1987-12-11

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that the important documents dealing with the free trade deal have been the object of a lockup since eight o'clock for members of the media. Members of Parliament were invited to a lock-up on those documents as of ten o'clock. I do not want to raise any hairs on the back of anyone's neck, but I do think Members of Parliament should be entitled to the same courtesy as the media and given access to the same documents at the same time. I appreciate that the media have to write and assess the documents in perhaps a different way but we still have to answer to the Canadian public for those documents.
I ask the Government if there is an explanation why the press was invited to attend this lock-up at eight o'clock this morning and Members of Parliament were invited only at ten o'clock.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, we made every effort to see that Members of Parliament from all Parties were briefed as soon as possible on the documents in question. To be quite frank with you, I would have to investigate the circumstances on other items such as a lock-up on the Estimates or the Budget. I undertake to look into the matter and get back to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised this as a question of privilege. It may well not be, but in any event the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has agreed to report back as quickly as he can. I think at least for now the Chair can leave the matter there.
1 thank the Hon. Member for raising the issue which, as I say, may not be a question of privilege but is of very great interest to Hon. Members on both sides of the House.



Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative, a strong supporter of my Party, my colleagues, my Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and, in general, my Government. 1 am also unilingual. I represent a riding which is overwhelmingly unilingual Anglophone. I fear my constituents' rights are jeopardized by Bill C-72 and the manner in which it is now written. Therefore, I think it only proper that, with regret, I tender my resignation as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has risen on what I think would be more properly referred to as a point of individual privilege. It has been customary in the past on such occasions to hear an Hon. Member under those circumstances. The Hon. Member has made his statement. 1 do not think there is any need to carry the question of privilege any further.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that the Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few short remarks on the occasion of the third reading of this important piece of legislation.

December 11, 1987
Judges Act

As Hon. Members would know, this Bill contains only two clauses: the first will raise salaries of federally appointed judges, the second will repeal some of the provisions of the Judges Act under which they are entitled to benefits which have to do with their marital status and which might be challenged under the charter.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware that every three years, pursuant to the Judges Act, the Minister of Justice is required to set up an independent commission mandated to review the salaries and benefits of judges appointed by the federal Government and report on the matter. The 1986 commission-the second appointed under the provisions of the Judges Act-recommended a number of changes in judges' salaries and benefits. The purpose of Bill C-88 is to implement some of these recommendations.

Clause 1 of the Bill will increase judicial salaries to the levels recommended by the commission after its independent assessment of the adequacy of existing levels of remuneration. However, these increases will not be made fully retroactive to April 1, 1986, as the commission recommended, but implemented in three equal stages on April 1, 1986, April 1, 1987, and April 1, 1988.
Clause 2 of the Bill, amending the Judges Act so that benefits to spouses and children no longer depend on marital status, also implements a commission recommendation and will make the relevant provisions of the Act fully consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) indicated on second reading debate, the remaining recommendations of the 1986 commission dealing largely with judicial pensions and other non-salary benefits are under review in consultation with those of my cabinet colleagues who are most directly concerned. The Minister of Justice intends to respond to these recommendations once these consultations have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank all Members of the legislative committee to which Bill C-88 was referred for their dispatch in dealing with the matter.
However short this Bill may be, Mr. Speaker, it is a major instrument which enables us to show federally appointed judges our unmistakable appreciation for the essential role they play in our justice system. The Minister of Justice is very pleased that the House has agreed to endorse this measure and hopes it will be given royal assent at the earliest opportunity.

1 would like to thank the members of the legislative committee for their quick response to this Bill. I also want to thank all Members of this House for allowing the Government
to give this Bill third reading today. We hope to receive Royal Assent in the very near future in order to help our judges.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I expect my intervention to be rather short, but for now 1 should like to yield to my colleague from Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) because he is pressed for time. He has to be somewhere by 10.30.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the first and second speakers have unlimited time at third reading. 1 imagine that although my colleague from Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was kind enough to yield the floor for the time being, he would not want this to infringe on his right subsequently to take the time he deems necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the House would agree to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). 1 have a meeting with a Minister with regard to a private Member's Bill. I want to get to that meeting because it is important for my constituents and merchant seamen and veterans in Canada.
I would like to make a few remarks on behalf of the New Democratic Party in reply to the Parliamentary Secretary's very succinct speech. The topic of judges reminds me of the Monty Python skit in which a coal miner says "I would have been a judge if I had the Latin, but I do not have the Latin so I won't be a judge".
Well, judges do not speak Latin these days but they do have a very busy job due to all the legislation that we pass and the more litigious nature of our society. In addition, we passed the Charter of Rights and have now passed the Meech Lake Accord with additional terms, if I can put it that way, which judges will have to interpret. We want to have the best judges that we possibly can in the country. By and large, we have a pretty good bench.
I note that the salaries of judges are being increased in the Bill but not entirely retroactively. I think that was a good decision. There is some controversy, and always will be, on how much judges should be paid. Some people in my Party think that judges get paid too much. Other people in the law profession and elsewhere say that if we want good lawyers to become judges we must pay them good salaries. Of course we
December 11, 1987

want the best lawyers to be on the bench. I will, therefore, leave it at that. We do, however, monitor that very carefully.
It is very interesting that Parliament must pass salaries. I do not think that judges like that. They would rather have an independent commission do it, but I think Parliament should keep doing it because it gives us a chance to talk about judicial performance in a general way and to talk about government action with respect to judges and judicial appointments. I would like to make a few remarks on that point as well.
The Canadian Bar Association Committee Report "The Appointment of Judges in Canada" of August 20, 1985, states in part as follows:
In our interviews-conducted in every province and territory, with members of federal and provincial governments and courts at all levels, with offices of the Canadian Bar Association and provincial law societies, and with lawyers generally-we found widespread dissatisfaction with the present method of judicial selection and appointments and a broadly-based desire for change.
That change has not come. We have been waiting for the Minister of Justice to indicate a better and fairer process of judicial appointments and we are still waiting.
The report continues:
Jurisdictions that already have judicial councils or selection committees for choosing provincial judges are notable exceptions.
In most jurisdictions, however, there is dissatisfaction with the extent of political patronage in judicial appointments, despite the recognition that political ties and legal or judicial skills often co-exist in the same persons. Where the nominating process emphasizes political criteria, excellent lawyers of the "wrong" or no political affiliation are passed over as serious candidates for the bench, with the result that there can be no assurance that the best possible nominees for judgeships are chosen.
A former minister of justice told us that he sometimes chose the candidate rated "qualified" by the CBA Committee-
The Canadian Bar Association Committee represents some progress in the appointment of judges.
-rather than the one rated "highly qualified", because he was influenced by "other sources" that presented judgments different from those of the Committee.
Such an unsystematic process has resulted in much public cynicism about judicial appointments. Whatever the actual merits of the judges selected, there is a widespread public perception that judges are chosen primarily for political reasons.
In my own Province of British Columbia there are rumours in the bar that the Government may appoint the present Attorney General in the provincial government as Chief Justice of the Province of British Columbia. This is the same fellow who became a legal-laughing stock earlier this year when he unsuccessfully sought a court injunction against a threatened protest strike by B.C. labour on the grounds that the one-day job action would be seditious. Of course, the Supreme Court of British Columbia wisely threw that out. I do not think lawyers in my province would want to see someone who brought that rather strange law suit become Chief Justice of our province.
In summary, yes, politicians or people who have Party affiliations could be appointed judges. As the bar report says,
Judges Act
that could co-exist in individuals who have good legal skills and so on. There are good examples of that in all three political Parties. I think of Davie Fulton and Stu Leggatt as examples.
We are asking for a better process for the selection and for better consultation. We hope that in the end there may be some means of scrutiny such as there is in the American jurisdiction, perhaps by a committee of this House. We have been receiving promises from the Minister of Justice. Like the person waiting for the suitor who receives nothing but promises, promises, promises, that is all the Minister of Justice gives on this area. 1 would like the Government to study that a little further.
With regard to pensions, I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were consultations ongoing on a few of the pension problems which the judges have had. I think that can be worked out and I am pleased the Government is doing this.
Let me conclude by saying on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we are prepared to let this Bill pass today after a short debate at third reading. We are pleased with the cooperation in committee and in the House on this Bill. The judiciary is becoming a more and more important level of Government. Canada, this strange country, is kind of half British and half French. It looks back to Britain and France for half our system, the other half following the American system. We are somewhere in between. The great thing is that we are now beginning to fashion our own system, something for which we are all struggling together. A good and strong judiciary where the average Canadian can get justice is what we are really striving for. That is why these kinds of Bills are important.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak in this debate, because speaking for my Party, for the Official Opposition in this House, I too must say that as a lawyer and former Minister of Justice, I am convinced this is a very important Bill.

I do not think one can emphasize too much the importance of securing for Canada judges of the very highest calibre. I will say that I share the views expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), which is not always the case as you might appreciate, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a tribute to Members of this House on all sides that we seem to be looking together in the same direction on this important issue.
Some weeks ago I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion at the University of Alberta, The other participants representing the views of other Parties, were Roy Romanow, who is now the Leader of the New Democratic

December 11, 1987
Judges Act
Party in Saskatchewan, and Lou Hyndman, who was formerly the Minister of Finance in Alberta. The topic of our panel was "Who rules Canada, judges or politicians?" Naturally, the debate took us very much into the area of the Charter and the incredibly important role which has been assigned to judges. They must reflect the mores and evolution of our society in the interpretation of that Charter which protects the rights of individual Canadians in every corner of this land.
Similarly, we raised the question of Meech Lake. If the Meech Lake Accord proceeds, and even if the proposed amendments are adopted, it is clear that judges will have a more and more important role in determining issues of fundamental law that touch the lives of every Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of getting the best lawyers in Canada to serve as judges.

We support this Bill. We would like to see its rapid passage. I would say that on this issue of selection, I very much share the views expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I should also tell my colleagues in the House that at this panel, and during the subsequent participation by members of the audience, it was made clear that everyone recognizes the importance of the judicial selection process. It is undeniable that judges will play a more and more important role in the interpretation of the laws of this country, and I mentioned the Charter and the Constitution. Everyone agreed with that. There was no dissent.
However, there was concern that the judiciary may not always be capable of reflecting that cross-section of view so necessary in interpreting our fundamental law as our society evolves. Thus it is absolutely critical that the selection process be improved.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as Minister of Justice for a rather brief period of time, I had the pleasure of meeting on numerous occasions with representatives of the Canadian Bar Association and the committee which had been struck by that association on judicial appointments. The Canadian Bar Association takes this issue very seriously. The Canadian Bar Association, and all its subsections, recognizes that the appointment of judges is fundamental to preserving the integrity of our judicial system.
It is important, as this Bill recognizes, that if we are to attract those men and women to the Bench who are capable of providing that integrity and of serving with honour and distinction in dealing with these litigious and difficult questions which touch the lives of all Canadians, they must be remunerated at a level that will convince them that they should give a good part of their lives to public service. These salary levels may seem high, but the best people in the law profession in many parts of this country are well paid and one can expect they will have to make sacrifices, and they will be making sacrifices even at this level of remuneration. However,
this level of remuneration with the desire to provide public service by serving on the Bench, which is the touchstone in my judgment of success in the legal profession, is a necessary and fundamental step in attracting those people to our judiciary.
With respect to this issue of political patronage and appointments, I must say it is an important issue, but the political activity, whether it be serving as members of legislatures, provincial or federal, or whether it be simply political activity at the riding level or at some other level, should not preclude someone from serving on the Bench. In fact, Members of this House and those of other legislatures are brought into contact in many ways with problems that affect the lives of Canadians and they can be an important reservoir of talent for appointment to the Bench providing they have the professional qualification and the demonstrated objectivity that is required.
I can think of the eulogies paid in this House even by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway upon the death of the Hon. Douglas Abbott, who served with distinction in this place for so many years as a senior Minister of the Crown, and then moved on to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again he served with distinction, objectivity and great honour. He was regarded, if I may say so, as one of the finest members of that court.
Political activity should not in any way preclude people from service. I would like to remind Members of this House that it was the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Justice, who reached out and brought in men and women of different political persuasions on the basis of merit. I think Members can appreciate that many served in that capacity. Being a lawyer himself, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition recognized the importance of the kind of legislation we have in front of us today and went very far in improving the method of judicial selection. When one looks across the country at the judges who were appointed in the period when the Official Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Justice, one can say with all objectivity from all parts of this House that, indeed, he was successful in attracting some of the best men and women to the Bench.
That tradition must be continued. I fear it has not always been continued. The issue of judicial selection, while not directly dealt with in this Bill, is very much implicit in it because of the additional remuneration and pension provisions that are provided. They, of course, are terribly important in terms of attracting people to that selection process.
I also want to add a word of support for those recommendations with regard to pension improvement, the continuation of the survivor's pension to a widow or widower of a judge after the widow remarries. Obviously, this is an important and significant provision which we support. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the House Special Committee on Equality Rights recommended that a similar bar to pensioners who remarried be repealed throughout the federal jurisdiction. I hope that the

HHHnUHHH
December 11, 1987

Government will give serious consideration to that recommendation at the earliest possible date.

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by commending fellow Members on all sides of the House for recognizing the importance of supporting this Bill and improving it if necessary.
I also share my colleague's view that we have a very good judiciary in Canada. However, reform is fundamental in Liberal principle. Anything, no matter how good, can be improved. Let us try to improve our judiciary. This Bill is a step in that direction.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the Bill before the House, Bill C-88, and follow up on the point made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston), that we should try to improve the situation, especially with respect to pensions.
I support this Bill because I believe it not only embodies recommendations made by a commission of inquiry-the Guthrie Commission which made recommendations with respect to the salaries of judges-but also deals with the important point of pensions and the right of the surviving spouse to continue to receive the pension of the deceased spouse upon remarriage.
Mr. Speaker, this provision is of particular interest to me because it affects about 200,000 federal public servants. It affects the military, the RCMP and probably all Crown Corporations, where the existing legislation provides that the spouse of a deceased pensioner loses, I repeat loses, any rights to pension benefits if that person remarries.
Bill C-88 is being used to create a precedent, to me a very important precedent, and I am referring to the provisions contained in Clause 2,

We support Clause 2 of Bill C-88 which provides for the continuation of survivor's pension to a widow or widower of a judge even after the widow or widower remarries. We see this provision as a humane step, a step forward. It is a small step which should apply to all public servants, be they federally employed under the Public Service Employment Act, employees under the RCMP Act, Armed Forces personnel or Crown corporation employees.
There are hundreds of thousands of people whose pension entitlements are cut because they have remarried. I believe that every Member of the House would want to see the Government, when it brings forward the pension reform we have been promised, give consideration to a proposal that
Judges Act
would allow Canadian public servants in the categories I have just enumerated to have the same privileges as the judges.
I accept this Bill as being a good first step. 1 say to Government Members that we will look very closely for action on this front. I believe Members of the House would care enough to give the Government full control over this issue at this time so that we will see in forthcoming months provisions dealing with Public Service pensions.
I know that many members of my caucus would like to make a few comments on this question because it is a very important first step. I rest my case on the fact that it is a just measure. It is equitable and something that I will support. I hope the Government acts on it.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-88, a Bill that is long overdue. A review of judges' salaries was done by an independent committee which compared judges' salaries with the incomes of those who are in the legal business today. In all fairness, we cannot expect to get good judges out of the legal system if indeed they will be paid far less than they can make in their regular occupations.
The position of a judge should not be one of status. It must be one of solid judgment. A person sitting on the bench must be fair minded, objective and dedicated if the people of Canada are to receive just and fair decisions.
Much has been said about judges over the years. A number of judges in Canada had political careers before being appointed to the bench. Many people in the legal profession across Canada have participated actively in one form or another in politics for several years before being appointed to the bench. Many people have participated actively in their communities before being appointed to the bench. Those activities in the early years of a judge's life are what determine whether or not a person will make a good judge.
Apart from politics, the moment a judge is appointed to the bench, we must understand that his or her whole life changes. Judges may no longer belong to groups or organizations in their communities. They can no longer participate in any political activities and even membership in fraternal organizations comes into question. A judge must be seen to be and must indeed be purer than the pure. As I said, a judge must be objective and honest.
If we are to ask all this of our judges, we must be fair to them. They cannot lobby for themselves because they cannot participate in politics. The only way we will have fair minded people on the bench is by providing that they will not lose income and that they will have a stable future. It is indeed a very important career and must be recognized as such.
A part of this Bill which has already been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is the clause dealing with pensions going to the surviving spouse. We support this clause in principle. Before this Bill, if the spouse

December 11, 1987
Judges Act
of a judge remarried after the judge had died, he or she would lose part of the pension. In fairness we must remember that that spouse has worked over the years beside his or her partner, beside that judge, and has earned that income together with the spouse. We would like to see that taken one step further.
I have seen cases where members of the Armed Forces have passed on, and the surviving spouse loses the benefits of the pension or annuity if they remarry. That means by remarrying they are giving up that very important income that they have spent their life working towards with their previous partner. Indeed, perhaps it may prevent people from remarrying for economic reasons. That is unfair.
I support the cases of public servants who have paid into these pensions over the years, members of the Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Crown corporations where it applies and indeed all those throughout the federal jurisdiction, that when a surviving spouse remarries their part of that original pension from their first spouse will be retained and carried on. That is an essence of fairness. It has to be looked upon as part of their income, an income that they have worked towards with their partner during the first part of their lives. Why should they have to pay a penalty because they want to remarry and live a continuation of a happy life? Surely we do not have to pay for happiness. It has always been my understanding that happiness comes from true love and understanding, and one should not have to give up their monthly income in order to remarry.
Together with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier I wish to conclude by stating that, in the future, we want to see public servants, members of the Armed Forces, RCMP, Crown corporations, and others under federal jurisdiction included in this principle. If a spouse dies and sometime afterwards the surviving spouse wants to remarry, that spouse should not have to give up his or her share of the original pension from the original marriage.
It is a fair element in this Bill today that the surviving spouse of a judge would continue to retain that part of the pension earned during the marriage to the judge. We want to see that continued on a scale across the board in all fairness to those who have worked toward that pension, and that it really is part of their income for life.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) has made some interesting comments in regard to the rights of deceased judges' pensions and the rights of the surviving spouse to that pension. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I have just received some facts from the report of the administration of the Public Service Superannuation Act for the last fiscal year, 1986. The figures indicate that in the fiscal year from April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986 there were 97 widows and 12 widowers who
were deleted from the list of pensioners because they remarried. Last year, that is, 109 people were deleted.
The point to be made in passing Bill C-88, is that if we want to be humane towards pensions of judges' spouses, we should try to be as humane to those 109 people who in one year lost their income because they remarried.
I do not know if the Hon. Member has the figures from the Armed Forces, although I know the Petawawa base is in his riding and he has a preoccupation for Armed Forces personnel, but I do think we should look into of the Armed Forces and RCMP spouses who lose their entitlement to pensions because they remarry. Does the Hon. Member have any comments in respect to that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, an Hon. Member has just said, "Who makes the laws?" In fairness to him, I would say who develops the law? The law is ongoing all the days of our life and during our time here. From time to time we revise those laws. When issues come before Parliament, we have to take a good look at those laws, and we are doing so in a fair light today.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier mentioned that in one year 97 widows and 12 widowers from the public service had given up their share of a pension because they remarried. The Hon. Member has simply verified the fact that this is no great expenditure for the Government of Canada. The pension fund is there, they have paid into it, and other people are continuing to contribute.
I am sure that all other members of the Public Service, members of the Armed Forces, RCMP, and others in Crown corporations do not mind continuing to pay into a fund because they too some day may need that benefit. It is like an insurance policy, it is there when you need it. We are not talking about a great big drain on the treasury as some might interpret it. If the 50 per cent share of the pension of the 97 widows' and 12 widowers had been continued, it would be peanuts in the over-all context. But it will create an element of fairness in their minds that they have been fairly treated. It will also provide a better economy for that new marriage. We well know, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes a lack of income becomes a big problem in a marriage.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has hit a key point, because of the small numbers involved I think it is something that Parliament should address seriously and not only talk about today. I hope we will see this coming forward in future legislation.
Today in the Armed Forces of Canada there are approximately 84,600 members. We are not talking about large numbers here either. They have their own pension fund, and it would be no drain on that fund to continue this process. Indeed, the marriage may take place between two people where the new partner is also in the Public Service or in the Armed Forces which means that they are still continuing to
December 11, 1987

contribute to the very fund from which the other spouse is drawing.
I wish to thank my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for raising that point. It certainly verifies the practicality of the suggestions that we are making.
On the recommendation of all Members of the House, the Government has brought this principle forward in the judges Bill. 1 congratulate them on that. I hope we will continue to even out the other inequities which still exist for spouses who remarry and are receiving pensions in part which were earned while their now deceased spouses were working in the government service of Canada in whatever area of activity.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak for a few minutes on the customs tariff Bill. Bill C-87 is an important piece of legislation. It has become more important in the last little while than we had realized. It is a revision and updating of the customs Act, but it also provides for the harmonization of tariffs between Canada and its trading partners. The major trading partners of Canada include quite a number of countries. Among others, we do approximately 80 per cent of our trade with the United States of America.
The routines involved in the trade process are important to both importers and exporters in Canada. This updating is necessary. It will allow for computerization of the process, to some extent, so that the system will work much more effectively and we will be much more able to control the movement of
Customs Tariff
trade and the amount of trade between Canada and its many trading partners.
When Bill C-87 was brought in a few months ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a suggestion that it would be a routine Bill. However, when we started looking at it we found a number of very important clauses and powers being given, including the power to levy a surtax, the power to put on import controls, the power to suspend trading rights which Canada has granted by agreement with other countries, and the power to levy surcharges on certain types of imports.
It also includes an extremely important power which will be given to the Governor in Council. For example, Clause 62 reads as follows:
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.
Parliament is being asked to authorize Cabinet to approve new tariffs in Canada's trade with the United States. Cabinet would then be able to use this power without reference to Parliament. That in itself has changed Bill C-87 from a fairly routine one, which most of us probably would have passed a couple of years ago without really looking at it, to a very important Bill which can have real impact on how Canada acts and reacts in the next while.
We must recognize that the Governor in Council having this kind of power is actually the way things in respect to customs have worked for a long period of time. We are really talking about a traditional position of the past. However, what is important now is the fact that a free trade agreement is in the wind and the Bill would allow the federal Government great latitude in making decisions about the tariff structure of Canada without reference to Parliament.
As I said, it has been the practice of previous Governments to operate this way, but if the free trade pact becomes part of the relationships between Canada and the United States particularly, or becomes, as Reagan put it, the new economic constitution for North America, it will make a difference. We must remember that this is being carried forward without little chance for Canadians or Parliament to be involved in the decision on how free trade will work. We have just received the final copy of the legal terms of the agreement, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will sign it on January 2. It will commit Canada to an agreement without Canadians having had time to look at it. Consequently this Bill which would give authority to Cabinet is much more important than it has been. We had hoped that report stage and committee stage would result in some changes to the Bill. Of course we put forward a number of amendments.

December 11, 1987
May I call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and continue after twelve o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the Elouse will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the title Pesticides in Canada the Law Reform Commission has published an important study which recommends that the law controlling pesticides be amended to allow the public to petition the Minister to investigate pesticides when new evidence has come to light regarding health or environmental effects.
In addition, it is recommended that the legislation be amended to provide a public hearing to review whether a pesticide should be removed from the market and, finally, that the legislation be amended to give public access to pesticide health and safety information on active and inert ingredients.
The study asks the the Government to produce for public discussion a cancer decision-making policy dealing with birth and mutagenic effects of pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
The protection of public health demands that changes to the regulation of pesticides and toxic chemicals be made urgently.
Again we urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to launch a public review of present laws and practices, adopting Pesticides in Canada as the foundation on which to build an up-to-date law.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, the Big Brothers and Big Sisters Association is a great help to young people who are disadvantaged or in conflict with our society. Members work quietly but effectively. They are real friends to young people who may not have any friends at all. We are proud of these volunteers and of what they are able to accomplish.
Last Saturday evening, I had the privilege of attending a Christmas party at Dorval, organized by the Big Brothers and
Big Sisters for their young friends. It was a real pleasure to see them, Mr. Speaker!

This year, Mr. Speaker, the Christmas Party was a bigger success than ever. Association President, Chuck Taylor, and all his fellow volunteers were benefiting from the generosity of our new corporate neighbour, McDonald's, which, in addition to a substantial grant, provided the refreshments that kids of all ages enjoy.
It is time we said thank you to Big Brothers, Big Sisters, and Big Macs. Keep up the good work!



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Legislature of the Province of Ontario overwhelming passed a Conservative sponsored resolution which stated the following:
That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the Government of
Canada supermailbox program has created second class citizens of many
Ontario urban dwellers, this Legislature strongly urges the Government of
Canada to direct Canada Post Corporation to:
(1)	immediately abandon its supermailbox program;
(2)	halt all projected installations of supermailboxes;
(3)	remove all supermailboxes at existing sites and to relandscape the area
they occupy;
(4)	restore home delivery to all affected residences.
I have also received a resolution from the United Senior Citizens Organization of Ontario who are very concerned about the proposed closing of rural post offices. They point out that many seniors and infirm persons, with limited or no access to transportation, live many miles from a well populated centre and a post office allows them to remain in their own communities.
Isn't it high time that the Government recognized the hardship that the closing of rural post offices for rural dwellers and the installation of supermailboxes for urban dwellers is creating, and decided to reconsider the entire changes to the mail delivery system?



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is leading by example in providing the disabled with real opportunities for participation and access to Canadian society.
December 11, 1987

On Wednesday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) presented the federal Government's response to the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons. Entitled Accepting the Challenge, the response revealed plans to increase the number of disabled persons in the Public Service by 67 per cent, to 6,900 employees.
The new hiring targets will raise the number of jobs held by disabled persons from the present figure of 1.9 per cent to 3.3 per cent in March, 1991. Moreover, the Minister announced that the number of disabled persons hired as managers, scientists, and professionals will increase by 90 per cent.
The Government will also spend $3.7 million over the next five years to provide training for the disabled and to buy equipment that will help them do their jobs, such as talking computers and Braille printers.
Disabled Canadians must have the same opportunities to participate in activities that are available to all Canadians. We are all responsible for the necessary changes which will facilitate the participation in Canadian society of disabled persons.
I am proud that the initiatives announced this week by our Government ensure that the federal Government will lead the way.



AEROSPACE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is once again in a pickle. It just cannot decide where to put its new space centre. While the Government is trying to evaluate where there is more political mileage, whether to put it in Ottawa or in Montreal, I have a solution for the Tories across the way.
A number of my constituents work in Ottawa and a number of them work in Montreal. An even greater number work in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. This is my solution. Fifty miles from Ottawa and 50 miles from Montreal is the beautiful community of Hawkesbury in my constituency. Scientists from the National Space Centre could work in the great community of Hawkesbury.
We need the jobs, the jobs that have been destroyed by the Government with its free trade agreement. We need to restore the economy of that area, and besides, where else in Canada would you want a space centre to be, Mr. Speaker?



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Felix Hoitmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House voted on the Supplementary Estimates for the 1987-88 fiscal year. Canadians who support the NDP would want to know that their elected representatives are suffering from what can only be described as a flawed flu syndrome.
The socialists voted against an additional $63 million for old age security pensions. They voted against $93 million for commodities under agricultural stabilization. The socialists voted against $111 million for VIA Rail operating requirements and they voted against $46.5 for non-insured health services to Indians and Inuit.
The socialists voted against $330 million in statutory payments to equalization. Howard Pawley will condemn them.
The socialists voted against $84 million in spouses' allowance payments.
How about this? They voted against $75 million guaranteed income supplementary payments, and they voted against $350 million for Canadian exploration and development incentive programs.
The New Democrats are sick. They will never get nominated again.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24 I asked the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs what steps the Government was taking to ensure that Mr. Balkar Singh, a Canadian citizen being detained without trial in India for several weeks, would either be brought to trial if there was evidence against him, or released if there was not evidence.
Since then it has come to light that Mr. Singh has been ill-treated in prison.
I urge the Government to pursue the matter very strongly. Mr. Singh is a Canadian citizen. Furthermore, Indian law provides that a person who becomes a citizen of Canada or of another country loses his former citizenship. Therefore, Mr. Singh is being held without trial in an Indian jail in a country where he himself has no status. It is particularly important that the Government of Canada make every effort to ensure that a Canadian citizen receives the same treatment that a Canadian citizen would receive here, namely, a prompt and fair trial if, indeed, there is evidence against him, or immediate release if there is no evidence.

December 11, 1987



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the movement of grain is the life-blood of the Canadian Prairies. Last year that movement was curtailed by shut-downs at the Port of Thunder Bay and later at the Port of Vancouver. Earlier this year various railway workers had to be legislated back to work. Now 69 grain handlers at the Port of Prince Rupert are on strike, thus threatening the movement of 15 per cent of Canada's export grain.
Canadians are growing weary of strikes and lock-outs in essential services, whether it be Air Canada, the Post Office, the railways, the ports, or some other sector. Canadians do not really care who went on strike or who locked out. They know only too well that they are the innocent third party that pays the price for the failure of management and labour to reach agreement.
Surely it is time to outlaw strikes and lock-outs in essential services and find alternative methods for resolving these impasses. There are plenty of alternatives and options, and I again call for establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate this matter thoroughly and come back to the House with some alternatives. Surely it is time for the insanity of strikes and lock-outs to end.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians welcome the announcement made last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that food will not be taxed. This mad scheme first proposed by the Government resulted in hundreds of thousands of Canadians signing petitions and protesting the move. Yesterday was a victory for ordinary Canadians. Their everyday necessities of life will not now be taxed.
We also welcome the announcement that basic drugs will escape the taxman, as well as hospitals, school boards and municipalities. If the Minister wants extra revenue, he should look at the 110,000 profitable corporations which did not pay any tax on over $13 billion in profits in 1983. Even with his tax reform, 50,000 of those corporations will still not pay any tax.
The Minister should stop robbing the pockets of ordinary Canadians and go after those who have not been paying their fair share.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER

Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, Premier Devine of Saskatchewan has suggested that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will make Saskatchewan an industrial giant. Are we to believe that he means an industrial giant just like North Dakota?
Premier Devine also indicated that the deal will make farm machinery cheaper for prairie farmers. Surely the Premier, who is also Saskatchewan's Minister of Agriculture, knows that we have had free trade in farm machinery for 30 years. If farm machinery is an example of free trade, we can expect little of the expansion of which the Premier speaks. Except for highly subsidized Versatile, not one tractor, John Deere, Massey Ferguson, International, Case or White, is made in Canada today. Compare that with the effects of managed trade under the Auto Pact where a requirement of 60 per cent production in Canada has developed a booming industry.
The Premier well knows that the free trade plan is not an Auto Pact. Trying to sell it in that way is an attempt to deceive the people of Saskatchewan.



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: As you know, Mr. Speaker, next to Victoria, British Columbia, there are more senior citizens in my constituency than in any other in Canada. The seniors, and for that matter many others who have expressed their concern to me about the possibility of a tax on food, are delighted by the announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that there will be no federal tax imposed on groceries, prescription drugs and medical devices.
It is interesting to note, however, that in Sweden, long held up by the NDP as a socialist paradise, there is a value-added tax or national sales tax on everything, including basic groceries. There are three sales tax rates in Sweden and food is taxed at the highest rate, 23.46 per cent.
Fortunately, Canada is not an NDP socialist paradise. Fortunately, we have a Progressive Conservative Government sensitive to the concerns of Canadians.
December 11, 1987



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ENERGY INDUSTRY

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the free trade deal in energy. About a year and a half ago, I stood in this House and predicted that we would have a continental energy policy in a short time. That is exactly what the Mulroney trade deal has done. Now, by law, we must share our energy resources with the Americans.
There are some irritants to access by Canadian resources to the American energy market but in spite of those irritants we always get access because they are going to need our oil, gas, and electricity in the energy shortages which are going to appear in the 1990s. We have given away our ace card, control over energy, which we could have used to diversify the western Canadian economy.
1 cannot believe the hypocrisy of ex-Premier Lougheed and the other businessmen like him who would prefer that the American market economy govern our energy policy rather than the big bad easterners, meaning the Canadian national Government. We have a word for that. It is "traitors".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions



FINANCE


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform Members of the House of a decision made this week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which more clearly defines the areas eligible for northern and isolated tax status. After months of meetings, negotiations and presenting petitions and letters on behalf of my constituents on this issue, I am delighted that certain areas of northwestern Saskatchewan will now be eligible for northern tax status. These areas include Meadow Lake, the rural municipality of Meadow Lake, Makwa, Loon Lake, Dorintosh and Rapid View.
This tax status means that, effective the 1987 tax year, people living in those areas will be eligible to claim a special tax deduction of up to 20 per cent of net income to a maximum of $5,400. It is encouraging to know that the Minister of Finance and his officials have recognized that additional costs do come with living and working in the North. I speak on behalf of all my constituents when I thank the Minister and all of the citizens of the communities involved for their diligence and persistence in this matter.
Merry Christmas, Mike!
[ Translation]



SENIOR CITIZENS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing a federal electoral district that has a high proportion of very active elderly people. Hundreds of projects and community activities are organized by senior citizens in my riding.
To support these activities, from September 1984 to 1987 the federal Government has invested $128,402 in the riding of Quebec Est through the New Horizons Program. Mr. Speaker, this kind of encouragement shows we are prepared to help the elderly improve the quality of their daily lives. Meeting regularly with various senior citizens' groups in my riding, I have found that funds are well spent and well managed and that the projects and activities are a success. This concern for helping the elderly demonstrates that the Mulroney Government is well aware of their circumstances and is trying very hard to improve them.
By appointing the Hon. George Hees as Minister of State (Senior Citizens) last summer and providing funding through programs such as New Horizons, the Progressive Conservative Government shows that senior citizens across Canada have a high priority with this government.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has consistently given the House all the facts and his version of the facts has never been contradicted, either by him or a third party. The Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about. On Tuesday, December 8, the Minister said this in the House:
Dr. Todd received those samples from Prince Edward Island at 8.15 p.m., upon which testing began that evening, Saturday.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Minister said that, when no laboratory tests were conducted in Ottawa on that weekend?
Yesterday, Dr. Les Elliott, the Director of Field Operations in the Minister's Department, was asked by a reporter:
You weren't in here, there weren't people in the office Saturday and Sunday testing in the lab?
Dr. Elliott replied:

December 11, 1987
Oral Questions No, there were no samples to test.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Minister of National Health and Welfare misled the people of Canada and Parliament on this issue?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer the question of the right hon. gentleman. I have not misled the House and I have given all the information available to me. The time in question is the Saturday and Sunday. I think that is what the right hon. gentleman referred to. I have all the transcripts here as well.
May I refer him to the two parts of any investigation. First is the lab work, which was discussed, for example, with Dr. Elliott yesterday, as well as Dr. Liston, Dr. Law and Dr. Todd. On the other side is the epidemiological work or the investigative work. And I have got all those details here as well. As to what happened on Saturday and Sunday-I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you give me the time-but maybe I can do it very quickly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do it on motions.


John Napier Turner: Take it before a parliamentary committee or something.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, then there will be other questions obviously. Let me just say to the right hon. gentleman, I have information here on the epidemiological work, both on the Saturday and the Sunday.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF ALLEGED CONTRADICTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, no laboratory tests were done on the weekend. The laboratory mice in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, were all dead at three o'clock Friday afternoon. That is what we heard yesterday. Those in Ottawa were all dead at four o'clock the same day. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said Wednesday this week in the House that a small number of mice had died. The problem was not a serious one. However, employees in his Department admitted that all the mice that had been injected with the deadly toxin at the Ottawa laboratory had died Friday. Could the Minister explain this obvious contradiction? Could he explain the Minister's incredible misrepresentation of the facts?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can explain that as well and I have read Dr. Todd's testimony of yesterday, and for instance where he said the six mice out of six mice had died, and I will get into that in this way. We have one sample of mussels and obviously if those from the same sample is injected into mice, in terms of the death of those mice, that is what Dr. Todd referred to. What the right hon. gentleman is tying together is that that was the only test, or that was the only reference that I made. I
had some more studies done today in terms of how many mice in fact had been tested, because I think that is a legitimate piece of information to put into the picture as well. And we have tested as of this morning 336 mice from Prince Edward Island and the Magdalens. Of those 336 mice, 93 have died.
Now, what I am trying to convey to the right hon. gentleman is that we have to do the lab work as well as the field work, if I can characterize it that way. And I say to him that I, as a Minister, have a responsibility to act on the information that I get from my scientists. And his member today again in public debate, or public TV, said that I had known prior to the weekend. Again, I repeat, and I do not know how many times I have done that, that is simply not true.


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the more we get into this matter the less able is the Minister to substantiate his statements by the statements of his own officials.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Napier Turner: I suggest that this matter be brought before a parliamentary or judicial inquiry in order that we can get at the facts.
Mice were injected with deadly toxin in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, and died at three o'clock on the Friday. Mice injected with the same deadly toxin died the same Friday at 4 p.m. in Ottawa. The alarm bells went off and no one was listening.
Why was the Minister not informed? Why were the labs closed for the weekend? Why was the stop order on the shipment only made on Sunday? Why did the Minister only inform the Canadian people on Tuesday? Why was he not informed before Monday?
Why will he not take responsibility, as a Minister, for his own negligence and, in particular, for the negligence of his departmental officials? That is what ministerial responsibility is all about. Will the Minister come clean and give all of the facts to the people of Canada and to Parliament?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have come clean and I am coming clean this morning again. On the Saturday, the 28th, we got samples, one from St. Peters, seven additional from the Atlantic. We looked at the destinations. We looked at the routing.
At the fish lab in Prince Edward Island the lab was preparing extracts. Those extracts were sent to Ottawa to Dr. Todd by Canadian International. They were picked up on Sunday. We identified the leases. We identified the maps. On Sunday we interviewed a person by the name of Wayne in Charlottetown from our Department, went and interviewed illness complaints on three people. We then looked at the fisheries, at the bills of lading, the shipping records. It was on that basis
December 11, 1987

and that information and that activity on that weekend, that is why the stop order came.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON TIME OF TESTING
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare. I would like him to think back to his words in this Chamber when he said, in answer to a question from me on December 8:
The Member talks about Saturday. Dr. Todd received those samples from
Prince Edward Island at 8.15 p.m. upon which testing began that evening-
On Sunday, after the testing through the night-
The Minister claimed that there was testing through the night yet we heard yesterday from officials in his own Department that absolutely no testing was done on the weekend.
Who is telling the truth-his scientist, Dr. Todd, or the Minister who is involved in this cover-up?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in any cover-up, nor is Dr. Todd trying to give any information differently from any information that he has.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is telling the truth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I said on December 8 and what the Member has quoted in Hansard is the information that I received. I think there was a handout yesterday at the press conference, in which, if she takes a look, if the Member takes a look under the Saturday, the investigation continues. I said, and 1 have tried to explain today again, that there are two types of investigations in this type of information. One is the lab testing. The other is the testing on the street as well as what I made available in terms of Prince Edward Island on the Saturday.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very open about that, I have been very clear about that. What the Hon. Member does not want to accept is that there are two streams of this testing that has to take place, that we have to get the evidence in order that we can make the medical link. Mr. Speaker, that happens in our labs, in our hospitals, every day of the week. That happens in medical laboratories every moment of my life. And that is a constant part of medicine and medical science.
Mr. Speaker, I have put all the facts forward. I would hope that she would at least understand that there is a medical science discipline that they have followed and which I, as a Minister, have to follow.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Please don't hide behind his officials, I would ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that despite the seriousness of this matter the imputation of motive is not appropriate. It may well be that in argument at another time the Hon. Member may wish to draw some conclusions from the answers which the Minister gives. That is, of course, her privilege at another time. However, I would ask her to put her questions on the basis of the alleged facts which she has available.
I would remind all other Hon. Members that we have had a great many questions on this issue. The Chair has made very considerable effort to ensure that the Opposition not only has the right to ask these questions but is given every chance to exercise its duty. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


TESTING OF MICE IN OTTAWA-SCIENTIST'S STATEMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned from Dr. Todd that, contrary to the claims made by the Minister in this House on December 9, all of the mice which were injected with toxin in Ottawa died. In fact, the situation was so serious that this scientist said it was the first time in his living memory that in the testing of food toxins all the mice died. I would like to quote: "We had three samples and two mice were sampled and all of the mice died, six out of six". Why did the Minister tell this House on December 9 that only a small ratio of the mice in fact died?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again, I have given that information to the House and to the Hon. Member. I have given the number of mice that were tested. What the Hon. Member is referring to, and I have the Todd transcript here as well, was the one test, the one sample of testing. That is what the Hon. Member is referring to. I have not denied that.
What I have been saying throughout, just, as if she says that is valid, then it is surely as valid for me to say that as we are looking at the entire testing range, which my scientists are doing, that of the 336 mice we have tested, 93 have died.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Seventeen people are in the hospital.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The point I am making is that it was on the basis of the development of that medical evidence that action was taken. Surely, that is how medical evidence is gathered. That is how information comes through the line in the Department from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health Protection Branch to the Deputy Minister, to the Minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are passing the buck.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not passing any buck.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You certainly are. You are responsible.

December 11, 1987
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: One thing I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, and that is this-and I am not hiding behind anyone-what 1 can only do is act even on an allegation, on a fact. I cannot have the clairvoyance of being able to take an action on which I know nothing about.


VALIDITY OF PROCEDURES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answers, I regret to say, grow increasingly unconvincing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We were prepared yesterday to listen to the Minister who seems to be relying on scientific opinion for part of our concerns which he was addressing. But I want to ask him to reconsider what he has just said now. Dr. Todd, the expert in the field, who conducted the tests on Friday-all six have died in these particular tests he is referring to-said never before has there been a wait for such a period of time to take action in terms of warning after six mice died. He said:
. . . there had never been another case in which the department waited so
long to issue an alert after all lab animals died.
He even went on to say pretty directly that maybe they should have taken action then, in retrospect, he said.
Clearly, this is his professional judgment. These are six specific tests. He is saying retrospectively that it is serious. He, retrospectively, ought to have acted. Since it is this professional's opinion that maybe they ought to have done something that could have headed off very serious harm, we hope no more than that for other Canadians, will the Minister now acknowledge that the procedures were wrong and he ought to accept responsibility for those procedures?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman is quoting from a newspaper article in the Toronto Sun. Let us go back to Dr. Todd's exact words of what he said yesterday. Let us keep this in mind because we are trying to get the full story out. I am not trying to hide any part of the story. On page 42 of the Steno Tran, of the information, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Dr. Todd says. He was being asked this question about warning the public, just as the Hon. Member has mentioned, and he says, and 1 will read in part because of the time.
In answer to your question, should there be a change or should, if mouse
deaths occur in the future, I think we would have to look at that in the picture.
I think if we had seen the same picture now, maybe we would have, but that is,
you know ... In retrospect-
The Member says that should the procedures be changed. I said yesterday to him in his question I think it is a perfectly valid question. Obviously, we have to take a look again how can we improve procedures. But what I want him to understand and accept as well is that a Minister, standing in his or her place here, has to have some information in order to be able to exercise judgment. If I have none, then I cannot exercise judgment.
In terms of the process of whether the information should have gone more quickly, I think that is a valid question.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well the traditions of ministerial responsibility for his Department.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister now has a senior scientific person who is acknowledging that given six deaths after six tests on a Friday that, in his judgment, he is clearly implying-there is no doubt about that, even from what the Minister has just read out-that they ought to have taken different steps, I say to the Minister, given the fact that one Canadian has died, many, many others are sick, why doesn't this Minister admit his Department was wrong? Why doesn't he accept responsibility for this serious error and submit his resignation? That is the tradition in this Parliament.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Member mentioned six tests. I think we have to be careful when he refers to six tests. The six mice that were used were from the same sample. Even the word "samples" has to be clearly understood in any testing. That is why, when we look at when Dr. Todd was doing those tests, he wanted to get samples not only that were on store shelves or in wholesalers bins, but from the mussel beds themselves. That was gone through yesterday as well.
So when the hon. gentleman says that there were six tests, he has to be very careful with the words and give the impression that there was a wide range of sample available and that six tests were done. That was not the case.
[ Translation]


ACTUAL METHOD OF PROCEDURE-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that perhaps he will change the process. He said the same thing yesterday.
For the benefit of the House, would he clarify his intentions for the future and indicate whether-after this kind of tests, officials decide to stop shipments of such product-he intends to stop sales at the very same moment?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again I think that is a valid question, and I want to take the Member through this very carefully. Under the Food and Drug Act, the officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare have to be able to develop a scientific evidentiary line. That is what they were doing. In terms of taking additional action, and today I have taken again additional action, not on the basis of the Food and Drug Act, but on the basis as a Minister of Health that I am able under the Health and Welfare Act to warn Canadians of a possible
December 11, 1987

health danger. So there has been an alert even extended further today, for example, to include shellfish.
What I am trying to convey to the hon. gentleman, the decision that was taken today, the information came to the Department at 9.15 this morning and I made the decision at 9.18. I made it on the basis that we had the mussel incident, we had the clam evidence yesterday, and the action that was taken, and the alert today on shellfish. But I had an evidentiary track that gave me information that I could make a decision under the Health and Welfare Act. I did not have any information-1 repeat to the Hon. Member-I did not have any information given to me prior to the Monday, which I told the Hon. Member about, and the alert after the medical evidence had been together on the Tuesday.
I have been totally open, totally frank with it. I have nothing to hide, nor am 1 trying to hide anything. But 1 want the Hon. Member to understand, and the people of Canada to understand, that a Minister can only act on the basis of evidence. That is why today's decision was made on the basis differently from the one on the Tuesday, and I think any reasonable person could understand why.


HEALTH OF CANADIANS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday evening, November 28, Mr. Pomeroy of Montreal ate mussels because he was unaware of the danger involved. Yet 24 hours earlier, the day before, November 27, the lab mice tested by Health and Welfare Canada had all died as a result of toxins in the mussels.
I should like to know how the Minister, responsible as he is for the health of Canadians, can justify waiting four days- until 6.45 p.m. on December 1-before sounding general alarm. Why did the Minister choose to play Russian roulette with the health of Canadians, and why is he still hanging on to his ministerial portfolio now that he has lost the confidence of Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not playing Russian roulette with any person, with any person's life. What I am doing, on the Sunday, the stop shipment order which we have discussed in this House many times-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Which you did not know about.


An Hon. Member:: Shut your mouth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -was a containment order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the colleagues of the Minister that they are not making it any easier for him to handle a difficult situation. I would ask that Hon. Members refrain from making comments unless they are recognized.
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just to finish my answer, on the Sunday, and the information that I gave when his Leader asked me for additional information on the Saturday and Sunday, which I gave, the stop shipment order is a containment activity by the Department, where there were approximately 30,000 pounds of mussels to be shipped, ready for shipment. We said to stop the shipment, we are investigating. That is what happened on the Sunday. That is logical. That is the way the Department has functioned and that is the way I have got to accept it, and I would suggest that he would accept it.
In the terms of bringing in the death of Mr. Pomeroy, probably nobody, other than the family, feels as badly about as I do. If I could have done something differently, or would have known something, I would have done something differently. 1 did not have that information.


RESULTS OF LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS-MINISTER'S OBLIGATION TO KNOW THEM AND TO MAKE THEM PUBLIC
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, that the Minister should tell us that he thought stopping the shipments was enough is simply incredible. Everybody knows there were hundreds of pounds of mussels across the country in refrigerators at restaurants and stores. That is what the Minister fails to understand.
It is unacceptable that the Minister was not informed immediately of the results of laboratory experiments that were already sufficiently conclusive to justify a public alert on November 27. It is unthinkable that the Minister should tolerate this lack of communication within his Department and with the public. And yet the Minister insists he didn't know!
Well, I would like to ask him whether he doesn't think he should have known and above all, should have informed the public.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I go back to the stop shipment in which I say to my colleague that that is not an unusual procedure. That is a regular part of the procedures the Department uses and so that we would not have further spread of the mussels until we had our medical evidence.
If there is a better method to do the communications, on the basis of hindsight and on the basis of that experience, of course that is my responsibility and the Department's to improve on that. But I think we have to keep it in perspective and look at it as the dates developed rather than making the judgments as he did so easily or so conclusively from his mind that everybody knew and everybody could predict both in science and medicine every eventuality.


SHIPMENT STOP ORDER-TIMING OF PUBLIC WARNING
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, as a microbiologist who has in fact carried out this test for Gonyaulax, I must say that what we see here is an

December 11, 1987
Oral Questions
excess of scientific caution and a paucity of common sense and urgency.
Was there any other reason in the world for stopping the shipment of mussels on Sunday than the demonstration of the presence of a toxin in mussels on Friday, mussels that were already on the market? If it was justifiable to stop shipments, it was therefore justifiable to warn the public that there were mussels on the shelves already that contained the toxin.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the Member as a professional would also recognize that the test that was done was on the paralytic shell poisoning test and he knows the details as to how that test affects mice, for example, in the tests that there were done. What we do not have, and to this day-and he as a microbiologist would also know that the evidence today that the toxin still has not been isolated. Surely he as a microbiologist, in his professional experience, did not have instantaneous information but used the lab, his microscopes, used his analytical machinery to try to get exactly those answers. Surely that is what he did every day of his life in his professional life, and that is what we have done.


REASON FOR NOT ISSUING PUBLIC ALERT OVER WEEKEND
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, all of this pseudo scientific gobbledegook has missed the point of the question all together. There having been no tests carried out since, was there any reason at all, other than the fact that mussels from the Montreal episode were tested and found to kill six out of six mice, for stopping the shipment of mussels on Sunday? The mussels on the market were those in which it was demonstrated there was a problem, not the mussels still to be tested.
If the shipment of mussels that were not on the market yet and on which no tests were carried out were to be stopped, does it not make sense to warn the people that it has been ascertained that some of the mussels on the market which have made people ill are potentially there for people yet to consume? Would it not have been appropriate to say that there are mussels on the market that contain something that kills mice at least?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman-I can only repeat the answers that I have given and that is the testing that was done, in the minds of the scientists, that that was not conclusive to the point that he has taken it, that is that the Hon. Member has taken it in Question Period. Obviously that is why additional testing took place. That is why additional street work took place, investigatory work took place. I have laid that all out in front of the House, in front of the country, and I think the hon. gentleman has to accept it that that is what professionals with 18 years of experience in the case of Dr. Todd, that is what they were doing.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Air Canada labour dispute which is a matter of concern to a great many Canadians.
In spite of the fact that negotiations have started again, will the Deputy Prime Minister give the House his assurance that in the event the Government senses that rapid progress is not being made in the negotiations toward a settlement, the Government will immediately appoint a mediator in this dispute?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the two parties got together last Wednesday, I believe. To my knowledge the talks are continuing and I think that should be a good sign. This occurred as a result of an initiative taken by the Minister of Labour.
Obviously the Minister of Labour is watching the situation very closely and, as he has indicated in previous times, he will be prepared to assist in any way to expedite and facilitate a satisfactory resolution to this unfortunate situation. I can only assure the Hon. Member that that ever watchful eye of the Minister of Labour will continue to observe the situation and I am sure he will be providing the encouragement for a quick settlement.


TOXIC MUSSELS-RESULTS OF MICE TESTS-INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED TO MINISTER
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a very serious situation we are in here today, both as far as the industry is concerned and indeed as far as consumers are concerned.
On Friday, November 28, at 7.00, all the mice that were tested died in the labs in Ottawa as well as in Black's Harbour, New Brunswick. Now the Minister is trying to cloud the issue just a bit here, because he mentioned there were 336 mice tested and 93 had died. To date 336 mice have been tested, and he is absolutely correct that 93 have died.
But up until Sunday there were only the mice tested only in Black's Harbour and the mice tested in Ottawa, and each and every one of them died. The Minister states that the testing
December 11, 1987

was for PSP, but there was a toxic agent, a dinoflagellate or something there, that, when it was injected into those mice, killed every one. It is very serious when there is a 100 per cent kill.
Does the Minister not think with that type of evidence, never mind this testing of epidemiology and going around and surveying to see how many people are sick, but with the lab results alone, that this evidence was certainly strong enough in every way it was looked at, that the Minister should have been informed, and the Minister should have acted and taken the mussels off the shelves in wholesalers and in restaurants, and alerted people to the serious danger of this toxin, regardless of what the toxin was in these mussels?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman puts forward a case which I have looked at and have put forward as well in the sense of the testing that was taking place and the medical evidence.
The Member mentions that six out of six was conclusive proof. Obviously in the minds of scientists and Dr. Todd at the time, that was not enough scientific proof to send that message up the chain of command. Obviously, it was not.
I am saying to the hon. gentleman, and I am not trying to be personal in any way, he knows as a former Fisheries Minister how anyone would want to, from a scientific point of view, get the best information, and Dr. Todd, on the Friday, obviously was not convinced to send the information up the chain in terms of the information that he had.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY-ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC WARNING
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, there is no other way to look at it but as extremely serious. The Minister has to take responsibility for his departmental officials. That is recognized as with any Minister of the Crown of the Government of Canada, or any provincial Minister. The buck stops at the Minister's desk. People were sick. The mussel industry itself, until we find the problem, is going to be devastated, and the more people who get sick, the more devastation for the industry, and it should have been stopped forthwith. It should have been stopped on Friday night.
1 ask the Minister if he does not agree that it should have been stopped on Friday night, or certainly Saturday morning, and at the very latest when the stop order was issued for shipment of mussels from Prince Edward Island, that it should have been followed up immediately simultaneously with a stop order for the sale of mussels in every wholesaling unit and every retail outlet in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I tried to answer that as well, and I went back, for example, to the fact whether the Department should have informed earlier, or whether the communication should be different, or whether the Department should not rely, for
Oral Questions
example, quite as heavily on the evidentiary link that we have talked about here.
What I say to the Hon. Member, as I said to the Leader of the NDP, for example, that yes, obviously I am going to look at every procedure, every scientific procedure and see how we can improve it. But I say to the hon. gentleman as well that whatever improvement can be made, it will be made. But I want him to understand, as I say, as a former Fisheries Minister, what the procedures were, because he relied on them equally in order both to protect human life, which is my job- that is my job, and I don't pass the buck, it stops at my desk- but I say to him as well that it is not as clear as he would like to characterize it on the Friday, which he used in his question.


ISSUANCE OF STOP SHIPMENT ORDER
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As I understand it on the Friday of the tests where six out of six mice died, those were tests on mussels that were already on the market. Two days later the Ministry issued a "stop shipment" order on mussels that were not even tested.
I want to know from the Minister why they issued a "stop shipment" order on mussels that were not tested, but did not warn the public about the poisonous mussels that were already on the market and being consumed by Canadians in restaurants and elsewhere.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 can go through the chronology again on the Saturday and Sunday, but possibly for preservation of time, I won't.
What I say to the Hon. Member is that the "stop shipment" order is a containment order, namely, that mussels or any other product does not get on the market until the Department has got the evidence that it needed. That is why the order on Sunday, that was in the judgment of the Department. As they got the evidence, they made that evidence available to me, and I acted.


ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC WARN ING-MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, even Dr. Todd with his tremendous experience in this field appears to have had second thoughts about what has happened.
I wonder if the Minister, on reviewing the evidence, may now have some second thoughts, and whether or not he will admit in this House that he should have issued a warning to the public two or three days before he actually did.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think it comes back to the point that I quoted of Dr. Todd, that all of us will look at procedures again. But I say to the hon. gentleman, he's been in this House a long period of time, 1 think he would give, whether it is a Minister or any Member of the House, at least the ability to make a

December 11, 1987
Oral Questions
decision on information, on a fact, possibly even acting on an allegation. None of those were conveyed to me. And I don't have the ability of clairvoyance, which I have said earlier, to be able to make a decision if no information has been conveyed to me.
The question of procedures is valid. His Leader raised that yesterday. That is valid. But I think it has to be put in the context in which his Leader put it yesterday, rather than somehow a human being has to have the ability to make a decision or take an action without even being informed.


PUBLIC SERVICE
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Some days ago 1 asked him about the unacceptable results of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has meant that registered nurses working for the federal Government are in fact earning less than the nursing assistants who work for them.
1 wonder if the Minister can advise the House of any progress in resolving this inequitable situation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing interest in this matter. As I pointed out to him at the time he raised it, there had been a number of discussions and negotiations between the Treasury Board officials and the officials of the Professional Institute of the Public Service. I am pleased to report that, as of Tuesday, I believe this Tuesday, a tentative agreement was reached, and it is subject to ratification. Judging from the atmosphere during those negotiations, I am hopeful and optimistic that it will be ratified in a very satisfactory manner.


TOXIC MUSSELS-MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF TEST RESULTS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
He knows, Mr. Speaker, that knowledge of this incident is crucial, and equally so if the Minister was not aware of certain facts. That too is a very serious allegation in view of the circumstances.
I want to ask the Minister to clarify for the House, is he saying that he knew on that Friday, November 27, that after
testing here in Ottawa, and after testing in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, where six out of six mice died from this toxin, 100 per cent, not 50, not 40, but 100 per cent-that the Minister knew of this information and did not act to inform Canadian consumers? Would he answer that question?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have answered it many, many times. I answer it again in the negative just as I have done many, many times.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I say to the Prime Minister, and I ask the Prime Minister, that this is one of the worst forms of incompetence and gross negligence by a federal Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may well have that opinion, but I am sure that he would want to set the facts out, or the alleged facts, upon which he bases his question. The Hon. Member.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if he will not call for the resignation of his Minister of National Health and Welfare. If he is not prepared to do that, in view of the fact of glaring, obvious information, would he not now appoint a public inquiry or a judicial inquiry into the seriousness of a situation which has caused the death of one Canadian, sickness among many, many, and the ruination of an industry?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the information, the Hon. Member can be referred again to the information that was given by the Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Protection Branch. He was asked the question: "What is the process for notifying the Minister when something like this is going on?"
"In the vast majority of cases, as you perhaps know from the briefing that we have had, the Minister is not involved at all simply because either the problem is contained, a manufacturer agrees that he has a problem, agrees to withdraw the material, and the likelihood of more illness or whatever is somehow or other resolved. If there are other situations where we cannot withdraw it or there is material that is left with a consumer, those are the instances where we want to go public and alert the consumer and try and use the media as a means of distributing a message, a health alert. Those instances are the ones where the Minister is involved in an 'operational' sort of sense. The Minister is apprised of aggravated investigations that we carry out".
That is exactly what happened. I acted exactly on that basis. If we can improve the procedures, obviously we will do it.
December 11, 1987

But, Mr. Speaker, let us all remind ourselves of the fact that in medicine and in science there has to be some information, and my officials are developing that information. I respect that, and I hope that Members would also respect that these people, when they had the information, to the best of their ability they gave it to me and I acted immediately on the information given.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period. 1 would ask the Elon. Member for Beaches to make his questions relatively short, given the time.


REASON FOR ISSUING STOP SHIPMENT ORDER
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Was there any other reason for stopping the shipment of mussels on Sunday than the positive tests obtained from the mussels tested on Friday which, as the Minister is aware, were already on the market?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was additional information. I gave that earlier. I can go through that again.
On November 28, on Saturday, samples were gathered. One from St. Peters, seven from additional Atlantic areas. Destination routing was done. Lab preparation was done in Charlottetown, was sent here to Ottawa to Dr. Todd's with Canadian International, was picked up on Sunday, identified leases. We did the maps. We also did the records, the shipping records. We tracked those. We also went on the street in Charlottetown. We interviewed people with complaints, three as I mentioned earlier, by a member of my Department.
That was all done, and it was on that basis plus the lab work that the stop shipment order was made.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplementary question.


POSSIBLE ERROR IN JUDGMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the same Minister. Would the Minister not agree that to any impartial observer of what happened in the last week it would appear that there has been an error in judgment? Would the Minister not also agree that, while most reasonable people are quite prepared to forgive an error in judgment, it is quite something else to have a Minister defending the indefensible, that is, to defend that error rather than admit it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have already said to the gentleman and to his Leader, yesterday and today, that if we can improve procedures obviously that is going to be done. That is being done, but again I come back to him and say this: let us also not throw out procedures which have worked very well for the protection of health of Canadians and, if we can improve on
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
that, we will do that, but let's keep that balance in mind as well.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as initialed by Ambassador Simon Reisman, who is with us today, and Ambassador Peter Murphy.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: 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. 332-3279, 332-3293, 332-3294, 3323326, 332-3327 and 332-3367 to 332-3370, inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union, the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the Interparliamentary Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in the Western Hemisphere in Caracas, Venezuela, from November 9 to 13, 1987.
In view of the importance of this topic and the role played by the Canadian delegation at this international conference, 1 wish to speak briefly to the report if I may.
First I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the other delegates to this conference-the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), Senator Lome Bonnell, and Paul Rosenbaum of the Library of Parliament, adviser to the delegation.

December 11, 1987
Committee Reports
This conference was of importance for it marked the first time parliamentarians from western hemispheric countries gathered to discuss drug abuse and the illicit traffic in drugs. The conference was historic in that it considered drug abuse problems from what has been termed a balanced approach. The focus was not only on controlling supply through increased interdiction and domestic law enforcement, but also on the need to reduce the demand for drugs and to take steps nationally and internationally to restrict production and trafficking in illicit drugs.
Canada has clearly recognized the need to adopt a truly balanced approach. Through our participation in this conference we recognized the role Canada can play in assisting other nations to develop and implement their own programs, while at the same we reconfirmed the value of the Canadian approach to preventing drug abuse problems.
This balanced Canadian approach to drug abuse problems has been recently articulated in the national drug strategy and in last month's report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare. Canada has recognized that drug abuse is not limited to one drug or class of drugs, nor can it be dealt with simply by imposing increasingly harsh penalties on those who abuse illicit drugs. Through our participation in this western hemispheric conference we became more appreciative of the work Canada is doing internationally and the potential for additional Canadian contributions in preventing drug abuse problems.
Through additional bilateral agreements and through collaborative efforts with international bodies, especially the United Nations, Canada can assist other nations to develop drug abuse prevention programs that are effective in reducing the demand for drugs, in developing culturally relevant treatment programs, in assisting nations to draft laws consistent with international standards of justice, in the training of customs and law enforcement personnel and in many other areas.
There are clear differences between the approach to drug abuse taken by Canadians and that taken by some other nations. While recognizing and respecting these differences, it is also important that Canada clearly state its position. This is especially true with regard to the need to work internationally to reduce illicit drug production, to restrict the trafficking in illicit drugs and to take steps to reduce the demand-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member except to say that the Hon. Member has probably gone on well beyond the ordinary constraints of introducing a report. However, in view of the very great importance of the report I was constrained from interrupting, but I do hope that Hon. Members will keep in mind that if they go on overly long other Hon. Members will, of course, ask for equal time.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House, with amendments, with a great deal of relief.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-NINTH AND TENTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth and tenth reports of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages.
The ninth report deals with the late filing of the petition for Private 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 pursuant to Standing Order 142.
If the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence of the ninth report later this day.
The tenth report deals with the selection of a votable item pertaining to the eighth draw which took place on November 26, 1987. May I note, pursuant to Standing Order 36.1(b) that this tenth report is deemed adopted and laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: see today's Votes and Proceedings}.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-CONCURRENCE IN NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

["1 thank the Hon. Member. As Hon. Members would expect, I have given this application very serious consideration earlier today and while representations were being made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. That it is a serious matter is, I think, accepted by all Hon. Members. I think all Members would accept the fact that it is being treated very seriously by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) himself.\nI have considered extremely carefully the proper basis upon which an emergency debate ought to be allowed. It is not the intention of the Chair very often to give indications of the reasons for its rulings in such matters because, as Hon. Members know, the reform commission felt that it was perhaps not helpful for the Speaker always to give reasons. The thrust of the Hon. Member's complaint is the conduct of\nCustoms Tariff\nthe Hon. Minister and also some concern about procedures within the Department.\nBoth of those matters may well be extremely important, but given that there have been a number of days of extensive exchange in Question Period in which the Chair gave Hon. Members every possible latitude in asking questions, and in view of the fact that, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East points out, some action was taken some time ago and further actions have now been taken, I find that I cannot accept the application as one which contains those factors which ought to be shown before an emergency debate is ordered.\nHowever, I say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that that does not mean that the Chair looks lightly upon the issue at all. It is just that under these circumstances it would not seem appropriate to the Chair to order an emergency debate."]
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, I move that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the struggle starts now. I have the first of many petitions on the free trade agreement.
The petitioners say as follows: Whereas the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between regions, the petitioners humbly pray and
December 11, 1987

call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.
I propose to table this petition, and I will have many more to come.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by 64 Calgarians in support of the refugee Bill, Bill C-55. The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to restore a system of fairness, justice and expediency by supporting Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 20 people from the Northwest Territories, northern British Columbia and Alberta with respect to Fred Turner. Putting it in one sentence, they ask that justice be rendered to him. The House is very much familiar with the matter, Your Honour.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 229 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. 229 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many cable operators are there in each Province and Territory?
2.	How many cable operators outside the Province of Quebec are receiving French signals from the (a) CBC (b) parliamentary channel?
3.	In what proportion does each cable operator retransmit French programs provided by the (a) CBC (b) parliamentary channel?
4.	How many cable operators outside the Province of Quebec are receiving French signals from (a) TVA (b) Quatre Saisons (c) Premier Choix/Super Ecran (d) TVOntario (e) Radio-Quebec (f) Telemetropole?
5.	In what proportion do cable operators retransmit French programs provided by (a) TVA (b) Quatre Saisons (c) Premier Choix/Super Ecran (d) TVOntario (e) Radio-Quebec (f) Telemetropole?
6.	How many households can subscribe to cable television and for (a) each cable operator (b) each province how many are subscribing?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed privately on at least two occasions with the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) the fact that the rules of the House have not been complied with since Question No. 208, standing in my name, dated October 15, 1987 has not been responded to. You will know, with your vast knowledge of the rules, Mr. Speaker, that that response was necessary on or before November 30.
I know that the Minister of State himself has probably tried very hard to get the answer, but it appears that he is not the culprit. It is, rather, the Minister of whom I am asking the question.
When will the answer be forthcoming and when will the rules of this House calling for an answer in 45 days be respected in relation to Question No. 208?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct in his statement of the facts. I have made inquiries with respect to the answer. I was assured that we would have it for delivery today. We do not.
I can assure the Hon. Member that inquiries will be made more forcefully, and we will get the answer as soon as we can.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the last comment made by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Without belabouring the point, some months ago the Speaker took under deliberation some comments of mine regarding the present Standing Orders and the request made by Members for an answer to an Order Paper Question within 45 days. In my view there is no remedy available to us or the Speaker with respect to getting the Government to respond. 1 think it would be appropriate for the Government to say: "I am sorry, we will do our best". That is the spirit in which the Minister of State is responding today.
I just wonder if you could ask the standing committee responsible for the rules of this House to possibly tighten up that rule so indeed the Government is compelled to answer within 45 days.


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members know, the Chair is not really in a position to act unilaterally on this. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) pointed out, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has been quite frank in saying that he will do everything he can to remedy this situation. I can say to the Hon. Member that I will ensure that an extract from today's Hansard on this point is brought to the committee's attention.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to tar everyone with the same brush. Some Ministers do respond to questions within the required amount of time. If they do not, they

December 11, 1987
usually do forthwith, within one day, when they are alerted. Elowever, I must regretfully say that when questions are asked of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), we seldom if ever get a reply on time. We seldom even get it when it is late and we ask about it in the House.
I know I ask more questions than some Hon. Members, perhaps more than any other Member, and I want to point out that some Ministers do obey the rules. I did not want this occasion to go by without recording the fact that that is very much appreciated. However, there are culprits who should be exposed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that this master is brought up when the Minister is not here. It would be better to deal with it when he is.


Don Boudria: All Members are here. It is against the rules to say otherwise.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would point out that there was a very important energy conference in Montreal all week dealing with a lot of energy initiatives relating to the final print of the text of the free trade. It was not a normal week for the Minister, and on his behalf I think that should be part of the record of today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, as is his duty, has spoken well on behalf of the Minister. I say to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that this part of Hansard will also be brought to the attention of others.
I am still in the position of having to ask if all other questions shall stand.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that, despite the concern, I do have agreement from the House although 1 did hear someone say "on division". Perhaps in spite of that we still have agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I have received from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) the appropriate notice in writing under Standing Order 29 of a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of an emergency debate with respect to an issue the House has been hearing about for some days now, what you could call, I suppose, the toxic mussel situation.
I know the Hon. Member has some remarks to make and, in doing so, she will be constrained by the usual understanding that the Chair will hear enough from the Hon. Member so that the application is fully in front of the House.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your giving us notice of the motion which my hon. friend is about to move. I would draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 29(3) which says:
When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member shall rise in
his or her place and present without argument the statement referred to in
section (2) of this Standing Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Speaker will look to that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is reading the rule. I hope that from my preliminary comment, the Hon. Member will keep that in mind.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I served notice this morning of my intention to ask the Speaker, who is certainly very knowledgeable in these areas, for the chance to give urgent consideration to the question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Mr. Epp) handling of the toxic mussel situation.
I think the contradictions have been well outlined in the House. He has made statements which are at variance with the facts on a number of occasions, first, relating to the time the testing occurred; second, relating to the number of mice that were killed as a result of toxic injections; third, as a result of his-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe Standing Order 29(3) anticipates that the Hon. Member will present the statement presented to the Speaker at least one hour ago. Surely there should be no latitude of the kind we are currently experiencing. We brought the rule to the Hon. Member's attention-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is the Speaker.


Mr. Dick:: You are the mouth.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -before she got the floor. We expected to hear the statement presented to you one hour ago rather than this free-lancing. By implication we are going to get ourselves in a difficult situation if the Standing Order is not adhered to.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who are you, the Speaker?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has hoisted himself on his own petard. The rules are quite explicit. The Member must present a written statement to the Speaker one hour before raising it in the House. That has been done. The Member must also, and I will read the Standing Order:
-present without argument the statement referred to-
December 11, 1987

I ask that she be allowed to continue presenting the facts without argument. That is what she is doing. I think the Government is being just a little bit too irritable.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, we are just fed up with the abuse of this Standing Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has again raised the practice and the rules with respect to a concise statement being made by the Hon. Member seeking an emergency debate. I was listening very carefully and watching the written text I had in front of me. I must say I did not feel, at least up until the point when the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was interrupted, that she had strayed. She was perhaps setting out some additional facts, but they seemed to be consistent with the point made in writing. However, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East has the sense of the House and I know she would want to be brief. 1 can assure her that I think I understand the issue she is raising.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would just like to point out for the record that even since 1 served notice of this motion, the Government has gone from a position of doing nothing to a position of today issuing a health alert warning Canadians not to eat any oysters, clams or mussels. I understand that also includes lobsters. I have already had calls to my office from Atlantic Canada on the issue of an over-all alert against all shellfish from Atlantic Canada, whether they be domestically-cultivated or wild. Given that, the Speaker can certainly understand the gravity of the situation.
The Minister can also understand that we in the Opposition are a little confounded when, on the one hand, the Minister has done nothing for several weeks, and, on the other hand, he comes down with this over-all ruling.
I would like the Speaker to consider an emergency debate which would allow us to get the facts on the table. We know Canadians are in hospital. We know some are in comas. One has already died. We believe that it is critical enough that there should be an emergency debate.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 thank the Hon. Member. As Hon. Members would expect, I have given this application very serious consideration earlier today and while representations were being made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. That it is a serious matter is, I think, accepted by all Hon. Members. I think all Members would accept the fact that it is being treated very seriously by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) himself.
I have considered extremely carefully the proper basis upon which an emergency debate ought to be allowed. It is not the intention of the Chair very often to give indications of the reasons for its rulings in such matters because, as Hon. Members know, the reform commission felt that it was perhaps not helpful for the Speaker always to give reasons. The thrust of the Hon. Member's complaint is the conduct of
Customs Tariff
the Hon. Minister and also some concern about procedures within the Department.
Both of those matters may well be extremely important, but given that there have been a number of days of extensive exchange in Question Period in which the Chair gave Hon. Members every possible latitude in asking questions, and in view of the fact that, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East points out, some action was taken some time ago and further actions have now been taken, I find that I cannot accept the application as one which contains those factors which ought to be shown before an emergency debate is ordered.
However, I say to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East that that does not mean that the Chair looks lightly upon the issue at all. It is just that under these circumstances it would not seem appropriate to the Chair to order an emergency debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I wish to advise the House that when the vote is taken on Bill C-87, the business presently before the House, the Government intends to call no further government business this day. I think you would find consent to move immediately to Private Members' Business at that time and proceed with the one hour's debate, or less, whatever it happens to be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, when I had the floor before Question Period I was making the point that we believe this Bill has become much more important than it was in the past since the Government has decided to establish an economic union between ourselves and the United States. As a result of that it is much more important that Parliament have a say in how tariffs are established. Consequently, it is important that we ensure that our position on this Bill be well established.

December 11, 1987
Customs Tariff
Although the Government is establishing a new economic union, or as the President of the United States has called it, a new economic constitution, the Government does not have a mandate to establish free trade. It is important that Parliament controls the economy of the country, the exports from the country and imports into the country, more than it will be able to do under the economic union which is being suggested.
As I have pointed out, the Tories lack the mandate to do what they are doing. They do not have support in the polls to do this. They are changing their position. Traditionally they have opposed such an economic union, and that is the basis on which people thought they were electing them. Only five of the provinces have said that they would approve the free trade agreement and two of those provinces, Saskatchewan under Premier Devine and British Columbia under Premier Vander Zalm, do not have a clear mandate to take that position on behalf of the people of their provinces.
Rather than belabour this issue, I will sit down so that we can proceed to the next order of business.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to speak on Bill C-87 with regard to the harmonized tariff system. Under ordinary circumstances the Bill would have been treated as a technical one which simply put in place the legal framework for many years of negotiations. It took on a different flavour, however, after an incredibly insensitive statement made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. HPckin) in the Elouse. Less than an hour after debate had commenced he objected to opposition Members asking questions about the content of the Bill.
On December 1, as reported at page 11349 of Hansard the Minister said "-the free trade agreement we are putting together with the United States is designed to achieve-". He then went on to say that that would make motions produced by the Opposition unnecessary. The Minister continued:
The rules of origin will be stated in detail in our trading agreement with the
United States, and will completely rule out the possibility of the concerns ...
produced by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe.
In other words, in response to the very legitimate concerns raised by my colleague, the Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), the Minister of State was saying that we should not worry, that we should pass this Bill and we will find our answers in an agreement which we had not yet seen but which may be produced in the House in the next week.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, that was not a statement that was very well received by parliamentarians. However, today the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has tabled in the House the agreement in question, the Canada-U.S. agreement, although Members of Parliament have not yet seen it, which is very interesting. It was tabled at 12 p.m., and an hour later, what we have in our lobbies are volumes of tariff descriptions but
not the basic agreement. Apparently, that is still on its way to us.
Nevertheless, since the agreement has finally been made public, obviously the debate on the agreement will now proceed on that basis next week. Therefore, we are at liberty to return today to dealing with Bill C-87, as a technical Bill.
It is a Bill that has been negotiated over many years. At the present time, because of the ehormous range of products Canada imports from around the world-everything from fruit and vegetables to television sets-Canada Customs now processes seven million separate import declarations every year in order to collect more than $6 billion in duties and taxes. Canada and its major trading partners, the United States, Japan and the European Economic Community, have after many years of negotiation agreed to implement a new way of coding imported goods which will be based on international standards known as the harmonized commodity description and coding system.
This involves for Canada a fundamental revision of the customs tariff, but theoretically, at the end of the day, we would have a very much faster and more efficient method of dealing with imports. So on January 1 Canada Customs and Excise will start a new system which is based on the most massive overhaul in the history of the custom's clearance process.
The harmonized system of coding goods is the product of 13 years' work by the 56 countries that are members of the Customs Co-operation Council. Also within Canada there has been considerable consultation with trade associations, importers, customs brokers and so on. The computerized network which will make this whole new system work is being called bravely by Customs and Excise RMD, release on minimum documentation. The aim, indeed, is to make the system simpler for the user.
The RMD program will allow importers or their brokers who have previously arranged account security with the Department to have their shipments quickly cleared through customs on presentation of minimal documentation, usually just a cargo control document and an unrated invoice. This change will separate clearly the release of goods from the presentation and review of detailed accounting data and so will reduce the paper work required in order to get release of goods.
Also a new system is being set up called the customs automated data exchange, which is a direct link between Customs and the offices of brokers and importers. Under this new system, data, which must be presented for accounting and statistical reasons five days following the release of goods can be transmitted directly from computer to computer. We are told the CADEX system, as it has been called, the customs automated data exchange, will be implemented as of January 1, 1988.
December 11, 1987

Implementing this system is expected to save the taxpayer $109 million in the next six years. It is also expected that the streamlining will result in savings of $2.5 million to $3 million annually in administrative costs incurred by Customs and Excise. Naturally, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am very happy to see the Governnment moving to reduce some of these administrative costs and I will watch with interest to see if indeed the system works as well as planned.
The proposed new system has been endorsed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and other interested groups. One of the main changes is that the Bill now classifies goods based on what they are rather than how they are used. The Bill itself is not very large but the schedules accompanying it are enormous. There are several columns in it. Brokers, and especially the small importer, are going to have some problems with new names. For instance, propane torches will become blow lamps, and hoods for automobiles will take on the British name "bonnets", so I hope we do not have the milliners looking through the wrong place in the schedules.
Revenue Canada has been conducting seminars. It has sent out, in addition to the great complex information, some small manageable general information. This information I hold in my hand is headed "New Customs Commercial Procedures to begin on January 1, 1988". The sub headings are: "What will they mean to importers?" "When does it happen?" "Who is involved?" "How can I get more information?" Thousands of these have been distributed. Nevertheless, I think we have to anticipate that with such a very radical changeover as this, there will be problems and the smaller companies, in particular, may have difficulties adapting.
One would hope that the Department of Customs and Excise will be prepared to continue to be helpful to users of the system. We are told that 75,000 brochures were sent out in 1986, that detailed information kits were sent to 10,000 importers, brokers and others, and that some seminars were conducted in all regions of the country. But even the Minister is not anticipating that this will be quite trouble-free as of January 1.
There is a clause in the Bill, Clause 131, which provides broad authority to amend the rates of duty for an 18 month period following implementation. We do not know exactly how this clause will be used, but there is a possibility under the clause to help companies which may be caught unaware by the legislation. Clause 62 provides compensation to another country, which is similar to Section 11 of the existing legislation which has been used to implement the results of GATT negotiations. However, this one is more worrying because of the broad powers it gives the Government, which is worrying in the context of the present Canada-U.S. trade agreement. It reads:
The Governor in Council may by order, reduce or remove the duties on goods imported into Canada from any country or countries by way of compensation for concessions granted by any such country or countries; and
Customs Tariff
extend the benefits of any order made pursuant to paragraph (a) to any other country or countries as may be required by Canada's international obligations.
In the past, that kind of authority was used simply to give effect to a grievance under GATT. It is worrying to think of that kind of broad authority remaining in this Bill in the context of the Canada-U.S. agreement.
We have seen the Government take the unprecedented step of imposing a duty on our own domestic industries in response to pressure from the United States. We will be watching very carefully to see that Clause 62 is not misused in that way. If it were to be misused to implement the Canada-U.S. trade agreement through the back door, this is something about which members of my Party would be very exercised and would quickly call the Government to account.
One should also mention that although Canada is proceeding with this legislation which takes effect on January 1, the United States has not yet passed similar legislation. It is expected to separate out the clauses responding to the harmonized system from its omnibus trade Bill and therefore pass it separately, but there is no guarantee.
The Government is proceeding on the assumption that the harmonization will occur on January 1, 1988, without a clear guarantee that our major trading partner, the United States, will have a comparable system in effect at the time. If that should be the case, instead of a more orderly and efficient system providing savings to the taxpayer, we will have utter and complete chaos.
The Government likes to get its legislation through first and worry about its effects afterward. For the sake of the country, I hope it knows what it is doing and can manage it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to say many words on this because I think it is time to force a vote on third reading of this Bill. I see my friend from Calgary running out of the Chamber. I know that he was in a car accident in Switzerland. I would like to tell him not to hurry. I can speak for a few moments until he gets the members of his Party in the House. I am very co-operative.
I do not want to hold up the show because there is other business to deal with today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Hockin.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

December 11, 1987
Nuclear Armaments


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division shall stand deferred until 6 o'clock on Monday, December 14.
It is my understanding that there is unanimous consent to call it 2 o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSNESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and
associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the Government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to take similar action.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Young. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1987.
It being 12.56 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers