. The committee under the chairmanship of our friend, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), dealt with the question of parliamentary oversight and how Parliament could continue to build control over the budget and expenditure systems of this Chamber.
These proposed amendments which we are now discussing would force the Government to present such changes to our tariff laws, the amount of tariffs being levied at our borders,
Customs Tariff
within 60 days for approval by the House. This follows through with the initiatives the committee, chaired by the Hon. Member for Peace River, was attempting to impose on our processes in this Chamber. We were attempting to make the budgetary process more reasonable, to have the Chamber itself deal with government Bills. We were attempting to force the Government to come forward with government Bills in fact very closely in concert with the presentation of the Budget so that we could avoid the spectacle we often go through in this Chamber of imposing taxes, collecting taxes, income taxes and other taxes, long before the law actually passes this Chamber.
What we are trying to do from now on is to keep our procedures a little more tight and a little more proper in the administrative sense so that this Chamber does get a chance to do its job of overviewing the expenditure plans of the administration of the executive branch of the Cabinet itself. This Bill proposes to give away close $2 billion in Government revenues, and because the Government is already in a deficit position of around $30 billion per year, this money will have to be made up through the tax system by some other means. We think that because there are a host of possibilities before us at the moment with the clauses mentioned in this Bill. There are potential changes to the tariff rates with Great Britain, the United States and various Commonwealth countries, some of the nations which have already been granted most-favourednation status, and a great long list of others who may in fact be granted such status to the point where they may eventually pay zero tariff from the current high level of 35 per cent tariff.
We think that before the Government makes permanent such arrangements by treaty, which it has under our constitutional monarchy every right to do, that treaty or those obligations should be transferred in front of this Chamber within 60 days so that this Chamber could have the opportunity to reject or ratify them. We presume that in virtually all cases the Government will be a majority Government which will be assured of its taxing proposal, or its proposal to give away tax revenue. But the principle should remain constant. This Chamber, and this Chamber alone, should make the final decision as to whether or not that should be ratified. That is what these amendments are attempting to do. I would urge all Members of the House, whether in government or in opposition, to see the extreme importance to this Chamber and to the representative system in this country for that to be strengthened and to continue.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to have a word to say on motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11. This essentially gives the responsibility to the Government for any changes in customs duties or tariffs to be brought before the House for consideration by the House within 60 days. I think that is especially desirable at this time. We know that even though there has not been a firm agreement made between Canada and the United States with regard to the free trade agreement, we believe that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will plunge ahead and sign this document on January 2 or January 3. It has long-term implications for all

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
sectors of the Canadian economy, but clearly none more important than for the dairy industry.
Under the treaty which the President and the Prime Minister will sign, tariffs on dairy commodities will be reduced by 17.5 per cent, and many groups like the Dairymen's Association are demanding that the Government impose quantitative tariff quotas on dairy commodities such as liquid milk, yoghurt and ice-cream. It has been promised by the Government that marketing boards and supply management would not be in the deal, but in fact they are in the deal, because the whole supply management marketing board system we have depends on the imposition of tariffs, quotas and supply management. In this case the Government is removing these tariffs, and that is how this motion becomes paramount.
The Canadian dairy farmers have recognized that the Government is playing fast and loose with the truth. It put out a statement on November 26 in which it was stated:
"The removal of tariffs therefore provides access for U.S. products into Canada while an expansion of the exportation of Canadian dairy products to the U.S. remains an impossibility", stated Mr. Waardenburg. Dairy Farmers of Canada is seeking an amendment to the Import Control List which would ensure full coverage of all dairy products, before the signing of the Agreement on January 2. 1988.
Mr. Waardenburg goes on his press statement:
Dairy Farmers of Canada did not oppose the trade negotiations with the United Stales because the federal government had clearly indicated its commitment to ensure that all the "underpinnings" required for the maintenance of an efficient milk supply management program in Canada would be unaffected. However, unless the federal government now demonstrates its sincere willingness to live up to this commitment Canadian milk producers will strongly oppose its initiative in the free trade agreement.
Yesterday it carried out that commitment. It met the Associate Minister of Agriculture in full force in Quebec. The headlines of the report of that meeting are pretty devastating. It was reported in the Montreal Gazette this morning. The headline reads: "Angry farmers scorch Minister for 'lying' about pact". The secondary headline from the inside page reads: "Farmers scorch Minister for 'lying' about pact". Clearly the dairy farmers of Canada are going to carry out the challenge they made to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) in their press statement of November 26.
The Gazette goes on to report that dairy farmers, especially those in Quebec, feel that the Government has tampered with the truth. The press reports indicate that the Associate Minister of Agriculture was pilloried yesterday by 2,500 angry farmers who accused him and the Conservative Government of lying about the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. The Minister came under heavy fire at the farmers' union convention, after trying to convince the audience that the proposed agreement would not hurt farmers.
Clearly, the Government has lost the trust of the farmers of this country. It should simply pass those amendments to the import control list. It may not regain the trust of farmers
generally, but it will help. The Americans have that in place now, so why is the Government not prepared to put similar restrictions in place with regard to milk and milk products, especially yoghurt and ice-cream?
This morning I asked the Deputy Minister of Agriculture if he has prepared amendments to the import quota list. He indicated that this was not before the Cabinet presently and he did not even indicate whether or not they would be put forward. He certainly gave the indication that they would not be put before January 2, as requested by the dairy farmers of Canada.
This mass demonstration against the Government will continue. It is reaching a fever pitch in the Province of Quebec, with the UPA presenting the junior Minister of Agriculture with a white rabbit, symbolic of what Canadian farmers got from the deal, compared to a horse which the Americans got from the trade deal. They did not open up their markets and have full quota restrictions on milk products going into the United States. Canada has granted extra quota throughout the dairy industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) please remove his coat?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member just returned from the farmers' meeting in Quebec yesterday where he saw the junior Minister of Agriculture being pilloried by the UPA representatives.
Essentially, this is an amendment to the changes to the Tariff Act as will be made by the Government and the trade agreement which will commit the Government to making those changes, which could have a devastating impact on dairy farmers. It simply asks that these changes be brought before the House within 60 days.
The same would apply if a tariff were being increased. Once a treaty is signed, the Government is committed.


John Horton McDermid: You said you would tear it up.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Rather than the Prime Minister signing the agreement on January 2 and introducing legislation months later, why can those amendments to which the Government will be committed not be brought before the House within 60 days? I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) would see anything wrong with that. He is a strong believer in the parliamentary system and surely he would want to see tariff and trade-related items brought before the House and approved by the legislative body within 60 days, as proposed in this amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
December 3, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, which relate to parliamentary approval by either resolution or legislation, were debated together. A vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.
The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived on division?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 4 and 12 will be debated together, with a vote on Motion No. 4 applied to Motion No. 12.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 13 to 16 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"to sections 23, 27 or 28, the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the''.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 61 by striking out line 3 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"sixtieth day from the day".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge to my colleagues that 1 was a bit confused about the vote that was just taken. Rather than intending to oppose what the Government was doing, I wound up temporarily in error by opposing my own amendment. However, I will vote in the appropriate way when the deferred division is taken.
I think that speaks to the complexity of these tariff matters. It proves that they are well worth considering by Parliament in its role as a place where there should be a certain amount of sober second thought on important matters which can have such far-reaching implications.
Presently, some 2,000 pages are being negotiated in the agreement between Canada and the United States at white-hot speed. Who knows what is happening behind closed doors, and in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, a matter such as this would normally go before a parliamentary committee. The committee and its staff, on behalf of members of different Parties, would be able to study it. There would also be opportunity for the general public to examine it as well. Of course, those things will not occur because of today's news that once again there has been a delay, and the goodwill that existed at the bargaining table seems to have disappeared. The negotiators have gone away feeling sour and sore at each other.
Customs Tariff
I do not know when we will see the agreement. Certainly, the Government's credibility in suggesting when it will come out is totally shattered. It seems to be an ever receding target as to when this will come out-at Hallowe'en, in mid-November, or on December 1.


David Orlikow: January 1.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Now it might come out on December 10. Or my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), suggests that it may not come out until January 1, or even after it is signed.
Let me return to Motions Nos. 4 and 12. Motion No. 4 refers specifically to Clauses 23, 27, and 28. I was a bit surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) rose and stated that Parliament would obstruct actions taken by Canadian officials, by the Government of Canada, when it came to important trade actions, for example, the need for surtaxes or retaliatory actions in the case of some trade dispute with another country. Surely the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows that that is not the case. That is why I indicated to him in interjecting that what he said was absolument faux, it was absolutely untrue.
It is not the actions that are being dealt with here, it is the question of the accountability to Parliament. Clause 32 already requires approval by Parliament within 180 days. In other words, the principle of parliamentary accountability is there with respect to changes in the tariffs under Clauses 23, 27, and 28 of the Bill.
That means that if Canada extends or withdraws a most favoured nation tariff to another country for any or all goods-that is covered in Clause 23-that that must now be submitted for approval by Parliament by resolution within 180 days, or it lapses. It means that if Canada extends or withdraws a British preferential tariff to another country for any or for all goods, the Government must get approval from Parliament within 180 days, or else it lapses. It means that if Canada gives to any country that is presently under the British preferential tariff a more favourable treatment-that would be a less developing country, probably in Africa-then there too that is subject to parliamentary approval within 180 days. The principle of accountability to Parliament is an important one. The question referred to in my amendments in Motion Nos. 4 and 12 is simply whether the approval should come within 180 days or within 60 days.
I would argue that, on the basis of what we know about the Government's lack of trustworthiness and its lack of credibility in terms of making promises to Parliament, and through Parliament to the Canadian people, it is incumbent upon us to review the question of whether 180 days is an adequate time, or whether Parliament should not be called upon to act sooner, in other words, in these particular and important clauses and actions, whether the accountability to Parliament should not be tightened up and reaffirmed.

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
Why is it 60 days? Would that not create a problem if Parliament does not happen to be sitting? The present legislation already covers that. It states that, if Parliament is not sitting within the 180 day period, then the resolution has to be affirmed by Parliament by the fifteenth sitting day after Parliament's return. For example, that might be during an election year. That would in fact apply in the case where we shortened the approval time to 60 days.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance suggested that this would interfere insufferably with the working of Parliament. I would point out that, under Clauses 23, 27, and 28 those resolutions are already covered by Parliament or are required by Parliament, so there is a form of accountability.
1 do not recall these matters ever being treated as anything but routine. Therefore, I would judge that if we decided, for example, to give most favoured nation treatment to Albania, which I believe is now under the general tariffs, or withdraw MFN status from some other country because of a trade dispute, 1 do not imagine that if it were a routine matter it would take any parliamentary time at all. It would be a resolution passed in a minute or two. If there were some desire to discuss the matter, it could be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs or the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The experience in the recent past would indicate that my contention is an accurate one. The problem is that we now have the Government seeking powers in this Bill which would allow it to enter into a fundamental change, a Bill or agreement which would wreak fundamental change in our trading relationship with our largest trading partner. And through the back door, by means of this Bill, whose primary purpose is the harmonized system of tariffs, it is seeking to confirm for itself powers to do this without reference to Parliament. The Government's behaviour is reprehensible, and I believe it should be put on a short leash until it can demonstrate once again that it is worthy of the trust of the Canadian people, and it has some credibility in this particular area.
I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) state in the House yesterday that no negotiations are taking place. But then on television I saw Mr. Murphy-Mr. Reisman went away by the garbage elevator-obviously rather emotional, upset and teed off at the situation, having come away from something which can only be described as a very tense and difficult set of negotiations.
We don't know whether they were negotiating the entire Auto Pact back, or down the drain, or whether they were negotiating in perpetuity that Canadian ship owners and sailors will never be able to serve American ports because of a perpetuation of the powers of the present Jones Act. But what I do know is that the issues must be pretty darned important that we got to 98 per cent of the deal being put into text some three or four weeks ago, and have gone no further than 1.5 per
cent in the ensuing three or four weeks. This is where accountability comes in. In such a matter as the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, which goes far beyond the routine, parliamentary accountability begins to have an impact.
I would draw to your attention as an analogy, Mr. Speaker, the situation that prevails with the new procedure about the reference of nominees to Order in Council appointments to the relevant standing committees of the House of Commons. The analogy is not perfect, because there is no power for the committees to actually confirm or refuse to confirm those appointments. Nonetheless, those appointments are referred to the relevant committee, and they lie on the table in that committee for a period of some three or four weeks or some shorter period, and the committees have the power, and I think it is accepted that the majority will not be used to stop that, actually to consider those appointments and whether or not they are appropriate.
One of the reasons that that procedure came in was to ensure or seek to ensure that political favouritism and patronage would not be the governing principle in making important Order in Council appointments.
Last night I had a few minutes in my office and I was going through my desk and came across a list of approximately 10 appointments referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. There were appointments to the Canada Development Investment Corporation of a Deputy Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and to Canada's associate or alternate Governor to the International Monetary Fund.
I looked through the biographies appended and the people appeared to be able. One was an East Indian Canadian who came from Uganda in 1972. It is noteworthy that someone who settled in this country should, in 15 years, have achieved the stature and respect in the community that he would be appointed to the Canada Development Investment Corporation. There were three able women appointed to different positions, something that I welcome. I made a note to my staff simply to say that I do not think we need to worry about these ones, and we do not need to call those people before the committee.
Likewise, the same applies to the power of resolutions. Normally those matters will not require any parliamentary time. But where the situations are abnormal, such as in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, and where we are kept in the dark while vital decisions affecting every Canadian are made behind closed doors, under that situation, we have to reaffirm the principle of parliamentary accountability.
In Motions Nos. 4 and 12, which cover a broad range of tariff-making powers and of different trade and tariff status given to different countries around the world, we are saying that these should come before Parliament for resolution within 60 days rather than within 180 days, bearing in mind that when Parliament is not sitting it would be the fifteenth sitting day after Parliament resumed.
December 3, 1987


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I support the position taken by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). As he indicated, and as I said a while ago, we are not dealing with a normal situation. We are not dealing with a time when these changes in tariffs were fairly routine or when a great deal of discretion was left to the Government to change the schedules by Order in Council with little discussion in Parliament. It is our contention that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has changed the situation in a very fundamental way. For a few moments I will continue with the points I was trying to make with regard to how that changes the situation for Canadian farmers.
When Mr. Reisman said that agriculture was not affected because supply management and marketing boards were not mentioned, I meant it when I said that in my view and in the view of many farmers he was, to say the least, not telling the whole story. He was, to say the least, shading the truth. While supply management and marketing boards are not mentioned, the fact is that another part of the agreement removes the tariffs which Canada has traditionally put on processed foods.
Our chicken, turkey, egg, and other dairy producers operate under a supply management system through marketing boards. They are guaranteed, in return for agreeing to produce within a quota system, a price for their products which permits them to continue. It gives them the ability to continue. American producers do not have that system. Because American producers of chicken, turkey, and eggs have better weather, a larger market, subsidies for grain, and so on, they can sell their product cheaper than can Canadian producers. Their chickens, turkeys, and eggs can be processed into TV dinners, chicken pot pies, and chicken fingers for shipment to Canada and sold at a cheaper price than Canadian products.
I have checked that assertion or claim with leaders of the marketing boards in Manitoba and with the leaders of Keystone Agriculture, who are very cautious, conservative, good business types. I have also checked it with senior economists in the University of Manitoba Faculty of Agriculture. They agree with my description of how the system will work after the free trade agreement is signed. It is just one illustration of the importance of the agreement and the absolute necessity for Canadians to know what is in it.
I think it is ominous that we are in December and we still do not have the text of the agreement which was signed and announced with such fanfare and joy by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in October. A couple of days ago we received a circular telling us that we could have the various documents when they were available. We are talking about hundreds of pages, perhaps several thousands of them. They will be very detailed, technical documents. How can Canadians, who will either benefit or be affected adversely, judge what will be the effect on them when they do not have the relevant documents?
Customs Tariff
I talked about the effect it would have on some farmers. Despite the fact that the Americans signed an agreement back in October, they are apparently insisting that the protection of their shipping industry under the Jones Act-and it has been given a great deal of protection against shipping industries of all other countries-shall continue. Talk about government procurement. They have innumerable laws which protect American companies and corporations in the area of procurement by the federal Government of the United States and by state Governments.
As far as we know, there is nothing in the agreement which will restrict their rights. I am told that when American negotiators were challenged on this point, they made very clear that they had no legal authority to restrict the ability of American states or American cities to adopt procurement laws and regulations which give advantages to American producers.
One criticism of Canadian practices which was discussed

and we were made to look bad, as if the things we were doing were improper and immoral-was the assistance given by the Conservative Government and by the Government of Quebec to General Motors to modernize and upgrade its plant at Ste. Therese. Somehow we were doing something that was improper. However, there has not been a new automobile plant built in the United States in the last four years or five years that has not been built with a contribution of hundreds of millions of dollars by the state or city in which it was built.


John Horton McDermid: So? What is the point?


David Orlikow: The Parliamentary Secretary asks, "What is the point?" The point is a precise one, and I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would take the opportunity to deal with it. We are being criticized by the Americans for our regional development policies and told that we must change those policies-


John Horton McDermid: They have their own.


David Orlikow: Exactly.


John Horton McDermid: They cannot touch ours.


David Orlikow: I have yet to hear the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), or the Parliamentary Secretary say publicly in Canada to the American Congress, to the American negotiators, or to the American people: "Look, you are asking us to change our regional development policies. You have the same kinds of policies and you have to change yours".
I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to put on record one statement which he or any other government representative has made that criticized or challenged the Americans on the basis of the fact that they are doing precisely what they are calling on us to stop doing. I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this debate today is on amendments to the customs Bill. The Liberals and the New Democrats, the socialists, are trying to turn it into a free trade debate.


David Orlikow: It is.


John Horton McDermid: An entire couple of days have been spent discussing the free trade issue. I would dearly love to get into this debate but it is not a free trade debate.


David Orlikow: Go ahead.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member challenged me about whether we ever made a public statement on regional disparities, subsidies and so on that has taken place in the United States. Certainly, that is what the entire negotiations were about. When the Americans said, "Well you do this, this and this", Mr. Reisman and the people in the trade negotiation office were able to go right back and say, "Yes. But you do this, this and this."


David Orlikow: Publicly?


John Horton McDermid: That is what negotiations are all about.


David Orlikow: They say it publicly, we do not.


John Horton McDermid: Yesterday in the House I said-this is pretty public because it was Question Period-as reported in Hansard at page 11402:
It may come as a surprise to the Hon. Member to know that when we were
negotiating the free trade agreement, lo and behold, the Americans had some
subsidies as well that they did not want to give up.
That was in the House yesterday. The Member challenged me to point out where it was said publicly and I have just pointed it out to him.


David Orlikow: Once.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would willingly defer to the Parliamentary Secretary, but since I am being invited to speak to this amendment I will gladly do so. This is an amendment to clause 32 of an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity System, and so forth. I will spare you the long title of the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, clause 22 has to do with the accountability of the Government or the public administration and Parliament. This clause relates particularly to the ratification of any resolution or any decision under which certain imported goods would be subject to duties.

The purpose of the amendment, if I understand it properly, is to cut from 180 days, which is I think the present situation, to 60 days the time government orders relative to tariffs can have effect before they require ratification by a resolution of Parliament. These deal with accountability. It does not deal- and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary-with anything to do with the present Canada-U.S. relations in regard to free trade or the so-called Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. It does deal with accountability. That is why I stand up, because 1 think over the years I have made the point that we should receive from Governments, on a regular basis, accountable reports as to how Ministers run the country.

Under the proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, the Government would have only 60 instead of 180 days, and we suggest this would make for stricter control, better accountability, greater participation of the House in the administration of the country, and would provide Hon. Members with an opportunity to become familiar with a very complicated process.

Clause 23 allows the Government to extend or withdraw what was called most-favoured-nation tariffs. These tariffs are applied to any goods that originate in a country to which the general tariff applies. Normally it is set at about 35 per cent, which is a pretty high tariff. It applies to few countries that do not have essentially a very important trading relationship with Canada. The 35 per cent rate of tariff is so punitive that very few goods can get into Canada. Therefore, in order to gain access, these countries must negotiate for most-favoured-nations status for the goods they wish to sell in Canada or, alternatively, give Canada some reciprocal concessions. Hence this section does not deal strictly with the Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations. Nonetheless it permits the principle of parliamentary accountability to be argued.
I believe strongly that this is a well intentioned amendment. It is one that I think is done in the spirit of trying to get the Government to be more responsive to Parliament. I think it is what one might call a friendly amendment in trying to get parliamentarians more interested and, possibly through them, the public more involved in deciding what will happen with our tariffs and how we exclude or allow certain goods to be imported into this country.

Mr. Speaker, this proposition is supported by another amendment, amendment No. 12, and if I got it right amendments Nos. 4 and 12 are being debated together. Amendment No. 12 deals with another subject. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 61 by striking out line 3 at page 22
and substituting the following therefor:
"sixtieth day from the day"
It is almost Greek to me. If we read this in the context of the amendment it is difficult to understand, so during the few
December 3, 1987


S. O. 21 WILDLIFE
[Stage Direction]
minutes I have left I will try to find the page and the clause involved so as to put all this in simpler terms.
Clause-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Maybe the Hon. Member will find it after one o'clock.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has called the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal a panacea for our fishing industry. The facts tell a different story. The industry did not get unfettered access to the United States, by far our most important market. The American fish lobby is alive and kicking, and our industry still faces the threat of future action under American trade remedy laws. The status quo remains.
The Fisheries Council of Canada says there has been no change. Some spokesmen have said the trade deal gives us enhanced status quo. When the dissatisfaction with the status quo is enough to cause this deal, then I question the merits of "enhanced status quo". The recent embargo on our fresh fish exports is ample proof that the trade deal has no protection.
Little wonder then that the Government is playing games with fishing groups appearing before the parliamentary committee studying the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Yesterday, in Charlottetown, Walter Bruce, President of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, accused the Tory majority on the committee, in the absence of the final deal, of trying to manipulate organizations such as his into a position where it would appear they are in support of this free trade deal. Mr. Bruce called it "sleazy political manoeuvring". These hearings are an absolute sham, and I am sure Canadians will not be misled by such a charade.


ALBERTA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION-CONCERN FOR KANANASKIS MOOSE AND ELK
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Wilderness Association has launched a court action against the Alberta Government to stop it from keeping open this winter a section of Highway 40 south of Mount Allan. Highway 40 runs through the Highwood Pass, a wintering area for elk and moose, and has always been closed to traffic after December 1. According to Diane Pachal, Executive Director of the AWA, there are no other areas for the moose and elk to go because a substantial area of wilderness habitat has been lost through development of Kananaskis country. The traffic will scare the elk and moose away, and in addition the highway could provide access for poachers.
Wildlife should not be put at risk because of the Olympics. We urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek) to intervene and direct the Olympic Transportation Group to develop a traffic plan that will not require keeping Highway 40 open this winter through the Highwood Pass area. This is the least that must be done to protect the moose and elk of the Kananaskis.
*	* V


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, much comment has been made recently regarding the demilitarization of the Arctic. Overtures made by the Soviet Union to ensure no military build-up there are commendable. However, let us remember that Canada does not now have the capability to navigate its Arctic waters, both through and under the ice, for most of the year.
I would also like to point out that there has recently been cooperation in the polar sciences as shown by the exchange of experts between the U.S.S.R. and Canada.
As well, it is my understanding that the U.S.S.R. may in future allow its Inuit to attend the Inuit Cirum-Polar conferences. The Inuit of Canada, Greenland and Alaska will be pleased to hear of this, but must exercise extreme diplomacy in ensuring that they do not become involved in the fruitless ideological debate that can result from living under different political systems.

December 3, 1987


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the people of Cape Breton Island have been hearing rumours for some time that the Government plans to disband the Industrial Development Division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Such a move would be a terrible mistake.
The division has played an important role in helping diversify the economy of Cape Breton. That is why the 250 people who attended a meeting on Tuesday night in Sydney unanimously passed a motion calling on the Government not to scrap the division. Employers who attended the meeting acknowledged that without the division they might never have come to Cape Breton. Mayor David MacDonald of North Sydney called it "the vital component for the continuing search for success in Cape Breton".
The role of the IDD should be increased, not ended. Its work cannot be shifted to Enterprise Cape Breton. That body has too narrow a mandate for the job. I urge the Government to follow the wishes of the people of that island and retain a body which has done so much to help Cape Breton.
December 1st, Mr. Speaker, was not a symbolic but an historic day.
Well done and thank you Canada!


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today, another 450 workers from the yards at Lauzon near Quebec City have come to ask for work. Last week they came from Halifax, and the week before they came from Vickers in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, workers from the Davie Yard at Lauzon, Quebec, want two frigates to go to Lauzon near Quebec City.
My advice to the Conservatives is as follows: This Government must award shipbuilding contracts to yards in the Maritimes and Quebec. If Quebec yards are not going to build frigates, they must have other work because these are very skilled workers.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 1st, Canadians witnessed the implementation of yet another promise made by the Conservative Government with the introduction of the Bill on Multiculturalism, as promised by our Prime Minister in 1984, as well as the creation of a Parliamentary Committee on Multiculturalism.
This legislation reaffirms the freedom already enjoyed by Canadians from all ethnic origins, to maintain, improve and share our cultural heritage. It acknowledges that all Canadians are equal partners.
To those who want a separate department, I will say: "Beware lest you create a multicultural ghetto!" To those who want a commissioner for multiculturalism, I will say: "Beware of sterile duplication!" The Human Rights Commission as well as the Parliamentary Committee on Multiculturalism already are adequately filling the bill.
To conclude, multiculturalism affects all Canadians and promotes harmony and stability in this country. I take pride in being a citizen of the first country in the world to pass a legislation on multiculturalism.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta economy will resume real growth this year, and expansion will continue in 1988. A 1 per cent increase is forecast by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada in its November report.
In 1985 this Government removed the Liberal National Energy Program which devastated the west. In 1986 this Government removed the unilaterally imposed federal Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax which raped Alberta of S56 billion. When world energy prices fell, we implemented the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program to assist small and medium-sized producers.
These federal initiatives, provincial royalty holidays, and drilling incentives, plus the recent stability of crude oil prices, have renewed investor confidence. Three times as many oil rigs are working today compared to one year ago. Deliveries of natural gas are expected to increase.
Livestock producers have benefited from higher cattle, hog and milk prices, plus lower feed and oil prices. Calgary is hosting the 1988 Winter Olympic Games which will contribute as much as $800 million and 19,000 person-years of employment in Alberta.
December 3, 1987

Free trade provides an even brighter future. We must secure our export markets. The red meat, petrochemical and petroleum industries in Alberta all support free trade. The prospects for Alberta look excellent and will contribute to the well-being of this whole country.



FREE TRADE


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians would like to know the Liberal Party's position on the Mulroney-Reagan Trade Agreement.
On October 26 this year, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said in the Elouse and I quote: "We will not live with it." He also said: "We are going to tear the deal up".
After two years of hesitation, many people thought the Liberals were finally going to deal with an issue that is so fundamental to the future of our country. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
Last Monday, the Leader of the Opposition told the newspaper La Presse that he was in favour of the principle of free trade and would like to reopen negotiations with the Americans to improve some of the terms of the Agreement.
Does the Leader of the Opposition really believe the Americans will make concessions to Canada, once the Agreement has been signed, sealed and delivered? And does he believe that a few superficial changes can nullify an agreement that is fundamentally bad and that challenges our sovereignty?
Clearly, the Leader of the Opposition has no intention of providing any serious opposition to the Free Trade Agreement. He is clearly in favour of a bilateral trade agreement with the United States and can hardly claim otherwise.
The Leader of the Official Opposition is a continentalist who has come out of the closet. Only the Members of the NDP are truly in a position to oppose a trade agreement that is an outright betrayal of Canadian interests and Canadian autonomy.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Government recognizes the value of work done in the home
and the contribution which homemakers make to society. Homemakers need better protection under our pension system and the Government is committed to finding a way of providing this.
In its recent report "Building Benefits for Homemakers" the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Board re-examines its previous "deemed earnings" approach in which it now finds inconsistencies related to the "earnings-benefit" link. The Board now favours a system of annual credit splitting between spouses.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has described the report as timely and valuable, and it will certainly contribute to a better understanding of this very complex problem.



CHILD CARE


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government's national strategy on child care, which was announced today, fails to give sufficient recognition to the priority needs of native families and children.
Across the country over the past few years First Nations have assumed the responsibility for delivering child care and child welfare services. However, their ability to provide these services comparable to non-native agencies has been hampered due to underfunding by the federal Government. The strategy announced today does not respond to the serious underfunding problems of native child care agencies.
In Manitoba, for example, negotiations on a renewed child welfare agreement have yet to take place. I remind the Government that the 1983 unanimous report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government identified child welfare as a critical area for Indian control.
The responsibility, ability, and jurisdiction of Indian Governments and their agencies to provide quality child care and child welfare services on a par with other Governments must be recognized and adequately assisted by the federal Government.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, further to the ongoing saga of Billy Bishop, holder of the Victoria Cross, Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross, Croix de guerre, and a host

December 3, 1987
of other honours, I would like the House and his character assassins at the National Film Board to be aware of the fact that as of November 27 of this year there had been received on Parliament Hill 16,365 names on a petition asking that the film "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss" be removed from circulation.
In addition, there have been representations from various organizations representing 57,312 Canadians who still believe that Billy Bishop is a national hero, even if the National Film Board does not.



CHILD CARE


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled his report on child care. It is unfortunate that that child care report mentions not a word about parental leave even though witness after witness appearing before the Special Committee on Child Care recommended it. In fact, one of the recommendations of the Special Committee was on parental leave.
There is not so much as a whisper or a tittle in the report about parental leave. This does not provide parents with any flexibility in meeting their child care needs. It is a blot on the escutcheon of Parliament that the Government has refused to respond to an obvious need, namely, parental leave, under the child care program.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, every year the English-speaking Catholic community in Montreal unites to review its accomplishments and commitments in our city. The occasion becomes the more special because, in the name of Bishop Crowley, leadership is cited and acknowledged.
At the Bishop Crowley Awards Night last Tuesday, following an exhibition under the theme "Crossroads, Where We Meet", and a musical and dance review put on by the students of the D'Arcy McGee and Pierrefonds Comprehensive High Schools, the awards committee announced that Sister Margot Power had been elected for the Bishop Crowley Award.
Sister Margot, best known for her role as principal, teacher, and friend to the students of Sacred Heart School, was also Superior of her Order from 1965 to 1973. After her official
retirement Sister Margot became an advocate for the underprivileged in the lower section of Montreal and helped many to understand their rights under social legislation.
For her work as a teacher, for her leadership, and for her witness to love in a very real world, we salute Sister Margot's extraordinary contribution. She sets an example for all of us.



SHIPYARDS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government putting off its decision about awarding the frigate contract? Why is it not making other decisions which could provide work for the other Quebec shipyards?
Mr. Speaker, we know that the Government has had the figures for quite a while, but it is still reluctant to make a decision, and this creates conflicts between the regions. The more we wait, the more tension there is.
We also know that the price of St. John's Shipyard is closed until the end the December, after which the negotiations will have to be reopened.
Mr. Speaker, is this what the Government really intends, to reopen the contract and create even more tension between the regions?



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is closing rural post offices and installing superboxes for new residential projects, thus creating second class citizens.
At the same time, the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation is allowing an increase of up to 42 per cent in postal rates while denying home delivery service and rural post offices to thousands of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this Government does not believe that Canadians are entitled to equal services for equal prices.
How can Canadians be asked to pay the same price for stamps while denying some of them services that other Canadians have always enjoyed?
This Governement is creating discrimination among Canadians.
December 3, 1987



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare.
Based on the rate of increase in the amounts allocated to daycare centres, which is 22 per cent a year, the federal Government would have spent $5.1 billion over the next seven years without the program announced this morning.
The Government has announced today that it will invest $5.4 bilion of new funds in child care.
Mr. Speaker, this is a gross distortion of the facts. The Government will invest only $250 million, or $35 million a year.
1 would like the Minister to tell us why the Government says that it will invest $5.4 billion in new funds when the fact is that it would have spent about the same amount without this program.

Elon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
Mr. Speaker, the Government has come forward with a massive expansion of subsidized child care. At present about half of the 220,000 spaces in Canada are subsidized. The program brings in 200,000 additional subsidized spaces over seven years.
I will try to be as kind as I might, but the Hon. Member should realize that what we are spending as a Government of Canada on child care per year right now is $140 million. If she looks at $140 million a year times the seven years, it gives her about $1 billion. If she takes that $1 billion against the $5.4 billion, she will find it is an increase of $4.4 billion over seven years.
The Hon. Member is also wrong in that she has to add an additional $1.7 billion annually which is in child tax credits and which is in income deductions allowed by the Minister of Finance. Once the Hon. Member puts all those figures together she will find, for example, that there is in fact a 400 per cent increase rather than a reduction.


Lucie Pépin: It's a shell game.


QUERY WHY PRIME MINISTER BROKE PROMISE ABOUT MAJOR DAY CARE SERVICES PLAN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He had promised us a major day care services plan. He broke his promise. With the program unveiled this morning by the Minister of National
Oral Questions
Health and Welfare, 1.8 million children will have no place in day care centres.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Prime Minister to tell us what he intends to do for these children, for this million children who will have no place, and why he broke the promise he had made to the parents of these children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has fulfilled his promises to the children of Canada. The Prime Minister has fulfilled his promises to the families of Canada. Again, I do not mind a good debate, but I wish the Hon. Member would look into the exact figures.
First, she talks about 1.9 million children. She is taking for granted, as did other researchers, including Katie Cooke, that every family, every parent wants their children in child care. That is not the case. What we came in with was a choice, a choice to expand the spaces. It is a choice to increase into capitalization, 75 per cent-25 per cent, which never existed, and her Government did not even think about. In all the years it was around, it only used CAP.
Not only are we bringing in subsidization on the spaces, but also on the operating, the initiatives fund, and an increase of families who can afford to keep their children at home. I say to the Hon. Member that, when I analysed the Liberal paper, I found we went way beyond anything that Party was going to do in opposition and, generally, it used irresponsibility even along those lines.


SCOPE OF PLAN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Prime Minister. Nearly two million children will still not have proper child care. There are no tax breaks for the people who cannot afford child care. For those parents lucky enough to find child care for their children, there is no national standard of quality that we demand for our children.
Why is the Prime Minister content with a plan that will take seventy years to solve the day care problem of 1987? Why is he content with that plan?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member puts the very same question in English. She again bases her argument on the fact that every parent and every family wants to be fitted into one mould of child care. That is not the case. That is the first point.
Second, if she takes a look at the number of spaces in Canada, 220,000 spaces, of which half are subsidized by the Government of Canada, she will find that not only are we now on a 75 per cent-25 per cent basis helping on the capital side, but also on the subsidy side. The other point that is so interesting is that the provinces, which also want to expand the child care system, thought, both last night and when they looked

December 3, 1987
Oral Questions
again at it this morning, that it is an excellent program. They know and we know this is an excellent day for women, families, and especially children.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-TIMETABLE FOR PRODUCING FINAL TEXT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last October when the trade agreement with the Americans was signed, the Prime Minister and his Minister said there were just a few small legal points that needed clearing up. Last night when the talks broke off, Mr. Murphy, the chief U.S. negotiator, was reported as saying: "Hopefully, we can come up with a decent deal". I thought there was a deal made two months ago, so I have to ask the Prime Minister what is the timetable the Government now has for this very critical economic document?
Will there be a final text before the committee of the Commons has completed its hearings next week? Will there be a final text before the Prime Minister signs an agreement on January 2?
Are we going to ask Santa Claus to come down the chimney with a deal as part of a Christmas present? What are we waiting for? What is the hold-up? Will the Prime Minister please explain to this Parliament and to the country what is going on with this document? And why have the talks broken down?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we had a good deal on October 4 and we have a good deal today. We are in the process of translating that into a legal text. Just as quickly as the legal text is available, we will make it available to my hon. friend.
As we have indicated many times, contrary to the tradition of the Liberal Government in dealing with important commercial transactions, there will be ample opportunity for all Members of the House of Commons to debate and consider this matter in a very exhaustive way. So my hon. friend, if he is just a little more patient, will no doubt have a final text and no doubt, given the spirit of fairness which has motivated him throughout, he will want to read it carefully and decide whether he is in favour or against.


REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE DELAYED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to have the opportunity to read it. I am not just sure if there will be anything to read before the Minister signs the deal. That is the question we want to ask the Prime Minister.
Does he really think it is fair and proper to go ahead and sign an agreement on January 2 when we do not yet even have the final text, and when there is no apparent timetable to have a text before the agreement is even signed? Does he not think it would be proper for him to be in contact with the President of the United States to ask for a delay in the signing of the agreement for at least another month or two months so that the Canadian House of Commons will have an opportunity to read and review that document properly, and the Canadian people in all the sectors throughout this country who will be affected will have the same opportunity?
Is it not in the principle of fairness that the Prime Minister should delay his proposed plans to go to the California ranch and sign this deal, so that Canadians can have a chance to participate fully as is proper under a democratic system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect, Mr. Speaker, January 2 is a day of no great significance to Canadians or to the House of Commons.


Mr. Broadbent:: Right!


Mr. Tobin:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is a date of some significance in American legislation. The Government of Canada will do what it has to do with regard to an international trade treaty when it is fully satisfied that that treaty is completely consistent with the objectives and the agreements of October 3 and October 4. That is the manner and the time frame during which that will take place, not a minute before and not a minute after.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. His Government has allocated $5.4 billion for a child care program which promises only to double the number of services for young children within seven years. Yet child care spaces doubled between 1974 and 1980 and again between 1980 and 1986. Does the Prime Minister really think that a program that merely stabilizes, or even reduces the rate of growth of child care, is what Canadian families have been waiting for since the Prime Minister made his strong promises of action in 1984?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again using figures that are not correct, and I want to explain them to her.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Oh, thanks a lot, Teach.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I can read, thank you.
December 3, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I thought you might like that. If the Hon. Member takes a look at the doubling of spaces in the period mentioned by the Hon. Member, she will find that what she is looking at is a doubling of spaces in total, subsidized and non-subsidized. When we take a look at the 220,000 spaces now in place, we find that approximately half of those spaces are subsidized. The 220,000 additional spaces over seven years are an increase from roughly 100,000 subsidized spaces to 300,000 subsidized spaces. That is the extra commitment of the federal and provincial Governments.
In addition to that there is always the possibility and likelihood, as I believe will happen, that other additional spaces not subsidized will be created in exactly the kind of period and configuration, even if you look over the last two years. The point I am making to the Hon. Member is not to mix up subsidized and non-subsidized.
Right now there are 100,000 spaces on the subsidized side, and we are moving to 300,000 in seven years.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you for the arithmetic lesson, but the Minister is not very sharp if he does not know that 200,000 spaces will not meet the needs of Canadian families.


CHILD TAX CREDITS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, with deindexation of family allowances and child tax credits the federal Government will have removed from families the amount of $1.5 billion per year by the year 1991.
Will the Minister acknowledge that even with this child care program in place, families will still lose over $500 million a year which his Government has taken from families? What kind of fairness is this for Canadian families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is roughly doubling the spaces in seven years. I have given you the subsidized figure and you might as well accept it because that is the way it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member should recognize that presently the Government of Canada is paying $1.7 billion to families, which will be increased by another $2.3 billion over seven years. You have to add that, $1.7 billion and $2.3 billion.
She should also remember that in this whole program, $4.4 billion of the $5.4 billion is new money, federal plus provincial. That is a massive increase in this area.
If she believes that somehow there should be additional money within the capacity of the Government and taxpayers of Canada and that we should use only the one model which she
Oral Questions
has always used, I suggest to her that parents in Canada do not accept that.


CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and has to do with the conflict of interest guidelines. On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister wrote Hon. Members, and I quote: "-the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal government rests with the Cabinet and, more particularly, with me." In light of today's media reports that the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion allegedly breached the conflict of interest rules on 14 occasions, is the Prime Minister now prepared to admit that he did neglect his duty by failing to ensure compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines and, in addition, can he tell Canadian taxpayers that they will immediately be reimbursed the $650,000 they paid in lawyers' fees? Is he prepared to promise to do that?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, rather than rely on media reports, the Parker Commission Report will be tabled at three o'clock or thereabouts. The Hon. Member will be able to read it-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Don't be too sure of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -after which there will be a statement released by the Prime Minister in response to it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston on a supplementary.


PAYMENT OF FORMER MINISTER'S LEGAL FEES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. After the Minister's resignation, the Prime Minister said: "It is my belief that Mr. Stevens will be fully vindicated and will return to Cabinet where he has served with such distinction and competence". Based on that belief, the Prime Minister approved of the payment of the former Minister's legal fees in the total amount of $650,000.
In view of the fact that the Parker Inquiry has found the former Minister guilty on 14 counts of breaching the conflict of interest guidelines, will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Canada why the taxpayers of Canada should be paying the former Minister's legal fees?

December 3, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it would be a breach of the traditions of the House to respond to that question. The report will be tabled at three o'clock. There will be lots of opportunity for questions and debate after that.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM-MARITIME TRANSPORTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Despite what Mr. Ritchie and Ambassador Reisman said yesterday, the Prime Minister denied that the two countries are now renegotiating the trade agreement.
Considering that Mr. Murphy, the trade negotiator for the United States, repeated today that negotiations are now taking place and he is hoping to get a new deal, is the Prime Minister prepared to be frank with Canadians and say that negotiations have once again resumed on something we thought was settled? More specifically, will he confirm to the House that they are bogged down on two specifics, changes the Americans want in the dispute settlement mechanism on the one hand and changes in the agreement as it affects maritime transportation on the other?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I stand by the statement and the explanation which I gave my hon. friend yesterday in regard to the status of the discussions. I refer the Leader of the New Democratic Party to a statement to Canadian Press this morning by Ambassador Clayton Yeutter who said that continuing problems in drafting the final text of a trade deal should not jeopardize the accord. He made clear that Peter Murphy has no mandate to negotiate substantive changes in the deal and he expects the final text to mirror the deal reached early last month. That is exactly our position as well.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister read further he would have discovered that Mr. Yeutter also added that he hopes the deal is still there.


WORDING OF AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that wording is exactly what Mr. Reisman, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ritchie have been candid enough to say, that there has been a reopening of the substance of this deal. All Canadians understand that, whether or not the Prime Minister wants to agree in public.
If the Prime Minister is going to stick to what he is saying, that there is no negotiation on substance now, will he give us the assurance that there will be no change in the wording as it
pertains to the dispute settlement mechanism and substance, and as it pertains to maritime transportation? Furthermore, as it is two months today since the Government of Canada was cornered into the last bad deal it made, will he give us assurances that no Canadian politicians will be going to Washington in the next 48 hours to confirm once again a bad deal for Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP asks whether we can confirm the reopening of the substance of the deal, as he asserts. That has been formally denied by the American administration and by the Government of Canada. I hope that would satisfy my hon. friend.
He asks me to read a little further. Ambassador Yeutter, who is responsible for international trade policy for the Government of the United States of America, said this morning: "Simply because there are differences in the drafting process does not mean that the agreement is in any way jeopardized". He also said: "Ambassador Peter Murphy has no mandate to negotiate substantive changes in the deal".
I know that my hon. friend has reluctance in accepting Canadian explanations and has been dealing mostly with American news. Perhaps he will endorse the view of his American friends.


John Edward Broadbent: I know that the Prime Minister is always meticulous about his use of words. He will have noted that Mr. Yeutter said that Mr. Murphy has no mandate to negotiate change. Of course, if any final change is made it must be agreed to by the responsible politicians on both sides of the border.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER GIVE GUARANTEE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is telling us that there will be no substantive change, will he guarantee that there will be no change in what has already been agreed to on maritime transportation and the dispute settlement mechanism? If he offers that unequivocal guarantee then we on this side will be prepared-dare I say it-to accept what he says in relation to that. Will he give us the guarantee that there will be no substantive change? If he does, then we will be in a position to verify it when we see the final words.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we know full well that we have not the slightest opportunity or capacity of persuading my hon. friend to endorse a free trade agreement, notwithstanding-


John Edward Broadbent: Not endorse.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -notwithstanding the tremendous benefits that it has brought to regions of this country, including, for example, his own riding which has benefited greatly from
December 3, 1987

foreign investment, from free trade in the Auto Pact, and from liberalized trade.


John Edward Broadbent: Just be honest for once. I thought we were talking about free trade.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is opposed to it for Canada, but he wants it for his own riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with the usual solicitude and concern that my hon. friend says he has for the truth, I refer him, inasmuch as he asked me and Members of the House to deal with Mr. Yeutter's statement, I refer him to Mr. Yeutter's statement and I quote, "Yeutter also made clear that U.S. chief negotiator Peter Murphy has no mandate to negotiate substantive changes in the deal-"


John Edward Broadbent: Right!


Martin Brian Mulroney: "-and he expects the final text to mirror the deal reached early last month-"


John Edward Broadbent: He "expects".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: You blew it, Ed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns Balkar Singh, a Canadian citizen under arrest in India.
Can the Minister confirm that in the presence of a consular official and a doctor from our High Commission in New Delhi, allegations were made of torture to the feet, electrical wires to the face and genitals, hanging by the wrists, and beatings with a lathi stick, and that our doctor was able to see visible evidence of maltreatment?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm that in the presence of both a consular representative of Canada, and a medical doctor, there was evidence given by Mr. Balkar Singh of physical abuse. It was the view of the Canadian doctor present that he had indeed been seriously physically mistreated.
We have protested that matter to the Government of India, and moreover have demanded that there be the immediate provision of adequate medical care and attention to Mr. Balkar Singh.
_____________________________11461
Oral Questions


CANADIAN PROTEST TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: In view of the fact that Indian government officials today have both denied receiving a protest from the Canadian Government, and that there was any evidence of torture found on a medical inspection, can I have the assurance of the Minister that he has indeed lodged the strongest formal protest, and indicated to the Government of India that, should another such episode occur to any Canadian citizen, Canada would have to consider revoking the extradition treaty with India?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see press reports today indicating that the Indian High Commissioner thought that there had not been a protest lodged. A protest was lodged.
In order that the Indian High Commissioner could be in no doubt about it, I had him brought in this morning and we lodged it again. This is unusual diplomatic practice, but I wanted him not to underestimate the extent of the concern of the Canadian Government.
We also expect medical treatment to be made available immediately and adequately.
With regard to the question relating to the extradition treaty, it is at this stage hypothetical. But certainly one of the matters on which the extradition treaty is based is an understanding that both sides will respect the application of their law against people affected by that treaty.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-DEADLINE FOR SIGNING
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps insisting that the only people who are concerned about this economic union package between Canada and the United States are the people of Oshawa. Obviously, he pays no attention to the farmers of Quebec, or to the members of the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce who yesterday refused to endorse this package.
We have had Mr. Reisman saying, "This economic union package is being renegotiated"; we have had Mr. Murphy saying, "Hopefully we can come up with a decent deal, however it is difficult to make a determination". We have had Mr. Yeutter in his attempt to clarify matters, I am sure at the request of the Office of the Prime Minister, saying, "Hopefully we will still have a deal".
Why does the Prime Minister insist on sticking to the January 2 deadline for signing this deal when, in fact, that January 2 deadline is being used and can be used by the Americans to hammer the Prime Minister and his Government into capitulating once again when there are differences of

December 3, 1987
Oral Questions
interpretation in negotiating the final text of this economic union package? Why does the Prime Minister do that?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first I think it should be made very clear that there is no economic union. This is a trade deal. That is an absolutely false statement that the Elon. Member is making to the House.
Second, we got a terrific trade agreement on October 4. We got a tremendous agreement. It is great for Canada, and it will be great for Newfoundland, and the Hon. Member knows that.
The lawyers are still meeting; the negotiators are consulting their principals at the present time. As Clayton Yeutter said very clearly this morning about Peter Murphy, "His instructions are to try to put the agreement of October 3 into the necessary language". That is what is going on right now.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the only thing that is going on right now is that Canada's negotiator, Mr. Reisman, who told us the truth two days ago, has been gagged, and that the United States negotiator, Mr. Murphy, who told us the truth last night, has been gagged this morning by Mr. Yeutter. The people of Canada are not interested in gag actions, they are interested in the truth.
If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Prime Minister are so sure that this package is as good as they say it is, I will repeat my question of two days ago to the Prime Minister, a question he refused to answer.
Can he give this House an assurance today that when the detailed language is released, presumably next week, or at least that was the case yesterday, there will be words contained in that language that will clearly and unambiguously exempt regional development programs from U.S. trade law as part of this economic union agreement? It is a simple question, and I would like a simple answer. Yes or no?


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member will have to wait until the final agreement comes out to see what is in that final agreement.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You don't know.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member likes to quote people chapter and verse.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question.


John Horton McDermid: Let me quote a former Minister in the Liberal Government by the name of the Hon. Gerald Regan who stated, "When I was Minister of Trade-in Mr. Trudeau's Government... I recognized the importance of obtaining better guarantees of access to the vital American market to which Canada sends the lion's share of our exports. I
sought to move in that direction by initiating free trade talks with the U.S. on a sector by sector basis. The defeat of the Liberals ended that effort-but I have come to the conclusion that the present free trade project is a more meaningful- courageous-and important undertaking than our more limited negotiations".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT-PROTECTION OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL SECTORS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister of Canada. Yesterday, in Quebec City, some Quebec farmers accused the Minister of State (Agriculture) of being a liar. They said that he had lied concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. My question is this:
In view of this situation in Quebec, could the Prime Minister certify to Quebecers and other Canadians that no farm subsidy will be affected by this agreement and that our marketing boards will keep their existing powers? Finally, Mr. Speaker, can he certify that poultry farmers will be protected in spite of the Canada-United States Agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the marketing boards are in place. As a matter of fact, one of the interesting things about this agreement is that we can create new marketing boards, if the producers so desire, because the underpinnings are there.
I felt very badly about the attack on the Minister of State for Agriculture yesterday in Quebec. He was quoted as saying that he can take the abuse but he did not appreciate being called a liar because he is not one. I think anyone who knows that Minister would agree with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not only the farmers in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, but those in Saskatchewan, Ontario and the other Canadian provinces are also against this agreement.
As our Whip has reported, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan they voted last week against this deal by a vote of 75 to 64!


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF IMPORT QUOTAS TO PROTECT CANADIAN ICE CREAM AND YOGURT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The Minister of State also said that he had asked the Minister for International Trade to use import quotas to protect Canadian ice cream and yogurt
December 3, 1987

against American imports. Could the Prime Minister indicate now whether his Government has adopted its Minister's suggestion? After Quebec farmers gave yesterday the Minister a piece of their mind, does the Government now believe that this is a fair deal, giving the United States a horse in exchange for a rabbit?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, one is very tempted, after listening to a question like that, to refer to a certain part of the horse. However, I will resist that.
I can say that there are options available within the free trade agreement to add products to the import control list which would require quotas. That still exists, but the Hon. Member is saying we should do it right now when an agreement has not yet been signed and the agreement would not come into effect until January 1, 1989. The Hon. Member may find out, and I think he will, that our agricultural industry will do very well under this agreement.


CHILD CARE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who stated in his White Paper of June 18, 1987, that the conversion of tax exemptions to credits was a key element in achieving a fairer income tax system and that "converting exemptions to credits would direct more resources to those in need and reduce the after-tax value of benefits to higher-income Canadians". Would the Minister tell the House how he reconciles that stated goal with the fact that today's release on child care showed the bulk of the assistance going to middle-class families by way of tax exemptions and only tiny increases in tax credits for low-income families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in both the tax reform paper and the policy that was released today, I have said throughout that we had to give parental choice. That was a hallmark of the program. We as a Government and, 1 think, as a society do not want to dictate to people the manner in which their children should receive care.
The Hon. Member will be aware the Minister of Finance increased the child tax credit which is now approximately $480 per year maximum to $525, 1 believe, next calendar year. Additionally, in calendar 1988, $100 will be added to the child care tax credit and it will go to $200 per year thereafter.
The Hon. Member has asked a valid question on the deductions. She is a serious Member of the House. Perhaps the Hon. Member would look at what would have happened to middle-income women in the workplace if the only option they had was to put their children in child care centres or to give external child care and if they had lost their deductions they
Oral Questions
would have been worse off than they are under this program. That is why we came up with that choice and configuration.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON TAX CREDITS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the $4,000 in tax exemptions will be helpful to middle-class parents. However, I repeat my question. What happened to the commitment to assist low-income people? That commitment was supposed to have been a key objective in the review of social transfers and related tax provisions that was launched in the February, 1986, Budget. I repeat, has the Government changed its policy? Is it no longer proceeding with the move to increase the move toward tax credits?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no, the Government has not changed its policy. I do not want to be repetitive. I would ask the Hon. Member to examine the need to maintain an expense deduction in order that women in the workforce may have care for their children. As well, what is so important to the program is the subsidized spaces, and I wish to emphasize that.
There are only 100,000 subsidized spaces today. The new program will give us another 200,000 subsidized spaces over a seven-year period. Those subsidized spaces will give families in the lower and lower middle-income levels access along with the increase in the child tax credit. It was for that reason, to try to meet all those needs, because obviously families are not alike today, that those changes were brought about, and that is the explanation.


SHIPBUILDING
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Considering the Government's inability to formulate a genuine merchant shipping policy, the frigate contract is synonymous with survival for Canadian shipyards. Could the Minister give Canadians the assurance that the Government will let fairness prevail by announcing that contracts will be equitably divided among St. Lawrence and Atlantic shipyards?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have on two previous occasions answered that question in the House. I have told Hon. Members that the Government will take into consideration the defence based industries across Canada. When a decision has been made on whether further frigate building will be announced, we will announce it.

December 3, 1987
Oral Questions


QUERY WHETHER JOBS RESULTING FROM CONTRACTS WILL REMAIN IN CANADA
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary.
Considering that the Government failed to use the trade agreement as an opportunity to table a Canadian shipping policy, could the Government give Canadians the assurance that the jobs involved in these contracts will remain in Canada?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to know, and we have said this many times, that most of the present activity in our shipyards in the result of contracts awarded by the federal Government. These contracts have been awarded across the country, from British Columbia to the Atlantic. All our shipyard workers have been able to benefit, and the Government has no intention of changing its policy or having its ships or equipment built outside our shipyards here in Canada.


SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of National Defence or to the Minister for Small Businesses.
Yesterday, as the House will recall, Quebec Minister Daniel Johnson asked that his province be allowed two frigates as its share of the frigate contracts.
This morning, the frigate committee, 450 employees from the shipyards at Lauzon near Quebec City, came here to demand work and a fair share of the contracts, in other words, two frigates for the shipyards in Quebec.
Understandably, the people in Saint John, New Brunswick, want all the frigates to be built there. The Minister of Employment and Immigration said to let Saint John do it all and to give nothing to Quebec. It was too expensive!
My question is quite straightforward, and the people of Quebec and New Brunswick want to know the truth. Does the Government intend to split construction of the six frigates, in whatever way? Is there going to be a split, yes or no?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, this is just putting words into the mouth of the Minister of Immigration. They say they are so frank and
honest, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members opposite are full of their own honesty. They act like they have a monopoly on truth, and then they put words into the mouth of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He never said that.
At the present time, the Minister of Supply and Services is meeting with these workers to inform them of the Government's position. As we have said so many times, first of all, the Government will have to decide whether it intends to proceed with construction on the other frigates. The Government will then decide where they will be built. As soon as those decisions have been made, there will be an official announcement.


DISTRIBUTION OF WORK BETWEEN SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister, belated though his decisions may be. The Minister of State (Transport) has already announced last July that the main frigate contract would be awarded to St. John's. It may be that the Minister of State (Transport)-now leaving the House-lied to Minister Daniel Johnson, but I take her word for it.
Second, the Minister has just said that officials are meeting with the workers to tell them our decision.
Can you be honest, frank and sincere? With respect to frigate building work-sharing, will the six frigates be built at the New Brunswick shipyards? If so, what shipbuilding contracts will be awarded to Quebec shipyards? What will the Government decide?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I should think that if the whole thing boils down to a question of honesty, one is honest when one is ready to make and announce a decision. We will not make an announcement-


Jean-Claude Malépart: When?


Bernard Valcourt: When the Government is ready, Sir!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that British Columbia is a signatory to the 1982 Constitution Act and to the Meech Lake Accord. Could he advise the House and the native people of British Columbia what steps he has taken, either directly with Premier Vander Zalm or with the Government of B.C., to get comprehensive claims moving in British
December 3, 1987

Columbia, particularly those of the Nishga tribal council in the Nass Valley.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive claims policy of the Government which was announced gives ample opportunity for a conclusion, hopefully a successful conclusion, of the comprehensive claims. We are having discussions, as the Hon. Member knows, in which he has been involved, with the Nishga people. A negotiator has been put forward by the Government of Canada and hopefully the claims process will proceed.
The Member is right that there is a responsibility on behalf of two levels of government to enter into these discussions. We hope that will come to fruition as we continue the negotiations. The negotiations have not stopped, Mr. Speaker. They are ongoing.


SOUTH MORESBY-SETTLEMENT OF TITLE ISSUES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Could he advise whether he and his Cabinet colleagues have arrived at a position where they can state publicly now that negotiations will take place in regard to the outstanding title issues in South Moresby with the council of the Haida Nations? It is something that Miles Richardson has discussed with the Prime Minister and his staff and also with the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Minister of the Environment.
Is the Prime Minister determined to move forward so that South Moresby can, in fact, become the reality he had started moving it toward?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of South Moresby. The steps taken by my colleague, by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, in the negotiations which led to the creation of the national park reserve on South Moresby, the steps taken by the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia to provide for economic development with the South Moresby National Park Reserve, are well known to the Hon. Member.
The Hon. Member is also fully aware of the comprehensive claim policy which establishes that only six claims can be under negotiation at one time. Hopefully we will have successful claims negotiations where we have a mandate, and then new claims that are recognized by the Government of Canada will come forward.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I think he just left, so in that case, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. By closing rural post offices and installing superboxes in new developments, Canada Post is creating second-class citizens. How can the Minister authorize postal rate increases of up to 42 per cent, when he is denying thousands of Canadians home mail delivery and rural post offices? Does he believe Canadians are entitled to equal service for equal rates?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, nobody is happy with postal rate increases but inflation makes that a fact of life. The fact that the rate increase of 1 cent a letter is less than inflation is a tribute to the management of the Post Office.
Incidentally, to do what the Hon. Member is requesting and to have door to door delivery to every home in Canada, would require a stamp price of 60 cents a letter. Is it the position of the Liberal Party that it wants stamp rates to go up to 60 cents a letter in order to reach the goals about which the Hon. Member spoke?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Provide more service and you wouldn't have to raise it.


COST OF STRIKES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister tell this House and Canadians if the proposed increase going up to 42 per cent will be used to pay the strike-breakers in the last two strikes as well as the cost of the advertising campaign during the strikes? Will the Minister deposit in this House the cost of the two last strikes?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the cost of operating the Post Office is available from its annual report which every Member receives.
The Member will know that increased costs have been met, in part, by a rate increase of, I think, about 40 per cent, in part by productivity increases of about 30 per cent, and in part by increased business of the Post Office. The Post Office has been operating in an efficient and effective fashion and I think we ought to congratulate it on that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to revert to Tabling of Documents to allow the Deputy

December 3, 1987
Tabling of Documents
Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to table the Parker Commission report.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the report of the Parker Commission of Inquiry.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the customary question that we ask on Thursdays as to what business the Government has to call for the coming week.
At the particular request of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) I again want to ask when the Government might be bringing into the House Bill C-30 and, at the particular request of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), we would like to know when the Government will bring in Bill C-33 on public service pensions.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that we are working to complete Bill C-87 at report stage and third reading. We hope that Bill C-87 and perhaps Bill C-54 at second reading might be completed by tomorrow.
We have discussed a package of Bills at both second reading stage, report stage and third reading with the opposition House Leaders with a view to completing a reasonable package by the Christmas recess. We will continue those discussions with the opposition House Leaders and try to arrange a timetable which is of most convenience to all Parties, including the critics, and also to provide as much notice as possible.
With respect to the two specific questions, I would advise the House that we have made considerable progress, thanks to co-operation from all Parties, throughout the fall. We have reached a point, however, where there are some 13 Bills at committee involving some nine different areas of jurisdiction. We also have the external affairs committee travelling on the
free trade question and, therefore, I have tried to organize the debate in the House so as not to load up committees presently considering Bills.
With specific reference to Bill C-30, my hon. friend will find that we presently have Bill C-74, which is an environmental Bill, before the appropriate legislative committee. Since many members on that committee are considering that Bill, we have not pushed to get Bill C-30 through.


Mr. Caccia:: Come on.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What is the point of having two environmental Bills at committee?
I welcome the support of my hon. friend from Ottawa- Vanier on Bill C-33. We are considering that and I believe that we will be bringing it forward in the very near future.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want it to be clear that I never gave my support to Bill C-33. It is a bad Bill, but I want to know what the Government is going to do with it because Members have been raising the matter in the House in Question Period. If the Government thinks it is a great Bill, when is it going to act on it?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Sorry, I thought my hon. friend was definitely interested in pushing the Bill forward. I misread his keenness. We are trying to fit the menu to the situation and we will be bringing it forward as soon as possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I must have missed something. I heard the Liberal House Leader ask what the Business of the House would be next week. We heard a very long answer from the Minister, but he did not deal with the business of the House for next week. What is the business of the House next week?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to negotiate with other House Leaders on the floor of the House. We have had discussions with the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) with a view to trying to co-ordinate the Bills in which we and others, including him, have an interest, and meet the convenience of the critics.
My hon. friend will know that I, on behalf of the Government, am going to give consent to motions in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) being moved by someone else in his Party. We are doing that in an effort to co-operate because he has another engagement and we understand that. We are trying to do the same thing with the Business of the House for next week.


Mr. Benjamin:: That was a lot of help.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and maybe a question of privilege. You will remember that this morning I tried to get a copy of the child care document when it was
December 3, 1987

tabled in this House. It took some time, but with your intervention we got one.
The report of the Parker Commission was tabled a few minutes ago in this House. I asked for a copy of that report but I could not get one because, I was told, it had been delivered to my office. I happen to be in the House of Commons. The document was tabled in the House of Commons. I ask that you intervene and get the document for all Members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that the Hon. Member asked me this morning if I could produce a document, and within a minute it was in fact produced.


Mr. Frith:: He is trying it again.


Mr. Speaker:: However, to do it twice in one day may be more difficult.
I have listened carefully to the Hon. Member. I also have asked for a copy of the report. I know there are people busily trying to accommodate not only the Chair but other Members, and I shall pursue it with diligence.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4 and 12 (Mr. Cassidy, p. 11449).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) had the floor for three minutes, but since he is not here, is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with the third grouping of proposed amendments to Bill C-87, which we were discussing earlier today. The point at issue in these amendments is that of time, and the role the Parliament of Canada should be playing with respect to changes to customs and tariffs agreements made between our country and others.
While dealing with previous groupings of amendments this morning, we discussed why it is so important, indeed vital, that the House of Commons be involved in the decisions made by
Customs Tariff
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet concerning tariffs. I pointed out that this Bill covers some $2 billion worth of tariffs. I will not go over the implications of that again, but the two clauses to which we propose amendments today refer to the government proposal that those decisions it might make on an interim or ad hoc basis must come before this House within 180 days of their being made. To some people that may sound reasonable enough. It appears to be only about six months. That would give plenty of time, one would think, for the House to debate it, think about it, and deal with it properly.
However, I remind you and the House in general, Mr. Speaker, that when we talk about 180 days in Parliament, we are talking about 180 sitting days. This House seldom sits much over 180 days per year, so in this legislation we are granting authority to the Government to decide either to impose or to drop tariffs for virtually a year before this House will have a chance to look at it and decide whether or not it acceptable.
That runs completely counter to the principle that the House of Commons is the Chamber that makes decisions on whether or not people should be taxed, corporations should be taxed, or importers should be taxed on their goods sold in this country. This takes away the decision-making role of Parliament. It sets it aside for virtually one year, making it all but useless. Our amendment, which would change that 180 days to 60 days, is again being offered to both Clause 32 and Clause 61.
There are a couple of things I wish to say about Clause 61, but first I want to point out that there is a provision in Clause 32 which makes it clear that there will be times during the 60 days proposed that the House will not be able to sit because of an election and perhaps the Senate would be sitting during that time. I do not know why, but perhaps there will be some reason for the Senate to be sitting after the House has closed down before an election, and the sittings of that House are to be considered equally with our own in computing the 60 days we are proposing. Clause 32 says, among other things, that if something like that occurs and there is an election in progress, or the House cannot sit for some other reason, within 15 days after the resumption of that new Parliament a Bill would have to be presented and dealt with by the House of Commons. In that way the will of the people will be known on this particular item dealing with revenue and taxation.
Clause 61 has a slightly different slant to it. It deals with a period of time when the Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet, on a report of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that Canada's external financial position and its balance of payments are such as to require special measures respecting Canadian imports, may, by Order, subject any goods that originate in any country or any class of those goods to a surcharge over and above the customs duties imposed pursuant to this Act. We are talking about a special circumstance, a near financial emergency, in which the Minister of Finance would suggest to the Cabinet that a special surcharge on the

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
import of a particular good or class of goods would be imposed.
It is my opinion that if the emergency is of that extent, it only makes sense for the House to be apprised of it and have dealt with it within 60 sitting days after the so-called emergency is brought forward. It is very critical for the role of the House of Commons that it be the place where decisions to impose extra charges are made. As I have pointed out, this has been fought for almost 800 years.
It is very difficult for us to know for how long we should continue to fight on this issue. Due to the grouping of motions and the decision to delay votes until all motions have been dealt with, we have had no response from government Members on where they stand on these particular proposals. We can, therefore, only continue to put the argument forward on each amendment because we have no idea whether our words are having any effect and whether the amendments will be accepted by the government side. As a consequence, I somewhat regret having to take this time to reiterate the point since we have not yet had a clear indication of what the backbenchers who are currently resident on the government side think about this issue.
All Members come to the House of Commons to represent their constituents and to be their voice in taxation matters. This particular Bill deals with the raising of revenue by way of import taxes, levies and duties. The proposal before us today would, in effect, do away with as much as $2 billion of revenues. That is an extremely significant amount if the Government intends eventually to balance the budget. Deficits have been running in the neighbourhood of $30 billion to $35 billion per annum. Therefore, we cannot easily throw away $2 billion without thorough consideration. This issue deserves the immediate response of the House of Commons.
We do not think that 60 sitting days puts undue pressure on the government of the day, whatever the era in which it may affect the Government. It is consistent with the principle of the report of the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who earlier recommended the swift passage of government financial Bills in order that back-benchers can have a proper and clear role to play in this Chamber. We therefore recommend to government Members these amendments in which we are proposing the reduction from 180 days to 60 sitting days of the House of Commons.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, we are presently debating Bill C-87, an Act respecting a harmonized tariff system and, in particular, Motions Nos. 4 and 12. Our concern with this Act is much greater under the circumstances surrounding the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement than it would ordinarily have been. Ordinarily this type of Bill, which is fairly technical and routine, would be dealt with in a superficial manner in that it suggests that we are getting ourselves into line with all the other countries of the world in
the harmonized coding system for trade. However, the Bill becomes much more important under the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal because it will have a much greater impact than it would under ordinary circumstances. It therefore requires much closer scrutiny than would ordinarily have been given it.
As a result of the trade agreement certain tariffs will be put into effect almost immediately upon the signing of the agreement. Things which were routine in the past must now be questioned as a result of that agreement. Motions Nos. 4 and 12 are aimed at greater accountability of the Cabinet to Parliament. At present the Government can impose a tariff and ask for ratification of it by Parliament 180 days later. The barons faced King John because they wanted to go before the King more than once every two or three years to hear how much money he needed and what he needed it for.
The Government can now impose a tax on the people of Canada and need only ask Parliament for permission to do so more than a year later. The recommended changes in Clauses 32 and 61 would increase the responsibility of Cabinet to Parliament. Rather than being able to impose taxes and collect them for a year before having them ratified by Parliament, these amendments suggest that we reduce that time period to 60 days.
The Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement has brought the need for the accountability of the Cabinet to Parliament to the forefront. At present such an agreement can be signed by the Prime Minister, and the Government can bring forward a Ways and Means motion to impose or remove tariffs. That decision to impose or remove such tariffs will remain in effect for an entire year and, quite often, more than a year.
Our present year is 177 days. This Bill, at present, allows 180 days to be used up before the Government must come back to Parliament and have it ratified. Therefore, more than a year, at least 15 days into the next year, will be required before it is necessary to pass it. It seems wrong, in the view of democrats all over the world, to have a treaty signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, to be put in place and negotiated by people who are not Members of Parliament, nor representatives of the people, a treaty which will abrogate the laws not only of the Parliament of Canada, because those tariffs were put in place by the Parliament of Canada, but also the laws of the legislatures of the provinces.
This treaty about which we are talking, or any kind of treaty or any Ways and Means motion which changes taxes, customs and excise taxes, does so without compunction and can do so, leaving those changes in place for a whole year before they have to come to Parliament for ratification. A treaty does not have to be accountable to Parliament. It can take off a tariff
December 3, 1987

which was put in place by Parliament, and it can be established technically as the law of the land just by the Government presenting the House with a motion which says that this is the action it intends to take.
Sometimes this motion is not even in the form of a Ways and Means motion, but in the form of a little line in a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as to what he is going to do in the next year in his Budget. However, it has the effect of law before it is brought before the House and ratified.
The 180 days really means that the will of Parliament has been sidelined. If we establish that tariff in Parliament, it is the will of Parliament that it be there. If it is eliminated, it is eliminated for a whole year without the will of Parliament. The will of Parliament has been sidelined for a whole year. I suppose some people will say that is part of the sloppiness of Parliaments because they are democratic and take a long time, but the point we are attempting to make in this particular motion is that we do not think it is necessary to sideline these issues for 180 days. In fact, I have often wondered why Ways and Means motions were presented and then no action taken for such a long time. Perhaps it is the sloppiness of doing business in Parliaments, but it is not good democracy.
It makes one wonder if perhaps we should not take a good hard look at the process by which we make treaties part of the fibre of the country. A treaty is signed by the Prime Minister and it becomes part of the fibre of the country. It does not have to come before Parliament, as the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement does not have to come before Parliament, to be accepted. All that is required is for the Prime Minister to have it approved by his Cabinet, but Cabinet does not represent the will of the people. It might think it does because three years ago approximately 50 per cent of the people voted for this Government, but just before the Government was elected the Prime Minister said in a statement that he would never touch free trade. Perhaps we have to look at the structure under which treaties are carried into law by this Government.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, this is going to be very short. I think it is important to speak to Motion No. 4, tabled by the New Democratic Party, which would shorten the 180-day period we have now to sixty days. Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that first of all, this goes against all legislation now in effect. The system has operated for many years under the 180-day period, and it works very well. The same applies to Motion No. 12, Mr. Speaker, especially this motion which concerns our balance of payments and any surcharges it may require. Reducing the period from 180 to sixty days could have a very negative impact on our economy.
Mr. Speaker, a while ago I heard Opposition Members wondering how Conservative Members would vote on these motions. I can assure them we will vote against the motions because, as 1 said in my comments on the initial motions and on the two I just mentioned, if they want to improve the Bill, I
Customs Tariff
find it astonishing that this debate should be about anything but the motions in question. In any case, if Bill C-87 is not passed, the present legislation remains in effect. This would mean we did not deal with the problem of harmonization. So bearing this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise to stick to the subject of this debate and refrain from trying to widen the circle to include trade relations with the United States, among other issues.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate on Bill C-87. I might be quite prepared to do what the Parliamentary Secretary has just suggested and stick to the issue here and not express the concern about the Canada-U.S. trade deal that so many of us feel. However, let me leave that item and turn to Motions Nos. 4 and 12.
We are dealing with a Bill to provide for the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, and so on. We are debating a measure which will make changes in the way in which we operate our customs tariff system. We are proposing a change in the time limits with respect to two of these clauses, namely, that the time limit in both Clause 32 and Clause 61 should not be 180 days, as it is, but should be reduced to 60 days.
I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). The argument my colleagues and I have been making is that this is a principle of parliamentary accountability. These motions address the importance of having Parliament, the ultimate court of this land, the representatives of the people gathered together to make the law of the land, presented with these changes, which have been negotiated by the executive of Government with other countries at a much earlier point than the Bill would allow. That argument is one that can be addressed from various perspectives. Some of my colleagues have argued from the perspective of our current concern about negotiations between Canada and the United States. One can equally make that argument in national, political, and historical terms and, for that matter, not just national historical terms but in terms of the history of Parliament of England, the Parliament of the Commonwealth and of the British Empire Dominions in times past.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, alluded to King John and that famous encounter with the Barons. He was a monarch whose fault may in fact have been efficiency, a desire to increase his power, even more than it was a matter of his tyranny. He was greeted by the Barons who demanded that his Government not be solely a Government of the executive, of the King and his advisers doing what they thought made sense, but to respect the powers of the people. Of course, given the status-ridden society that prevailed in England and other countries of feudal Europe at that time, the Barons saw

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
themselves as the people who counted. They wanted the King to respect their position rather than act in an autocratic or arbitrary way.
The principle they were enunciating for King John at that time has come to be recognized by historians as a very important development in the history of Parliament. The principle that began in the time of King John stands today. The parliamentary Government in which we take pride is one which is government in the name of the Crown which must act here in Parliament.
It is completely inaccurate, indeed inadequate, for politicians who are sworn in as Ministers of the Crown to believe that what they initiate with their Departments and officials is inevitably right because it makes sense to them. There can be absolutely no doubt in the history of parliamentary Government in Canada that the executive brings its decisions here to ask for parliamentary approval.
Proposals in the form of Bills do not become the law of the land until they have been debated through several stages, considered in committee, and given the kind of detailed examination as we are involved in with Bill C-87 at the moment. It is simply a reflection of the traditions of Parliament to suggest that the decisions of the executive should be closely examined by Parliament long before 180 days, in the case of these tariff changes.
Many senior members of the Government are exactly those persons who made these arguments when they were in opposition. They are very familiar with the traditions of Parliament. Tragically, when they become Ministers, they forget those traditions and their back-benchers simply parrot the same line. They leave us with the impression that what makes sense to them is God-given insight on which one must act. It is nothing of the sort. Those decisions must be brought here and approved by Parliament.
Of course, given the political reality of their majority, they know that if they choose to press ahead with their policies, they can bull them through. However, they should have regard for history, tradition, and the nature of our Constitution to recognize the wisdom of having parliamentary consideration of these matters as early as possible.
If Members opposite are going to object to these two motions, as the Parliamentary Secretary just suggested, it is to their shame that I remind them of a long-serving Liberal Prime Minister of this country who is known to have uttered the phrase "Parliament if necessary, but not necessarily Parliament". He was known to believe he could proceed on his own and, if he could avoid debate on foreign affairs and policy relating to other countries, he would do so. There was a lack of debate on these matters for a number of years.
In that respect, let me allude to yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who
presented a report on his journey to Central America last week. Our critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), in responding to that statement, thanked the Minister for having made this report and giving us an opportunity for some consideration in the House of this very important aspect of External Affairs in this area of the new world of the Western Hemisphere, particularly Central America, where the United States has been involved for many years. Such a gesture only underscores the importance of Parliament.
I express intense regret at the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that the Government plans to oppose these motions. It is not true to the traditions about which they spoke eloquently and vehemently, and with profound conviction and passion when in opposition. Unfortunately, when the Government receives such a large majority, all that is forgotten and it simply uses the weight of numbers to do what it believes makes sense. That is regrettable, and Canadians who watch this debate will join with me in expressing regret that a Government would become arrogant even in its first term and not bother with Parliament.
It believes that a period of 180 days, half a year or more, is a sensible proposition. We are suggesting that 60 days is a reasonable period for a motion to be presented and debated. We could deal with these Ways and Means motions with the sense of importance they actually have in the affairs of Canada and our relations with other countries.
I strongly support Motions Nos. 4 and 8 and call upon members of the Government to join with us in passing these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I put the question, may I just say that Motions Nos. 4 and 12 were debated together, with the vote on Motion No. 4 applying to Motion No. 12.
The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
December 3, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 8, 11 A, 12A, and 13A cause the Chair some procedural difficulty. I would refer Hon. Members to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 523. However, because some doubt exists in these instances, I am prepared to allow the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, Motions Nos. 8, 11 A, 12A, and 13A will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 8 will apply to Motions Nos. 11A, 12A and 13 A.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16 will be debated and voted on separately.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line
4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 11A
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by adding, immediately after line
27	at page 21, the following:
"(9) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament.
Motion No. 12A
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 61 by adding, immediately after line
14 at page 22, the following:
"(6) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 13A
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 62 by adding, immediately after line
28	at page 22, the following:
"(2) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this set of amendments gets to the core of the problem we see in the sections of the Customs Act which have been brought into this new Bill relative to the harmonized system of tariffs.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the official Mr. Speaker for his flexibility in giving me the benefit of the doubt in this particular case. There are four amendments and each of them indicate that the power conferred in the relevant clause should not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of another country except by an Act of Parliament.
Customs Tariff
I recognize the Speaker's concern about that amendment. However, the essence of the position that is being put forward here is quite simply that by treaty we should not have a situation where Canada abrogates or loses the power to take trade action through retaliation under Clauses 59, 60, and 61, which provide for a form of retaliation, for a surtax, or for a surcharge. We should not be in a position where that type of power is taken away by a treaty. Obviously I am not thinking of a treaty between Canada and Upper Volta. I am thinking of the treaty which is currently in negotiations, no matter what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says, between Canada and the United States on a freer trade arrangement.
If I had to rewrite the amendments in Clause 62, I perhaps may have changed them a little, but but the essence there is that we should not see a situation where Canada basically takes action to cut tariffs with the United States without reference to Parliament by means of an Act of Parliament. This is because the particular treaty which is currently being negotiated is of such fundamental importance to our two countries.
I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the extraordinary powers that now exist in Clause 62 of the Bill, powers which have existed in the past under the Customs Tariff. It reads:
62. The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, by order,
(a)	reduce or remove customs duties on goods imported from any country by way of compensation for concessions granted by that country or any other country, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order; and
(b)	extend the benefit of any order made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any country as may be required by Canada's international obligations, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
Subsequent to this debate there was another amendment which stated that Clause 62 may not be used in reference to Canadian duties against the United States, in other words, to prohibit the Governor in Council from exercising this power.
In this particular case, the amendment is that the power shall not be abrogated by means of a treaty which Canada signs. People say that that is very hypothetical, and they have never heard of it happening. The fact is that Canada is now embarked on a trade negotiation in which major elements of our sovereignty and our ability to make future arrangements to protect, enhance, or develop our industries in our economy are being taken away by means of treaty. In other words, we will not be able to act independently in the future.
While this does not bear directly on Clause 62, for example, I cite the granting of national treatment to American service industries which we understand is a part of the free trade agreement. In future, how the devil can the Parliament of Canada act to develop the services industries, which account for 70 per cent of our economy, if we have signed away our right to do so by a solemn commitment between Canada and another nation and if in fact this country has essentially told the Americans that we will not legislate in that area except that we first abrogate the agreement? After many years, the

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
agreement will become increasingly solidified and increasingly hard to shake away, and it will increasingly dictate the way our industrial structure is created.
This is why we are looking for a change here to recognize that the Government has moved us into a new type of situation, a situation where in a major way treaties can affect Canadian powers. Treaties did so in the past, but on a multilateral basis and in a minor, phased and graduated way. I would contend they did so in a way which was generally acceptable to Canadians who welcomed a freer trading environment which has been created on a multilateral international basis between Canada and other great trading nations over the 30 years or 40 years since the war.
However, if we get into trade disputes with the United States in future, disputes where in the past we had the power to impose increases in duties, surtaxes, or surcharges under Clauses 59, 60, or 61, we will be in a situation where the right of Canada to retaliate will have been signed away. Instead, that right will adhere in this new disputes resolution process and nowhere else.
How we will use that is something that I am not sure about. It seems to me that we will lack the weapons, because we will have tied our hands behind our backs. I would contend that we are dealing with a country that is grossly and gravely irresponsible in its use of trade actions as a weapon to hit at other countries that are smaller or economically weaker than it.
Unfortunately, despite the long-standing friendship between Americans and Canadians, and between our two great countries which has gone on for 150 years, it is nonetheless true that American industry has learned in a very fine way how to harass imports from other countries, including imports from Canada, and that the American Government either condones or encourages those types of situations.
The behaviour of the Americans since October 3 and over the course of the free trade negotiations does not give me a great deal of optimism that they have changed their tune and manners in this particular regard.
What has happened is that the Americans have continued to do such things as selling subsidized wheat into major markets that were traditionally Canadian, and imposing countervailing duties, for example, the 85 per cent on the potash industry, and generally trying to make life difficult for Canadians who were doing business in the United States. The Americans seem to have a rule in these things which is, "heads we win, and tails you lose".
In a situation where Canada has a natural advantage, for example with a particular natural resource, the Americans turn around and say, "The Canadian Government is not charging enough economic rent in order to counteract the natural advantage Canada has in the North American market, therefore those industries are being subsidized", which is what
happened in softwood lumber, and, "We will put a countervailing duty against Canada". That was the type of position the Americans took in that particular case.
The United States has natural comparative advantages in terms of trade with Canada in many different areas. For example, in the worst months of our winter there is more sunshine and warmth in Florida than there is right across Canada, except perhaps in Victoria where I come from, Mr. Speaker, and where you and I may meet after we retire. You may go there first though, Mr. Speaker; I expect to be around here for a while.
The Americans have advantages in terms of the economies of scale for certain industries, such as main frame computers, large scale machine tools, and certain other high-tech equipment. We will never overcome that advantage completely because our industries are smaller than theirs. Our niche is to find ways to do smaller, custom-made production runs efficiently using automation and computerization. These are our potentials.
The Americans take the view that their natural advantages, be it climate or economy of scale, should be allowed but that our natural advantages should be ignored. They have been using harassment techniques against Canadian goods in a very consistent way.
I suggest that the reason for these amendments is that Canada should not have its hands tied. If we find that the Americans are acting in bad faith after we have been dragged into a trade deal by the Prime Minister and his Government, we should not be unable to fight back if the Americans keep a loaded gun under the table. That is why we feel that these motions should be supported.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, these four motions which actually contain one amendment applying to four different clauses would allow the Parliament of Canada to have some power over treaties signed between the Government of Canada and the Government of any other country. These amendments follow directly upon the amendments we have suggested to Clause 59.
The amendments provide that the powers conferred by the relevant sections may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of another country except by an Act of Parliament. That gives the Parliament of Canada, and consequently the people of Canada, a bit more security.
The Government of Canada has negotiated such treaties in the past. For example, about seven or eight years ago, Canada negotiated a treaty with the United States on the Grand Banks fisheries. When the treaty was signed and approved by Cabinet, it became law in Canada. However, the process it followed in the United States was somewhat different. The American administration signed it but when it got to Congress,
December 3, 1987

Congress turned it down. Consequently, the agreement which we had signed in good faith and thought was settled turned out not to be so.
There is no process in Canada allowing the Parliament of Canada to approve a treaty. If this were to be done on a blanket basis, it may to some extent require a constitutional change. However, in these four motions, we are suggesting that Parliament will have the power the U.S. Congress has as a matter of course in these particular areas. Consequently, these motions are worded almost identically and will amend Clauses 59, 60, 61, and 62 to provide the Parliament of Canada the power to decide whether or not a particular treaty signed by Cabinet affecting a particular product or tariff should be accepted.
This power becomes more important in light of the scenario established under the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. We must be concerned about how such treaties are put in place. There is now not only a great disparity between how Canada approves a treaty and how the United States approves a treaty but added to that is something which greatly affects the powers of treaties. In the free trade agreement, there is a dispute-settlement mechanism which allows U.S. law to be applied to Canadian products.
In the process of accepting this treaty or any future treaty, we will, because of the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member who has been here for a number of years realizes that he is not to use the Prime Minister's name. I have heard this phrase a number of times today. There is no such thing as a Mulroney-Reagan treaty; it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Mr. Reagan.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker.
The trade agreement puts in place a dispute settlement mechanism which allows U.S. law to apply to Canadian products that go to the United States. TTrade disputes on countervail and anti-dumping that have been initiated by American companies against Canadian exporters are decided under U.S. law, and the decision then affects Canadian exporters.
There has already been a good example of this in the exports of softwood to the United States. The Americans put a countervailing duty on softwood and we reacted by putting a tax on the softwood that was to be exported from Canada. Consequently, the citizens of both nations are now paying more to build their houses. This has occurred because U.S. law was applied to this trade question.
With these motions, we are attempting to ensure that Canada, through Parliament, can have a say when it finds that it is being wronged by U.S. law under the treaties signed by the executive branch of the United States and the Cabinet of Canada. The motions provide that we have some recourse, the
Customs Tariff
recourse being that the decisions made under U.S. law cannot affect Canadian decisions without passing through Parliament.
The motions would also give Parliament more of a democratic grasp on the establishment of the kind of country in which we want to live and the kind of relationships we want to have with other Governments. If the Government of Canada through a treaty gives up its power to establish tariffs-that is what happened in the past-then we have to have some way in which to limit that power. These amendments will attempt to do that.
Maybe what we need is to take a good look at the process of treaty establishment in Canada. Maybe we need to change the tradition and make all treaties referable to Parliament instead of the way it is now. When a decision is made for a treaty it is accepted as being complete when signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and approved by Cabinet. If these amendments are put in place, we will at least have some of the treaties sent to Parliament or approved by Parliament at some stage before they become the law of Canada.
The trade agreement between the United States and Canada has been based on, or at least the rhetoric which the agreement is based on, the requirement for a level playing field. I suggest that a level playing field requires the same kind of approach to the ratifying of a treaty as we have for organizations and the law to be applied on both sides of the border. That has not been done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I gave him an extra couple of minutes because I thought maybe I had taken the time away from him. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments of these five different motions that appear in different parts of the Bill which are trying to establish the same principle throughout the Bill. We have here as important a proposition as that in the Lord's decision to approach King John and force him to permit the Parliament of the day to approve any changes to the taxing and spending power of the Government. What we have here is an attempt in a constitutional monarchy to change the way that our Government conducts itself in international affairs with regard to the signing of international agreements and treaties.
What it says is very straightforward. The amendments we are proposing in the five places in the Bill where it is appropriate to move them very clearly say: "The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated between the Government of Canada and the Government of another country''. This would make Parliament supreme in the functions of any Government, regardless of what stripe that Government might be. The Government would have to take changes to the treaty-in this case an abrogation of the treaty-back to the House of

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
Commons, the Parliament of Canada, before the Government could change or abandon the treaty.
This would be of interest to Members on the government side. Knowing past history they will realize that they will not be on the government side forever. If the Government changes, which the current status in the polls indicates as a foregone conclusion, one or the other of the opposition Parties will form the new Government. If we can believe the leaders of each of those Parties, they have every intention of abrogating this Canada-U.S. accord we have been discussing this afternoon.
Government Members would, I am sure, were they on our side of the House, be quite concerned that they have some say in a decision about the treaty. I presume they think the matter should be brought to the House of Commons by way of an Act of Parliament before any changes or a complete abrogation of the treaty were made. I presume we would get full support of government Members, particularly those who have been attempting to change the role of the back-bencher in the House of Commons. I see the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) is in his place. I presume that he will be supporting this amendment because it increases and clarifies the role of the House of Commons and gives it a role in the finalization of treaty obligations that any Government may make on behalf of the country. This is extremely important. We have followed 800 years of British parliamentary practice, namely, whoever is the Government represents a majority of the people and, therefore, speaks for them. Because of that majority, it has every right to sign an international treaty.
However, we are at the point right at the moment, if I can divert from the Bill itself just to make an example, where the Government is proposing an international treaty with the United States, a Government that no longer has the backing of the majority of Canadians. In fact, if we can believe the opinion polls, about one Canadian voter in four supports the Government. The henchmen of the agreement, the Premiers, allegedly behind the Prime Minister's attempt to go forward with this agreement, are in similar disarray. The Premier of my province, Grant Devine, is reported to be running 25 points behind the NDP's Roy Romanow, but Grant Devine is one of the leading advocates of this particular agreement. He does not have a majority of support in his own province yet he is attempting to speak for the whole of the country, which is his right under our system. But he is not speaking for a majority and he is not representing a majority. In fact, his Government got 2,000 votes less than the Official Opposition. The Premier of British Columbia is currently running 11 points behind the NDP in that province and even that rock of Conservative solidarity in your own province, Mr. Speaker, of Alberta, is seeing Premier Don Getty falling in the polls as his support for this agreement is recognized.


Mr. McMillan:: What are the polls in Manitoba? Where does Howard Pawley stand?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He is not doing that particularly well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He is at least equal to the Conservatives in his province. The rural areas in Manitoba, I might point out, in the last poll were up 6 per cent over the previous one. But there is some concern about what the Government is proposing to do with this country. I raise that point to reinforce the argument I am trying to make, namely, that it is important to refer back to Parliament before we rely wholly on the executive branch of any Government.
I do not care whether it is a Government our Party would form or one of the other Parties might form. The principle should be changed so that Parliament has the right to deal with international agreements of this nature. Whether it is an agreement to harmonize tariff rates, or to form an economic union with another country, Parliament should be consulted. It should be considered as a new principle of democratic Government that such agreements have to have the approval of Parliament before they come into place.
This is necessary because opinions change and the direction of Governments change. There is no clearer example of that than the current Government. During the leadership campaign of the government Party, we were told by the man who eventually became Leader that free trade with the U.S. was something he would hear no more of, that it could lead to a loss of sovereignty and so on. We also know that in November, 1984, shortly after becoming Prime Minister, that same gentleman said: "We have only been in power for two months but I can tell you this: Give us 20 years, and it is coming, and you will not recognize this country." A few years later, on October 22, 1987, just after the deal was signed with the Americans, Clayton Yeutter, U.S. trade representative, said: "The Canadians don't understand what they have signed. In 20 years they will be sucked into the U.S. economy." I wonder if the Prime Minister is not keeping one of his promises, the one he made on September 7, about giving him 20 years and we would not recognize this country.
That is one of the reasons I think Parliament has to have an opportunity to review trade agreements, international accords, and changes to tariff rates such as we have before us today. It is extremely vital to the continuation and modernization of the democratic process that these amendments be made.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I will not say it is encouraging to hear Opposition Members but at least it is an education. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to educate them as well. In Quebec, they say that ideas are like socks. If you never change them, they start to smell. Mr. Speaker, I think there is a lesson here we should apply from time to time.
Motion No. 8 infers that the provisions of a treaty might abrogate the provisions of existing legislation. That is more or less what the motion appears to say. Mr. Speaker, you know as
December 3, 1987

well as I do this could never happen anyway. No provisions of any treaty can change or abrogate existing legislation. I think that even if there is some discussion on the other side of the House, it shouldn't take long. The motion should be rejected. We don't need the amendment because the situation is purely hypothetical.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Nice try, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member does not rise, I am not going to be able to recognize him. Now that he has, 1 will.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: He just does not get that much taller when he stands.


Iain Francis Angus: I thank my colleague. See if we move any more of your grain.
It is one of those days, Mr. Speaker, but I am rising to speak particularly to Motion No. 8 put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). It reads:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
This motion should be accepted, and I encourage the Government to do so. It is very similar to provincial planning laws and municipal zoning laws which establish a set of rules with respect to how a community is to be developed. If one wants to change those rules, one has to go through a public process. One just cannot sit in a community room or cabinet room or council room and redraw the lines and it is done. One has to go through a public process. What we are saying in this motion is that if this and other amendments are put in place, the Government would have to bring in a specific piece of legislation for a specific commodity or component in order for the tariff to be changed. What we are trying to do is maintain that opportunity in the public forum.
In general we are concerned that this Bill, and that clause in particular, will open the door for implementation of the trade agreement reached between the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. We want to prevent that. We want to put this clause in so that the normal ability of a Prime Minister to sign a treaty is taken away from him. If he wanted to do something like that, he would have to come back and change this particular Bill based on that agreement. We think it is very appropriate to put that kind of power in the legislation and ensure that the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, have the fullest opportunity to debate the impact of changes.
Customs Tariff
Yesterday I had the opportunity, along with my caucus colleagues, to meet with two individuals who were very concerned about one of the industries to be directly affected by the trade agreement. They were representatives of the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board. They explained to us the implications for grape producers in Ontario. Even though they did not represent them, the same holds true for grape growers in British Columbia. This would have a devastating impact on the business, their families, and their employees. They said the impact was not going to occur in 1989; it was going to be in 1988 because of the growing season in that industry. They will have to begin now to remove from production those vines that will be producing in 1989. Already they will have to down size their production.
They pointed out that whereas Canada was giving up its industry, particularly the wine industry which uses these grapes, they were not getting guaranteed access to the U.S. Americans can sell their wine and juices in Canada without any financial impediment. However, Canadian producers do not have the same access to the United States markets primarily due to the concentration of ownership in the distribution system. In most of the United States the distribution system is controlled by one of the biggest wine producers in the country. I believe that more than three-quarters of the States are controlled by that one company.
It is clear that Canadian wine producers have not had a fair shake. They have not had access to the market equal to that which American producers have been given in Canada. That is assuming that the provinces, particularly Ontario, will go along with the deal. Unfortunately it seems that the Province of Ontario, in spite of the strong show during the last provincial election about vetoing this deal if it is bad for Ontario, will not live up to its word. I think that in time the people of Ontario will realize that they were sold a bill of goods by the Liberal Party of Ontario.
The trade agreement is an extremely important matter for Canadians as well as for Americans. The Canadians to whom I have spoken, Canadians of all political stripes, have expressed real concern about what they perceive to be the implications of this agreement which allows our very large neighbour to the south to come in at will, with no protection for Canadians, to sell their products. In some cases we can sell our products in their market, but they do not see the balance.
Some people think it will be great to be able to go to the United States and pick up a VCR or a television set for $99.99. They do not realize that those things are not made in the United States. They are made elsewhere and would not be included in the agreement.
Granted, there will be a reduction in the price of some items which people will be able to purchase in the United States because they will be able to bring them back to Canada dutyfree. However, they will still have to pay provincial and federal

December 3, 1987
Customs Tariff
sales tax. They also forget that the merchants in their communities will no longer have the same volume of sales and will have to charge more per unit, in order to maintain their standard of living and ensure that the return on their investment is appropriate.
There are two implications of that. Thunder Bay is 190 miles from its major neighbours in the United States; Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin. People will not be able to go there every week. But enough people will go there to cause a serious decline in the revenues of retailers in Thunder Bay. The times they are not able to go to the United States they will have to pay more at home. The people who do not have the ability to travel to Duluth or Grande Marais, which is a smaller community closer to Thunder Bay, will not benefit by that and will have to pay more. In addition, fewer small businesses will be able to survive in an already fragile situation.
Although the idea of free trade sounds great, as though we will be getting something for nothing, there is no such thing as something for nothing. When we study the details of the agreement we begin to understand that it is not such a great deal. That is why we have been demanding the right to see the details. We want to examine the nuts and bolts in order to determine what it means to commodity x, y, and z, what it means to British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, and northern Ontario. As a result of the softwood lumber deal northern Ontario was hit hardest. For that reason we believe that Motion No. 8 in particular should be accepted by the Government in order that it cannot automatically implement the trade deal.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to lend my support to the amendments proposed by my colleague. 1 do so because we believe in the principle that Parliament, through the majority of its Members, should have the right and ability to make decisions which are of importance to Canadians and will have very serious effects on them. That is why we moved this amendment.
In our view the Government, which has a large majority in this Parliament, did not get a mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States. As I indicated in debate earlier today, and as my colleagues and others have frequently made clear, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) never at any time told the people of Canada that he believed that a free trade agreement with the United States would be beneficial to the people of Canada.
Indeed, in 1983 and 1984, before the election, the Prime Minister made very clear his rejection of the idea of free trade describing the relationship between Canada and the United States in very clear and very correct terms. He classified the United States as an elephant and Canada as a rabbit. I have to agree with him in terms of the relative strength of Canada and the United States as he described it then. During the election campaign he never dealt with the question of free trade at all.
We have estimated that the Prime Minister and his colleagues made over 200 promises during the course of that campaign. One would have thought that they had covered every possible aspect of Canadian life, but there was not one mention of free trade during the entire election campaign. Suddenly, as I said earlier, because of the low standing of the Conservative Party in the polls, the low standing which has continued for 16 to 18 months, the Government, looking for an issue which might gain it the support of the Canadian people, seized on this. One can accept the attraction of free trade, if there was a genuine agreement for free trade between these two countries. One could understand, although I happen to disagree with the recommendations of the Macdonald Commission of a free trade agreement between the United States and Canada. There is a world of difference between what the Macdonald Commission was recommending as a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States and what we have now, or at least what we know about what we have now, which is very little. It is like comparing night and day.
What we have here is an agreement which gives the advantages to the United States and all the drawbacks and disadvantages to Canada. We know from watching Mr. Reisman and the United States negotiator, Mr. Murphy, that the Americans are not satisfied with the fact that in the October agreement they took us to the cleaners. They now want another kick at the cat.


John Horton McDermid: It is the other way around.


David Orlikow: The Parliamentary Secretary is again interjecting, saying' "It is the other way around". I would be very happy to sit down right now if the Parliamentary Secretary would rise and tell us how it is the other way around. We understand, and the Parliamentary Secretary can correct me if I am wrong-


John Horton McDermid: I will correct you when you are wrong.


David Orlikow: I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would keep his cool and wait until I am finished.


John Horton McDermid: You are always saying wrong things.


David Orlikow: I would then be prepared to listen to him. I will not interrupt him, and his interruptions do not bother me. We understand that the American negotiators are now saying they want the agreement to spell out the fact that the very restrictive legislation the American Congress has passed, and which the President has permitted to be enacted, the Jones Act with respect to shipping-


John Horton McDermid: It is 200 years old.


David Orlikow: Well, 200 years old, or whenever it was passed. The fact is that the Jones Act gives rights to American owned and registered shipping which no other country,
December 3, 1987

including Canada, has, and they want that to continue. We understand that the Americans are insisting on changes to the Auto Pact Agreement. We understand that there are a number of other issues on which they are insisting on changes.
I say it is pretty obvious that the Americans, not satisfied with the tremendous advantages they have received as a result of signing the agreement in October, are now back demanding more. We can see how desperate the Government is to get an agreement regardless of the price. I remind Members that just a few days before the agreement was signed in October, our negotiator, Mr. Reisman, picked up his hat, coat, and briefcase and walked out, saying no way was he going to agree to the demands the Americans were making. A few days later he was back and he did agree on behalf of the Government of Canada. Why did he agree? Because he received his marching orders from the Prime Minister.
Mr. Reisman is an able, experienced negotiator.


An Hon. Member:: That is his job.


David Orlikow: Of course, that is his job. That is how the democratic system works. Part of the democratic system that is not working in this present debate is that the people of Canada, Members of Parliament, and the provincial Governments are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are being asked to accept that the federal Conservative Government, which never talked about free trade, should now be able to sign an agreement, the final text of which will run into several thousand pages, without the agreement of Members of Parliament, the Premiers of the provinces, or various economic and cultural groups which have a vital interest in what the agreement will contain because they will be so enormously affected either for good or for evil. No one knows what is in the final agreement. No one knows what is involved in the 2 per cent over which they are still haggling and discussing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I take it we are on Motions Nos. 8, 11 A, 12A, and 13A. I want to speak in support of those motions.
It has always been my view, if you do not mind, Sir, that the ratification of treaties and international agreements must in the present context, be carried on by the Government of the day-not just by the Prime Minister, Cabinet, or a combination of both-and ratified by the House of Commons and only the House of Commons.
Our amendments say that any treaty or portion thereof cannot abrogate any section of this Bill without the consent of Parliament. I admit right away that that may be a back door way of going about it. However, we are left with no other choice. What we are faced with is that in our parliamentary democracy we are permitting a foreign administration to tell a supine, money hungry Government of Canada what kind of laws we must have. We are dealing with a law that calls for the harmonization of tariffs and duties and so forth.
Customs Tariff
As I said the other day on an earlier amendment, the Government wants us all to get into harmony, and the name of the tune will be the Star Spangled Banner. Obviously our amendments to this Bill-and we have done the same on other occasions on other Bills, some of them long past-indicate that my Party would bring to Parliament any international agreement or treaty for debate, discussion, and ratification whether or not it required a constitutional amendment. I think it should be a requirement. If the House of Commons chose not to approve or ratify a treaty, be it a trade agreement or any other kind of international treaty, the Government of the day, particularly if it was a Government of my Party, would have to go back to the negotiating table of the country or countries concerned.
My friends opposite continue to suffer the delusion that the United States administration or Congress, or the individual 50 states, will hold still for Canada obtaining a larger share of any market in any commodity than we presently have. In my own part of Canada many suffer from the same delusion, specifically the Cattlemen's Association and some hog producers.
We have learned enough lessons from free trade arrangements in the past, when they closed down the border, countervailed, established duties or tariffs in spite of a non-tariff arrangement. As I read the agreement, there is nothing that prevents the United States from doing the exact same thing again.
While I will not say it is a sell-out, the Government is prepared to go to almost any length in a desperate effort to obtain a treaty. I received information this morning from a senior federal bureaucrat that the Americans have in fact thrown new flies in the ointment, and the negotiations on matters which we were assured by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were completed are still going on.
We find it necessary to move these kinds of amendments because the Americans have thrown new wrinkles into the present discussions. We are in the dark about negotiations at the moment, and we have no other choice but to put forward these amendments which say these powers cannot be abrogated by any treaty or portion thereof.
This morning in the transport committee 1 tried to raise questions concerning the transportation annex. If and when the Government brings in legislation amending some of our transportation laws, it will have to answer some questions about the present agreement. Section 4 of the transportation annex speaks of the making of amendments to existing measures or future measures taken pursuant to existing measures, subject to the test of unfair subsidy. It was impossible to get an explanation from senior officials in the Department of Transport about what constitutes an unfair subsidy.
It states that new measures in areas not addressed by existing measures are subject to the test of an unfair subsidy.

December 3, 1987
Message from the Senate
How will an unfair subsidy on a transport rate or program be defined? They were unable or unwilling to tell us.
Is a government payment a necessary condition to define a subsidy? What if a transportation operation cross subsidizes among its traffic? Will an unfair subsidy be based on variable cost, short-run and long-run, constant cost, or fixed cost?
More important, if we were to index fully the western grain freight subsidy against inflation, would that be subject to the test of an unfair subsidy under the transportation annex to the free trade agreement? No one in the Government, including the Prime Minister, will respond to that question. That is another reason for these amendments.
Let us assume, for the benefit of my friends from Atlantic Canada, that we want to change the percentage of rate of subsidy on goods shipped out of the Atlantic region. Would the new subsidy be subject to the test of an unfair subsidy as laid down in the free trade agreement and the transportation annex? Could the rates consequently be affected?
Would the subsidized construction of a new rail line or air cargo terminal be subject to the test of an unfair subsidy? Could the rates be affected? These concerns are another reason for these amendments. Anything in this Bill could not be abrogated by the treaty the Government is presently negotiating, without coming to Parliament. Surely the Government would accept such a proposal if the deal is so good.
The U.S. Jones Act restricts domestic cargo to American vessels. Will there be an amendment to the trade deal to give us the same right, should we ever decide to use it?


Mr. Binns:: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I invite my hon. friend to show me what is in the agreement or the transportation annex that allows him to say, "Yes". If he knows what he is talking about, I expect him to get up and tell us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has more than expired. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) as the next speaker.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-14, an Act to authorize Cooperants, Mutual Life Insurance Society to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   RESUMPTION AND CONTINUATION OF POSTAL SERVICES ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Business:
October 7, 1987-Second reading and reference to a legislative committee
of Bill C-269, an Act to provide for the resumption and the continuation of
postal services.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Private Members' Business scheduled for today was to be the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-269, an Act to provide for the resumption and the continuation of postal services, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson).
However, earlier this day, the Hon. Member was granted unanimous consent of the House to have the Order for second reading discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
Therefore, there being no business for the House at this time, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, December 4, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers