1987-11-02

Hon. Robert de Cotret (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister who has been confined to his bed for the last few days, I would like to say the following, on his behalf.
The death of Rene Levesque has affected me more than I can say. To a whole generation of Quebecers, including myself, Rene Levesque embodied the pride, the sense of belonging and the passion of Quebecers for their province.
From the dawn of the quiet Revolution to his retirement from political life, and during the May 1980 Referendum, Rene Levesque was the man of one dream and one cause: Quebec's full emancipation. During those years he took his province through some of the most difficult and at the same time most exhilarating times in its history.
Like all great politicians, Mr. Levesque was both a dreamer and a realist. He was able to make passion listen to reason. Whether or not all Canadians agreed with the cause for which he fought to the very end, they owe him this tribute: Rene Levesque was a great man and a great democrat.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec has just lost one of its most passionate sons and one of its most articulate spokesmen. Canada has lost a figure who dominated public life in this country and in his own province for nearly twenty years.
Rene Levesque embodied some of the characteristics of this country. His impatience, energy and compassion, his brillant discourse, his emotions, all will remain engraved in our memory as striking attributes of this remarkable man and his time.

For English Canadians he was that sometimes incorrigible man who would not let them forget his dream of a more sovereign Quebec.
I knew Rene Levesque. I had the honour to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the late Arthur Laing when he was Minister of Natural Resources of this country and Mr. Levesque was the Minister of Natural Resources. From 1963 on I enjoyed his company and the stimulating force of his personality. I did not share his vision of Quebec, nor his vision of Canada. But never once did I doubt his sincerity and his passionate commitment to the people of Quebec. Although he did not succeed in his ultimate quest, he forced Canada to come to terms with Quebec's place in Confederation under a renewed federalism. Rene Levesque was a man who reflected the spirit of Quebec and, in some ways, perhaps the spirit of Canada.

Rene Levesque's entire political career was a series of superlatives. He experienced great victories and great defeats. There was nothing ordinary about this man.
We remember the scenes of triumph on November 15, 1976. We remember the emotional atmosphere on both sides on the night of the Referendum in 1980.
Emotional and impatient though he was, Rene Levesque always set democracy above all other principles, and he always respected the democratic decisions made by Quebecers.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, we offer our sincere condolences to Rene Levesque's family and to all his friends.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join all Canadians who sensed a profound loss upon the decease of the former Premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque.
Rene Levesque was for all Quebecers a symbol of their pride in belonging to one of the founding peoples of this country.
All his life he fought for recognition of the language and culture of more than 6 million Canadians, in Quebec and across Canada.
As Premier of Quebec, he acquired the respect and admiration of the entire political community in this country through his integrity, his great sense of justice, and his respect for democracy.

November 2, 1987
Committee Reports
The integrity of the government led by Rene Levesque aroused the admiration of the rest of Canada.
Rene Levesque was a very likable and a very compassionate man, which makes this an even more tragic loss for all of us.
However, the tremendous work done by Rene Levesque will not have been in vain. It has already brought about profound changes in our society, and the process continues.
On behalf of all my colleagues in the House, and I know countless thousands of English and French-speaking Canadians outside the Province of Quebec, I extend the profoundest sympathies to Madam Levesque and all those who were close in the life of a great Quebecer and, in a very special sense, a great Canadian.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has the honour to present its first report. In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 96(2), the committee agreed to study alcohol and drug abuse in Canada. The committee heard evidence from individuals and representatives of organizations in the field of addiction. It urges the Government to consider the recommendations contained herein.
Drug abuse in Canada is not a new problem. Last December when the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare began its study of drug abuse, there had been renewed concern by professionals and by ordinary Canadians about the abuse of drugs. A national poll that had recently been conducted indicated that the vast majority of Canadians believed that Canada had a serious problem of illicit drug use.
Following a meeting with the President of the United States, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) called attention to this problem and began a governmental review process that resulted in $210 million in new federal Government initiatives under the national drug strategy.
The committee believed that it had an important role to play in providing advice to the House and to federal and provincial Governments on how best to address problems of substance abuse. Our work took us across Canada and brought us face to face with health care and social service professionals, government officials, citizen groups, young people, parents, and educators. We soon came to realize that substance abuse problems are not limited to the abuse of street drugs, but that Canada faces problems of the abuse of illicit drugs, legal overuse of prescription drugs and, above all, the abuse of alcohol.
Substance abuse problems are not limited to one part of Canada or one age group, but affect Canadians of all ages and walks of life in every province.
It is my pleasure to table in this House the first report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare entitled "Booze, Pills and Dope-Reducing Substance Abuse in Canada".
Our committee is recommending new initiatives with enhanced funding in prevention and treatment programs with a special emphasis on youth and aboriginal peoples. We are proposing steps to reduce the carnage on our highways caused by impaired drivers.
After careful review of the issue of substance abuse in the workplace, our committee is strongly opposed to the random testing of Canadian workers. We prefer to see a more cooperative and therapeutic approach to drug abuse in the workplace. Where drug testing is required because of real demonstrated risk to safety, we have recommended policies to provide safeguards.
Our committee wishes to see the federal Government discourage abusive drinking by maintaining an approach to taxation which recognizes the need to balance public health concerns with the overwhelming acceptance of social drinking by Canadians.
We are concerned that those who profit from the sale of alcoholic beverages shoulder their fair share of the responsibility to prevent alcohol abuse. Toward this end we are recommending that beverage alcohol advertisers be required to provide appropriate public education messages.
While the focus of the committee was on the health aspects of substance abuse, we also considered a number of measures related to the control of the supply of drugs. For example, we are recommending that federal and provincial Governments take steps to close "head shops", those businesses which specialize in the sale of drug paraphernalia. We would like to see law enforcement agencies given better tools to allow them to trace the profits of international drug trafficking.
Our committee has provided recommendations for the education of health care professionals, for program evaluation, and for the creation of a national centre on substance abuse. We realize that no matter what steps are introduced by Governments, there will always be some people who will abuse drugs. But we also believe that those recommendations, if implemented, will have a significant and positive effect on the reduction of substance abuse problems in Canada.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-ELEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which deals with income tax expenditures.
November 2, 1987

The report particularly highlights the need for improved information to Parliament about tax expenditures, and the need for the Department of Finance to improve and put in place sound monitoring and evaluation procedures. Improvements are required both in the quality of tax expenditure information, and in the process whereby such information is provided to Parliament.
Income tax expenditures are demand driven, and by their nature may cost more than initially anticipated. Therefore, it is important that Parliament and the public be better informed about them.
The committee has recommended that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) table annual tax expenditure accounts in Parliament starting in 1987.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the committee has requested a comprehensive government response to certain recommendations.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition which is in accordance with Standing Order 106 and which relates to a sad situation concerning the broadcasting of Calgary's Winter Olympic Games, namely the fact that francophones outside Quebec will not have access to nation-wide French broadcasts. The situation is so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I have a number of petitions to present and I will be doing that this week with the support of my colleagues with a view to urging the Government and Radio-Canada to do something.
Mr. Speaker, close to one million francophones residing outside Quebec will not be able to watch French television broadcasts of the Calgary Olympic Winter Games.
Whereas the CRTC compromise under which French TV signals would be made available to cable companies is unacceptable because not all francophone communities outside Quebec have cable service; and whereas French-speaking Canadians will pay their share of the $200 million earmarked by the Conservative Government for the Calgary Winter Olympics Games organization, your petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to urge the Conservative Government to respect its commitments towards Canada's linguistic minorities by providing all communities from coast to coast with the possibility of watching, in both official languages, broadcasts of this international event, the 1988 Winter Olympics Games.
Petitions


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table a petition on behalf of residents of Shediac, St-Charles-de-Kent, Richibucto, Bass River, Rexton, Cap-Pele and Saint-Andre. Your petitioners deplore the fact that as part of its proposed tax reform, the Government is considering the possibility of putting a tax on food.
Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to reject any measure that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of constituents from the City of Thunder Bay and the Town of Red Rock who protest the changes made to the taxation system of Canada.
They protest that the tax reform proposals do not change an already unfair tax structure for average Canadian families, while wealthy Canadians earning over $100,000 per year do not pay their fair share and even receive a tax cut under the proposals.
They also protest the fact that 60,000 profitable corporations will be allowed to pay no income tax at all under the reform, and that the reform proposals include the possibility of a tax levy on food and other essential items.
They press for the restoration of full indexation in the personal tax system and urge the House of Commons to change these proposals of the Government.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling petitions signed by residents of Lac-a-la-Croix, Quebec City, Saint-Augustin, Nepean, Ontario, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay. These 105 signatures are in addition to the 30,463 I tabled previously. Your petitioners are aware of the fact that since 1974, federal automobile vehicle safety regulations allow the use of airbags on the driver's side in private cars. They are also aware that during the public debate on highway safety last April, it was acknowledged that an airbag on the driver's side would further reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to make the following mandatory: 1. The use of three-point seatbelts for passengers in rear seats; 2. The use of airbags in front seats.

November 2, 1987
10606______________________________________
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 189 will be answered today.


Mr. Riis: 1.	Does the Canadian Security Intelligence Service maintain security files on any Member of Parliament and, if so, on whom?
2.	Has CSIS conducted an investigation or made any reports on the activities of any Member and, if so, on whom?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: 1. For
security and privacy reasons, CSIS does not divulge publicly the names of any individual on whom it gathers personal information. Furthermore, as a matter of national security policy, CSIS does not confirm or deny specific targets of investigation.
2. The Service only investigates matters that fall within its mandate as defined by the CSIS Act. Specifically, the Service investigates any person who is involved in activities that constitute a threat to the security of Canada as defined in Section 2 of the CSIS Act. For the reasons already stated, the information requested cannot be provided.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the Minister has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that as a result of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by seven minutes beginning at one o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other
charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen) on debate.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, at the close of the day on Friday I think there was a few minutes left-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is rising on a question or comment, but I recognized him on debate. Since the Hon. Member who had a few minutes remaining for questions and comments is not in the House, I cannot recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in second reading debate of Bill C-87 dealing with harmonized-[DOT]


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the edification of the House, it seems to me that when an individual has time left on questions and comments one should not be able to avoid comments on one's speech by simply vacating the Chamber.
My colleague, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Friesen), had a comment which he wished to make on the speech made by the Hon. Member, and I see no reason why he should not be able to make it. There is nothing in the rules, as I read them, which says that the Hon. Member has to be here to participate. Obviously he has to be here for questions, but if one wishes to make comments on the speech of the Hon. Member one should be able to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a little difficult for the Chair to know whether the Hon. Member will ask a question or make a comment. Therefore I do not feel, as an occupant of the chair, that I should allow any further comments or questions on that particular Hon. Member's speech, and I recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, I appreciate the opportunity to join in second reading debate on Bill C-87 which is designed to establish in Canada a harmonized tariff system. It is simply known as a system under which the movement of goods into and out of the country will be governed by a different classification system than the one that has prevailed for many years heretofore.
It is important that there be careful consideration of these matters. When we debate a Bill of this sort of course we are only dealing with the authorization. There are thousands of pages implementing a Bill of this sort-not that this one is
November 2, 1987

slight by itself-which can have far-reaching consequences on the industry. Therefore, I am pleased to take some time to debate it in order to raise appropriate questions about the implementation of the Bill, about its principles, perhaps even more so about the consequences of the Bill, and about questions of timing as to the carrying into effect of this change in classification.
I want to say at the outset that this is not a theoretical question at all. Questions have been raised and concern has been expressed by the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, which is a national trade organization of some 1,200 suppliers, distributors, and wholesalers of automotive parts, accessories, tools, and equipment. This industry employs over
70,000	people in Canada. It has a volume of sales which, at the wholesale level, exceed $7 billion. Members of the association are involved in extensive trade between Canada and the United States.
When an association of this sort raises questions about the timing of the proposal and expresses concern about the way the harmonized tariff system can impact on its operations, of which it is uncertain now, it seems to me it is important that Members of the House of Commons pay careful attention to it and to ensuring that this Chamber live up to its constitutional position as a deliberative chamber considering what may be the impact of the actions by the Canadian Government.
The proposal itself can have a good deal of practical value. We have all been aware in past months that the Canadian and American Governments have been working to ensure that their statistics on exports and imports are accurate. The figures released by the Americans on exports from Canada to the United States have sometimes been far larger than the Canadian figures and, if inaccurate, have served to feed the sense in the United States of being deluged by products from other countries. That could be very useful to arrive at a standard system of classification under which there can be no disagreement about the nature of the good and about the classification in the tariff system which should apply to it.
We have had a system of some 3,600 classifications. We now move from this end-use classification to another one in which the nature of the product itself will be the basis for classifying it. As the Automotive Industries Association has pointed out, where a rear view mirror for a motor vehicle was previously considered an automotive part, it will now simply be considered mirror glass. That sort of change, through one page after another of our tariff system, can have very important consequences for industries as it changes a particular tariff level that applies to a product.
The Government has been working on this change for seven years but the industry has only in the last months learned what the detailed nature of this system will be for each of the products produced it exports and it imports. To expect this system to be in effect as of January 1, 1988 rather than even a
Customs Tariff
few months later is rushing things. It begs the question whether the U.S. will have adopted the system by then or whether it will adopt it all. It imposes on the industry a discovery in practice of what the consequences will be as industry converts on the run rather than, having a good deal of lead time to consider the application and conceivably to reconsider purchase and sales practices. That seems to me to be a very important point to keep in mind.
I shall come back to it because this matter of how rapidly things are rushed through is something which concerns not only the Canadian tariff system and trade arrangements, but also the trade deal that is still being worked out with the United States. We were told it had been consummated a month ago, but we do not yet have the final details and we may well not have them much before the end of November. A committee will be voting on that end result early in December in order to allow a deadline in January. That sort of rushing of items is not carrying out the business of the country in a proper way.
There are some other concerns about the nature of the change which I want to put before the House this morning. The Automotive Industries Association has pointed out that to change from the previous end-use to a nature of item classification is not just a matter of doing things more accurately for classification purposes, it is not just a matter of arriving at a classification of our entire trade which will be in line with what is being done in the United States and other countries as well, it is not just a matter of ensuring that statistics are accurate, but it is a matter of far reaching consequences in the nature of the Auto Pact which governs trade between the two countries in automotive products.
Here we have a nice example of how pressing ahead on something which makes technical sense could have far reaching consequences. We have had understandings on where products should be made and how they should flow. We have had levels of Canadian content particularly established to protect industry in Canada. How will all of this impact on the new arrangements or, better put, what will the harmonized tariff system do to those arrangements?
I have been commenting on the speed with which all of this is being carried through. The proposal came to the industry very recently and there has been no opportunity to determine what its impact will be. The Versatile implements factory in Winnipeg had financial difficulties because of industry problems and because of problems experienced by its parent company in Vancouver, but this company was expecting to improve its productive facilities by bringing in welding equipment. This would have been possible under previous arrangements, but with the new changes in which it is classification by the nature of the product it will be impossible for Versatile to do so. This is a specific instance of a factory which should be improving its efficiency and productive potential being affected quite harmfully by this legislation.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
The kinds of uncertainties I was feeling a few moments ago about information is, of course, integral to what we face with the trade deal supposedly concluded in early October. We were all given to understand that the agreement had been arrived at by Saturday night as the letter went over to the Capital buildings to assure members of Congress that a deal was in the bag. We have learned since then that negotiations went on through Sundary, that hard decisions still needed to be made and that those discussions were part of the difficulties in the different summaries that came out on the Sunday.
The U.S. summary clearly included items that were still on the American wish list. The Canadian summary was held back as Canadian negotiators fought for items which they wanted in the agreement and found difficulty in achieving. We had this picture late on a Sunday of the negotiators gathering before one of the Canadian representatives who had his documents in a briefcase on his lap. These were the documents that were to have been concluded the previous day. It presented a curious spectacle about which I am surprised American Congressmen have not made more. American Senators are still biding their time while lawyers for the Canadian and American Governments fight over the details to clarify the various arrangements of which we have only summaries now.
The pressure being placed on us here raises the possibility of far greater injury for the industries of Canada, for the regions of Canada and for the people of Canada than the Automotive Industries Association can raise in its own particular case. We will not have any real opportunity to debate the particulars when they finally appear. The committee will hardly have time to go into the details because we are bound to get an enormous document. I make no claim myself, much less than the industry does, to have looked at those 3,000 pages of the detailed changes which are being made.
This deal affects the whole trade of the country. Large industries which have previously not been affected by trade very much now find themselves having to worry about the consequences. To expect in a few days that we shall be able to come to grips and understand it is to expect a superhuman ability in this House of Commons which I have not seen. There is the possibility that a committee dominated by members of the Government will insist on ramming things through in just a few days at that point, as they were inclined to do when the committee began its hearings last week. It is certain that the people of Canada will not really have begun to understand fully the consequences of the deal by the time the committee has to vote on it.
Then there will be just days left for consideration of the deal in the House of Commons, at the same time as large items of other business including the various changes in taxation that were proposed last spring will have to be dealt with. This is not the way the business of Government should be done.
In recognizing the shortcomings of the Government's timetabling of these matters, one must also recognize that the fast-track proposal of the United States is one that has been imposed on us. Yet its consequences now are that the work continues when it was supposed to have been concluded. We expected surely that we would have three months to digest the deal. What we have instead is ongoing consideration of details.
We are told, in fact, not that this is all being resolved day by day as the discussions take place, but that disputes which will have to be resolved far above the level of lawyers for the two countries are being laid aside time after time. One can well imagine, on the precedent of the negotiations of that week or more at the end of September and the beginning of October through to a weekend-negotiations that turned out to take twice as long as we had initially thought they would-that this process will take time.
The worst of it is, as time becomes more and more difficult to find for all these deliberations, the Government sees only one hope for saving itself politically, and that is the possibility that enough Canadians may find this deal attractive at the end so they will vote for it and in the process vote for the Government. Here is a Government that knows it is finished in any other context, but this is its one hope. Is such a Government capable of the kinds of negotiations that are still clearly required?
It is not that matters were concluded at the beginning of October by any means. There are still all sorts of difficulties being raised. We know how good American lawyers and officials are at defending their own interests. Two sketches of the deal came out at the beginning of October and we have learned certain things about various areas from the summary. Its effect on the energy industries of the west is a lovely example of what caused the controversy that took place in the House last week.
We know, of course, that westerners want to export oil and gas and have often in the past experienced some difficulty entering the American market, but to get what they hope will be secure access, that magic phrase the Government holds out before us, what is the Government prepared to do but to yield its directing role in the industry. If the Canadian Government thought, in the case of another price inflation in energy, that it would be wise to try to hold back on the deal, there is no way that decision could be used by the Canadian Government to the advantage of Canadians. Surely the Americans would immediately demand that they have the same kind of access and that will surely make any kind of distinctive Canadian role in the energy industry at a time of great price increases very difficult.
What if petroleum feed stocks should be made available at a lower price than that which prevails in the market to a petrochemical company in Alberta in order to give it some advantage? Surely that will be protested immediately as an unfair subsidy. Any possibility that our resources might be used in a distinctive way to promote development in Canada,
November 2, 1987

even in cases where we do not think that we are providing any sort of unfair subsidy to industry, will be impossible.
Softwood lumber, of course, is a perfect example of that. Elere is a Government that negotiates politically and loses the battle. For government Members to protest that they are the ones defending western Canadian interests while we supposedly are not is to try to make the same kind of argument they would want to make against the automotive industries which is that they have safeguarded the interests of the industry. However, the industry says that they have not, that more time is needed for careful consideration of the harmonized tariff system. The industry needs to be sure of what its consequences are and I call on the Government to ensure that it has enough time to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, debate.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-87. I do not intend to take my full 20 minutes because there are only a few points that I want to make.
Bill C-87, as has already been explained by the previous speaker, is largely a technical Bill. It provides for a new customs classification system which is due to take effect on January 1, 1988. I would like to speak at the outset about the process because I think the process at this point in time is just as important as the Bill itself.
I refer to the process because there has been voiced already by a major component of the Canadian industrial sector an opposition, not so much to the substance or total content of the Bill but to the fact that this Bill has come on rather quickly and is being, not rammed through Parliament but debated in rather short order, even though seven years of investigation and research has gone into it. Certain components of the industrial sector seem to feel that they have not had sufficient time to study all the details of this very technical Bill.
I refer specifically, of course, to the auto parts industry which has already made representation to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). It would like the effective date of the legislation date put back from January 1 to April 1, 1988, to give it greater time to study the full impact of this Bill, the major purpose of which is to harmonize the tariff system as it presently exists between the United States and Canada.
The reason I am concerned about process here is because, as other speakers have alluded to and very appropriately, this kind of process with inadequate consultation or lead time for thorough discussion and understanding of the item being debated is very directly related to the totally unacceptable process of the debate on free trade. I suggest that that is related to Bill C-87, and certainly for purposes of debate in this Chamber.
Customs Tariff
I think it is absolutely unacceptable that a standing committee should be charged with the awesome responsibility of thoroughly investigating the advantages and disadvantages or content of a memorandum of agreement without actually having the opportunity to spend several weeks, indeed even several months, digesting, discussing, debating and trying to understand the content of the actual finished agreement. This is the responsibility we have placed on the shoulders of the House Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
I suggest that the basic reason why last week there was so much heated debate, name-calling and personalization of a legislative process, why individual Ministers were criticized and condemned, why Members of Parliament were hurling unacceptable language back and forth at each other, both in the House and in committee, is because we did not have a finished document to debate. Consequently, and I am speaking now from an Opposition point of view, they had to direct their attack not against a Bill, resolution, or some kind of finished document, but against the process.
Your Honour, you sat on this side of the House for many years, as have many of your colleagues in the Government. You and they know that when you do not have the finished product to debate you end up directing your fire, your wrath, your criticism at the process. That is what is happening today on this issue of free trade.
For the life of me, I cannot imagine a U.S. Senate committee debating a proposed treaty between the U.S. and a foreign country without having a copy of that treaty in their hands. It would be anathema to the American congressional system.
This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of this Chamber. I am not pointing a finger at any one Minister or any one Government. We are all to some extent to blame. This is a legislature. It is also part of the executive branch. We have to clearly define and delineate the responsibilities of the legislative branch and the executive branch. If the Government expects us on this side of the House to intelligently and knowledgeably debate such an important matter as the free trade agreement, then we must demand a finished copy of the agreement with all the i's dotted and all the t's crossed. Unfortunately, we do not have that document.
We are being asked to debate and pass on a resolution, as it were, concerning trade with the U.S.-


Mr. Charest:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Hon. Member has an interest in the issue he is presently discussing and I do not argue with that at all. On the contrary, his interest is sincere. My point is that I fail to see how what he is saying now relates specifically to the Bill we are discussing.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is such a thing as relevancy in this House. The Hon. Member knows that and I am sure he is going to get back to the Bill.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was speaking to this Bill. I said I was talking about the process by which this Bill has come about. There is opposition to it from the auto parts industry because they have not had enough time to look at it, digest it, and understand it. I am drawing a parallel between their dilemma and the dilemma of this House as a legislative body in dealing with the entire free trade package because we do not have a copy of the finished agreement. Yet we are being asked to accept it in a matter of a few weeks. That, I suggest, is relevant.
1 have a letter addressed to the honourable Minister of State for Finance from Dean H. Wilson, president of the AIA. It
says:
I am writing on behalf of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, the national trade association that represents more than 1,200 suppliers, distributors and wholesalers of automotive parts, accessories, tools and equipment. Our industry employs over 70,000 people and volume of sales annually at the wholesale level exceeds $7 billion. Our members also supply products for related industries, such as agriculture, forestry and industrial machinery and equipment.
I could read the whole letter but the substance is simply that they want more time to understand the technical aspects of this very technical and complicated Bill.
I am saying that with respect to the whole trade picture, not just the automotive industry but everything else we trade back and forth with the U.S., we in this Chamber should have a much longer period of time to discuss all aspects of the agreement we are supposed to pass on in a few weeks' time. It is December 4 or December 5, I think, that the committee has to report by. If they are lucky they will have the full text of that agreement for only a few days prior to that date. We are being asked to accept that agreement, and today we are being asked to vote on a very technical Bill which even the industry concerned wants more time to understand and digest.
Specifically dealing with this Bill, it will assign specific numeric codes to specific product categories. This is apparently upsetting the auto industry as well. It will help standardize import and export statistics and the identification of goods for customs duties purposes. The codes are designed to help end the discrepancy between what the U.S. says it exports to Canada and what Canada reports as imports from the U.S.
Canada's present system of coding imports and exports for tariff purposes contains only 3,600 classifications. A completely different system is used to compile trade statistics. The new system demands substantial adjustments by all companies which ship, receive and handle cross border traffic. Customs classifications for some goods will not change dramatically, such as chemicals, foods and plastics, for example. However, a rear-view mirror, which was mentioned in a speech earlier this morning, for a motor vehicle will in future be considered mirror glass rather than an automotive part. The basic
principle is that goods will be classified for what they are rather than what they are used for. This may or may not be a good thing. At this point the automotive parts industry wants a longer period of time to fully digest the impact of these changes on the industry.
As I said a few moments ago, I say to the Minister who interrupted me that we on this side of the House want a longer period of time to fully understand and digest the impact of the free trade agreement on the whole automotive industry.


Jean J. Charest: Twenty years? Forty years?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I remind the Hon. Minister that according to this Memorandum of Agreement on free trade the Auto Pact is gutted, it is gone, the tariffs are removed and there is no leverage. Instead of insisting on 60 per cent Canadian content in automobiles we are going to have to accept 50 per cent North American content. That will be devastating to a constituency like mine and many others in southwestern Ontario that rely so heavily on the auto parts industry. The Japanese auto parts companies will not be coming into Canada, they will be going into the U.S.
I see my time is up. I thank you very kindly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, the information of the Hon. Member with respect to the Auto Pact is quite wrong. The 60 per cent Canadian value remains for all companies now covered by the Auto Pact. We heard a similar kind of comment in this House about three weeks ago and I thought we had straightened it out. What the 50 per cent refers to is direct manufacturing costs for those companies not now in the Auto Pact. That will translate into something like 60 per cent or 65 per cent North American value added. I find it interesting that the American manufacturers are concerned that that is all going to happen in Canada. Today we hear that some Canadians at least believe it is going to happen in the U.S. If we are going to talk about the Auto Pact in this debate, 1 think we better understand what the arrangement really is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) have a rebuttal?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I do not know whether I would call it a rebuttal, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to make one statement. The experts in the automotive industry to whom I have spoken have said that there is no longer an incentive for the Japanese, for example, to set up new auto parts industries in a satellite environment around the established assembly plants in Canada. Consequently, they will go closer to the big market which is in the United States.
That is what I have been told by experts in the field. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I do not think I am wrong. I think that
November 2, 1987

is what will happen. There will not be the expansion of the auto parts industry which we desperately need.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), and my colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, have reminded me of where my memory lapsed before. This may help me explain some of the difficulties with the issue.
This debate nicely illustrates the difficulty of knowing when the actual language is not yet established and we only have summaries. It is clear that people in the American industry are suspicious that we will get the advantage in Canada. It is quite obvious that people in Canada are anxious that the gain will be in the United States, that the plants will be established there. We still have the 60 per cent Canadian rule and we now have a 50 per cent North American rule. Members of the Government devoutly hope that this will increase the percentage. We are just as justified in being afraid that it will reduce it.
That is a nice example of the difficulty of dealing properly with these matters when the final language is not established and when both sides can be rightly suspicious. That was the point I wanted to make earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) to ask a question if he is going to ask it of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is very direct and simple. In my opinion the language of the agreement is clear. Does he believe that that agreement reduces the Canadian value added for current members of the auto pact from 60 per cent to 50 per cent?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, when I said that a few moments ago in the House I was simply echoing what many experts have told me, my caucus, and our research people. They have said that in the long term that is exactly what will happen, we will lose. People who wanted to expand presently existing auto parts industries in Canada and those who had planned to come to Canada in five years time will now set up operations closer to the big market. The big market is in the United States, not in Canada, as the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) knows.


@Acting Speaker: The time for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise).


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we too can afford to comment on Bill C-87 and shed some light for the Canadian population because, after listening
Customs Tariff
to my NDP colleagues, I have the impression their Party wants to drag us back to the Dark Ages. They suffer from tunnel vision, they would rather ignore market opportunities, they want to eliminate all trade expansion chances and, of course, they are against free trade, that is obvious, because it would enable Canadian labour to progress and Canadian firms specializing in research and technology to join their efforts and a break through in certain markets to which they did not have access until the deal was signed.
The Minister of State (Finance) gave Hon. Members background information on Bill C-87 which will replace the existing customs tariff and incorporate the provisions of the Duties Relief Act. I want to take this opportunity to highlight the benefits which the new legislation will give Canadian businesses, particularly importers and exporters from coast to coast. Mr. Speaker, we all know how important Canada's exports are to the economy of this country and the impact they have on job creation.
Our country is one of the great trading nations of the world. From the outset, our economy has been based on international trade, and today, exports are one of the main motors of Canada's economic growth. Imports also play an essential role in our economy by providing the machines and equipment needed in many industries to expand the range of products offered by Canadian suppliers. In the circumstances, it is obvious that Canada needs up-to-date customs legislation. Although it may not be clear at first glance, the orderly flow of international trade depends largely on the rules set by legislation such as the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act.
Of course, Canadian producers who import and export daily know perfectly well that their ability to produce and to compete on both domestic and international markets depends on the effective functioning of laws and regulations implemented by the federal Government to regulate trade. The Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin) said that our customs legislation was very much in need of updating. It has worked very well since it was introduced several years ago, but today, we have different needs and different resources.
Mr. Speaker, the same principle applies to all industries and all sectors. The Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act are several years old. Are other industries still in the wireless telegraphy age? Do all aircraft still have propellers? And why does industry now use computer processing, robotics and automated office machines? The Customs Tariff? It can wait. It is not terribly important. We are going to stick with black and white TV. We don't need colour for Customs. Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State pointed out, we must expedite the passage of this Bill.
What our companies need is a system for classifying import and export commodities that is simple and easy to understand, so that customs duty and other tariff aspects that concern commodity trade can be easily determined and accurately

United States is a trade deal, a business deal, and our sectors of culture and communications will not be affected, our agricultural sector will be very well protected under the free trade agreement. We will continue to fight for this, and at the same time we will make it possible for the people of Canada and the peple of Quebec to open up new markets and create jobs for younger Canadians.
A moment ago I was listening to the remarks of the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest). Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Youth) is doing a tremendous job for young Canadians. We need this kind of approach, we need this agreement to make it possible for Canadians, particularly younger Canadians, to begin the XXIst century facing wide open new markets and opportunities to innovate in their respective sectors.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to what my NDP colleagues had to say, I simply could not refrain from taking such a challenging opportunity as Bill C-87 to digress a little and set the record straight. Of course, Mr. Speaker, before you call me to order I intend to conclude by referring specifically to Bill C-87.
The new tariff system will enable Canada to compare its trade figures with those of other countries. Hon. Members would know that the United States trade deficit has become an urgent issue which is of grave concern to the American administration. Every year Statistics Canada officials and their American counterparts compare the trade figures of our two countries. In the past the United States came up with figures indicating that their trade deficit with Canada is much more significant than we had been thinking all along. A detailed analysis of such talks is necessary to reconcile these differences. Although many people are inclined to think it is just a technical exercise, there is more to it than that. A trade deficit or surplus between two countries may have many and varied consequences, such as fluctuations in the exchange rate and lobbying for protectionist measures. Accurate trade statistics are also useful to the business world. That is why it is important for us to have access to better ways and better tools in order to compare our statistics with those of other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I am about to conclude. I emphasized the benefits of the new Customs Tariff because some Hon. Members may think this is a technical Bill, of little interest to their constituents. Granted, the Bill does seem technical, but I maintain it deserves some careful attention and will certainly be of interest to businesses in their ridings, as it is to my own riding, Mr. Speaker, which is about sixty kilometres from the American border. There is a constant exchange of goods between our two countries, and this particular information is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, for the businesses I have the honour to represent in this House and for many other businesses across Canada. We cannot deny that this country is constantly engaged in international trade. And I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should do everything we can to increase that trade in the years to come! To do so, however, we must give our industries, our business people and our brokers the tools
Customs Tariff
and mechanisms they need to compete on international markets, on the same basis as other countries and other businesses outside this country are able to do.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend that Hon. Members, after examining this Bill, expedite its passage as soon as possible, because it is a formidable tool for our Canadian industries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greewood (Ms. McDonald).


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill that we are looking at today, Bill C-87, has been called a technical Bill. I want to argue that it is more than a technical Bill. There are technical aspects in it to provide for a new customs classification system which is due to take effect on January 1, 1988.
This Bill is to bring in what is called a harmonized system. The new customs classification will allow for the quicker release of goods crossing the border into Canada. It is a system that will particularly facilitate trade within multinational corporations. It is no coincidence that the Government would want to bring in such a system.
Harmonized classification assigns specific numeric codes to specific product categories. They will help standardize import and export statistics and the identification of goods for customs duties purposes. The codes are designed to help end the discrepancy between what the United States says it exports to Canada and what Canada reports as imports from the United States. Certainly, clarification is highly desirable. I think there are some objectionable features to this Bill, and I will certainly raise some questions about the process, but clarity is very badly needed.
We are a trading nation. Trade makes up 30 per cent of our GNP, which means that 70 per cent is not from international trade but from domestic purchases and sales. Nevertheless, it is very important to our economy. It is very important to understand what is happening in trade. Having this kind of clarification will aid in understanding our economic situation better.
Canada's present system of coding exports and imports for tariff purposes contain 3,600 classifications. But a completely different system is used to compile trade statistics. The new system demands substantial adjustment by all companies which ship, receive and handle cross-border traffic.
Some of these companies are now telling us that they need more time in order to deal with this issue. This is a subject that has been studied for some seven years. But it has been only a relatively short period of time that companies which need the information as to what is in the Bill have actually had the

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
great thick texts to go over. Some of these corporations are telling us that they do not have enough time. January 1 is too soon, and they are asking for a delay. I expect that there will be a delay in the United States, so why should these corporations not have the benefit of a delay also in order to be able to adjust to the new system?
Some goods will not change dramatically, but for others there are very substantial changes. As a result, tariff and duty rates for some products will change, which means that some importers will have lower tariffs to pay, but there will be higher, and in some cases substantially higher, tariffs depending upon the changes in codes.
So it is not just a technical matter here. There will be real economic impacts. That is something I will want to go into in a bit more detail later. Some industries such as those which belong to the Automotive Industries Association have complained most strenuously that there has not been a thorough enough examination of what are the implications. They are of course prominent in asking for a delay. To set it back at least three months is their proposal.
They point out that there is still doubt as to whether the Americans will adopt the system at the beginning of the new year. The association points out, "The Government has been labouring over this conversion for over seven years, yet only recently have Canadian companies had some hint of the final draft. The errors or omissions we have noted lead us to believe that companies in industry will be adversely affected by the tariff changes".
Reasonably enough, industries that will be adversely affected need time to protest and to adjust, if necessary, if their protests are not successful. Unfortunately, however, we have a Government which wants to push this measure through. There has been a lengthy internal examination process but it has not been adequate for the people who will be affected. We are very aware of this pushing through of legislation. In the case of free trade there was not even a seven-year period of study before.
The proposed changes in bilateral free trade with the United States-the Mulroney-Reagan deal-are much more complex and the Government wants to push it through even faster than that. Thus we have the spectacle of a committee that will be asked to deal in a matter of days, after it has the final text, with this matter and come up with its report. Canadians will have to react to this deal, to appear before committee, to put forward their concerns, all without even seeing the final text. The committee will already have heard them. They will have had to make their presentations on this extremely important matter on the basis of synopses, newspaper reports and, in some cases, conflicting reports from what the Americans say is in the deal deal and what the Canadians say is in the deal. Many of the provisions will not even be available in November or December since they will be negotiated over the long term. That is an even more flagrant example than the one we have before us in Bill C-87 of the Government trying to push
through measures without adequate concern being given to them.
I want to make a more specific comparison between what we have here in this Bill and what the proposed bilateral free trade deal is with the United States. The proposal we have before us now is not just with the United States. This is a proposal to harmonize in a more general fashion. It is one which would facilitate multilateral trade. It is an approach in general that we very much favour. The New Democratic Party would like to see Canada improve its trade with many countries of the world. The United States is already our major trading partner. It will probably continue indefinitely to be our major trading partner, probably by far. But we would like to see our trade expand with other countries. We favour measures that would make that possible.
We are very concerned with the impact of increasing bilateral trade. We wonder what that increase will be, in what direction it will go, as well as what the impacts will be. So we have two possibilities. We could be going in a multilateral way or a bilateral way. In order to make the decision between these different approaches we have to look at what the impact will be on ordinary Canadians.
I want to cite one particular area that I think has been inadequately considered in making these comparisons. It is with respect to the impact on women's jobs. With bilateral free trade there will be very serious losses in the jobs of women. Women will be the worst hit. I want to make it very clear that this will happen both in the area of manufacturing and in the area of services. Manufacturing, an area in which women are concentrated, is a losing industry. The Macdonald Commission conducted studies in this area. It did not even look at services where there are even more women than in manufacturing. But even the Macdonald Commission discovered that the losing industries were ones that happen to be those in which women are prominent. For example, in textiles, clothing, agriculture, food processing, footwear, and electrical goods very large numbers of women are employed in Ontario and Quebec, and in the case of food processing, all across the country we will see a loss of jobs in those areas.
In the case of textiles and clothing, factories will close down in Canada and be relocated in the United States. Yet with the free trade deal a company will be able to import those products made in the South with low wage rates, without unions, and with minimum working conditions. Under those types of conditions, they will be able to compete very well with our industries. There will be pressure on the companies that keep plants in Canada to reduce their wages and benefits, and worsen working conditions in order to meet the competition.
People in favour of free trade have been quite frank in stating that there will have to be harmonization. What is "harmonization" when the competition is with a low-cost country like Brazil or Korea in the case of textiles and
November 2, 1987

clothing, and in the case of the United States, in those states that do not have protection for their workers, do not have unions, have so-called right-to-work legislation, and have been successfully engaging in union-bashing so that people are unprotected? That is the type of competition that will mean wage rates will go down.
Even more jobs will be lost in the service sector. In this area,
I do not think that the Government has been entirely frank. This is where the United States sees that it can make an impact.
The Conservative Member who spoke before talked about looking to the next century and an expansion of jobs for young people in the future. He also talked about confidence. I, too, look to the next century, and I, too, wish to see an expansion of jobs. I, too, have a great deal of confidence in Canadians, in fact more than that Member. I believe that we can create jobs here in Canada. What type of confidence is there when one takes this blind approach that there will be jobs. The Member was not specific about where those jobs would be. Of course, he did not admit that there would be job losses.
In the case of the service sector, this is an area in which we have already lost jobs. In data processing we have lost more than 150,000 jobs, which were largely women's jobs. In this area the United States is a major service sector export-importer for commodities. Canada has been doing well, and we have a surplus for our commodity trade. But we have a substantial and growing deficit for services. Here we will open our doors for more competition in an area in which we are not doing well.
Where is the intelligence in that? We want to open the doors where there is an increase and new advantages for the industries in which we are already strong and exporting? It does not make sense for us to welcome competition in an area where we have already lost jobs, and where we have weakened our position. That is foolishness. That is not looking to the future; it is looking to a very bleak future. We will not have the economies of scale, and we have the disadvantage of being branch plants.
Much of this transferring of jobs, and especially the loss of women's jobs, has been from the branch plant, thanks to telecommunications, to the head office. That will continue. If other corporations are given those advantages, for example, banks, insurance companies, and so forth, they too will close down their data processing, financial services, and various management functions within Canada and move them off to the United States. There will be a serious net loss of jobs for us.
In looking at manufacturing and services, we must anticipate that it will be very difficult with this bilateral trade deal which we do not favour, and which we are strenuously speaking against. I represent a riding in Toronto, Broadview- Greenwood, an area where manufacturing is important. Under the bilateral trade deal, with the gutting of the Auto Pact, there will be job loss in that area. It will affect the whole
Customs Tariff
region of southern Ontario, not only my riding, which will be indirectly impacted. In my riding there is small manufacturing. There are some people who think that there will be advantages and they will be able to export more to the United States. We are not sure that, even where they may be able to export more, they might not be vulnerable to countervail because of our social programs. Even where we think there might be an advantage, there is a possibility that the Americans will clamp down, use their countervail procedures because of our so-called unfair social programs that give an unfair advantage to the Canadian corporation. Even where we think we may have a chance, it is not entirely clear because so many of the details-not details in terms of the lives of people, they are very important, but details in terms of the free trade agreement-have not yet been established.
Ontario will be very much affected; women's jobs in Ontario will be very much affected. In Quebec-

-the industries that are losing are those where the majority of the jobs are held by women. Those industries will be affected by a free trade agreement. The women of Quebec will be the losers if there is an agreement on free trade. Textiles, clothing and food processing-those are the industries that employ large numbers of women and those are the industries where the job loss will be highest.

Those of us who are concerned with jobs in Ontario and Quebec see that very clearly in manufacturing. There will be an impact in other parts of the country with agriculture and food processing. Our food processing is in many small centres scattered across the country which means jobs in many small towns. With a free trade agreement there will be a concentration and jobs will be lost across the country in small towns where there is a food processing plant, a cannery, or poultry processing. There will be many losers across the country. There will be a smaller number of very large plants in the United States, and with a very small increase in their production they will be able to supply the Canadian market. Presently those factories are working under production, so they will not need any extra investment. They will have to hire a few more workers, add an extra shift or two, increase their production with the current capital investment that they have, and they will be able to take over our markets.
Canadians cannot compete on that basis. We do not have those economies of scale. If we wish to move into the American market, it will require an enormous addition of capital. Our construction costs are greater. Our growing season is shorter. It is not that Canadians are not productive, lazy, or fearful. We live in a different country with a different climate. It is unfair to ask a Canadian farmer in a Canadian climate with Canadian construction costs to compete with a Californian farmer in a different climate with a subsidized irrigation system.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
The Government talks rather foolishly about confidence, and I suggest it is a misplaced confidence which is not based on reason. To expect the farmer in Ontario, Nova Scotia, or British Columbia to compete on this basis is simply unfair.
We know that small towns across the country will be very badly hit. They will lose the base, the agriculture, and many of those food processing jobs at the same time.
Trade is important for Canada. It is 30 per cent of our Gross National Product. That means that 70 per cent is not in trade. We must look at what the impact will be on the whole economy. If we lose jobs in the areas where we can expect to lose them, in food processing, agriculture, electrical equipment, footwear, textiles, clothing manufacturing, and services, what will that do to purchasing power? What will that do for Canadians who lose their jobs and collect unemployment for a while? Some of them will be on welfare, and some of them will drop out of the labour market completely. How will they participate in the economy and create jobs for other people in the services?
We must look at how the whole economy will be affected, and the Government has been very remiss in doing that. It has talked very glibly about the winners, but it has not identified the losers. The Macdonald Commission did not even look at the service sector. Some 70 per cent of women's employment is in the service sector, yet the Macdonald Commission did not even bother to look at it.
The Government has not been frank in looking at the impact of a free trade agreement in the service sector and the impact on women's jobs. Therefore I think it is very important that we spend some time looking at the multilateral approach and at how we can improve our trade with many countries. It is also important to look at the losses in the case of the free trade approach, in concentrating so much on trade with the United States.
We must also look at the times in which we are right now. I see that my time is almost up, but I would like to say that it does not bode well when we see tough economic times in the United States right now. It has a massive deficit and there are uncertainties. There is a confidence crisis in the United States from years of mismanagement of the American economy. Is this a time when we would want to be more fully integrated with them rather than seeking better, newer, and brighter trading opportunities?
I say that Canadians are capable and confident. We believe that we can create jobs in Canada and that we should be exploring other trading relationships to provide jobs for Canadians in Canada. We also believe that we should be proceeding with a multilateral approach, a much more imaginative one, not concentrating heavily on the United States, particularly in areas where we know there will be serious losers.
The Conservatives are simply banking too much on loose rhetoric and nice sounding words, but so far they have not been able to deliver the goods.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly appropriate that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) would finish her speech by referring to rhetoric and not to the facts.
One of the questions I have for her concerns the textile industry. As you know very well, Mr. Speaker, I am a Member of Parliament from the riding of Sherbrooke, Quebec, which is one of Canada's greatest textile centres. Following the conclusion of the trade agreement signed with the Americans, le Comite de survie du textile representing textile workers in my riding publicly stated that it is in favour of the trade agreement signed by Canada and the United States.
Actually it has said that this is a good deal, and I am referring to the most important group of textile workers in the Province of Quebec, if not in Canada.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood could explain how she has come to her conclusion when the workers favour the agreement. I am not referring to the industry, which by the way is also favourable to the trade agreement, but to the workers who are members of that union in the province of Quebec. They have publicly stated that, knowing full well what are the implications.
I want to be even more precise by saying that I am referring to two people who have actually met with the NDP caucus. They also met with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). As well, the two people who lead the union have already met with the Leader of the Hon. Member's Party. They are exactly the same people who say they are in favour of the agreement.
How did the Hon. Member reach the conclusion that the agreement would hurt the textile workers who clearly contradict her?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to answer the question, but I think we are getting a little off the Bill.
I hope that we can get back to the Bill, but I will allow the Hon. Member to answer the question.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question, and the debate is not over. If some representatives of some workers at this point in time think it is good for them, that is certainly their affair, but the debate is far from over. The examination is not over. We do not yet know what textile companies are going to close down in Canada. We do know that there will be closures and we do know that there will be removal to the United States.


Jean J. Charest: How do you know?
November 2, 1987


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Member has referred to la survie. Survival in the textile industry is indeed at issue. Textiles are in trouble in Canada. There has already been job loss in textiles in Canada, so we are not talking about an industry that is in great health and has no worries for the future.
I remind the Hon. Member as well that the textile industry in Canada depends on purchases from the clothing industry in Canada-


Jean J. Charest: No, it is the other way around.


Lynn McDonald: Clothing people have to buy the textiles.


Jean J. Charest: Right. Now you have it.


Lynn McDonald: I mean, the clothing is not taken apart in threads and remade into textiles. Textiles have to be bought by the clothing industry. The clothing industry itself is going to be affected.
If there is a loss in clothing plants-and we know that imports in textiles are increasing, that the domestic clothing industry is increasingly importing, not buying from Canadian sources-as we lose the domestic clothing industry that means even fewer purchases of textiles. When textiles lose, those jobs are going to go.
In the case of textiles, labour costs are similar in Canada and the United States but construction costs are very high. In the case of clothing, textiles cost more in Canada than they do to import, so there is going to be an ongoing effect that way.
We cannot look at just one industry without the other. They are both in trouble. They have both lost business. They have both lost jobs in his province and in mine. I am worried, and I just do not share the glib approach that all will be well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a very short supplementary question and then recognize the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).
However, I should like to remind the Minister that the Bill at hand is Bill C-87. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration. I will allow the Hon. Minister a supplementary question.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as you know from habit and from previous experience 1 always take very seriously anything you say to me and with the utmost respect.
That having been said, 1 would like to make a very short comment. It is not a question. I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood the fact that she has just offered a performance which is very much symbolic and typical of what those who are against the free trade agreement are saying now
Tomorrow, first thing in the morning, she should wake up and read in Hansard the answer she just gave me. I presume that she will probably feel very bad about it because it
Customs Tariff
demonstrates the level of total, absolute ignorance of the Hon. Member in dealing with this issue.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that was not a question or a comment but an insult.


Jean J. Charest: It was a comment.


Ms. Copps:: It was an ignorant remark.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: I have no respect for him.


Jean J. Charest: I am sorry I woke you up.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is what happens when we get off the Bill. I would hope that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood would have a chance at rebuttal.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, lately I have been reading a book by Margorie Griffin Cohen on free trade and women's employment. I suggest the Hon. Minister should have a look at it. It deals in detail with projections, particularly textiles in which he is interested, and all of these other manufacturing and service sector jobs. It gives a very painful analysis of what the impact would be. Perhaps the Hon. Minister would not be so glib in his approach if he had a little bit of information which could be very well provided by looking at Cohen's book.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn).


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear at the outset that my comments and questions will be related strictly to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
First, I would like to refer to her comments with respect to the question of pursuing other trading agreements and arrangements rather than pursuing the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The Member indicated that she and her Party believe that what Canada should be doing is pursuing other trading arrangements in order to increase our trade. The Hon. Member is aware that Canada is doing just that. It is not relying strictly on negotiations with the United States but is pursuing through the GATT a multilateral trading arrangement to help reduce tariffs generally and improve our trading arrangements, vis-a-vis the world. The last GATT negotiations which concluded in 1979 took about seven years to negotiate and another eight years to implement. Is it her Party's and her position that we should do nothing but rely on these GATT negotiations as far as our trade is concerned and wait for 15 years perhaps before we conclude any improved trading arrangements over and above what we have now?
My second question relates to her comments with respect to the great tragedy and disaster that she forecasts concerning

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
the job situation as a result of the trading arrangement with the United States. The Hon. Member will recall that when the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought down his economic statement in 1984 and a subsequent budget in 1985 she and her Party forecast enormous decreases in employment nationally, in her own riding and in ridings across the country, as a result of those measures. I must say as well, I believe the Hon. Member and her Party forecast great decreases in employment for women as a result of those measures. Instead of that, almost one million new jobs have been created and unemployment has fallen by about 3 per cent. In her own riding as in my mine, which is adjacent to it, the unemployment figures at the moment are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 per cent, which is traditionally full employment. How can Canadians have confidence in what she and her Party are forecasting about what will happen with this trading arrangement with the U.S. in light of New Democratic forecasts in the past?.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Hon. Member brags about an unemployment rate of 4 per cent in his riding and my riding. It is true that unemployment in our ridings is much lower than the national average and we are very fortunate. I do not think though that we should be complacent about the high national levels of unemployment, close to 10 per cent and in some parts of the country it is much higher still. In Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and single industry towns unemployment is still very high. What does 4 per cent mean? In Sweden with decades of a Social Democratic Government-


Mr. Stewart:: And 75 per cent income tax.


Lynn McDonald: -when unemployment rose to 4 per cent it was considered scandalous. Sweden has kept unemployment in the 1 and 2 per cent range. Four per cent unemployment is considered high in Sweden. We have positive models. Unemployment has gone down in Manitoba and in the Yukon under New Democratic Party Governments.
As to whether GATT should be the only measure we should pursue regarding trade, I think we should be looking at other trade irritants. For example, there are things we could be doing on a bilateral basis with the United States. We could be pursuing another form of Auto Pact in the case of Korean and Japanese producers who sell massively in Canada. With the so-called free trade agreement with the United States, instead of being able to pursue something like the Auto Pact with these other producers we will be kept out and the Americans will be able to import American produced cars and parts into Canada. We should have been negotiating a separate distinctive deal that would be to our mutual advantage-between them and us. We are not doing that. The so-called free trade deal will prevent us from doing something that could be very beneficial for Canada. The Auto Pact has been beneficial, and we need more examples of a sector by sector, industry by industry basis where we look at what is in our interests, what would improve jobs for Canada. We should be making those decisions
ourselves and not depending solely on the blind forces of the market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) on one short question and then we will resume debate.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief statement. I am a bit confused here this morning. The Minister who represents the riding of Sherbrooke which has a large textile industry said that the free trade agreement will be good and that the workers agree that the free trade agreement will be good for their industry. I suppose what I have is a rhetorical question. Why or how will the free trade agreement be so good for the textile workers in Sherbrooke when in the United States the textile industry is looking to this free trade agreement as a saviour for its rapidly declining industry? They cannot both be winners in this new arrangement being proposed. Obviously there has to be a winner and loser here. Effectively we are shutting out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that he should not comment on the Minister's statement. That is not part of the debate. The question or comment should go to the speech which the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) made. I do not think I should entertain any more questions and comments. That period has now terminated.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It won't be a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean J. Charest: In referring to what the previous speaker said-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not a point of order. He is clearly out of order. Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I really do not know what the point of order is until I hear it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is commenting on the previous speaker's comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister has the floor for a very short point of order.


Jean J. Charest: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for extending the courtesy of listening to what I have to say before coming to a determination, contrary to what other people in the House do, who consistently do not listen to people before saying something and reacting. I guess they are being consistent with themselves when they do that.
The Member from Brant said that somebody has to win or lose each time there is a deal. I have to ask whether or not every businessman is a juvenile delinquent who thinks that way each time he concludes a transaction.
November 2, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate, that is not a point of order. I recognize the Eton. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on harmonization. I think many Canadians do not even know what harmonization means, including many Members of the House. That has been clear from the quality of the debate we just heard from the Minister. Obviously he is not interested in dealing with this issue.
The Bill itself seeks to bring about an international standard which would expedite trading among GATT nations. That is laudable and something we support. We in the Liberal Party believe strongly in liberalized trade, in reaching out to all parts of the world. However, I have some concerns, and I think they have been articulated by some of the other Hon. Members who have spoken.
Let us look at what will happen with harmonization between Canada and the United States under the free trade deal. 1 come from the Niagara region of the country, the Golden Horseshoe as it is known, the area which, along with British Columbia, produces fruits and grapes. As a result of the free trade deal, our grape industry will be wiped out as of next year. Ontario wine companies have already told the grape producers that they will not buy their 1988 crop because they will bring grapes in from the United States more cheaply, specifically grapes to be used for the production of table wine.
However, Canadians also eat table grapes. I just became aware, by examining some of the issues surrounding free trade, that in the United States they spray table grapes with sulphur so that they will last longer. As well, sulphur kills the cocoon eggs of fruit flies. Because the Americans want to sell grapes to Canada and other places they are concerned about fruit flies and so spray them with sulphur, but such spraying is not legal in Canada. We do not permit farmers to spray their grapes with sulphur because it could present a potential health hazard.
The reason I am raising this is that if we harmonize with the United States in entering into free trade, will we harmonize to the high Canadian standard which does not permit the spraying of sulphur on table grapes, or will we harmonize to the lowest common denominator, the American standard, which allows the spraying of grapes with sulphur?
Just a few days ago I was speaking with the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Ontario about some issues with which many Canadians are only just now beginning to come to grips. This is one of the reasons why we should have a full and open debate on all of the elements of free trade.
Customs Tariff
The Ontario Minister expressed a fear over what will happen under free trade because Canada and, particularly, certain provinces have higher standards with respect to environmental pollution. I represent the steel companies in my riding, including Dofasco. As we know, coal-fired generating stations create tremendous amounts of sulphur dioxide, causing acid rain which is now killing the trees which produce maple syrup. We know the problems of acid rain, but the Ontario Minister of the Environment fears that as a result of this free trade agreement Canadian Governments will no longer be able to require companies to install pollution devices that are up to Canadian standards.
Through this so-called harmonization process, which will affect not only agriculture but also industries across the board, the Americans will be able to argue against these fancy pollution devices because they do not believe there is a problem with acid rain. In fact, the American President has already said that. The Canadian companies will want to know why they should install expensive million-dollar scrubbers and devices when the American competition is not required to do so.


Mr. Brisco:: Surely you are not serious.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Obviously the Hon. Member has not studied all the implications of free trade. I am repeating a conversation 1 had with the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Ontario who happens to have a very good reputation-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Obviously uninformed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I realize the Hon. Member is far more informed than the Minister of the Environment of Ontario. However, my point is that, when dealing with harmonization between Canada and the United States, we will be moving toward the lowest common denominator which means accepting acid rain and table grapes that are sprayed with sulphur, thus preventing the quality of life we have had in this country. That is why we need a full debate on this bad deal.


Jean J. Charest: That is sour grapes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The truth hurts. Study the deal, then let's have the deal go to a full committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.07 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1.07 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1987


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, a curious and interesting event occurred last week in northern Ontario. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) paid a visit to the beautiful city of Sault Ste. Marie, a city which has in recent years been beset by exceedingly high rates of unemployment. The Minister was there to open the office of FEDNOR, an agency of the Government of Canada set up to administer the Northern Ontario Initiatives Program, a $100 million program to encourage northern Ontario entrepreneurs. It is a program we welcome and badly need.
The Minister was asked why the FEDNOR Advisory Board had only Tory appointees. He replied that the appointments were made without regard to political affiliation. If one can accept that, Sir, such a person would be eligible for honorary membership in the Flat Earth Society. Pressed further by a young reporter, the Minister demanded to know who had made the outrageous charge that only Tories sat on the advisory board. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) was named. Said the Minister: "Let him say that outside the House and put his seat on the line." I have repeated the statement outside this House.
I conclude what must be a first for Canada, at least since the time of the railway scandals in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald-to be called a Conservative today is apparently equated somehow with personal defamation of character.



DEATH OF FORMER PREMIER


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec mourns the loss of Rene Levesque who died suddenly yesterday.
Rene Levesque was considered the father of modern Quebec. He was able to convince the provincial government to put an end to the power companies monopoly and to establish Hydro-Quebec as a powerful economic lever in our province.
This morning, Premier Robert Bourassa had this to say: All of Mr. Levesque's career had but one goal, just and dynamic progress and growth for Quebec.
He was an extremely engaging and exceptionally talented man. History will remember him as one of our most determined and generous patriots.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) conveyed his admiration, stressing Rene Levesque's sincerity. In the
Prime Minister's words, he was, in his own way, a champion, a great democrat and a great Quebecer.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec will remember Rene Levesque. He made an exceptional contribution to Quebec society for he consistantly strove to improve the living conditions of the ordinary citizen to whom he always remained very close.
Thank You Rene.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Winnipeg, Preston Manning was confirmed as the new Leader of the western-based Reform Party. Mr. Manning and his Party announced that they will field candidates in all western ridings in the next federal election. My NDP colleagues and I welcome the challenge, but I want to point out how ironic it is that 99 per cent of the members of this new Party are disenchanted and disillusioned Conservatives.
How is it that with a Conservative federal Government that purports to speak for western Canada and purports to care about the concerns of western Canadians, the Conservatives in western Canada decide to form another Party? The answer is simple. Conservatives in western Canada are fed up with a scandal-plagued, patronage-ridden, secretive Government. Even with a majority of the seats in western Canada, they cannot get it right.
What have they done on Senate reform? Absolutely nothing. What have they done about federal government purchasing? The situation is actually worse in western Canada than it was during the Trudeau era. What about regional development? They gave $5 million to build Fantasyland, a project which was going to be built anyway, while hundreds of small business people had their requests for similar funding turned down.
It is not surprising that in the next federal election there will be two Conservative Parties on the ballot in western Canada, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Reform Party.



NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION WEEK


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Sunday, November 1, marked the beginning of the fifth National Crime Prevention Week, a special time for co-

%

November 2, 1987

operation between police, neighbours, educators and businesses. Events have been organized across Canada to call attention to the contribution that everyone can make to better and safer communities.
One of the highlights of the week will be the presentation of National Crime Prevention Awards to deserving individuals and organizations across Canada. The Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) will be travelling across Canada to honour these Canadians who have helped make their communities safer.
Awareness has grown over the past few years as a majority of Canadians are now engaged in at least one crime prevention activity.
We must continue to work together to involve even more Canadians in initiatives organized to promote crime prevention year round.

[ Translation]



DEATH OF FORMER PREMIER


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, the untimely death of Mr. Rene Levesque has been a shock and has filled with consternation Quebecers and Canadians throughout Canada as well as members in the "Francophonie" governments.
I did not share Mr. Levesque's political option but I always had great respect for his fervor and sincerity in fighting for this ideas. He has been prominent in the political life of Quebec for nearly 10 years as Premier of that province. His political action forced Quebecers to rethink their Canadian option. Mr. Levesque also made the rest of Canada consider constitutional amendments to make Quebec more at home in Confederation.
In that sense, the political action of Mr. Rene Levesque may have helped bring about the Meech Lake Accord. M. Levesque will be remembered for the forcefulness and tenacity with which he upheld his convictions. In his own important way, he contributed to the progress of Canada and Quebec.
On behalf of my colleagues, the Liberal members from Quebec, I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his family and friends.




Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, to all my fellow-citizens of the riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup riding, and to the entire population of Quebec, Rene Levesque's passing away means the loss of a man who, through his faith and honesty, crystallized for us all the pride of being Quebecers.
Personally, I will remember Rene Levesque because of his message of love for Quebec and his deep convinction that Quebec had all the qualities required to assert itself economically, socially and culturally. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest political figures in Canada, and as a member of a rare breed of politicians, always managed to set aside partisan considerations when he fought his great battles for Quebec. Having had the privilege to meet Mr. Levesque on a few occasions, Mr. Speaker, I had come to realize to what extent he was concerned with the future of Quebec and all its regions. He was a man fully dedicated to service, with a total disregard for himself. His loss, whatever our own persuasion may be, will deprive us of a major contributor in our continuing reflection on Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound emotion and sadness that on behalf of the whole population of the constituency of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, I offer my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Levesque and her family.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: T'was All Hallows' Eve and all thru the riding
7,000 souls were asking, "Where's our MP hiding?"
They stormed the streets, from the smallest child to the mayor
They had voted for hope, all they got was despair.
Jobs, jobs, jobs, whispered a ghost from history,
Three years later, most of Sept-Isle is still on UIC.
"We wanted jobs", the people shouted, "An MP who would listen"
But all they were tossed was a Port Cartier prison.
Meanwhile, back in the gloomy depths of the PMO
Cringed our noble PM, the boy from Baie Comeau,
"I've been run out of Central Nova, now Manicouagan.

November 2, 1987
Maybe next time, I should run in the Okanagan".
But, alas, his minions said "T'was not all in vain"
For once, they need not answer "So what are the boys saying?"



MINORITIES


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, according to a recent Gallup poll, more than 13 million Canadian men and women, or over 50 per cent of the population, feel that services to the public should be provided in both official languages.
In Ontario, the province with the largest population where the French-speaking minority accounts for 4 per cent of the total population, 49 per cent of respondents favoured services in both official languages.
In Quebec, where the English-speaking minority accounts for 8 per cent of the population, 73 per cent favoured that. It is encouraging to note that a majority of Canadians understand and respect minority language rights.
The goodwill shown by the Ontario Liberal Government in its policy on services provided to the public appears to be snowballing, because last week, Prince Edward Island also promised to follow suit. If this favourable wind reaches out to other provinces, if as promised Quebec does solve its bilingual sign problem, and if this Conservative Government finds the political will needed to put on the agenda its new Official Languages Bill, tremendous progress will have been accomplished in Canada in the area of language minority rights, thanks to the goodwill of Canadians.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the seventieth anniversary of the Russian revolution is a cause for celebration in the Kremlin, but it marks 70 years of oppression for ethnic and religious minorities in the Soviet Union as well as for political dissidents and freedom fighters. It marks almost half a century of occupation of Latvia,
Estonia, and Lithuanuia. It means over four decades of the Red Army imposing governments on the countries of eastern Europe. It means the invasion of Afghanistan. It means becoming the world's leading exporter of arms.
According to the World Human Rights Guide, the Soviet Union scores a mark of only 20 per cent in spite of having signed the Helsinki Human Rights Accord.
[DOT] (M10)
Under Chairman Gorbachev there have been highly publicized releases of political prisoners, high on publicity but low on numbers.
The free world may still ask if the professed restructuring of Soviet society is any more than a facade to cover the old structure in which the Soviet people are still confined.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in the construction industry on Cape Breton Island is unacceptably high. The Cape Breton Building and Construction Trades Council has concluded that a government program designed to provide a program for older worker adjustment would be most appropriate for the workers represented by the Council.
Since the relative boom years of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when union membership was 25 per cent higher than the present levels, employment prospects for workers in the construction industry in Cape Breton have been bleak.
Many of the 4,500 workers represented by the 14 unions affiliated with the Cape Breton Building and Construction Trades Council have been forced by economic conditions to lead a "merry-go-round" existence which sees them repeating a cycle of short term employment, unemployment insurance, welfare, short term employment, and so on.
At the present time 25 per cent of union members are employed, leaving 3,375 unemployed.
The inevitable consequences of these unstable and marginal employment prospects include stress, ill-health and family breakdown.
I call on the Government of Canada to implement the program it announced several years ago with regard to older workers' adjustment. Stop negotiating with the provinces and start providing some action for older workers.

November 2, 1987



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Members of the "New Socialist Party" of Canada are acting like lemmings, blindly following ideology and policies which are archaic and myopic regarding the future of Canada.
The New Democrats should take time to examine the record of other socialist Governments. Take NATO and free trade. The NATO Alliance was created by a group of nations, many of which were socialist. When the EEC was created, almost half the countries had socialist Governments. It is very evident that these socialist countries placed the well-being of their people in the forefront.
The point is very simple. NATO is there to ensure that our democratic system of government continues to survive. The European Community realized very early that trade barriers would inhibit their nations' economic growth and hurt their people. They found that when they lowered the trade barriers the distinct European societies, both large and small, were not threatened. Cultural identities, monetary policies, armed forces, and government, all continue to function as before. The only thing that changed was how their people benefited from the improved economic climate.
The NDP should look at the EEC's economic success instead of listening to the Bob Whites of the world whose interests are very narrow. Free trade will give Canada a very healthy future.
In agreeing to this type of non-reciprocal elimination of trading advantages, the Government has once again failed to act in the best interest of Canada's agricultural producers.




Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are used to mindless opposition, solely for the sake of opposition, from the NDP. This is only to be expected from a party of misfits and losers.
What surprises them is that the Liberals have thrown in their lot with the NDP and adopted the same tactics with respect to the free trade agreement.
"The first thing we will do is to rip up the pact", declares the Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner), in the unlikely event that they ever form the Government. The only thing that this statement indicates to Canadians is that the left-wing rat pack has taken control of the Liberal Party.
Thoughtful analysis has been cast aside, constructive criticism has been abandoned, and the interests of Canadians have been trampled underfoot by an Official Opposition bent only on becoming more obstructionist and reactionary than the NDP, and consequently on its own destruction.

*
* *



CANOLA PRODUCTS-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, canola producers in Canada have lost ground in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
The loss of the Western Grain Transportation Program for the transport of canola products to the United States via Vancouver increases the export cost and therefore decreases the value at crushing plants by amounts that range from $25 a tonne in Alberta to between $35 and $38 a tonne for Saskatchewan and Manitoba processors, effective January 1, 1989. Some in the industry also feel that canola oil, only recently accepted for human use in the United States, will be similarly affected.
Canada will be taking a massive cut in its ability to ship canola products. However, it will take 10 years for the U.S. tariff on Canadian shipments of canola oil to be phased out.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, last week's decision by the Public Service board which ordered the Government to reinstate Toronto immigration officer, John Quigley, provides a happy ending to what was a very ugly episode. Mr. Quigley was fired back in January for having brought to my attention, after his superiors failed to act, that the Government was inviting people with criminal records to apply for refugee status.
The Government stopped the practice only after the affair was made public, but it nevertheless felt obligated to dismiss Mr. Quigley in order to ease its embarrassment and to intimidate any other officers. The ruling confirms that the politically motivated firing was wrong and unjustified.
I also wish to say to the board's vice-chairman who made the ruling, and who regrettably questioned my judgment and the role of MPs in such issues, that I make no apologies whatsoever for my actions. Given the same circumstances, the

November 2, 1987
Oral Questions
same stubborn Government, unwilling to admit and to correct a serious error, I would do it all over again without changing a single beat. After all, the ultimate statement on my actions is by the same Government which put a halt to the questionable practice. It therefore rendered itself guilty all on its own a long time ago.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON PLAIN PEOPLE

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once said: "God must have loved the plain people: He made so many of them". The plain people mentioned by Lincoln are the rank and file, the ordinary people, the workers.
Today I want to talk about the plain people. I believe I can speak for them because I am one of them. Common people have a tough time making both ends meet. They are not flush with this world's goods and many live from hand to mouth. Any reduction in the things they have to buy is a godsend. That is why free trade is attractive to the rank and file. Most, if not all, of the things they buy will be cheaper under free trade.
It will be a bonanza for the young couple planning marriage, as washing machines, dishwashers, bed sheets, furniture, et cetera will save them a lot of dollars. There will be jobs, and opportunities to advance as Canadians as we will lose no sovereignty.
Free trade will open the doors to a whole new world for Canada and Canadians. That is why the PC Party is fighting the Liberals, the New Democrats and the leaders of the trade unions. We want the workers to have a future, a great future. Free trade can give it to them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, first we were told that the final text of the Canada- United States trade agreement would be available in October. Then, we were told that it might not be ready before the end of November. Now, it was reported last weekend that we might not receive the final, legal text before the Parliamentary Committee has completed its public hearings.
According to the Minister of International Trade, everything we need to know about this agreement is contained in the document entitled Elements of Agreement. On page 17 of this document, we find that Canada and the United States "have agreed on a text which would enhance our mutual rights and obligations under the GATT and Standards Code".
I the two countries have indeed agreed on a text, where is it? [English]


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as I told the committee last week, we expect to have the agreement between Canada and the U.S. filed some time between the beginning and the end of November. I do not know if that is what the hon. gentleman's question addresses or not, but that is how I understood it.


SERVICE INDUSTRIES-NEED FOR FINAL TEXT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister still thinks that the people who will be appearing before the committee do not need a more precise text in order to analyse the affect of the agreement on their own particular businesses and professions. We take the position that the country and the elements of the country need a final text in order to appear intelligently before the committee.
I wish to refer to page 19 of the same document where it states that Canada and the United States "have agreed to complete a final text", and it lays out a set of disciplines covering a large number of service sectors.
Since the service industries-transportation, insurance, banks, and the computer industry are the fastest growing areas of our economy-do not have a final text, and since the people in these industries need to know what the effect of the agreement is in precise terms upon their industries and companies before they appear before the public committee, then I say to the Minister, if the two parties have agreed to a final text, where is the final text? Where is the document upon which people can make intelligent appraisals and decisions in detail affecting their industries, before this committee?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think we should point out to the House that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not need a text before he decided to walk away from the deal, then to tear up the deal, and now this weekend to renegotiate the deal. He managed to take three completely different positions on the free trade agreement without ever actually seeing the text at all.
In regard to the service industries, I could point out to the Right Hon. Member some of the comments that have been made by members of the service industries. Chris Greene, the President of the Canadian Association of Management Consultants, stated, "I am very, very excited with our world-
November 2, 1987

class expertise and our Canadian structures. I think it will have a block-buster effect on our clients and our professionals".
William Shields, the Executive Director of the Royal Architectural Institute, stated, "We are delighted, because otherwise we would have to go to every state and province and lobby for these changes".
People in these industries are on record as supporting the agreement that we made in services, and they are looking forward to being able to operate in the future under the terms of the free trade agreement.


DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, people who need absolute detail, before deciding on the basis of advice that they receive from their lawyers, accountants, and bankers to appear before this committee, need a final text.
On the current timetable of the Minister, and particularly reinforced by stories this weekend, the text will not be available before the committee hearings conclude.
Let us look at another page of this document as it relates to the so-called dispute settlement mechanism. With respect to this mechanism, the documents upon which a final decision has to be made, say "The provisions of this part shall apply .. . except as provided in the Annex". That is to say, the dispute mechanism shall apply to a list of things, "except as provided in the annex".
I turn to the annex and all it has is "AD/CVD/Financial Services". There is no complete annex. There is no annex at all. There is no way that any industry or company in this country looking at this document can ascertain whether the dispute mechanism would apply to its their particular situation.
Once again, how are people going to be able to comment on the purview and content of this agreement without a final text that spells it out a little further than this blank annex in this current agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the elements of the agreement with me here in the House, but I can answer to the dispute settlement mechanism.
As outlined in the "Elements of the Agreement" which we have tabled in the House, it covers three particular circumstances. First, it covers disputes arising out of the agreement itself, and it shows how those disputes would be dealt with. Second, it deals with the disputes that arise specifically out of trade remedies such as countervail and anti-dumping. Third, it deals with disputes in the area of financial services.
Oral Questions
I hope that that information is useful to the Right Hon. Member.


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, piy question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade.
A few days ago the Chairman of the Manitoba Motor Transport Board stated that the free trade agreement proposal will lead to the "complete domination pf our highway transport industry by Americans".
The President of the Ontario Trucking Association stated that it lias "the potential to devastate the Ontario trucking industry and the Canadian trucking industry". Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake.
Why is it that the Government in its agreement initialled with the United States did not take into account the provisions of the new transportation legislation, which the House passed just three months ago, that provided for a complete review of all takeovers and acquisitions in the trucking industry at a threshold of $10 million, in order to provide protection for truckers against total takeovers?
Why did Ministers not take that into account in the agreement which they initialled? Why did they wipe it out? Why are they wiping out the jobs of all those truckers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I reject entirely the claim that is being made by the Hon. Member in this regard. Therefore, there is nothing that I can comment on at this time.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister's rejection is just a clear admission of error, of fault, and of grievous injustice which will be done to the trucking industry.


EXEMPTIONS FOR UNITED STATES MARITIME INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, why was it in negotiating this agreement that the Americans were able to gain exemptions for their maritime industry, which were entrenched and grandfathered in the agreement, but we were not able to get similar protection or exemption provisions for our trucking industry?
Could the Minister explain that major discrepancy and advantage which the Americans got over the Canadians in the very crucial transportation area?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may not be aware of the fact that since this Government took power we have been deregulating in the area of transportation. I would refer him to the measures we have taken in this regard.

November 2, 1987
Oral Questions
In terms of the Jones Act, the Americans ring-fenced that provision as something they are not able to deal with at this time, in the same manner that we ring-fenced those interests that are important to us, such as retaining Canadian ownership of energy, for instance, a point which the Hon. Member often overlooks.


TWO-PRICE WHEAT SYSTEM
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise some questions with the Minister for International Trade with regard to a whole set of ambiguities and uncertainties which exist with the text of the agreement in front of us but with no actual detailed outline of what has been negotiated.
I should like to start, if I may, by asking the Minister to try to clear up an ambiguity in respect of our two-price wheat system. Before the committee on Thursday Mr. Reisman said that two-price wheat was not something we had to worry about and that it would continue. Yet, on Friday, the Minister responsible for grains indicated quite clearly to the House that there was a clear possibility of the two-price system disappearing quite quickly. Mr. Devine, the Premier of Saskatchewan, has indicated the same. What is the situation here?
I ask the Minister to clear up this ambiguity and to tell Canadians and farmers across the country what they face in the future.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, there is no ambiguity at all. I refer the Hon. Member to the statement made in the House in Question Period last week by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board in which he said that it was too soon to tell what will happen to the two-price system under the proposed free trade deal. He pointed out and made very clear that if it comes under pressure as the tariffs go down, grain farmers would be compensated for any benefits they might lose under any trade deal. He made that point very clearly and repeatedly in reply to the questions he was asked.


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps I should send a dictionary across to the Minister to indicate what uncertainty or ambiguity actually means, because her answer has just described it perfectly.


TRANSPORTATION ANNEX TO AGREEMENT-REPORTED PUBLICATION IN UNITED STATES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a second question for this Minister. There has been leaked in the United States a transportation annex to the agreement. It has been published with a fair amount of detail in business publications in the United States, yet transportation groups within this country are not able to respond to the details of that transportation annex. It is not something which has been put to the public.
Will she see to it that that transportation annex is published in its present form so that transport groups and companies can react, speak out, and give their sense of what this agreement is all about?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the transportation annex about which the Hon. Member speaks. It is not clear from his question whether it is an American transportation annex or a Canadian transportation annex. I will have to ask him to be a little more explicit about the nature of the annex since I am not aware of it.


QUERY CONCERNING TERMINATION CLAUSE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the ambassador and the deputy ambassador speaking to the committee on Thursday spoke of the transportation annex being negotiated. The fact that the Minister does not know about it frankly is scandalous.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: That is not what she said.


Steven W. Langdon: I ask the Minister a third question with respect to the details of this agreement.
[ Translation]
Will the Minister now tell us when this agreement will be completed? Will it be in one, two, four or five years? What is the answer?


Mr. Nystrom:: Soon.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Hon. Member has attributed to me something that I did not say. I said very clearly that his question did not indicate whether he was talking about an American annex or a Canadian annex and I asked him to clarify that. I think it is scandalous from that position he would impute that I was unaware of the evidence of our ambassadors to the trade committee. May I point out that any annex, including a transportation annex will, of course, be published when the full agreement is published.
In terms of his question about the termination clause, I have said several times in this House that that will be negotiated in the final agreement. I have pointed out several times in the House that the U.S. trade law restricts that kind of clause to six months. There are discussions taking place about how a longer termination clause can be provided for in this agreement. That is one of the things being undertaken in these discussions which will take the "Elements of the Agreement" and present in a final text which will be presented to Parliament.
November 2, 1987


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that even though he did not walk with us in Sept-Iles on Saturday, the Prime Minister still got cold feet, and in his absence, I shall address my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. For some days now, the Minister has assured us that he would have an answer for us and that he would examine the problems of the people of Sept-iles. 1 had informed him that there would be a major demonstration and that the people of Sept-Iles would have a clear and specific message for the Government. After the demonstration on Saturday, and I imagine that the Prime Minister must have panicked, I would like to ask the Minister if he can give us any news today.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I told my hon. colleague, on October 22, I met with the economic participants in the Sept-Iles region who told me about their concerns for economic development. At the time, I very clearly indicated that I had asked for an economic development plan not only for Sept-Iles, but for the whole North Shore. This economic development plan is progressing well. I expect to receive it this week and to have it approved by Cabinet within a few weeks. Indeed, I have promised the people of Sept-Iles this plan for December and there is now no reason to believe that they will have to wait any longer than that.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, after that answer, it is not surprising if the galleries are getting empty.


INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The people in Sept-Iles who met with your predecessor, the Minister of Finance and yourself did not ask for a sophisticated plan that could only be delivered by Santa Claus but for something as simple as an investment tax credit. Did you discuss it with your desk mate, the Minister of Finance? Are you going to deliver it, yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, obviously we are going to deliver an economic and development plan which will boost the whole economy of the area. I shall quote the last paragraph of a letter from the Port-Cartier Chamber of Commerce to my hon. colleague, in which he was told: "We remind you that concrete and sustained action is required to win people's confidence and that it is improper to take them hostage for political purposes." I wish that my hon. colleague would remember that. This letter tells it all and I hope you will keep it.
Oral Questions


INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT-CITIZENS OF SEPT-ILES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, 7,000 people in Sept-Iles put a very clear and precise question to the Government. Does the Government intend to give them the instrument required for the economic renewal of the area, that is the investment tax credit which is available to other areas with a similar unemployment rate?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when you talk about economic development, more than one single instrument is involved. Recently, we acted with the Western Diversification Office and the Atlantic Development Agency. We already have a plan for Eastern of the Quebec. I recently announced the official opening of a new agency for Northern Ontario. As I indicated to my colleague of the Official Opposition a few minutes ago, we are putting the finishing touch to the measures and details of a development plan for the whole north shore region. It is a disadvantaged region which deserves our attention, but which deserves more than simply an economic expansion tool, which deserves a series of economic expansion mechanisms designed to create jobs and attract the kind of investments it needs to achieve its full potential.


SEPT-ILES REGION'S NEEDS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RESPOND IN BETTER MANNER
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, other regions benefit from investment tax credits, so why not the Sept-Iles region? Why only vague promises instead of a response to clear, specific and fair claims? Why not respond to the needs of that region?


Robert René de Cotret: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is respond to the needs of the region. The needs of the region are enormous, and we intend to implement a series of programs and policies to enable the people of the region to fulfill the kind of potential they are entitled to achieve in the very near future.


COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY-ACCESS TO CANADIAN MARKET
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government of Canada has heralded the continental energy policy as an important plank in the free trade agreement. This

November 2, 1987
Oral Questions
continental policy means a free flow of energy goods between Canada and the United States.
How is it that the Government of Canada is prepared to allow American refineries wide open access to the Canadian market and at the same time, through Petro-Canada, is denying the Come-by-Chance oil refinery in Newfoundland access to the Canadian market for the next 25 years?
Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to admit today that under the Petro-Canada contract and following the imposition of a free trade agreement the Come-by-Chance oil refinery in Newfoundland, in the country's poorest province, will be the only refinery in the nation, in fact the only refinery in North America, that will not be allowed access to the Canadian market? What kind of discrimination is that, insane discrimination, against Canada's poorest province?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was asked last week and answered by the Minister of Transport. I think he dealt with it very fully.


RESTRICTION ON SALE OF PRODUCT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Government preaches a policy of regional development and practises a policy of regional disparity and discrimination. Given that Air Canada, a Crown corporation; Marine Atlantic, a Crown corporation; Quebec Hydro, New Brunswick Hydro, P.E.I. Hydro and a host of others have all tried to buy product from the Come-by-Chance oil refinery in Newfoundland but have been refused because of the restrictive clauses enforced by Petro-Canada at the request of the Minister of Energy, when will the Government wake up, remove these discriminatory clauses and allow Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province, to realize its full potential in the refining industry? Why carry on with this policy of discriminating against Canada's poorest citizens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Hon. Member was criticizing the Government-


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is not Fantasyland, it's Newfoundland. Wake up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member would want to extend to the Minister the same courtesy that was extended to the Hon. Member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there have been criticisms coming from the other side about the Government not doing anything to facilitate the opening of the Come-by-Chance refinery and this Government took an initiative to see that that occurred. In so far as his comments about this Government's
failure to respond to regional disparities are concerned, I think the record clearly shows that a number of initiatives-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why the restrictions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why the restrictions? The Minister of Transport answered that question very fully. I regret that the Hon. Member does not accept that answer. He can certainly take issue with it, but that is the fact-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You can remove them and your problem is solved.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With respect to the Hon. Member's criticism of this Government's regional economic expansion initiatives, I think the record clearly speaks for itself. It has been elaborated on by the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. The Atlantic Opportunities Agency is operating, the Western Diversification Program is operating, the Northern Ontario Economic Development Program is in operation, and IRDAs have been negotiated with all 10 provinces. We are attempting to do more in terms of procurement. The list goes on and on.
The Hon. Member knows that unemployment in his province has dropped by probably four to five percentage points since this Government assumed office.


FINANCE
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Last week, in spite of the world staring into the ugly face of potential recession, only one question of the 54 the Opposition asked dealt with this possible economic crisis. I now ask the Minister, in view of authorities such as Henry Kaufman claiming that the investment industry may need re-regulating to take into account the unprecedented globalization of that industry, what initiatives is the Government, along with the provinces, now considering to stabilize the investment market and possibly to forestall any future investment earthquakes?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his interest in this important matter. I would say that two-thirds of the Government's task at the federal level has been accomplished already with Bill C-42 and Bill C-56 whereby we put in place a stronger supervisory system for financial institutions. We also improved the prudent portfolio regime for financial institutions, plus, of course, measures for controlling conflict of interest and self-dealing, and we put in place new investment
November 2, 1987

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION
rules. All of this has been accomplished by those two Bills and a third Bill which we will introduce in the next month.
1 have also been in touch with my provincial counterparts to ascertain what we can do with the provinces because, of course, they regulate the securities exchanges. I have talked to most of them and a number of fruitful ideas will be pursued at our next meeting.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It also deals with regional fairness and equal treatment.
Today figures were released showing that western Canada's share of supply and service contracts has gone down from 14.2 per cent to 11.8 per cent in the past two years, meaning that it is even worse than it was during the Liberals' years under Mr. Trudeau. Since we in western Canada represent nearly 30 per cent of the population of this country, why are we receiving only 11.8 per cent of national contracts from the Department? Why does the Government not treat Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Territories more fairly?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question and fully acknowledge that there is an imbalance in terms of procurement. Steps are being taken to correct this. For example, in 1986-87 western firms received about $1 billion worth of contracts and this represented an increase of about 25 per cent over the previous year. I am also happy to report that the number of active suppliers in western Canada has increased by some 50 per cent.
I should say at the outset that one of the things that we as a Government attempted to do was to address the very fundamental problems affecting western Canada in the agriculture sector, the energy sector, and the investment sector. By dismantling FIRA we have now been able to attract a lot of foreign investment dollars into that part of the country and that is creating jobs and economic activity. We have redressed the transportation policies and of course have brought forth a proposal to enhance trade with the United States and with other countries.
I think those are very fundamental steps that are welcomed in western Canada and indeed endorsed by western Canada. The fact is that we do have a slight imbalance in terms of procurement and I acknowledge that. I can also assure the Hon. Member that steps are being taken to redress that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that nearly 30 per cent of the population is in western Canada. I want to know why we got only 11.8 per cent of the share. Why is western Canada's share declining? Specifically, what will the Government do to make sure that we in the West get our fair share? It is even worse now than it was two years ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I outlined some specific steps that were being taken, and I can also include the western diversification initiative which is encouraging and motivating many high technology companies and companies that had not heretofore done business with the federal Government to become involved in bidding on government contracts. The western diversification initiative, besides being a program for further economic development, is also used as a pathfinder in terms of utilization of existing programs and procurement policies, and the results are starting to show.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and it concerns the deal that allowed the Hongkong Bank of Canada to exclude $200 million from income for tax purposes. In the proceedings of this House and the Senate last year, there is no hint that the $200 million was to be given tax-free, yet we now know that is how the deal was cut. Will the Minister tell the House why he withheld this information from Parliament?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that I did not withhold any information of that sort from Parliament. In fact this particular question was pursued and discussed in Committee of the Whole and also in the Senate. The Hon. Member knows that what we bought in this particular instance for $200 million was a guarantee from the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, one of the largest banks in the world. The money goes to its address, and if it isoffshore it is removed taxed offshore. The Hon. Member knows that. There is no mystery to that.
Miss Nicholson (Trinity). Mr. Speaker, I have been through Hansard and the Senate records very carefully and never was there a hint that this money was being paid to anyone but the Hongkong Bank of Canada. The parent company was mentioned in terms of the security, but we were told this money was being paid to the Hongkong Bank of Canada and we were not told it would be tax-free. As for the

November 2, 1987
Oral Questions
quality of the deal, that is not at issue. It may have been a wise decision, but what is at issue is the method.


FAIRNESS OF TAX SYSTEM-GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. He has said Governments have a particular responsibility to ensure the tax system is perceived by all taxpayers to be fair. Does the Minister think that taxpayers will perceive as fair a secret deal with a foreign bank which allows it to receive $200 million tax-free from a Crown corporation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I have made it very clear that our motivation was to save a bank. The Hongkong and Shanghai banking corporation was the only entity in the Hongkong family of companies that could give the necessary guarantees. As I said on Friday, we have made clear the elements of the deal and I do not think the way it was done should undermine the tax system in any way.


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance on the same issue. On October 27 the Minister told this House that the deal was so complicated that:
-no one, if they had asked, would have been able to figure out the tax
implications .. . Those questions were not asked and not considered because
the problem was quite different.
Yet on Friday the Minister of Finance admitted to the country that the Department of Finance knew all along that the deal was structured in such a way as to enable the Hongkong Bank of Canada to avoid paying $100 million in taxes.
Did the Minister know that the deal was structured to save that bank $100 million when he stated in the House that he was not aware of the tax implications?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement was not structured to avoid taxes. Let me explain the contradiction that he thinks is there.
First, with respect to the payment going to an address offshore, that means the offshore bank would be paying taxes offshore. The comment I was making was that the structure of the Hongkong Bank of Canada, put together with the Bank of British Columbia, was such that it was very difficult to tell how much capital it had, what its provisioning would be, what its taxable position would be. Therefore my comment was about the Canadian subsidiary, and that of the Minister of Finance was about the parent.


REVENUE CANADA RULING
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is really a question of integrity. Can this Government not do something that is straight, honest and above-board, qnd not attempt to shift the burden from CDIC to the backs of taxpayers, which
you have done in structuring this deal in the way you have structured it? The question also is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question and put it properly and not slip into using the personal pronoun.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, was the Minister aware that several days before the deal was signed, and several days before he stood up in the House and said there were no tax implications to this deal, the Department of National Revenue, in a letter to the Hongkong Bank's Canadian subsidiary, had already ruled that the $200 million payment to the Hongkong Bank to aid in the takeover would not be taxable?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, again there is a need for clarification because there is great confusion implicit in that question.
The comment I was replying to was to the effect that if the CDIC makes a payment, that somehow affects taxpayers. The CDIC is funded by member institutions. Therefore it is their funds, not taxpayer funds, that are used. That was the clarification I was making.
Finally, we went to all the major Canadian financial institutions, Schedule A banks included, to try to find a buyer for this bank. We could not find one here. We finally found one offshore. As a result, we saved the bank, saved the jobs of 1,500 employees, and saved a regional financial institution.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM-REPORTED SALE OF WHEAT TO ALGERIA
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement the U.S. undertakes to take Canada's interest into account when it uses its export subsidy programs. Yet today we learned that the U.S. has funded the sale of some 525,000 tonnes of wheat under its Export Enhancement Program in two sales to Algeria. Why does the U.S. continue to break the agreement, and what is the Government doing to ensure that it lives up to the terms of the agreement in using its export subsidy program, which is not only stealing away Canadian markets but is driving down the price Canadian farmers receive for their grain?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Export Enhancement Program is a matter of concern to us all. I raised it in a vigorous discussion with Mr. Shultz a little over a week ago when I was in Brussels. I have heard reports with respect to a sale to Algeria. There was an intervening report that they had backed away from that, but I would have to check to see if they have attempted to use the Export Enhancement Program in this
November 2, 1987

way. In any event, as we have discussed before, that is not a new program.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows it is not a new program. Obviously the Government did not get a firm commitment that the U.S. would not use it. However, I wonder what kind of commitment the Minister got from Mr. Shultz. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, at about the same time the Minister was meeting with Mr. Shultz, said the U.S. was going to continue to use this program and gain more markets. There was no indication it was going to take Canada's interests into account at all. This is in direct defiance of the agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the agreement is concerned, we have been through this before and there is a difference of interpretation which has to do precisely with the question of whether this is a new program.
Regarding the application of the Export Enhancement Program, we do not like that practice. We will continue to make our case and we hope to be able to win that case. So far we have not. As the Hon. Member knows, the fact that the U.S. has been using this program against traditional Canadian markets and others has not stopped Canada from being very aggressive and very successful in international grain sales.
Oral Questions


DOMINION MARINE ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST FOR ACTION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government should be aware of the situation and should not have to take this as notice. The Dominion Marine Association is calling for action and my colleagues have been pressing the Government to take action on behalf of western Canada.
When does the Deputy Prime Minister plan to take action in order to ensure that our grain handling system is up to the task it faces so we can avoid the discrimination between Canadian ports which Thunder Bay is suffering from at the moment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that grain shipments have been at an all-time record high. That applies to the movement of grain out of both our major Ports of Vancouver and Thunder Bay. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that movements are up, in the order of 35 to 40 per cent. I think that is a pretty good record.
In any event I will certainly look into the matter and get back to the Member, 1 hope later this week.
* *
*


RAILWAYS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He is undoubtedly aware that for more than a month the railways have failed to deliver enough grain to the Port of Thunder Bay to meet commitments there. Ships have been lying idle in the harbour and workers on lay-off when they would like to be at work moving grain into the ships. Last Thursday the Dominion Marine Association called for a public inquiry into the grain transportation agency.
When does the Government intend to recognize the need for more hopper cars on the Prairies in order to move grain? In particular, when does it plan to ensure that the CNR is up to the challenge it faces in keeping our grain moving?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, four ships are now being loaded, while eight are idle. We are indeed very concerned about the situation the Hon. Member just mentioned.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Is it true that the GATT might soon become inoperative because member states such as the United States and Italy have not paid their dues? Does this concern the Government of Canada? Before we cast the first stone, are we current with our subscription?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are in a position to cast stones, if necessary, on this issue because we certainly have paid our GATT assessment. We were one of the first countries to pay the 1987 GATT assessment. We are looking to pay the 1988 GATT assessment as soon as possible because of the problems which the GATT has experienced due to the failure of certain countries to pay their membership dues.
This illustrates the fact that we place a lot of importance on the GATT as our multilateral trade institution. We were a founding member of it and are one of the leading proponents of reform of the GATT. That has been acknowledged by the GATT in assigning Canada a very high profile role in the fortieth anniversary of the GATT which is coming up soon.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier followed by a question from the Hon. Member for Don Valley East, and that will close off Question Period.


WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Calgary Winter Games that will be held from February 13 to 28, 1988, less than three months from now.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the CBC's English network has an agreement for television broadcasting of the games in English, one hour a day for sixteen days, across Canada. There has been no agremeent with the French network for a similar service.
I would like to ask the Minister whether he agrees with the letter the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Jelinek) circulated, and I will quote the letter verbatim:
"As you know, the Government of Canada has a one-third interest in the Fifteenth Olympic Winter Games. It has contributed about $200 million in non-tax revenue, in addition to central services".
Doesn't the Government consider television broadcasting in English and French an essential service for this country, when an event as important as the Olympic Games is concerned?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Government considers it very important that coverage of the Winter Olympics in Calgary be in both official languages. It is important to advise the House that the problems which developed with the agreement were as a result of broadcasting rights which were awarded by the former Government.
I understand that a solution was proposed to the joint committee last week and that an agreement arrived at among CANCOM, the CRTC, and the cable companies will provide comparable Olympic coverage to Francophones and Anglophones throughout Canada.


REQUEST FOR COVERAGE IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first, the Olympic committee gave the rights, not the Government. Second, not all francophone communities in Canada have access to French language cable. There is no access to French language cable in Newfoundland, B.C., Manitoba, New Brunswick, and parts of Ontario-my own province. It
is unsatisfactory to say that they will receive coverage through cable. It is a cop-out.
Will the Minister and his Government make it possible for the Olympic Games, which received $200 million, to make an agreement with CBC and Radio Canada, to which 99 per cent of all Canadians have access whether they speak French or English, so that Canadians have access to the games in their own language?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the question addresses the point which I made at the beginning of my answer. The Government believes that Canadians of both official language groups have the right to full Olympic coverage. I gave the Hon. Member the information on the work that was being done. Personnel from the Department of Communications are working with the CBC in an effort to resolve the problem and ensure that the coverage is as requested by the Hon. Member.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and is with regard to the inordinate increases in bank service charges. I refer to such things as rental of safety deposit boxes. A $2 increase may not sound like much, but when added to an original charge of $2.50 it is an 80 per cent increase.
Has the Chairman heard similar complaints, especially from lower-income people or senior citizens? Would he consider putting this issue on the agenda of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs for analysis and possible investigation?


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the committee is nearly finished its work on tax reform and will be studying other matters, in particular this issue which has been brought to the attention of myself and other committee members and is causing the committee members some concern. It seems that charges are unreasonable and that something ought to be done about that. Perhaps they ought to be investigated.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-&7, an Act respecting the imposition of
November 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
duties and customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if I could have an elaboration of the ruling made this morning. I wanted to stand and make comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) last Friday. It had been my intention to do so last Friday afternoon, but the time ran out. I, therefore, wanted to do it this morning. It was not my intention to ask any questions, only to make some comments.
The Standing Orders are silent on this matter. Would the Chair elaborate on its ruling in order that we could prepare ourselves?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has made a ruling and as soon as I receive the precedents I will pass them along to the Hon. Member.
When the House rose at 1.07 p.m. the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had the floor on debate. Since she is not in the House, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in debate on Bill C-87 which is a Bill respecting the imposition of customs and other charges. The Bill has to do with providing relief against the imposition of certain duties. By this Act we are revising our present and very complex system of describing and coding commodities that go into international trade. It has been well documented for a long while that goods often fall into more than one of these categories. That, of course, causes confusion and does not help in attaining what we all want, that is, fair and easier multinational trade.
It should be noted that Bill C-87 is part of a multilateral agreement that was worked out among the EEC countries, the United States of America, Japan, and Canada. Work on the revision of this complicated code began in Canada in 1981. The actual international negotiations began in October of 1986, and the changes that we have in Bill C-87 were negotiated with Canada's trading partners which belong to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
What will Bill C-87 do for the country? What will it do for our exporters and our importers? It will make it easier for them to classify goods. It will reduce the number of classification appeals which are always expensive and time consuming. Of course, no one in the world of business is particularly keen on a great deal of government red tape. Therefore, the passage of this Bill should make it easier to do business and trade with the European Economic Community, Japan and our largest
Customs Tariff
and most important of all trading partners, that is, the United States of America.
It is almost unnecessary for anyone to say that Canada is a trading nation, but recognizing that fact is absolutely essential in understanding our national economy. Our prosperity depends essentially on how much of our goods and services we can sell throughout the world, whether it is in Europe, Asia- including the market in China which is opening up-Latin America or the United States.
Interestingly enough, our exporters do not have to work quite as hard at finding a market in the United States as they do in some parts of the world.
It has become very easy for us to do business with the Americans. While I could be challenged on this observation, I believe that sometimes it has led to a certain laziness or lack of ambition of some exporters to try to find those more difficult markets abroad.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that wonderful occasion when I was under your leadership on a very important visit to the People's Republic of China. You may recall that questions were raised with the delegation about why our business people in Canada were not more energetic. We were asked why they do not try harder when there are business opportunities for them in China.
We were told that the Chinese like Canada because of what it did a long while ago in leading the western world in the recognition of the legitimacy of the Chinese Government. We were asked why Canadian businessmen did not take advantage of that fact.
That is a good question and one that I cannot answer. Perhaps a clue lies in the fact that we have had it so easy both in the past and in the present in doing business with the United States that we do not try harder in some other parts of the world.
This afternoon we are debating the principle of Bill C-87. It seems to me that the principle is basically sound. First, it is that multilateral trade is essential because we in Canada, as trading nation, would never want to put ourselves in a position of being locked into doing business with a single customer.
I suggest that anyone in business would be just a little worried if their goods were sold to one buyer. If that customer decided to operate differently, what would become of the supplier?
It is always healthier to diversify, and the approach Canada must take is to trade as widely as possible throughout the world and leave no potential market unexploited. We have good products to sell and there are good business people in this country. We do not want to miss any area of the world where a Canadian product could be provided.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
The easier and freer the trade in most cases, the better it is for Canada. I recognize, however, that there are certain circumstances where certain regions of the country with a certain product at a certain time may require a degree of protection. However, it should always be emphasized to those people that the protection must be temporary in nature as a means to become established. It should not be regarded as a permanent government protection.
We are beginning a national debate on a new trade deal between Canada and the United States. A number of questions can be asked about this agreement which I believe relate directly to the principle of the Bill before us. There are questions that I want to pose: Does the new trade agreement that has been negotiated with the United States really provide freer and easier access to the U.S. market? Does it really save us from the threat of U.S. protectionism which is growing and causing a good deal of concern in our country? Does it really give us any greater and wider access to the U.S. market than we have now? Does it mean that our tremendous trade surplus with the United States will become still greater?
As I listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promote the deal that he and his officials negotiated, I get the idea that our multi-billion dollar trade surplus-which I believe to be in the neighbourhood of $20 billion-will perhaps double. While I have not heard that exact prediction, it is the impression I get from listening to what has been promised. There will be an increase in the trade surplus and there will be more direct jobs as a result.
I want to make some preliminary comments on the initial transcript of the elements of a Canada-U.S. agreement. That is all we can do since we do not yet have the details. I suggest that everything to be said about this agreement must be preliminary in nature.
First, the debate that is beginning to take shape will feature a number of leading characters in this country, including economists, academics, politicians, trade unionists, people from the business sector, agriculture and so on. It should be very clear that what we are debating in Canada is not free trade versus protectionism. If the debate is nothing else than that, I suggest that it will be a futile effort, largely a waste of time. While such a debate will stir the emotions on each side of the question, I do not think much will be accomplished.
It is generally agreed that freer and easier trade is better than locking ourselves into an isolationist cell. That would be absurd and could hardly be the subject of any kind of debate. Therefore, the debate in Canada should not be the highly academic one of free trade versus protectionism. That should be left for an assignment we might very well give to a first-year class in economics. But that is not the issue in this debate.
The real debate is the Canada-U.S. trade agreement that has been negotiated, what exists now, and what we could have if a better agreement had been negotiated. The questions we must ask are: For whom is this trade agreement good, for
whom is it not so good, and for whom is it downright dangerous and even damaging?
It is extremely difficult to speak definitively on this issue because we do not have all the details of the agreement. It seems to me rather premature for a Commons committee to begin an intensive study and analysis since we need the details in order to do that. We want to debate the question in terms of what is known. We do not want the debate to be hysterical in nature, we want it to be informed and balanced.
I suggest that once we have the full agreement, it is then vital and quite necessary that all the time necessary be set aside to see whether or not we have a good agreement. In other words, a timetable, a time restriction of a few weeks or a few months cannot be put on it. Let us have enough time. If we are doing something as important for the future of our nation as this trade agreement may be, we need time to consider for whom it will be detrimental and in what ways. Whose wellbeing will it contribute to in the economic terms of our nation? What threats are there, if any, to our sovereignty, to our political independence?
As we are drawn deeper and deeper into the U.S. economy acted out on the stage of a North American continentalism, what will be the benefits for Canada? What will be the gains and the losses? Surely, to raise those questions is in no way to be unfair to the Government. To raise those questions, it seems to me, is the responsibility of every citizen. It certainly is the responsibility of those who are elected to represent our citizens in the House of Commons. So each sector and each Canadian interest must carefully examine for itself or have done for it how the U.S.-Canada trade agreement will impact upon it.
The grape growers, for example, are concerned. Are their concerns legitimate? Are they well based in reality and in fact? The automobile workers are worried about the effects on the Auto Pact which has benefited them with secure jobs, in most cases, and reasonable benefits for the work they do. Canadians wonder whether our financial institutions will face the possibility of U.S. takeovers. If they are taken over by U.S. interests, what will this do to our banking system? Will it improve it or will it be detrimental to the banking system? Will we lose control if we no longer have the financial institutions under our jurisdiction fully and totally? Will somehow our economic control be diminished at the same time?
The agricultural critics on this side of the House have raised many important questions and concerns. They need to be answered. The Premier of Ontario and his Government are apprehensive, to put it mildly, about the possible effects of this Canada-U.S. trade agreement on a very healthy Ontario economy.
The list is a long one. But coming as I do from northern Ontario, which is a resource region of this country, I have some questions that my constituents are putting to me,
November 2, 1987

questions that need answers. Let me say at the beginning that I do not in any way fear a policy which gives the Americans the first option on the buying of Canadian resources. If they buy those resources which, first of all, we have all determined are excess to our domestic needs, and we have set them aside for export purposes to be purchased at fair market value by the Americans, our good friends, our friends with whom we are aligned internationally and in terms of defence arrangements, then to give them first option is not repugnant to me at all. It makes perfectly good sense. But when we do that, can we be assured by the Government in this debate that there will be no resource grabs?
What do I mean by that? Can we have the assurance that, if there is unrestricted investment from the United States in the development of our resources, we will still be able to control our own resource policy? Will we still be able to make those decisions that this amount of our resources is surplus, eligible for export, can be sold at a fair price, and the Americans can have first option? Can we have that assurance?
We in northern Ontario in recent years have been the beneficiaries of free trade. We have, for example, had free trade in pulp, paper, lumber and minerals. It was only in the 1980s that we were suddenly shocked, as if a pail of cold water had been thrown on our heads, by the U.S. countervail action on our softwood lumber. We fought and we won that action in the United States once before, before the International Trade Commission. It was expensive. It was time consuming. The Liberal Government of the day stood behind the industry and we were victorious. We thought that that was the end of it. But during this administration, countervail action, again from the U.S. coalition of lumber producers, has come forward, and this time for reasons that are still inexplicable to me. There was no fight in us. We could not stand up to the United States of America. We buckled under, and instead of going ahead with the countervail action and seeing if we could win it-and the chances were good that we would win-we gave in. We imposed upon ourselves, something very curious for a trading nation, a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), under questioning in this House, justified it by saying, "Well, at least we are keeping the money in the country". That is true enough. But that export tax has forced marginal operations to close. Four sawmills in my constituency were forced to close directly because of the 15 per cent. It is true that they were not big profit earners, but they were making their own way. They were providing jobs, and four of them closed. Another one that was scheduled to open never did. Therefore, the total is five.
With respect to the trade deal, the first question that I ask and the first telephone calls that I got from northern Ontario were to this effect. What does the new Canada-U.S. trade deal do for the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber? Here is the answer. The answer is that that arrangement is now locked into the agreement forever and a day. The parties have agreed that the free trade agreement does not impair or prejudice the exercise of any rights or enforcement measures arising out of
Customs Tariff
the 1986 softwood lumber memorandum of understanding. So an agreement that we thought was going to give us free trade in northern Ontario, that was going to give us relief from a 15 per cent export tax, we realize now is with us for all time to come.
Some very good analysis has been done on the free trade agreement. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said to me in answer to questions, "If we had had this new arrangement, if we had had this new binational panel in effect, then the problems that you had in northern Ontario, in B.C., the Maritime provinces and Atlantic Canada with the softwood lumber you would not have". A very reputable firm by the name of Osier, Hoskin & Harcourt has come to this conclusion with regard to the new trade arrangement:
If these rules had been in effect at the time of last year's U.S. subsidy case against exports of Canadian softwood lumber, the mechanism proposed under the agreement would not have led to any different result for Canadian exporters than that which occurred.
So the question that my constituents are asking is this. What have we gained for softwood lumber under this agreement? I have to tell them that we have not gained anything. All we have done now is to have carved it in stone. It is there as part of an international agreement for all time to come.
You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that I have very little time left. I just want to raise one other question. It has to do with where decisions will be made in the future. In British Columbia, the Government has tried to replace the 15 per cent tax with a higher stumpage fee. What they have ended up with is paying the higher stumpage fee plus the 15 per cent.


Mr. Greenaway:: Temporarily!


B. Keith Penner: That is right. Instead of paying $5 a thousand board feet to produce it, they are temporarily paying between $80 and $90. My hon. friend opposite was quite right to interject with "temporarily". Why. is it temporary? Why cannot the Minister for International Trade go to the United States and say, "You have raised your stumpage fees in British Columbia therefore you have a clean bill of health with respect to the 15 per cent export tax"? What she said to the industry was this. "First, I must clear it with Washington". The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) said the same thing in another respect. The Council of Forest Ministers in Canada has agreed that there can be a system of provincial levies to replace the 15 per cent export tax. They have gone to the Minister and said, "Here is our proposal". The Minister said, "On paper it looks good. But first of all I have to see if Washington and the U.S. lumber industry will say that it is adequate and it fulfils what they see as being necessary".
I wish to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that there is a warning here for all of us. It looks to me as if the Canada-U.S. trade agreement will mean that more and more decisions that affect various commodities and various aspects of our economy will first have to be cleared by Washington.

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
That worries me. It seems to me that that is a definition of having our sovereignty threatened. It does seem to me that we are losing our political independence. This is only a small signal. Perhaps it is only a little storm on the horizon. I wish to know, is that small storm going to be a full-blown tempest? If it is, Sir, on every side of the House and from every region of this country we all ought to be seriously concerned. We need to know the answers before we say yes to the Americans on this U.S.-Canada trade agreement that has been negotiated.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-87 before us today could be described as customs harmonization legislation. I imagine that, from the government side, it is a very routine and technical matter as it has been put forward. In reality, it is a matter of serious concern to Canadians.
It is interesting, when we go back in history, that the Customs Tariff has been an extremely important instrument of national and industrial policy in Canada. If my memory serves me correctly, the Customs Tariff, much the same as we see it in the format today, was inaugurated during the time of Sir John A. Macdonald under the national policy.
In those days the Conservatives had a national view of Canada. Indeed, Confederation was an attempt to unite the provinces of British North America against absorption by the United States. In those days the Conservatives had a vision of Canada. The Customs Tariff when it was developed in the national policy was part of this vision.
In order to prevent Canada from simply being a hewer of wood and carrier of water, the Conservative Government of the day imposed a Customs Tariff which forced American producers not only to export to Canada and totally overwhelm Canadian industry, but to develop industry in Canada in order to manufacture here, create employment, add value to the resources of this country, enrich people, and strengthen Canada.
That is a thumb-nail sketch of what the Conservative Party was formerly. It was nationalist, it developed Confederation, it developed a national industrial policy, and the Customs Tariff formed an integral part of that. It was absolutely opposed to free trade with the United States. It had a sense of long vision, and it knew what would be the end result of free trade with the Americans, with unimpeded access to the full Canadian market. It knew that we would be destroyed economically and industrially, and Canadian sovereignty would be gone.
It is interesting to see the complete reversal of roles as the modern-day Conservative Government for short-term alleged benefit would see Canada overwhelmed by the United States. The elephant and the mouse image is very clear that Canada will be overwhelmed by the United States. Today the Conservative Government does not have a national vision of Canada. It sees an integrated market, almost a great big North American cash register. It does not see the preservation of Canada as a major priority from an economic viewpoint,
and as that economic absorption occurs, certainly Canadian sovereignty will be lost. What we are looking at is far more that the economic amalgamation in Europe in the European Economic Community where in many cases partners are reasonably balanced and protective mechanisms are in place. With the over-hasty agreement, the enormous concessions, and the failure to develop the concept of what trade improvements with the United States should be, this Government has sold Canada down the river economically, and Canadian sovereignty will be gone if this deal moves forward.
My colleagues to the right in the Liberal Party, the old Grits of Canadian history, were free traders. It is interesting to see them wrap themselves in sheep's clothing today and stand up as opponents and spokespersons for Canadian nationalism and Canadian ownership and direction when, in fact, the Liberal Party of old was a Party of free traders. The present Leader of this Party, the Right Hon. Member who represents the riding of Vancouver Quadra from Toronto, wrote in a book not too many years ago that Canada should be seeking wide open free trade with the United States. In that same book, he indicated that the manner to entice Americans into such a free trade agreement was a give away of resources. He specifically mentioned a give away of water in the literature.
One must be very cautious. As ordinary Canadians watching the unfolding of the political drama over free trade in Ottawa, on the one hand we see that Conservatives, who used to be nationalists with a vision of Canada and a sense of responsibility to protect the Canadian economy, develop it, watch it flourish, and protect Canadian sovereignty, have now switched to being Liberals, free traders. On the other hand, the Liberals, who used to be free traders, are now telling us that they are Conservatives and that they have a vision of Canada. All this stems from the Customs Tariff, the proper development of it and using it to shape the operation of the Canadian economy.
During the period when the Liberals were in power, they recognized the complete sell-out of Canada in the sense that under their administration eventually they watched Americans come and obtain almost unrestricted acquisition of Canadian industry and the Canadian economy.
I recall reading at one time that Alastair Gillespie, when he was Minister of Energy, was asked in the House if there was any protection, any monitoring of American acquisition of Canadian industries. He stated, "Well, no, there is no formal one. My secretary, if she happens to see a clipping in a newspaper or magazine that is interesting, will clip it out and call it to my attention, but that is all the monitoring that goes on".
The end result of that type of attention from our free trading friends in the Liberal Party was that Canada lost a great deal of its sovereignty. We watched Americans come into this country, pick off a Canadian company that was competing in this market with them, and buy it, then they would shut it down. The operation would be served from the United States.
November 2, 1987

The Americans would come in to a Canadian company that was exporting overseas, doing the type of research, marketing, and innovative business activities that were required to make Canada a great nation to expand our export capabilities, and state that that company was competing with them. There was no restriction. They would buy the company and shut it down, or else they would insist that it serve only the Canadian market while the American parent company served the international exports. This is all part of the record. It is part of the history of the Liberal Party, and indeed also part of the Conservative history in Canada. It is well documented and absolutely true.
By unlimited investment in Canada, the Americans were able to shut down vigorous Canadian companies and provide the product from the United States. They were able to shut down vigorous Canadian companies that exported abroad, take those exports and insist that they be done from the United States and that the Canadian company, using U.S. parts, assemble a product in Canada and serve the Canadian market with it.
We do not have any serious misunderstanding about the intention of the Conservatives in this regard. Under the free trade agreement they have completely opened up foreign investment in Canada. The end result will be just as I have said-the Americans will come in now that customs tariffs will be removed, will buy Canadian companies, and will shut them down. That employment will go to the United States. American companies will shut down vigorous Canadian companies which are exporting products overseas. They will limit their activities to the Canadian market, force them into assembly operations rather than development, and indeed put an end to vigorous Canadian competition overseas.
It is a matter of size. Canadian banks have played an enormous role in this regard. It is well documented. Canadian banks would rather lend money to large U.S. multinational firms than they would to Canadian entrepreneurs, basically because of the large sack of cash on which American companies are sitting. American companies would not have to put up any cash to buy out Canadian companies. In fact, Canadian banks would be quite prepared to lend them the money to take over Canadian companies and to sell the soul of Canada for a small cut of interest from a secure borrower in the United States. The banks of Canada assisted the undoing of the nation in terms of foreign investment.
It goes even further. What about when the United States was plagued with balance of payments problems? We should be looking at the kinds of services allowed into the country. During the periods of Nixon and Johnson, they both encouraged American multinational companies to come to Canada and remove profits rather than invest them here. They were told to remove the profits and to sell services to their wholly owned subsidiaries. They were to sell legal services from American law firms, not from Canadian ones. It involved the whole range of services used by industry-engineering,
Customs Tariff
research, and advertising. It was almost an American policy to redress its balance of payments during the Vietnam War. It forced branch plants in Canada to acquire all their services to whatever degree they could in the United States in order to ensure that the money flowed out of Canada and did not wind up in the pockets of Canadian service organizations, consultants, engineers, researchers, lawyers, or accountants. Those professional groups watched as the money flowed across the border and into the United States.
What we have before us today is a Conservative Government advocating not only that that happen but that the whole process be accelerated. It is absolutely dishonest.
I imagine that the Government will roam the country telling Canadians that the free trade agreement is a good operation in its present form. More and more Canadians are coming to understand that the unbridled ability of American companies to come into Canada, to purchase Canadian firms, and to do what they will with them, will mean that in the end Canada will not be a sovereign nation. We will not be able to control our economy. Under the Liberal regime we came very close to losing the ability to direct it. With the free trade agreement before us there is no doubt that we will see the loss of the ability of the Canadian Government and of the Canadian people to direct our economy.
It is astounding that we sit here juggling customs duties today without any intention to develop a national policy behind them but simply to accommodate Americans. I challenge Conservative Members to rise in the House and tell us in what way this will assist the Canadian economy to grow. In what way will Canadian business and industry grow from this particular manoeuvre? The honest answer is that they will not. It will simply facilitate the process of the Americanization of Canada.
It is interesting that no one can deny the kinds of things which brought into place the Foreign Investment Review Act, as weak an instrument as it was. It was almost an invitation to American firms to invest in Canada. The Liberals refused to put real teeth in it. They always did things half measure. They never really knew whether they were Liberals or Conservatives when it came to confronting issues. As a result, there was never direction in the country. There was always lip service paid to serious problems. Indeed the Foreign Investment Review Act was merely lip service. It should have been much tighter.
They also constantly refused to develop a national industrial policy. In the absence of a national industrial policy, the Foreign Investment Review Act was out in limbo trying to manage investment without any idea or any picture of what they wanted the economy to be or to do. Unfortunately that was the supreme failure of the previous Government. It had no idea. It had no sense of Canada. It had no view of Canada as a nation. That could have come from a national industrial strategy. However, the major flaw today is that the Conservative Government, in much the same way as did the Liberals, is

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
approaching free trade in a manner which will leave Canadians severely handicapped. It has no picture of what the Canadian economy should look like. There is no industrial strategy in Canada to help Canadian industrialists and entrepreneurs to strengthen themselves and be able to compete effectively in the United States market. Only the losers have been highlighted. Some 300,000 to 500,000 people could lose their jobs. There could be massive dislocation.
On the other side of the coin there is the hope that some businesses will be able to export across the line. Such businesses will find severe competition from much larger corporations with much more money to come into Canada. They will not only be denied access into the United States, but they will be put out of business in the Canadian market.
Let us look at the American view of this particular treaty, the one which they will use as argument in the United States to sell the agreement. Anyone in the United States who sits down and reads the agreement will be absolutely thrilled. There will be a rush to support it because it is such a massive giveaway of this country.
To some degree the softwood lumber problem is a red herring. I think that the Conservative Government, in conjunction with the provinces, has already worked out a solution. Of course it is the right of the Canadian Government to remove the export tax. I suspect that that would come very close to the time of the agreement. When many people in Canada are hollering that it is flawed only because of the softwood lumber agreement, the Government will simply whip it away and say that it has solved all their problems. In fact that is likely to happen on that particular issue.
However, a really tragic aspect of the particular agreement is the ability of the United States to buy out Canada, to come in and purchase competitive firms, to limit their capacity if not close them, and to apply without any sanction whatsoever the old bogyman of the extraterritorial application of the U.S. law in Canada. An absolutely wide open opportunity has been given to exercise that in Canada, far worse than ever before.
It is astounding to know what are the benefits of the agreement. It certainly seems that the primary concerns are loss of Canadian sovereignty, the deindustrialization of Canada, and the ownership of the major percentage of what industry exists being in the hands of the United States.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly) was talking about deindustrialization of Canada. My concern is about the need for developing industrialization in the part of Canada from which he and I come. The whole Province of British Columbia and, indeed, western Canada, is based on resources. The classic idea is that through exporting resources there would be an accumulation of capital, which would then be used to develop secondary industry. That is the justification for developing and exploiting resources at a very rapid rate. That has not happened in
British Columbia or in other parts of western Canada largely because the head offices of the companies exploiting the resources are not situated in the West. They are in eastern Canada or are multinationals located in Chicago, New York or wherever.
Given the free trade agreement, given the difficulty that we have already in trying to develop secondary industry,what will happen to the possibility of developing secondary industry in the communities which the Member represents on Vancouver Island, and what about the mainland?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, to answer the very perceptive question from the Hon. Member for Cowichan, Malahat and The Islands (Mr. Manly) let me quote some of the most distinguished Members of the House of Commons today. I am quoting directly from Maclean's magazine for June 13, 1983. The now Secretary of State (Mr. Clark) said:
Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear. Before we jump on the bandwagon of continentalism, we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.
That is what I tried to put forward to the House today. The now Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), at that time a leadership candidate, said:
It's silly. Canada must improve relations and trade with the United States, of course. But our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister.
That is absolutely what I said a few minutes ago.
John Gamble, a notable Canadian who found succour in the arms of the Conservative Party, said:
We would be eaten alive. If we opened our market to the United States, we won't be able to sustain our manufacturing.
That is one of the very few times in my life that I have agreed with John Gamble.
Then the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said about free trade:
Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of the total world trade, which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades.
What can I say? What happened to him today?
Peter Pocklington, another one who has found warmth and comfort in the bosom of the Conservative Party, said:
1 believe in free trade between Canada and the United States, but we must ensure that Canadian industry gets the same access as we give the Americans.
He is one of the true. I think a Liberal moved over there. Then we have the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
With such noted Canadians standing up and appealing for support within their own Party and to the nation as a whole for their view of what a stupid idea free trade is, what can I say?
November 2, 1987


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, anyone can change his or her mind. That is a privilege we all have. I know the Hon. Member at one time in his life was espousing the advantages of Canada belonging to NATO. Now, like the rest of the New Democrats, he wants to pull out of NATO. We all change our minds, and the Hon. Member knows that.
The Member makes a great issue of stating that Canada will be overrun by the Americans if we enter this agreement. Has he noted what has happened in the European Economic Community? That is a common market and I do not see any of the countries losing their individual sovereignty or individualism. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) could comment on that.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I do respect many of the ideas of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) and respect the distinguished service he has given in the House, but on free trade I think he has been misled.
If you look at the European Economic Community, many partners are of similar size with balanced economies. If we were 250 million people strong we would be looking at a more open trade arrangement with the United States. The dilemma is that we are 25 million people as opposed to 250 million and we will be overwhelmed, just as the candidates for the leadership and his own Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the past.
Second, the free trade agreement before us today is a rush job. There is no protection in the agreement. If you read the briefing notes put forward by the United States administration to convince the Senate and the Congress to support this, the Americans believe that Canadians have sold themselves out, that it is a deal too good to pass up. In the minds of many Canadians the Conservative Government has made this its sole reason for existence, and it is the entire issue before this Parliament. In order to get the agreement through in a timely manner, the Government had to rush it to the point where the Canadian Government was not able to build things that strengthen Canada allowing us to compete effectively, namely, a gradual opening up of certain trade sectors, such as the automobile sector.
The Government opposite has spoken about the Auto Pact as an example of free trade. But we had sector trade liberalization which enabled us to develop a small section of the economy in a more effective way. However, it took a considerable period of time to do it, and has been under way for a period of time with plenty of safeguards for Canada. That does not exist in the free trade agreement. It throws off all control by Canada and the ability to direct the economy. It gives an invitation to the United States to come here and take the country over.
Customs Tariff


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I found the comments by my friend, the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River (Mr. Skelly) very interesting. I taught Canadian history at the university before I was elected to Parliament in 1984. I find the shifts in attitudes and the change of position of the Conservative Party and this Government of ours truly astonishing. The Member sketched quite well the attitude that used to exist and the position which the present Government is taking. The Member spot-lighted that change in attitude by giving us the excerpts which Maclean's magazine published in 1983 during the leadership race of the Conservative Party and the position the various candidates took. The only one who came close to supporting the stand of the present Government was Mr. Pocklington from Edmonton. Yet, this is a Government in which various of these candidates are front-bench Members, one of whom, having won the leadership and having taken a very critical stance, has suddenly become the wildest partisan of this continental trade arrangement with the United States, the continental union of 100 years ago which was rejected by Conservatives at that time. The Liberals realized the political foolishness of it fairly quickly. They came up with a different refinement.
What explanation does my friend have for this? I realize that this tests all of our comprehensions when we see this kind of watershed change in attitude. What was it that led the Prime Minister and his colleagues to take such a stand and get into this continental deal with the United States over the last two years or so?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to cast our minds backwards for some of the answers in the historical fabric of Canada. I would bow to the expertise of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) into whose field I am treading. I would not mind if I could reverse the question and have him talk to us a little bit about the annexation manifesto which generated from a large number of Conservatives and downtown Montreal businessmen. At that particular time in 1849, they were quite prepared to sign the whole country over and get themselves annexed to the United States. I am afraid today that this particular agreement is the same kind of an expression, an annexation manifesto that will tie us to the United States. In that tying, the United States, with a much larger population, 10 times that of Canada, will overwhelm this country.
I think the critical point is that leaping into an agreement with the Americans in an unprepared manner, in a manner which puts at stake the Government's entire credibility, will do an enormous disservice to Canada. Indeed, this is not a free trade agreement, it is another annexation manifesto.

November 2, 1987
Adjournment Motion



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)- Human rights-Ethiopia-Political prisoners; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)- Pharmaceutical industry-Bill C-22-Senate committee's report-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Auditor General's report- Minister's position on funding of Fantasyland project-Reason for funding project.



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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few comments on Bill C-87, a Bill that is largely a technical one aimed at harmonizing the customs classification system which is due to take effect on January 1 of next year. While this is largely a technical Bill, we want to use this opportunity to speak about the agreement that was reached by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government with the Reagan administration. We believe that this agreement will have wide-spread adverse consequences for the people of Canada and the future of Canada as a nation.
I have just been looking at the classic work of George Grant, Lament for a Nation, which looks at the fall of the Diefen-baker Government in 1963. While Grant has some sympathy with Diefenbaker and sees him as a person who had a vision of Canada, he felt that Diefenbaker was incapable of really carrying that vision out, that he was incapable of governing in any way that was commensurate with his vision of Canada as an independent country, a country that could be in control of its own destiny. He felt that in many ways, the country had
already been sold down the river by the continentalist approach of C. D. Howe. Of course, today, the natural inheritors of C. D. Howe's vision are sitting once again on the government benches. The Conservative Party has taken over the function of moving Canada into a continentalist economy.
The agreement that was reached in the early days of this past month can be criticized on two grounds. First, its process can be criticized. The process the Government used to reach this agreement was flawed and dishonest from the beginning. We have already quoted extensively from the comments that were made by several of the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1983, but I think it is important to drive this message home to the Canadian people, to remind them that when these people were running for the leadership of the Conservative Party and campaigning during the 1984 election campaign, they did not say they were looking to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States. In fact the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We are debating Bill C-87. I think it is starting to turn into some sort of a free trade package here, but I would like the Hon. Member to get back to the Bill if at all possible.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can appreciate that admonition. The Bill which provides for what is known as the harmonized system, the new customs classifications, will allow for the quicker release of goods crossing the border into Canada, and that is a part of what we are talking about.
Even without entering into an agreement, we already have, to a very large extent, free trade with the United States. This Bill will allow for common coding of tariffs and it will encourage freer trade throughout the world. We are talking about the fact that this Government is not content simply to lower tariffs, it is not content simply to liberalize trade, but rather it is basically selling out the future of Canada. This is what I was trying to establish when I was referring to this article from Maclean's of June 15, 1983, in which the present Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear. Before we jump on the bandwagon of continentalism, we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.
We have not seen that strengthening of the industrial structure. Instead, we have seen the Government dismantling the programs that could have led to a strengthening of that structure.
The Secretary of State, then a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party, talked about thousands of jobs which might be lost. The Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), when he was asked about this a few days ago in the House, said that perhaps 500,000 jobs could be lost, perhaps more, perhaps less. What the Secretary of State said four years ago is still true, yet we are moving toward this free trade agreement with the United States.
November 2, 1987

The Secretary of State himself said:
It's silly. Canada must improve relations and trade with the United States, of course. But our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
We can only agree with him. The present Prime Minister, then seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party, said in 1983:
Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade, which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades.
If Canada would reject that kind of agreement in 1983, as the Prime Minister said it would, I believe Canada would also reject it in 1987 or 1988 if Canadians get an opportunity to go to the polls on this particular issue.
The point I want to make is that when members of the present Government were running for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1983, they were very explicit. With the exception of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), they did not see free trade as a desirable option for Canada to pursue.
When they were engaged in the 1984 election campaign and had a platform to lay before the people of Canada, the vision that they had of Canada, the candidates did not mention free trade as being part of that vision. They did not mention that they would have an agreement with the United States that would give the United States equal access to our energy, an agreement that would gut the possibility of Canada taking action that would allow us to protect our own culture. They did not mention this to the Canadian people so they do not have any real mandate for it.
As soon as the Government was elected in 1984, we began to hear the Prime Minister talking about how the United States is our best friend, and we have to stand up for our best friend, and when our best friend wants something, we should do what we can to accommodate our best friend. Certainly we have been accommodating to our best friends in the United States for the last three years. We have seen one example after another of how this Government has backed down on every demand the United States has made.
The Government backed down and eliminated the National Energy Program. It gutted FIRA. It allowed American takeovers of our book publishing industry after saying it would not. It did not stand up to maintain Canadian ownership of Dome Petroleum. The very week that the free trade negotiations began, the Americans imposed a 35 per cent duty on our shakes and shingles. We saw a 15 per cent tariff applied to our softwood lumber exports. That was later changed because of our weak approach. We said, "Do not apply the tariff, we will apply a tax ourselves", and we added a 15 per cent tax on
Customs Tariff
softwood. The Americans applied an 85 per cent countervailing duty on our potash. The Government took a completely weak-kneed approach to opposing the Americans in all these cases.
When the Government talked about entering into a free trade agreement with the U.S., members of the Opposition continually tried to get information as to what exactly was on the table. We were assured that the Auto Pact was not on the table. We were assured that culture was not on the table. We were assured that-


Lorne Everett Greenaway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are back on the free trade debate again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have looked at the Bill and I know there are many different things in it, and eventually the Hon. Member will get back to the Bill.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Don't count on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is just a matter of a few minutes. The Hon. Member is trying to demonstrate that this Bill is related to free trade. I believe that is what the Hon. Member was trying to say.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the Hon. Member once again that this Bill will provide for common coding of tariffs. That will probably result in easier trade. What I am saying is that while we can be in favour of freer trade and allowing easier access for Canadian goods in the markets of other countries, as well as the goods of other countries in Canadian markets, the main thrust of the Government in its deal with the U.S. goes far beyond what the Canadian people really want. While they favour freer trade and increased trade, they do not favour the process the Government followed when it entered into an agreement with the U.S. I was just trying to detail the way in which that agreement took place.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I know, but get back to the Bill.


James Douglas Manly: When the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) spoke in the debate a few months ago, she listed the things on the table, but she did not say energy was included or that there would be a sweeping provision to give the Americans total access to our energy. That kind of giveaway of Canadian resources is quite different from freer trade and freer access to markets, and that is what I am trying to emphasize. It is completely opposed to the basic concerns of the Canadian people.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: It is not.


James Douglas Manly: The whole process of the talks was characterized by the last-minute aspect when, just before the final deadline, the Minister sat down over some fried chicken and managed to get a deal. What way is that to reach an agreement that is going to affect the future of Canada for the foreseeable future? We are talking about the future of our

November 2, 1987
Customs Tariff
children and grandchildren, and the Government has sold out that future in a process which ignores the real wishes of the Canadian people.
In addition to the process by which the initial agreement was reached and signed, we see the process the Government put in place for dealing with that agreement in the House of Commons. Instead of having all the documents available for the committee to study, allowing adequate time for that study and to hear from those who are most affected, so that the committee can reach a reasoned conclusion about whether or not the agreement is good or bad for the Canadian people, it was given a deadline. It has to report to Parliament by December 4, yet it will not have the final text of the agreement until the end of this month. We expect that committee to reach some kind of reasoned, logical conclusion about this agreement, but it will only have the text for a few days. That is a complete betrayal of any concept of parliamentary democracy, and on an issue as important as this. I simply want to emphasize that a bad process cannot lead to a good deal.
The Americans are going to get equal access to our energy resources. We say the agreement gives Canadian culture some protection, but it also says that no Canadian action can infringe on American economic interests in that area. The agreement gives American multinational corporations the power to come in and take over any Canadian company with an asset value of up to $150 million. The threshold used to be $5 million. Only some 500 Canadian companies will have any protection at all if this agreement is ratified.
In conclusion, while this particular Bill might have some value, the free trade agreement goes far beyond what this Bill talks about. We feel that the Canadian people should have a chance to speak on that free trade agreement, and that is why we have been urging the Government to be honest with the Canadian people, tell them they are going to have that chance, and that there will be an election on this issue in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the words offered by the Hon. Member in connection with free trade, although not necessarily with the Bill being debated. He asserted that the Government has no mandate to have negotiated the free trade agreement and to have signed it in principle. He asserted that this Parliament has no mandate to deal with the issue, and that raises certain questions which I will put this way.
We did not, in the 1984 election campaign, talk about the specifics of the Meech Lake Accord. We had no way of doing that. What we did was to pledge ourselves to reconciling the nation. The Meech Lake Accord is a way of doing that. That was supported by the NDP without any election campaign commitment or approval. Because Members on both sides, given the experience we have had and the contents of the
agreement, believed that it was good for Canada and it was a valid way of fulfilling that commitment to reconciliation, it was passed in principle just one week ago.
In the 1984 election the Progressive Conservative Party committed itself to renewing the economic strength of the nation. The free trade agreement is one way of doing it. It is a way that has credibility, because through the economic policies of the Government well over 900,000 new jobs have been generated. No one is quarreling with that result.
I suggest that if we quarrel with the free trade agreement it should not be because it was not specifically suggested in the 1984 election campaign but because of particulars which members of the Opposition challenge. I recognize the validity of that. However, if it is not valid for the Government and this Parliament to endorse or defeat that free trade agreement, then I suggest that we had no right to endorse the Meech Lake Accord because it was not specifically in the 1984 campaign either.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member raises a very interesting point. I would like to consider it briefly. First, I think it is important for the Hon. Member to remember what I said at the beginning of my speech, that being that several members of the present Government, including the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), and the Prime Minister, when campaigning to be the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in 1983 were very explicit in rejecting the concept of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. The present Minister of Transport said that such an agreement was desirable and advocated it. The others, in a public debate, indicated their opposition. They were very clear and forthright about it.
The Canadian people had a pretty clear idea where the Government should have stood on that issue. There was absolutely no indication during the 1984 campaign that the Prime Minister had decided to change his mind on that issue. He changes his mind on a lot of issues, but he did not signal his intention to change his mind on that one.
With regard to the Meech Lake agreement, I think the fact that the ten provinces and the three political Parties which are represented in this House are all basically in agreement with the principle of Meech Lake indicates that there is a drastically different situation in that. In conclusion, while Meech Lake is not going to destroy Canada as a nation, there is as very strong feeling among a lot of people across Canada, and certainly within this Party, that the free trade agreement which the Prime Minister has reached with the United States will destroy Canada and that the vision of Canada which we have had for over 120 years is going down the tube because of this agreement.
Due to that, I think it is very important for the Hon. Member to think back to the commitment which he made to
November 2, 1987

his constituents in 1984 and to ask himself whether the agreement which is being negotiated right now with the United States, which gives equal access to our energy to the United States, under which we do not have the capacity to protect our culture, under which American companies can come across the border and take over any company worth up to $150 million, and under which we can impose no content or performance requirements for those takeovers, is in keeping with the commitment he made to his constituents in 1984 and whether he wants to fight an election on that issue. If he does not want to fight an election on that issue, why not?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, subsequent to the 1984 election the Government initiated the appointment of a joint committee of the House and the Senate to study Canada's international relations, its initial responsibility being, among other things, the study of a free trade proposal. The Government did not enter into free trade negotiations on the basis of a whim or change of mind within the Cabinet. It did so after the special joint committee, representing both Chambers of Parliament, went from one coast to the other and heard substantial testimony from all manner of citizens and was persuaded to recommend to the Government that it enter into negotiations for a free trade agreement.
The same recommendation was made by the Macdonald Royal Commission on Canada's economic future. Both the parliamentary committee and the royal commission reached the conclusion that such a free trade agreement offered the greatest promise for Canada's economic future.
I made a commitment to the people of Scarborough West in 1984, that we would renew the economy, that through the stimulation of the private sector we would produce jobs, jobs, jobs. Since 1984 that is precisely what the Government has done, that is precisely what the country has enjoyed. No election commitment has been more honorably and fully met in the history of the country.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, when the joint committee travelled across Canada it heard substantial testimony from organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians who opposed the concept of a free trade agreement with the United States. Our Party certainly did not agree with the final report which spoke of a free trade agreement with the United States. There was no consensus arrived at by that special joint committee.
With regard to jobs, in my riding the rate of unemployment is still unacceptably high. If the Hon. Member wants to have an election on the issue of jobs after looking at the rates of unemployment in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, let the Government call an election, then we can find out whether the people are satisfied with the record of the Government on that issue. I say that in my area they are not.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the temptation to leap into the fray is strong. I would like my colleague to comment on the
Mint and Currency
relevance of the debate today. Customs tariffs, which we are debating today, are an absolutely critical part of an industrial strategy. Trade agreements are absolutely critical to such a strategy, and trade strategy is shaped through customs tariffs.
Although this Bill is passed off by the Government as a very small, technical piece of legislation, I believe that customs tariffs have far-reaching effects on trade agreements and industrial strategies in the country. I know that you recognize that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have been allowed to speak on a more wide-ranging subject. Some of the more narrow-minded Conservatives in this place may fail to see the relevance of that. Perhaps my colleague could comment on that.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best example of the relevance of the Customs Tariff is the fact that the free trade agreement which the Government just finished negotiating removes the tariff on the Auto Pact which has not been used for a number of years. That was the one club which the Canadian industry had to ensure that the Americans honoured the details of the Auto Pact. By removing the tariff we have given away the farm with regard to the Auto Pact. We no longer have any effective enforcement mechanism to back up the Auto Pact. The issue of tariffs with which we are dealing in Bill C-87 is very important to the question of an industrial strategy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Langelier) that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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

November 2, 1987
Emergencies-Act


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


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACT
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (for the Minister of National Defence) moved: that Bill C-76, an Act to provide for emergency preparedness and to make a related amendment to the National Defence Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Benoît Bouchard: that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this Bill, but I wonder if the Government might give us a few notes or a few explanations on the scope of this very important legislation which is being amended by Bill C-77 so that we may have a democratic debate on this whole question, namely that the Bill is "to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof'. I would have thought that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) would be here, or that a Minister might explain the principle of the Bill so that we could have an intelligent debate here in the House.
As I just said, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any notes on this question, but I vividly remember the October crisis and the severe criticisms which were made at the time about some of
the provisions. I should think that this parliamentary initiative, this Bill C-77, is aimed at making some amendments to the legislation and making it more acceptable to Canadians. Therefore, I would have thought the Government would have provided explanations, without going too far, without encouraging them too much, to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) who are here, as well as to the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), from Montreal, whom I see here-and would have told them what was proposed in the Bill. But, for lack of explanations, we will let the Bill through second reading and will take the opportunity of discussions in committee to obtain explanations, unless Hon. Members want to rise now.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first you will excuse me for rising after the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I was indeed going to rise to give a few words of explanation on Bill C-77 introduced today. Besides, those explanations are contained in a press release issued on June 26, 1987, that was made available to all Members of the House, including the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who, I assume, is capable of reading the explanations and comments provided by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) something like four months ago already, and those explanations were clear enough for spokespersons from the Official Opposition to be in a position to state their intent to let the Bill pass even before they had a chance to hear me. But to make a long story short, what is involved actually is the replacing of the War Measures Act which, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier, had to be used in 1971, a sad period in our history-


An Hon. Member:: In 1970.


Jean J. Charest: I cannot refer to 1970, excuse me, I was still quite young at the time-but to explain our intentions, Mr. Speaker, in making those amendments, whom better to quote than the Hon. Jean Chretien, former Member for Saint-Maurice who, in his book La cage aux lions, mentioned the legislation at the time ensured that they needed very specific measures. I think he compared the legislation to a huge van in which a bicycle was to be placed because there was no other means of transportation nor more reasonable ways of doing the job at hand. That is his explanation, in his own way, his well-known style, of the reason why the legislation had to be changed. This is what the Minister of National Defence did. He explained it in his press release that already dates back to June 26, 1987, which we would be happy to make available once more, provided however the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier does not already have a copy in his office.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, are we debating Bill C-77 at this point?

November 2, 1987


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Questions and comments after the Minister's speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) has the floor on debate.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I had no idea that we would get to Bill C-77 so quickly today. It was my understanding that it would be called tomorrow or later in the week, and that we would be discussing Bill C-76. I understand it has passed second reading stage.
I sincerely hope that Bill C-76 will go to committee because it requires very serious scrutiny.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Bill C-76 has been sent to a legislative committee.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have much to say about Bill C-77. As my Party's defence spokesperson, I want to put on the record the very serious misgivings we have with respect to this new legislation that will replace the War Measures Act.
Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to lead this debate on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Let me say at the outset that New Democrats are determined that the War Measures Act should never be used again. That is why we are happy that the Minister has brought forward a proposal to replace the War Measures Act. It has been a long time in coming and I congratulate him for finally bringing this debate to the floor of the House of Commons.
His Bill is a good first try, in my judgment, although it is not perfect by any means.
I will use this opportunity to explain in detail my very deep concerns relating to Bill C-77.
First, I want to say that I hope the parliamentary process, particularly in committee, will be allowed to work. We have heard many nice words from the Government about the spirit of parliamentary reform. In truth, we have made some progress thanks to the work of the committee led by the former Member for St. John's East and now the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland.
Now it is time for the parliamentary process to shine. We will need many hearings and a great deal of testimony from both expert witnesses and ordinary Canadians. This is an issue which touches the very lives and liberties of every Canadian. It involves an issue that cuts to the very heart of the Canadian consciousness. Is there anyone in this House who was not in some way touched by the events of October, 1970? Who could not be affected by the profoundly un-Canadian sight of Canadian troops in battle dress in the streets to suppress the domestic troubles of their fellow citizens?
Emergencies-Act
I do not want to reopen old wounds. Instead, I hope that this Bill as amended will complete the healing process. Together with the evolution of our Canadian Constitution I hope that the replacement of the War Measures Act will close one chapter in our history and usher in a new era in which the rights and freedoms of all Canadians will be honoured and respected at all times and in all circumstances.
The roots of the War Measures Act are deep. They go back much further than 1970. The original Act was born in August of 1914 when the First World War broke out. The Government of the day found that it had virtually no laws to deal with the situation. So it rushed through this law. It was modelled on foreign legislation. It received almost no debate. It had virtually no consideration. In effect, it gave the Government a blank cheque. Parliament and the people of Canada surrendered all their rights at that time in 1914.
The War Measures Act allowed censorship, arbitrary arrest, travel restrictions and Government control of trade and property. There were no rights untouched. In effect, it provided for an authoritarian Government to replace a democratic Government without a shot being fired. I suppose that we should not be surprised by the problems this caused later on. It was a recipe for disaster. The process was so poor there was little thought that a bad law was perhaps unavoidable.
Let us not repeat this fatal error again. We need full debate. We must hear many points of view. We should deliberate in an air of calm and reason. There is no emergency at this time. We have time to consider what we are setting in place for future generations. There is no war. There is no apprehended insurrection, no violence, no upheaval. Now is the time to give it straightforward, serious, cautious and deliberate consideration.
It is the future that we must be concerned about. For if the War Measures Act shows us one thing" it is that people suffer for past mistakes. Following the Russian revolution suspected dissidents were interned in Canada because of the extraordinary powers in the War Measures Act. The Communist Party was outlawed. Even Jehova's Witnesses were suspect. The political and religious freedoms that we are bound to uphold in this place were denied by Canadians. One of the most bitter of all ironies is that in the fight against communism we outlawed a communist party here in Canada which is precisely the same kind of authoritarian action that a communist Government would take. Therefore in doing so we reduced, or diminished to a considerable extent, the dynamism of our own democracy.
Again, in the Second World War thousands of Canadians of Japanese origin were interned. Racism raised its ugly head. The bitter legacy of this tragic episode still haunts the Canadian Government today. Japanese Canadians are still waiting for redress and for justice.
As I have already mentioned, many were arrested without warrant and held without bail in the October crisis of 1970. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) will

November 2, 1987
Emergencies-Act
remember that well. I believe he was Minister of Justice at the time. Many other Members will also recall that sorry episode.
Again, I do not wish to appear as if I were looking back with the wisdom of hindsight, but it is always a tragedy of inestimable proportions when a legislative body such as this, the supreme legislative body of the land, deliberately and knowingly passes legislation that it knows will deny basic human rights and freedoms to the citizens of a democracy, one of the great democracies in the world today, our own country.
1 know that New Democrats remember that period very well. We have our own reasons. The public approved of the measure and Parliament favoured the proclamation by a vote of 190 to 16. The 16 were ridiculed, but they stood firm and history has vindicated them. That is one reason why the memory of Tommy Douglas is held in such high esteem in this country.
Later, of course, successive Liberal Governments recognized their error and tried to reform the War Measures Act. But nothing ever came before this House. That is why it is galling to listen to Liberal Members criticize this Bill, as no doubt they will and have. They were in government for 14 years after 1970 and did nothing to correct this problem.
One effort to at least examine the problem came from the task force on Canadian unity. It recommended that the Government have the right to seek parliamentary approval within a specified time limit for any extraordinary powers. It also recommended that the Government state the reasons for its actions and the duration of the emergency powers in its proclamation. The task force further recommended that provincial powers and individual rights be safeguarded to various degrees depending on whether the nation was at war or at peace. I am happy to see the bones of some of those recommendations in the Minister's proposals. We will try in the legislative process to improve upon them.
We will have help, of course. I do not pretend to have all the answers in this debate at second reading. I do not think anyone in this Chamber has. I hope that experts from such groups as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others will give us their professional suggestions. Perhaps some of those Canadians who suffered from the excesses of the War Measures Act should come before our committee. I want to know whether they would feel any safer with this proposed law on the law books. If this Bill would not prevent such disastrous mistakes from happening again, then in our judgment it is useless.
We shall also look forward to hearing from the Minister in committee. It will be interesting to know what thinking went into this Bill. For instance, the McDonald Commission did not think that the Government needed any additional emergency powers in peacetime.
What has changed since the McDonald Royal Commission report was published? We have had disasters such as the Mississauga train derailment that required mass evacuation,
but that was carried out without resorting to the War Measures Act. Why does the Government need such powers now? This is something else that we should look at in committee. I am not suggesting that the Government should not have these powers, but I think that the onus resides with the Minister and his experts to prove to this House that he needs these extraordinary powers in order to deal with that kind of an emergency.
I have other specific concerns about this Bill as well. I would like to put some of them on the record this afternoon. Under the section dealing with public welfare emergencies the Bill speaks of an emergency as a "breakdown in the flow of essential goods, services or resources". That would seem to have very serious implications for the right to strike.
A recent Supreme Court decision said that the right to strike is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So the Minister's assurances about this Bill being subject to the Charter is of no comfort to working people who may from time to time find themselves involved in a strike situation.
Another recent example shows that this power may not be necessary. That is the recent rail strike. It was an unfortunate incident, but it illustrates the point that I am making. During that strike the Government brought forward legislation that returned the rail workers to their jobs. The Government was not prevented from acting quickly. It did not use the War Measures Act. Why then does it seek new, special powers in peacetime? This is a very touchy subject.
Those who belong to trade unions whose activities span the nation such as in transportation, whether it is air, rail, or shipping, those who are involved in communications, and those who are involved in the postal services, whether it is inside or outside workers, all of those persons could feel that their rights are being infringed upon, or potentially infringed upon, if this Bill is passed without any change.
In response to the Government's back to work legislation, there were protests on Parliament Hill and elsewhere. Peaceful protest is the right of those affected. They had a right to register their displeasure. Under this Bill such a protest could have been prevented. I ask again, does the Government need such power? Should it have such power? These questions must be thoroughly discussed, debated, and reflected upon when this Bill goes to committee.
Probably the most contentious clause of this Bill is the one that deals with public order emergencies. This is the type of situation that gave rise to the use of the War Measures Act in 1970. This clause takes its definition of threat from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act. This fact alone should make us very cautious, because of the difficulties already encountered with CSIS, in determining what is subversion and what is legitimate dissent.
This has always been a very difficult issue to resolve in this Chamber, and indeed in other democratic bodies throughout
November 2, 1987

the world. In my view, one of the things that keeps a democracy healthy is the right of its citizens to dissent, to object, and to oppose. It is often of a very negative nature, but nonetheless it is the right of a citizen to stand up in public and disagree with the Government, disagree with a law, suggest that the law is changed, or state that the regulation is a bad one.
It is a far different situation if someone is actively engaged in planning or executing a subversive action. That is something quite different. Most intelligence gathering agencies and most counter-intelligence gathering agencies, whether it is the FBI in the United States, MI-5 in Britain, or CSIS in Canada, find it extremely difficult to delineate the difference between legitimate dissent in a democracy, which should be welcomed, and subversive activity, which is clearly illegal.
The CSIS Act cites activities "in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state".
I would remind the Minister that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) recently met with Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress. The ANC has not renounced violence in its fight against apartheid. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State did not promise to support the ANC. Otherwise they might have to have themselves arrested under this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament. That may sound rather ridiculous and extreme. Nonetheless, if one studies the wording of the CSIS interpretation of subversion, it is found that it is a pretty wide open interpretation and could include or involve all types of legitimate legal activity. It may rub the Government of the day the wrong way, whether it is Conservative, Liberal, or NDP, but nonetheless Governments in a democracy do have to tolerate legitimate dissent.
Others on the government benches have had contact with the Reagan administration, which supports the effort of the Contras in Nicaragua. The Contras use violence, and President Reagan spoke of their cause in this very Chamber. Should that be illegal in Canada? I am quite sure that most of my colleagues across the way would disagree and say that that is perfectly legal, and I agree that it is perfectly legal. Again, if a narrow interpretation is attached to the CSIS interpretation of what is a subversion then, of course, Bill C-77 becomes potentially dangerous.
A public order emergency also gives Cabinet the right to prohibit public assembly. But how could a Canadian avail himself of the right to protest peacefully the declaration of emergency powers? His right to disagree with government policy would be extremely limited.
Similarly, a legitimate protest against the emergency declaration could be suppressed and no one would find out. The Government could censor the media or simply forbid travel to the troubled area. How could anyone find out if the declaration of an emergency was justified if no one was allowed in or out of the area? How could parliamentarians
Emergencies-Act
rally public support against an unjust proclamation if the public was being kept in the dark? That is all included in this Bill as presently written. In committee we will chop through those clauses, clean them up, and make the definition much clearer and more limited.
I also have concerns about the clause dealing with international emergencies. The definition of an international emergency is extremely broad. The Bill speaks of a threat to "any country in which the political, economic or security interests of Canada or any of its allies are involved". That pretty well covers the global waterfront.
Our allies include the United States and western Europe which have very extensive trade interests around the world. In fact, it is hard to think of any country on earth where either Canada, the United States, or western Europe does not have some type of political or economic interest.
We have a perfect example right now in the Persian Gulf. The United States is escorting tankers through one of the most militarily dangerous stretches of water in the world. Other European nations are also involved because they have an economic interest in oil from that region. What would happen if another "Stark" incident blew up into a major confrontation? Canada could become involved under the terms of this legislation. There would probably be a great debate as to whether Canada's vital interests were involved. But the Government would have the right to mobilize first and answer questions later. I would not want to wake up one morning and read that the Government had declared an international emergency and have to wait for the matter to come before Parliament after the fact.
One of the reasons that I would not be comfortable in that situation is the other extraordinary powers that the Government could assume during a perceived international emergency. For example, Cabinet could authorize search and seizure without reference to the courts. Why does it need to bypass the justice system? Are the courts not to be trusted in an emergency? Have judges in this country ever shown themselves to be less than vigilant in their devotion to national security? It is their job to balance the interests and rights of the state and those of the individual. Yet the Government wants the right to enter any home without reference to the courts at any level. Clearly this part of the Bill is unacceptable to those of us in the New Democratic Party.
Finally, Parliament must consider the total discretion granted to Cabinet under the terms of a war emergency. It is difficult to see any difference between this clause and the current War Measures Act. I wonder why some powers could not be set out in the Bill. Canada has been in two world wars. Does the Government not have any idea what powers it needs to mobilize the Armed Forces? Could they not be added to the powers listed in the other clauses of the Bill?
I see that my time today has run out, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to continuing debate at a later time.

November 2, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have 10 minutes for questions and comments the next time this debate comes up in the House. His time of 20 minutes has expired.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I was under the impression that, at second reading, the lead-off speaker for my Party has 40 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: May I explain to the Hon. Member that there have been three speakers. The first was the Minister who moved the motion for second reading of the Bill, which immediately eliminates the first 40 minutes as he was deemed to have spoken. Then there were two other speakers, which eliminates the other two 40 minutes. We have heard three speakers for 40 minutes each, with no questions or comments.
The fourth speaker, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), has 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments. I have given him an extra two minutes or three minutes after his first 20 minutes, and I will entertain 10 minutes for questions and comments the next time Bill C-77 is before the House.

It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 1st, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nickerson that Bill C-211, an Act to amend the FreshWater Fish Marketing Act, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House, at the beginning of this second hour, on the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).
In order to understand what we are trying to do here, I think it must be said that the purpose of the Bill which is going to be debated is to remove the monopoly presently enjoyed by the FreshWater Fish Marketing Board for interprovincial and international marketing of fish and fish products.
To remind you of the mandate given to that Board, it was established in 1969, under the FreshWater Fish Marketing Act, for the purpose of marketing fish and fish products. The
Board has a monopoly over marketing and trading in fish on interprovincial and export markets. It exercises this monopoly itself or through its agents, first to ensure an orderly marketing and, second, to increase fishermen's income, and third, find international markets for our fish and increase interprovincial trade and fish exports.
The participation of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the Northwest Territories was established in agreement with the Government of Canada. The FFMC is a Crown Corporation covered by Schedule C, Part I, of the Financial Administration Act. It must carry out its operations independently without appropriations from Parliament.
The major purpose of the Corporation is to provide the highest possible income to commercial fishermen based on their catches, and all its activities contribute to this end. The Corporation keeps informed of the social effects of its interventions, but will not support the cost elements which can be directly attributed to the taking into account of these social considerations.
If a provincial or federal department or agency decides to apply social considerations to the activities of the Corporation to meet objectives other than the provision of the highest possible income for fishermen, such a department or agency will have to support the costs related to this intervention.
Mr. Speaker, both in agriculture and in other sectors of our economy, especially the agro-food sector, there is an increasing demand for marketing boards, particularly from farmers and producers. Yet, this Bill aims at abolishing a marketing board which, in 1986-87, had one of the most successful of its eighteen years according to its own report and to the comments of its Chairman. Its sales have totalled nearly $59 million, $10 million more than the record amount registered the previous year. Net revenues before final payments amounted to $14 million, $6 million more than the record set two years ago.
One very important fact is that the disposable income of fishermen has reached $36.6 million, $7 million more than the last record high.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Corporation, at least as far as 1986-87 is concerned, has indeed met our expectations, which were to find new markets for fish and find the best possible price for our fishermen so they can earn a decent living.
According to the president's report, and I quote:
Strong demand for fish and seafood products in Canada and the United States assisted us in reaching many objectives for our major species.
For species such as Pickerel, Sauger and Northern Pike whose landings were in balance with market demands, selling prices were excellent. For species whose supply had previously exceeded demand such as Lake Trout progress was made in eliminating or reducing inventory. We had a record sales volume for Whitefish, but an increase in landings prevented inventory reduction. However, we are optimistic the chronic over-supply of Whitefish will be alleviated in 1987/88.
We continue to improve in all aspects of our operations and believe the Corporation is properly positioned with the products and the people to
November 2, 1987

participate fully in the ongoing growth of the fish and seafood industry for the benefit of our 3,500 fishermen.
Mr. Speaker, in my view the Corporation plays a vital role in providing 3,500 fishermen with a decent income. I am convinced if we were to get rid of the Corporation prematurely, without consultation with the provinces-because what the Hon. Member is proposing is to abolish the Corporation unilaterally.
As I said earlier, the Corporation was created jointly with and with the agreement of the provinces-
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating to me that my time is almost over and that I may not be able to complete my remarks. My point is that fish producers are the ones who directly depend on the Corporation to earn an adequate income in order to support their families and not have to resort to unemployment insurance or welfare to make a decent living in this country.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that to abolish this marketing board would be contrary to the will of the producers, in agriculture or elsewhere. Farmers are exerting considerable pressures for the creation of more marketing boards. We are presently considering a request from potato producers.
Why do the producers wish to have these boards? It is simply because they want to get a fair retribution for their work, they want a decent living for their families, they do not want to live all their lives on public charity.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is premature to abolish the Corporation at this time. It would run contrary to the will of our government which is trying to find the best ways to provide adquate incomes to all Canadians.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would simply express the hope that this marketing board will not disappear as quickly as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would like.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. speaker, I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the Bill presently before us. At this time I want to say that I am neither for nor against Bill C-211. However, I have some serious concerns about fishermen who are served by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Will it serve their interest to have this marketing agency disbanded? I believe we have to ask ourselves why the corporation was brought into being in the first place. The answer is quite simple. In the early 1960s the inland fishery and fish trade were in serious difficulty. They were experiencing difficulties similar to those which afflicted the salt fish industry in Atlantic Canada. Consequently a federal-provincial conference was held in October 1964 in Ottawa to identify the problem areas relating to the inland fishery. As a result of this conference a commission of inquiry into the freshwater fish marketing was established in 1965. The terms of reference for Commissioner G. Mclvor included instructions to inquire into the underlying factors which contributed to the weaknesses in the export
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
prices of freshwater fish. The commission completed its findings and prepared its recommendations in 1966.
The commission reported that prices for round or dressed fish in export markets were weak because there were too many exporters to counter a control exercise by a few importers. It also reported that in marketing of round or dressed fish, Canadian exporters were receiving too small a share of the prices paid by consumers. The commission recommended that a fresh fish marketing board be established under federal jurisdiction; that the board be the sole seller of freshwater fish produced in the designated areas; and that the board pool the returns from the sale of fish and fish products.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), when he was speaking in this debate on October 1 said that the single desk selling system did not really work out, that the commercial clout that was supposed to have been given to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation never really materialized in fact and things had gone from bad to worse. During its first year of operation when it was established in 1969 I believe, the FFMC generated sales of $14.4 million. It is interesting to note that since then each year sales have increased. In 1986-87 sales generated $58.6 million. It is also interesting to note that currently approximately 70 per cent of the wholesale price for fish marketed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is returned to the fishermen.
Although I am sure my colleague from the Western Arctic has the greatest concern in the entrepreneurial spirit for private companies to be involved and not a government agency to be the sole marketer of fish, I am concerned that if prices should drop in the market-place for freshwater fish that, occurred in the early 1960s might happen to this industry. I share the same concerns for the disbandment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation as I would express if there were an attempt to disband the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. I believe they were not set up by Government just for the mere fact of having a government agency in place. They were set up to serve the fishermen and the industry as a whole with the greatest of intent to improve conditions.
I am neither for nor against the Bill at this time, but I still want to caution Members present that the Bill deserves a very serious look and we should give it our very serious attention. We should not act in a hasty manner and create great havoc in an industry which is doing quite well at the present time.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is in the name of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). He has introduced it, I suppose, for the past eight, nine or ten years, as I recall, to try to get rid of the monopoly in the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In his particular area and down through western Canada there is one marketing agency, one corporation, set up by the federal Government to buy all of that freshwater fish and then sell it. It is a complete monopoly. If a private

November 2, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
businessman wishes to buy some freshwater white fish-a very popular fish-and he figures he has a market in the United States or Europe for that fish, he can pay more for the white fish than the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation can pay to the fishermen. He is able to pay more and he can get more for that white fish, if it is good white fish, in the United States or in Europe. But according to the law, he is not allowed to do that because the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has the sole right to buy and market that fish.
We have the same situation on the East Coast of Canada with salt fish. A businessman can come along and say, "I can pay you more for your fish because it is of excellent quality". Perhaps he can pick a part of the coastline where the fishermen catch the biggest fish and bleed the fish properly so that it is of better quality than the general amount of fish being exported. Perhaps the individual can get more in the marketplace, but he is not allowed because the law says that there is only one marketing agent for salt fish in Canada and that is the Canadian Saltfish Corporation.
Many businessmen came to the Progressive Conservatives when they were running in the last election. They asked them, "If you get in power, for goodness' sake change the law so that private business people can buy and sell salt fish and freshwater fish". The Progressive Conservative Party met with these business people and said yes. In fact, the Progressive Conservative Party said, "Yes, we will free you from the monopolistic practices of the previous Government because we will boot it out. They are the ones who set up these corporations that control and monopolize the market-place. These corporations are the only ones allowed to buy, sell and market all of these products in Canada.
In fact, the Progressive Conservative campaign handbook says the following on page 47:
We will reduce the role of crown corporations in the fishery as we create
economic conditions that allow private companies and fishermen's co-ops to
prosper.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party, and nobody can blame it for doing this, met with these business people on the East Coast and in central Canada, who wanted to get into the business of buying and selling fish, salt fish and freshwater fish. That is what it came up with as a policy.
What has the Progressive Conservative Government done? Since it has been in power, the only thing the Progressive Conservative Government has done with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation that I can see is that it appointed a prominent Progressive Conservative to be the Chairman of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. That is all that was done, to my recollection.
Instead of changing the corporation, the Government appointed a chairman. Mind you, this particular Chairman is a chartered accountant, the author of two books on taxation, a prominent gentleman who used to write, as I recall, very good
columns in the Winnipeg Free Press once upon a time. That is all the Progressive Conservative Party did with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
Now we have this Bill before us today. As far as the positions of the political Parties are concerned, I can now say that the Progressive Conservative Party stands fully behind the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. So does the New Democratic Party and so does the Liberal Party. This is because they have taken the position that the general good of all the fishermen in those areas should be the primary concern of the Government. In other words, there should be one marketing agent that would be able to perform in the way a cartel performs by regulating prices in the market-place. The political Parties have said furthermore that in this way, the Government of Canada can very easily assist the industry at times when prices go down and fluctuate in the market-place.
One can understand the position taken by the hon. gentleman who introduced the Bill. Perhaps some of the best freshwater fish is in his area. Perhaps up in the Arctic in his particular area, there are business people who are telling the fishermen that they can market the fish for a better price. Maybe he represents that kind of an area. Perhaps that fish is put in with other fish from other areas of Canada that is not as good as the fish from his area.
All of us who represent fisheries areas know what the Hon. Member is talking about. For example, on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, there is better salt fish than in other parts of eastern Canada, but our fish goes in with the salt fish from other areas to be marketed by the Canadian Saltfish Corporation.
As I say, the official position of the three political Parties of the House of Commons is in favour of this marketing structure, this Crown corporation. The hon. gentleman will just have to accept defeat and realize that he will not get such a Bill through the House of Commons.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Bill, I think it would be prudent first to ask the House to recognize the prosperity and positive market conditions which Canada's freshwater fishing industry has recently enjoyed. Fresh fish are a wholesome and healthy product whose consumer acceptance in our major market in the United States appears to be growing. As with all good things, I hope this surge of prosperity continues.
Yet this is not a time for complacency. I refer specifically to the interim report on freshwater fisheries of the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries tabled in September of 1986 entitled The Marketing of Fish in Canada. I recommend this excellent report to anyone who wishes a general overview of the freshwater fisheries, their markets, their problems, their concerns and their opportunities.
The report deals with these issues and especially the concept of a single-desk system of marketing as now used by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation for Canada's
November 2, 1987

freshwater fisheries. The report gives a glimpse of the future of our fisheries, the opportunities as well as the pitfalls.
I will refer to these matters in some detail, but going directly to the point, the report refers to activities of the FFMC and consistently indicates that provincial co-operation, which I remind the House was instrumental in the establishment of the corporation, be sought and encouraged. It is abundantly clear that co-operation with the provinces is crucial to the success of the freshwater fisheries of the western region covered by the corporation.
Today, the provinces and the vast majority of the fishermen continue to support the FFMC and the findings of the report are also pertinent in this manner. These findings, the result of 25 hearings, 17 of which were devoted exclusively to the freshwater fisheries, and 40 submissions could not have had a clearer thrust in the substance of their recommendations. These recommendations address a wide range of issues and challenges facing the fishery including new technology, overparticipation, over-capitalization at the processing level, insufficient development of local markets, product substitution, and the introduction of potentially crippling import duties by our major market, the United States.
With respect to the challenges of making products available on a year-round basis, of co-ordination of supply and especially of the management of large inventories and delivery surges, the committee stated that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation devotes considerable resources to unload these inventories, continually seeking out and developing new markets. As a central marketing organization set up to accomplish precisely this task, the corporation has on balance a good record of success. It is a record to which my colleagues have referred today and it has proven to be even more successful within the last year.
Let us examine some of these problems and challenges that are being faced by the freshwater fishermen of our western region and the contribution of the corporation in facing these challenges in more detail.
Single desk selling, as examined by the report, brings greatest over-all benefit when created to consolidate the efforts of a dispersed production. It can also be useful in industries where production varies widely according to the season. It can also provide for streamlining of the marketing process. Greater control can be exercised over quality and variety of products, speed of delivery, and flexibility in transport and payment terms. The single desk system can mobilize resources to seek out markets.
I suppose the area covered by the corporation, 5.34 million square kilometres with a population of less than five million, qualifies as a dispersed area. Indeed, it is larger than most of the world's nations, perhaps as dispersed as any harvesting area in the world. The 23 species of fish appeal to many different markets.
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
The U.S. is by far the leading market for the products of the freshwater fishery. The harvest of Canada's freshwater fishery does not, however, figure prominently in the total U.S. supply picture. This is because there is substantial production of freshwater fish in the U.S. As well, other nations have aggressive marketing policies for their products. Fortunately, there is now a healthy trend within the U.S. toward increased per capita consumption of fresh fish. However, consumer behaviour is easily changed by prices. Experts believe that price rises for fish products, mainly the result of higher production costs, may soon lead to product switching and the substitution of cheaper protein.
The American consumer is demanding. That is the reality facing Canadian fishermen. We are not the only ones selling our wares. Reliability of supply, price, quality, and attractive presentation to and education of the buyer are often the difference between success and failure in the supermarket. The committee could not be clearer on how to achieve that success: "The Canadian freshwater fishing industry should also endeavour to make its products available in the market-place on a broad scale and on a year round basis." It is that sort of activity which has been addressed by the FFMC. The expertise has a broader application to our fisheries as well.
Let me take a moment to recount some of the problems our freshwater fishery faces. These problems have been tackled by the corporation in co-operation with the provinces. Cooperation is the key word. They have looked at the question of over-participation, overcapitalization, and insufficient development of local markets. These problems are also opportunities. They present an ideal example of potential for continuing constructive co-operation with the provinces. Provincial initiative has always been an important corner-stone of opportunity for the freshwater fishery. Indeed, the committee realized that, and this brings me to the second theme spoken of by my colleagues, that of the role of the provinces in the success of our fishery.
Over-participation and overcapitalization at the processing level may very well create havoc in the fishery. In 1984 the average harvest of 6,435 kilograms generated average gross revenue of $8,222. This overcapitalization at the processing level raises the cost of bringing a product to market, creates pressure for higher prices, and raises expectations for higher than possible gains. The recommendation by the committee to cope with this problem was that the provincial and territorial Governments, in co-operation with the FFMC, co-ordinate their efforts to bring about a good balance of investment in harvesting facilities among participants in the western fishery, given the harvestable quantity of fish. It is that co-operation which sounds a signal note for the future prosperity of our fishery. Other speakers have referred to provincial initiatives in the establishment of the corporation. What better example might we have of the continuing need for provincial input and support than in the recommendation to eliminate the pressing problem of overcapitalization at the processing level.

November 2, 1987
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
Provincial participation and co-operation always was and always will be a necessity for the success of the fishery. This applies to similar recommendations with regard to the allocation of fish stocks, product substitution, and development of local markets.
These examples of provincial participation are meant to add to what is a matter of great concern to the provinces. Given the onslaught of new technology, especially in aquaculture, the need for co-ordination of supply, the over-participation and overcapitalization, and insufficient development of local markets, product substitution, and potentially crippling export duties, now is the time to focus all possible co-ordinated efforts to maintain the health of the fishery.
I can foresee potential difficulties for our freshwater fishery if the FFMC is limited in its ability to co-operate with the provinces and face these challenges. We should not forget that the freshwater fishery is as important to many of our small communities as is the fishery to the Atlantic coast communities. These problems are a test of the fortitude and skill of the Canadian fishermen.
Finally, I agree with the thrust and substance of the excellent report produced by the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries. We know the participating provinces and the vast majority of fishermen support the FFMC. A bright future for the fishery and continued profits for the fishermen can result from continuation of this partnership. Thus we should continue to forge the bonds of the partnership, unique in the history of this growing fishery, between the six Governments which founded the FFMC and which led to success for the fishery and profits for the fishermen.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-211 sponsored by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), my neighbour to the north. He has brought to the attention of Members of this House the fact that there could be some discrepancies in this marketing board which may or may not be to the benefit of his constituents, but certainly not to mine. This gives me an opportunity to tell you about the many lakes and rivers in the northern part of my constituency in Saskatchewan. Most of you probably do not know that there are more lakes in Saskatchewan than there are in Manitoba and Alberta combined. Of course, there are a lot of fish in those lakes.
Before the marketing board was set up, there were at least six different places in my constituency where fishermen caught fish. The industry provided employment for a good many people in the North. We supplied an excellent quality fish which could be purchased in my home town, the City of Prince Albert, and many other places to the south.
Today of course it is a different story. We now have no one working in the industry other than the fishermen themselves. They must first haul ice to where the fish are caught, pack the fish in ice and then haul them back again, truck the whole fish down to Winnipeg, having only removed the head and guts,
where they are then processed further. Yet now we cannot buy that product in my home town or in Prince Albert. It is just not available. It all seems to go to the United States. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has not done its job of making that fish available in other places.
The cost has been fantastic. The fishermen are receiving 70 per cent of the payout after freight and deductions. When you are hauling fish from Stony Rapids, Saskatchewan, you have to fly them to Wollaston Lake where you put them on a truck to haul them to Winnipeg. It is obviously the trucker who makes the money rather than the poor fisherman. The price of gas and equipment has gone up far in excess of the increase they have received in the past few years.
I hear everyone talking about the increase in sales. I have a book, should anyone be interested in borrowing it, entitled How to Lie with Statistics. That is exactly what the fish marketing people are doing. They say that in 1969 they sold $14 million worth of fish and in 1987 they sold $58 million worth. There was not a damn pound more sold but the price went up. You can sell the same amount and still raise your sales as long as you get more money for it. I do not buy that one.
It does not sit too well in my craw when 1 listen to people up north talking about getting 10 cents and 12 cents a pound for fish when fishermen on the Great Lakes probably get 40 cents or 50 cents a pound. They certainly have a tremendous advantage over the fishermen in the North. The fish may not be as good, but that is the way it goes.
The last time I was up north the fishermen were trying to develop a better marketing system with the freshwater fish marketing people. As a result of attending the meeting which I did, I could see that the chance of them getting much more for their fish was pretty slim.
There is always a good side to such things as this. In this case it would be tourists fishing for trophy fish. I believe that as long as the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is handling the fish from my area and that of my neighbour in the North we will have to concentrate on trophy fishing because most fishermen will not take their boats out in the weather with which they have to deal during the seasons that they can catch fish for the paltry sums which they get out of it, and I do not blame them. They have ideas about selling on their own, but it is against the law. They are not even allowed to peddle a little bit to their neighbours.
It appears that the only solution will be trophy fish. All the people who are so in favour of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation should save their money and come on up to catch a big trout or big pike to hang on their mantle. That would be their contribution to solving the problem in the North.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, in the
November 2, 1987

speech which the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) made on October 1, he said that he has been faced with this problem for 15 years. He first raised the problem in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories 10 or 12 years ago. He raised it here after he was first elected in 1979 and again in 1985 in the form of Bill C-235, which was referred to committee. I was the Chairman of the Fisheries committee when that Bill was referred to it. 1 regret very much that we were not able to deal with it. We were caught with some other very pressing business and before we knew it, the session had been prorogued and the Bill died.
Something must be dreadfully wrong with the system when a Member has to spend that much time and effort trying to get redress. We have just heard from the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) that he, too, has problems with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It boils down to the fact that the corporation has a monopoly on selling fish from the four provinces and the territories. We have the same problem in my province with the vegetable marketing board. It has a monopoly on the sale of vegetables and it is very difficult for anyone to sell their vegetables to stores.
The Member indicated in his speech that he believes that the quality of fish produced in his area is much superior to that in southern areas. There are fish which should be flown directly from that area to market without being frozen in Winnipeg, which destroys the whole fresh market aspect of it.
Some of the things which the Member said in his speech may be slightly inaccurate according to the figures and material I have been given by the Department. However, I agree with most of what he said. The problem seems to be that some of the provinces are in favour of maintaining the FFMC while others are not. I believe that the territories would be well advised to see if they can opt out as a last recourse.
I do not agree with the Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) who said that there is no solution to this. Although the parties are supposed to agree on the policy, if this is as bad a situation as that Member and the Member for Mackenzie say it is, we should try to repair it. At the very least, the Bill should be referred back to the committee in order to get to the bottom of the problem.
There is no doubt that the Senate found that problems exist. In its report it suggested that a pilot project should be undertaken to try to get people interested in a private fish industry in the North. I believe that would be a move in the right direction.
In his speech the Member for Western Arctic said:
By what right does the Government of Canada prevent anyone from offering
a fisherman $2 a pound for his product instead of forcing him to sell it to a
government Crown corporation for 20 cents a pound?
If that is indeed happening in his area he has a legitimate complaint. I believe there must be some advantages to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation as well because any marketing corporation has some benefits. One benefit is better
Freshwater Fish Marketing Act
control over markets, supply, and quality, although that is not always the case.
It has been said this afternoon that the industry in the West is not doing as well as it should be. I do not have any figures on the poundage, but it looks as though 1986-87 was a record year with $59 million of fish products being sold. That is an increase of $10 million over the former record year, which was 1985-86.
The net income to the fishermen was $36.6 million. The difficulty with this 1986-87 annual report of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is that it does not break down what the fishermen received per province or in the Territories. For example, the fishermen of Manitoba may have been doing quite well while, according to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, the fishermen in his area were not doing as well. This situation should be corrected.
I suggest that an official of the Department seriously examine this situation and impress upon the provinces that a problem exists.
Perhaps one solution that may be acceptable to everyone involved is to allow the territories to opt out. Another solution is to adopt the Senate recommendation of a pilot project.
In conclusion, I do not believe an Hon. Member should have to spend seven years trying to get a solution to a problem confronting him and his constituents. It is up to the Department or Members of the House to address the issue.


An Hon. Member:: How are you voting?


Lorne Everett Greenaway: 1 believe I will vote with the Hon. Member who proposed this Bill because he has a just complaint. I will try to be here when this motion comes to a vote.
In the meantime, I suggest that positive steps could be taken. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) could step up the process and persuade the provinces to deal with the problem. If they decide to stay with the present situation, so be it. However, if the territories want to opt out, perhaps that would be the answer.
In any event, I told the Member this morning that I think he has a good Bill, and just criticism of the present situation. I do not believe it is fair for the territories to be tied into a system that is simply not working.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on Bill 0211. This has been a genuine financial success story which is rather unique in that it has blended the skill and entrepreneurial initiative of the Canadian freshwater fishermen with legislative co-operation between the federal Government and its governmental counterparts in four provinces and the Northwest Territories. It is a success story which proves

November 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
that co-operation between provinces and the federal Government can forge profits in the rough and tumble of the marketplace.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation resulted from the focus of the collective will of the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Northwest Territories to introduce application of what is known as the single desk selling system for freshwater fish.
The results of this system are shown by the recent profitability of the corporation, and dramatically increased returns to fishermen. I want to go further, and to bring facts and hard numbers to a debate that is certainly not new in the Hansard of the House of Commons and on which the Hon. Member who introduced it has spoken many times. I am glad that we are not the first to be concerned with these matters, as they affect the interest of our freshwater fishermen, a group whose recent successes must be placed in the context of future challenges.
Let me first recall that the purpose of this corporation was to solve five major financial and economic problems which had been identified by the Province of Manitoba in a brief presented to the National Fisheries Council held in Ottawa in January, 1964. The problems were ones which hopefully can be consigned to our past.
They included disorderly marketing, too many exporters, poor processing equipment, inadequate quality control facilities, and fishermen receiving too low a share of the prices, prices which were constantly fluctuating. That is certainly not a pretty picture and a far cry from today's prosperous industry. But it was different then.
These problems, as described by the commission of inquiry chaired by Mr. George Mclvor, placed the fishermen in the western inland fishery in an appalling position of weakness. The commission said clearly:
We find that under these circumstances, the fisherman is essentially an
indentured labourer for the fish companies.
Not just the commission, but also four provincial governments and the Northwest Territories believed that Canada and its regions needed a strong presence in the diverse markets for freshwater fish to survive and prosper. That was 1965, and the corporation was established in 1969 by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act.
While I would like to provide some of the Figures, time will not permit. We have come a long way from the days of the individual producer being an indentured labourer for the fish companies, and the spectre of grinding, unending debt that prompted that description by the Mclvor Commission. Last year, total payments to fishermen increased from $28.1 million to $36.6 million, over 30 per cent in one year.
The corporation has outperformed many of our leading industrial corporations. While it is true, that historically periodic fluctuations exist, with patterns of iean and fat years,
nonetheless the over-all picture, when viewed over a five-year period is one that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and all Canadians can be proud of. Sales have increased nearly 50 per cent, net income has increased by nearly 80 per cent, and retained earnings by nearly 120 per cent.
Today, the industry enjoys buoyant markets as the demand for fish expands. Yet the traditional cyclical nature of the industry will present the fishermen with new challenges.
The freshwater fisheries are now in transition. New technologies, especially the development of aquaculture, will see the introduction of a whole new interplay of market forces, in an arena in which an isolated fisherman would be at the mercy of these macroforces.
In conclusion, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a success story of which we can all be proud. This is not to suggest that it is perfect, but we should consider that to change its mandate at this moment would return us to a position of relative weakness in an uncertain and fluctuating market.
For these reasons, and in recognition of the many successes it has had in a highly competitive and uncertain market-place, I believe that we should encourage and enhance the successes of this corporation.


Mr. Roger Clinch (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to follow the distinguished Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine), an adjoining riding to the great riding of Gloucester in northeast New Brunswick.
As I understand it, Bill C-211 proposes to repeal from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act the definition "participating province" in Section 2, Part III of the Act, and the schedule to the Act. Such amendments would essentially abolish the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as Part III of the Act establishes the mandate of the corporation and sets out its duties and powers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 is deemed to have been moved.
November 2, 1987

Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my subject tonight arises out of a question I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). It was in connection with the linkage between overseas aid and human rights, focusing particularly on the situation in Ethiopia, a country that has received both aid and development assistance from Canada in rich measure, but which has a shocking, indefensible human rights record, judged by the World Human Rights Guide, published by The Economist, as the worst in the world.
CIDA announced as of October 26 that Canada will give $10 million in food aid for drought stricken areas in Ethiopia which will bring to $20 million the total bilateral aid given to Ethiopia by CIDA, a previous $10 million having been divided equally among Government relief agencies and Canadian NGOs, non-governmental organizations. This is right. I join the Government in this with great enthusiasm and great commitment.
But I bring to the attention of the House two matters. The first concerns reports of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade and the response of the Government to that report. In the first instance, the standing committee of this House argues that human rights and overseas development assistance should always go together. The report of that committee, after an exhaustive study, stated that respect for human rights is one of the most important conditions for a true developmental process. It is not unreasonable therefore for Canada to expect that Governments receiving our aid will pursue approaches to development and in supporting human rights that can be broadly supported and approved by the Canadian people.
According to the standing committee, the Government should clearly base its decisions on aid and assistance on a set of principles that respect the priority of human rights. The Government has largely agreed with this contention of our standing committee. It has suggested in its response that the basic principle of the Government will be to ensure that repressive regimes are not legitimized through Canadian development assistance policy and that victims of human rights violations are not doubly penalized by being deprived of needed outside help as well as of their rights. I welcome the news that as far as Canadian aid will go, we will see to it that Ethiopians are not deprived of their human right to sustenance. But are we taking equal efforts to see that the people of Ethiopia are not deprived of their basic human rights, civil, political and social?
The Government has already said in its response that human rights concerns must be fully integrated into Canada's development policies. It has given us the advice that the most valuable guide to human rights is to focus on those violations which are patently systematic, gross and continuous. Clearly, the Government is overlooking, ignoring, bypassing, the patent systematic, gross and continuous violations of human rights in
Adjournment Debate
Ethiopia if the Government does not join together with its new and renewed aid programs an equally strong and, hopefully, successful emphasis upon human rights and the need of the Ethiopian Government to come up to at least minimum standards.
According to The Economist human rights guide, Ethiopia is worthy of a rating of only 13 per cent, by far the lowest in the world, and the lowest in Africa. There is no country in the world, according to this guide, that has a worse human rights record. Just listen, Mr. Speaker, to some of the human rights abuses in that sorry country. There is no freedom to travel in or outside the country. There is no freedom to peacefully associate. There is no freedom to exchange ideas and receive information. There is no freedom to publish and educate in ethnic languages.
As well, there are such shameful unbelievable abuses as these: serfdom, slavery, enforced and child labour, extrajudicial killings and disappearances, torture by the state, compulsory membership in state organizations, political censorship of the press, censorship of mail, no peaceful political opposition allowed, no rights for women, arbitrary police powers exercised and an arbitrary seizure of personal property.
The most flagrant abuse of human rights on the mass scale was as recent as this summer when the spectre of famine returned to the north of Ethiopia once again, not only because of drought but more particularly this time because of swarms of locusts attacking in massive numbers, seven huge swarms sweeping over Tigre and other parts of the land. Airplanes that could have carried spray to destroy those locusts were prevented from taking off at Addis Ababa. As the House may be informed, more recently aerial sprays have been permitted, but the delay has been a tragic human cost.
I urge that the Government use this opportunity of Ethiopia's need for food assistance and in rightful response to that need by the Canadian Government to insist and demand in the name of humanity that the Ethiopian Government give at least a minimal response to this plea for justice.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: In reply to my friend the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Government has followed with great interest the drafting and approval process of the new Constitution in Ethiopia. Hon. Members are aware that we are quite concerned about several human rights violations in that country. We have raised these issues on a number of occasions with the Ethiopian authorities and, if need be, we will keep on doing so. We see the adoption of a new Constitution as a major event, since it amounts to a formal commitment to respect human rights in Ethiopia.

November 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Government is quite disappointed that a general amnesty for all political prisoners in Ethiopia was not announced on the day the new Constitution for the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia was proclaimed on September the 12th. Our Embassy in Addis-Ababa has since then told the Ethiopian authorities about our disappointment, especially with regard to the members of the former Royal Family of Ethiopia who have been held in custody since 1974. I can give my honorable colleagues the assurance that the Government will continue its efforts in this direction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Scarborough West for his constant dedication to humanitarian causes. His personal contribution to that area certainly deserves our admiration.

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY-BILL C-22-SENATE COMMITTEE'S REPORT/MINISTER'S POSITION


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on October 22, 1987, I posed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) regarding the passage of Bill C-22 in the Upper Chamber whereby several amendments were made.
It should be noted that the debate on this particular subject matter has gone on for an extended period of time. My colleagues in the Upper Chamber have very reluctantly accepted the major thrust of Bill C-22. However, in order to clarify a number of points that had been made previously, particularly in lieu of the statements made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and other Ministers of the Crown, across the country, the members of the Upper Chamber have made three amendments which in no way detract from the over-all thrust and substance of the Government's legislation.
In fact, the Upper Chamber has called for amendments with regard to job guarantees, expenditures on research and development, as well as guarantees with regard to consumer protection. Those three amendments would merely confirm in legislation what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been telling Canadians for many weeks, indeed months. In some respects it seems rather shameful that the Minister has not seen fit to concur with the reasonable amendments which have been made by members of the Upper Chamber.
I should point out for your edification, Mr. Speaker, that if these amendments were included in the legislation, they would provide a great deal of certainty and confidence to Canadians who, up until this point in time, have had some rather grave and serious reservations about the over-all thrust of Bill C-22.
I have asked the Minister to reflect upon and reconsider his point of view, not to object to or cast out of hand the obvious
reasonable amendments which have been made by the Upper Chamber.
In summary once again, the amendments moved by the Upper Chamber do not in any way derogate from the over-all thrust of the Government's legislation. They are an attempt to codify into law the statements which have been made by Canadians and organizations that travelled across the country to appear before the committee of the House of Commons and the committee of the Senate. It would codify those things which the Minister and the Government have been telling us about expenditures on research and development. I think all Canadians, indeed all Members of Parliament, would want to see them realized. Equally important would be the job guarantees to which our government colleagues have alluded. I hope they would see their way clear to reflecting upon these obviously reasonable yet important amendments to the over-all thrust of Bill C-22.
If the Minister wishes to be true to his word-and thousands of Canadians have heard him in the Chamber and across the country-he should have no difficulty whatsoever in placing the amendments into legislation and thereby accepting the principles laid down by the Upper Chamber and by Canadians from coast to coast, whether they be the United Church, senior citizens, provincial Governments, or whomever.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister would reflect most sincerely on these very worth-while and reasonable amendments.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, what I cannot condone is the way the Liberal majority in the Senate is brazenly obstructing the will of the majority in the House of Commons, whose Members are elected by the people. Meanwhile, Opposition Members have failed to prove that Bill C-22 offers no guarantees either for job creation or for increased investments by pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill provides for review by Cabinet and by Parliament, after respectively, four and ten years of implementation. This is a built-in safety valve which forces the companies to honour their commitments or else see the legislation revoked or revised.
Mr. Speaker, the serious implications of an unsatisfactory performance should, I hope, be ample reassurance for Opposition Members that none of the companies is going to try to get out of its commitments. The drug companies have already guaranteed the public over $800 million and have publicly announced that the industry will increase the ratio of R & D expenditures to sales from 4.9 to 10 per cent over the next ten years. Considering the coverage they are getting from the media, their reputations would be very much in jeopardy if they failed to meet these objectives. They would lose the confidence of the Government and the average Canadian, as well as the support of the rest of the industry.
November 2, 1987

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 has received a great deal of attention from the media across this country. Bill C-22, Mr. Speaker, was fully ratified in its present form by the Quebec National Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is a legislative measure which Quebecers want-as do the people of Ontario, I hope, and the other provinces in Canada-to make it possible for people doing research to find markets, to make it possible to create employment in Montreal, to make it possible to create permanent jobs, which happens to be the purpose of this Bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to my colleague that he should try to bring his friends and Liberal senators to their senses so they will stop filibustering this measure passed by the House of Commons.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT-MINISTER'S POSITION ON FUNDING OF FANTASYLAND PROJECT-REASON FOR FUNDING PROJECT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my intention is to follow up on a question which pertains to the city from which you come. I know it will be of some interest to you. It has to do with the questions that I asked in the House last week of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) concerning a grant to the Fantasyland project in the Edmonton mall.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when it was first raised the Deputy Prime Minister defended the decision to give the money to the Fantasyland project on the basis of how, in his judgment, he thought that the project was good for Edmonton, the mall and western Canada. We were quarreling about whether the criterion for selecting which project would get these moneys had been met and whether the Deputy Prime Minister had bent or broken the rules in order to provide the grant.
The Deputy Prime Minister in the early stages of the debate last week did not even try to pretend that the criterion had been met. He argued that what he had done was the right thing on the basis of what he thought to be the merits of the project regardless of the criterion. It was only in subsequent days that he then started to try to find ways in which he could fit the Fantasyland project into the criterion. It was interesting to see this line of argument develop over the next few days.
I want to address myself to some of the rhetoric that accompanied the defence by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of the Government's decision to give this money to the Fantasyland project. What I object to strongly, and I hope you share this view, Mr. Speaker, is that Members of Parliament should be able to rise-opposition Members in this case-and ask legitimate questions of the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Member of the Cabinet about the granting of moneys to particular projects without having to be subject to the accusation that
Adjournment Debate
because we raise a question we are against a region, in this case western Canada.
I hope that some day western Canadians like myself can ask another western Canadian, in this case the Deputy Prime Minister, without having either the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister say, as the Prime Minister did say on the record, that the NDP is somehow against the interests of western Canada because we raised an issue. If we raise an issue with respect to some contract given in Atlantic Canada, are we against the interests of Atlantic Canada? If we raise an issue with respect to the granting of a contract in Quebec, are we against the interests of Quebec? If you cannot raise these kinds of issues without that kind of accusation being leveled, you cannot do your job.
I think it was a very low point in the life of Parliament when that kind of an accusation was made against myself and against other New Democrats because we raised such a question. I can tell you sincerely that this kind of regional McCarthyism, or as we have called it, regional racism, has the same dynamic that whenever you raise a question you are accused of something. Conservative Members of Parliament in previous Parliaments used to be frustrated when they asked a question about something happening in Quebec and Liberal Cabinet Ministers of those days used to retort, no matter what the question was, "You are against Quebec". Conservative Members of Parliament did not think that was an appropriate response by Cabinet Ministers then and it is not an appropriate response today when the Deputy Prime Minister or the Prime Minister use that kind of an answer to respond to that kind of a question by Members of Parliament.
Western Canada is a politically plural society. There is more than one political tradition in western Canada. Conservatives need to have enough respect for western Canada to realize it is not just Conservatives who speak for western Canada. With respect to many controversial western issues, whether it be energy policy or whatever the case may be, there are one or more views.
The tradition from which I speak, the CCF and NDP tradition, actually predates in many respects the tradition of the Deputy Prime Minister. He is basically a product of the Conservative tradition in western Canada created by John Diefenbaker. Long before John Diefenbaker came along, there were CCF members who spoke out for western Canada.
Many Canadians resent this monopoly that western Progressive Conservatives think they have on speaking for western Canada. It will come back to haunt them because western Canadians do not appreciate those who think they have a monopoly on their particular political mind-set. I think we saw that developing out of the events that happened here last week and out of what I understand to be some of the comments made about the exchanges that took place in the House last week.

November 2, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I make a sincere appeal as one Member of Parliament to other Members of Parliament, let us not drag this place down by getting into this game of accusing each other of being against any particular region or in this case, against western Canada. My children are the fourth generation of my family to have made their homes in western Canada and I for one will just not put up with somebody like the Deputy Prime Minister saying that I am against western Canada. It is not true and the Deputy Prime Minister should have more respect for Parliament and for other Hon. Members than to have suggested that.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member's colleague from Skeena might take heed of the very apt and appropriate words he has just directed to us. For the record, it should be of interest to the Hon. Member to be aware of what DRIE officials actually had to say about this particular transaction. I wish to quote from a response DRIE officials made to the Auditor General last summer:
-that the application for assistance for this project was received on December 7, 1983 and while tourism was dropped from IRDP on November 9, 1984, the application was protected under the grandfather provision. It is clear from file documentation that the necessary permits, construction contracts and
actual construction on this project was/were not entered into prior to December 7, 1983 and therefore the project was not prior committed within the terms of Section 29(1) of the pre-November 9, 1984 regulations to the IRDP. DRIE's position remains that the project continued to be eligible for assistance consideration under IRDP, notwithstanding the fact that construction was well advanced in August, 1985 when the DRIE Minister made the actual decision to assist... The IRDP contribution facilitated the company in arranging the additional financing and consequently ensured that the project was completed within the originally proposed scope and timing. If DRIE had not offered the assistance at that time, it is highly probably that construction would have been delayed and the significant contributions that have accrued to Canada's economy over the past two years from this tourism facility would have been substantially lessened.
That is the position of DRIE. Obviously the Auditor General has the right to examine it, to consider whether or not it was appropriate and indeed to reject it, but the fact remains that that was the position of DRIE acknowledged by the Auditor General.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, November 3, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers