1987-12-04

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 3, consideration of Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding system, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and the following motions of Mr. Cassidy:
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line 4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 11 A.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by adding, immediately after line
27	at page 21, the following:
"(9) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 12A.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 61 by adding, immediately after line 14 at page 22, the following:
"(6) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 13A.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 62 by adding, immediately after line
28	at page 22, the following:
"(2) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, we have had some talks with the Government House Leader. I understand that someone else can move these amendments on behalf of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). He could not be here today because he has other commitments. I just want to make that clear.


Mr. Lewis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond. We appreciate that people have other commitments and we have agreed to allow these motions to be moved by another person.
We also have an informal understanding that we will have full and complete debate on these motions but that the debate at report stage on Bill C-87 will wind up today.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I take it we are pursuing debate on the motions before the House, specifically Motion No. 8. That motion has not been disposed of as far as I know, so debate is continuing on that motion. After that there is the agreement that, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) not being here, his motions can be moved by someone else, with the undertaking that the Bill will go through complete report stage today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this motion, because 1 think it is important. We are talking about a proposal to reduce or abrogate certain powers conferred by the clause in question. The main thrust of the motion was that in the case of a treaty between the Government of Canada and a foreign administration or government, Parliament should be involved in the process of accountability. As we know, Canada is now engaged in trade negotiations, in which major aspects of our sovereignty and our ability to take steps to protect ourselves are at stake, and these negotiations are about to be finalized. I am referring more specifically to the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement on so-called free trade, and we have a number of problems with this.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that agreements between Canada and the United States cover over 80 per cent of our trade in goods and services, providing for duty-free entry. This leaves 20 per cent of our trade that is subject to tariffs and levies, on both sides, to protect the service and manufacturing sectors.
Although this is a relatively small area, Canadians should realize that we must try and retain our control over these tariffs to the greatest possible extent. And I think the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
Cassidy) would give the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada a chance to take a really close look at such matters. I think it is a very sensible motion.
Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 8-and this applies to the various amendments in the group-would amend 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, and so forth. The proposal is therefore:
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line
4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament.''
Mr. Speaker, what is being proposed here is that whenever tariffs are imposed by the Canadian Government, an Act of Parliament will be required to implement the measure. For the time being, on the basis of what we know about the free trade agreement-which is not much because the final document is not yet available-the purpose would be to reduce tariffs to a bare minimum.
In other words, the present Government has confronted us with a new situation. The purpose is to eliminate tariff barriers and to open the door to so-called free trade. There are of course a number of exceptions in the proposed agreement, but it is not yet clear what goods are affected, how this agreement is structured and what the powers will be of the mechanism for settling disputes. There are so many documents going around that I think it would be a good idea to have a debate on this question before the agreement is signed, so that we can take a closer look and understand the exact extent of the commitments the Government would have us undertake.
Mr. Speaker, the motion is quite simple. It means that when a Customs tariff is applied or proposed, a Bill would be tabled in the House and Members could consider the question. That is basically what the amendment is about, and I think we will support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 8?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the Speaker had ruled, Motions Nos. 8, 11 A, 12A, and 13A have been grouped for debate, and a vote on Motion No. 8 will be applied to Motions Nos. 11 A, 12A, and 13A.
The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 13 will be debated and voted on separately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 62
(a)	by striking out line 19 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"goods imported from any country other than the United States of America
by way";
(b)	by striking out line 26 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"other than the United States of America as may be required by Canada's
internal-".


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lead off the debate on the motion originally placed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), who is unable to be here today.
We see this clause as a key one in the legislation. We also see this amendment that we have put forward as crucial to ensure that the Government of Canada is not in a position to implement a trade deal with the United States through the back door. By that I mean that if this House is not in a position to pass the resolution on the deal itself, or in some subsequent enabling legislation, the Government of Canada could use the existing Clause 62 as a means of implementing that trade deal without resorting to approval by Parliament.
Clause 62 allows the Government, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to reduce or remove customs duties on goods imported from any country without reference to Parliament.
Clause 62(a) indicates that such a reduction has to be by way of compensation for concessions granted by that country or any other country. This clause allows Canada to negotiate at the GATT and to agree to multilateral tariff cuts without having to take them before Parliament, although I am told that the practice has generally been that they do come before Parliament. This clause also allows the Government of Canada to agree to and put into force tariff cuts to the U.S. without reference to Parliament.
We believe that this clause means that it will allow the Government which was stalled in Parliament to implement
December 4, 1987

free trade with the U.S. without bothering to ask for permission.
The amendment that we have before us would restrict the ability of the Minister of Finance and the Governor in Council from going ahead with any tariff reductions with the United States. If this amendment passes, then the Government would be required to come before Parliament to have debated a particular piece of legislation that would implement any reduction in those tariffs between Canada and the United States.
Because this trade agreement, that perhaps is still being negotiated, is so important to Canada and our ability to control our destiny, we feel that it is extremely important that Cabinet, which really is the Governor in Council, not be given the power to implement automatically tariff reductions with the United States. We feel it is of prime importance that the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, this Parliament and the House, have the opportunity to review publicly and debate publicly the merits of any such tariff reductions. As we have seen, anything that this Government has negotiated has not lived up to the initial image that was created by the Government. It has not ended up being the panacea that we were led to believe. We think Parliament has the responsibility to debate these issues to ensure, whether it is softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, or energy, that the Government be forced to come before Parliament to get permission.
As I stated yesterday, this procedure that we are trying to put in place is very similar to the procedures at the local planning level which establish rules for how a community shall look, and if anyone wants to change those rules, they have to go through a public process. So it is a trigger mechanism, instead of what exists in Clause 62 where the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, can say, "We have this deal, and let us implement it", without any of us having the opportunity to go through the ramifications of it, and finding out after the fact what has happened.
In a nutshell, those are basically the concerns that we have. I know that some of my other colleagues wish to make some comments on this Bill, so I will leave it at that.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion. The proposed amendment is unacceptable since it is an obvious attempt to discriminate and make representations against the United States. This particular motion is basically the same as Section 11 of the present Customs Tariff. There is no valid reason for including provisions that would discriminate against a specific country and would probably be unacceptable to GATT. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are here to pass laws that are not only fair but fair to everyone.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons this motion has been put forward is not perhaps as clearly altruistic as the previous motions we have moved which, as you will recall, attempted to bring more control back to Parliament. This motion does that, but it is also clearly and unabashedly aimed at forcing a debate on issues which we may not, as a House of Commons, get to debate concerning the proposed Canada-U.S. trade deal.
This particular motion, if adopted, would force that deal to come before the House, something that current practice does not do. We do not have a clear opportunity to discuss and debate this deal except by way of opposition motions. Apparently the Government has the intention of putting a motion before the House to discuss the principles of the deal, but we will not be able to debate the proposals clause by clause and see the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's. This is just an attempt to demonstrate to the Government that there is another way of going about this.
If we are going to be harmonizing all of our practices with other countries, we should be looking at the practices of some of those other countries to see whether they adopt the practice that we are proposing of sending back national agreements on duty, customs and tariffs as well as larger trade deals to their particular national assemblies, Congress or whatever. If we are going to participate fully and completely in a harmonization process, we think that the process should include harmonization of procedures in the home country, and this amendment would attempt to do that. It would provide the Canadian Parliament with a similar oversight and review provision to what the U.S. Congress has. It would mean that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have to present these proposals, which do affect revenue and taxation to the House because they are in the legitimate purview of the House and of Parliament. Our amendment would encourage that process being adopted in Canada.
I think I have said it so many times that I do not want to repeat it, but this process is one that was put in train by the McGrath review of the role of the back-bencher, carried on by our friend, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), who looked at the methods Parliament uses for controlling the budgetary and taxation process. We have attempted to move amendments throughout the Bill to put some of those ideas into place. This particular amendment goes somewhat toward that as well.
I admit that this amendment is aimed quite directly at the United States with the specific purpose of drawing attention to the fact that we have a very large trade arrangement being proposed between Canada and the United States, an arrangement which the Prime Minister has very modestly referred to as the greatest trade deal in the history of Canada. It is, therefore, likely to have quite an impact on the future history of Canada, so much so that I pointed out to the House

December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
yesterday-some Members may not have been here at the time-the assessment of Clayton Yeutter who felt that in 20 years Canada would not look at all like it is now because it would be much more integrated with American society.
Members of this House were elected to be given an opportunity to review that kind of revolutionary change. This amendment is one effort to allow it an opportunity for debate on the merits of the initiative. We are proposing that the House have an opportunity to look at such initiatives. Previous amendments we have proposed, if they are adopted, will mean that the House will have, after 60 sitting days, to decide yea or nay whether or not the initiatives are acceptable. It is not a great imposition on any Government. Governments in our system have to operate from the basis of majority. A Government would simply use its majority to push the proposal through, but the House would be carrying on its traditional, long established role of having a full opportunity to review taxing and revenue measures, something which our current practice does not give us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 13?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 14 will be debated and voted on separately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 101 by adding, immediately after line 37 at page 41, the following:
"(4) No remission of duties of a value of more than twenty-five dollars may be made unless it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 14 is in the name of my colleague, the Hon.
Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), but moved on his behalf by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
Basically, Clause 101 allows the Government to remit duties which, at times, is done for routine purposes but can also be done as a back-door way of cutting tariffs if a Government is blocked in Parliament. The purpose of the amendment is, therefore, to allow for routine remission of duties to go forward but to require, when remission is of a value greater than $25 million, that there must be action by Parliament.
We believe that there is a potential loss of revenue for Canada as a result of the trade deal. The value of Canadian tariffs on U.S. imports is about $2 billion a year. The Government insists that consumers will benefit under free trade through lower prices because that $2 billion in tariffs will no longer have to be paid. The question then arises, who will pay it? Will this loss be met by cuts in welfare spending? Will it be met by increased taxes on corporations? Or will it be met by the same average Canadians who were meant to benefit from lower prices?
In line with the principle of parliamentary accountability, we are taking the view that if the Government wants to spend more than $25 million, it should require the approval of Parliament and not by Order implement a major reduction in federal government revenues of which Canadians would be almost unaware.
I think the motion clearly speaks for itself. Once again, we are trying to ensure that the actions the Government takes are taken through the House of Commons and not taken in the cabinet rooms. When decisions are made in the cabinet rooms, we do not have access to the documentation or the justification for the decisions. Here in the House we can sometimes get that kind of information.
At this point I will sit down and allow my colleagues to add their comments should they wish to do so.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there has been a slight error in the printing of this motion in the Order Paper of December 2. It describes the motion as saying that no remission of duties of a value of more than $25 may be made unless it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The intention was that that be $25 million. There is some difference.
With the approval of the House, 1 would ask that the motion be posed as it had originally been intended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, it is $25 million, not $25.
The motion reads:
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-87 be amended in Clause 101 by adding, immediately after line
37 at page 41, the following:
December 4, 1987

"(4) No remission of duties of a value of more than twenty-five million dollars may be made unless it is approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
Amendment (Mr. Althouse) agreed to.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in view of that correction, I am now happy to support the motion. I must say that when I looked at it, I had visions of both Houses being tied up examining items worth $25 each.
The first reason I have for supporting this motion is that under normal circumstances, many powers are given to the Government of the day through Order in Council, but the circumstances now are not normal. This Bill which affects tariffs will itself be affected by the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, the contents of which we still do not know because they are under negotiation at the present time. That being the case, 1 think it is incumbent on us to require that as far as possible, all decisions made under this Bill are brought back to the House for ratification.
There is a further problem with the use of remission orders. While the Financial Administration Act requires that remission orders be published at year end in the Public Accounts of Canada, the costs should also be published. This has not been happening. The Department of Finance has frequently said that for one reason or another, it has been unable to assess the costs accurately and it does not wish to estimate a figure. Therefore, one finds remission orders appearing in the Public Accounts of Canada without any figures attached to them, even though that breaches the Financial Administration Act.
This is something that the Public Accounts Committee has made recommendations on and we are awaiting a government response. We have recommended that rather than publish no figure, the Department of Finance produce its best estimate and clearly identify it as an estimate rather than a firm cost. The problem continues. Members of Parliament are being kept in the dark, both at the time the remission order is made and even up to a year afterwards, since costs are not published in the Public Accounts of Canada. Therefore, I think remission orders should be used as sparingly as possible.
I will therefore support this amendment which provides that any remission order which involves costs of $25 million to the Treasury must be brought before the House and not simply dealt with by Order in Council.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment would ensure that all remission orders recommended by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue are tabled in Parliament for approval.
In fact, this was already possible in nearly every case where paying duty would be unfair or a major financial burden for manufacturers, and also to correct anomalies in the Customs Tariff.
Customs Tariff
Last but not least, the proposed amendment would affect a large number of orders annually and needlessly burden Parliament with this administrative task.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to say a few words on this motion before the House, Motion No. 14. We have unanimously accepted a very sensible amendment to this motion put by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and it is also very interesting that-

-in the French version, about the $25 million, it says and I translate: "No customs duties refund exceeding twenty-five million dollars shall be allowed without prior ratification by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

I am not really wed to the figure of $25 million, though the figure is probably appropriate. When dealing with that amount of money, there should be a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. We do believe that at a certain point, there should be some parliamentary approval of and accountability for what is happening.
I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker, that in many ways this little motion before the House is a great Conservative motion. I have been a Member of the House for a number of years and, time and time again, I have seen the Conservative Opposition, led by that great Finance Minister, talk about accountability. They said that those terrible Liberal Ministers of Finance were not accountable to Parliament and that we needed accountability. They said that if elected, the Conservative Party would be accountable.
The same is true of conflict of interest guidelines. I recall that Ged Baldwin, one of the most thoughtful Members ever elected in the history of Canada, campaigned for years on effective conflict of interest guidelines. Those guidelines were accepted by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) when he was Prime Minister, but now the boy from Baie Comeau is the Prime Minister and he has breached all the past history, rhetoric and traditions of the Conservative Party on that issue.
When the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was in opposition, he made many speeches about accountability. He said that Parliament must be accountable to the taxpayers for their money and that we could not trust the bureaucrats and Cabinet to pass Orders in Council. It is really quite irksome for me to have to defend a traditional Conservative position because the Minister of Finance no longer has the ability to do it himself. I can refer to speech after speech in which he said what I am saying now.
I could go on to talk about how power changes people. The Minister of Finance is a prime example of that. Now that he is a government Member, he is acting like a traditional Liberal

December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
bureaucrat. He has to hide things from the public, from Members of Parliament and from his own back-benchers. That is one reason why this Government is so unpopular. The Minister of Finance has undergone many changes, a bit like a chameleon. He is one of those great guys who helped us in Saskatchewan nationalize the potash industry.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: No, Sir.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was when he was in private life. So you can see he has undergone many changes.
Seriously, I want to recommend to the House that we accept this motion. It would mean that when there is to be a remission of more than $25 million, the Government must come back to this House. Members of Parliament, representing the taxpayer, must vote to approve or not to approve such remission. That is democracy. That is accountability. I am sure all members of the Conservative Party will, in the tradition of Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker and Joe Clark, agree with me.
It is very sad that they have to defend a Minister of Finance who does not want to be as accountable or democratic as he was when in opposition. In the tradition of parliamentary reform, how about a little rebellion on the back benches? How about these Conservatives standing up for some of the traditional values they used to spout in opposition? I know the Minister of Finance would like to make this speech, but he is afraid of losing his job. 1 hope some back-benchers will stand up and tell us how they really feel with respect to defending traditional Conservative values.

1 see one of my colleagues from Quebec. He ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate, because he believed in the Party. He believed that the Progressive Conservative Party supported Member participation and a democratic Parliament, and that it was against the Cabinet principle.

-where you have all kinds of secrecy and control exercised by a few people. They should get up and support this amendment. It does not mean the Government is going to be defeated, but it would have to be a little more sensitive to the wishes of ordinary Members of Parliament, let alone ordinary Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I must say I was provoked to rise at this point to-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You are all wet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) should be very careful about where he throws his water. It landed on the desk of his Leader.
The Hon. Member said I have changed colours, that I am a chameleon. He knows that when this Government took office,
we were bound and determined to develop the most open form of Government imaginable. That is what happened, and let me just comment specifically on tax reform and the process we have been going through in that respect.
I am meeting in about one hour's time with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I have been meeting with all sorts of organizations, a social policy group yesterday, business organizations the day before, labour organizations next week. This is part of the open Government we brought in and to which we are very much committed. It is one of the reasons that the record of this Government is as good as it is. I can repeat the same process on trade, indeed the whole range of policy we initiated.
The Hon. Member said I will not stand up and make a speech today because I am afraid I might lose my job. On the day that unemployment has come down to 8.2 per cent, and on the day we announced 1,035,000 jobs have been created since we took office and instituted our economic program, why would the Hon. Member say I would be afraid I might lose my job if I make a speech? I walk along Sparks Street here and people are slapping me on the back saying, "It is great to see you. It is going up from a million jobs. This is the best open and effective Government we have had". That is why this motion on the Table today is totally specious. It is not grounded in fact whatsoever.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak after the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who says he is not a chameleon and does not change his thoughts or direction. Yet he has been defending a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. At least I presume he has. He did not particularly do it in his most recent intervention. However, I go back and look at some of the things said by that same Hon. Minister when he was a candidate for the leadership of his Party. To quote from Maclean's magazine of June 13, 1983, on the subject of bilateral trade, he said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
Those are the words of the Hon. Minister who does not change his spots or direction.


Mr. McKenzie:: Tell us about Pawley's position.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We are now listening to a Government which has decided to approve a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. which the Minister said was simplistic, naive and would not serve this country well.
It is reassuring to hear that the unemployment figures are down slightly to 8.2 per cent. I wonder if the Minister still believes his initial assessment, which is the same as ours, that the proposed deal will diminish our ability to compete internationally. I wonder what he will be able to report to the House after January 1, 1989, when our economy begins to change to fit in to that new pattern.
December 4, 1987

It sometimes helps to listen to the advice of the poet Burns who said that the Lord should give us the power to see ourselves as others see us. When we look at the way others see us on this trade deal, we see President Reagan said:
If past is prologue, we know what the results will be. Almost two hundred years ago, trade barriers vanished in the United States' part of this continent after the new constitution took effect. Almost immediately a stagnant economy began to boom. The U.S.-Canada free trade agreement is a New Economic Constitution for North America. It will, I believe, inaugurate a similar continent-wide economic expansion.
He does not say who will benefit from the expansion, but he is quite certain there will be one. The New York Times, in its headline of October 6, 1987, summed it up about as well as it can be summed up from the American point of view. It read:
Today Canada: Tomorrow the World
We have as well another assessment by William Randolph Hearst Jr., Editor-in-Chief of The Hearst Newspaper Syndicate. On October 11, 1987, he said:
The momentous move towards uniting the two countries economically is very gratifying to me. For more than a decade my Pop urged in his newspapers that Canada become part of the U.S.
Very briefly, that is what the U.S. saw and sees in this deal. Quite frankly, that is how we see it as well. That is why we propose to make some changes to this particular initiative dealing with the harmonization of trade. We propose in this amendment that any trade-related initiative taken by the Government with respect to duty remission or tariff changes which will have an over-all impact on the income of the Government of Canada beyond $25 million be referred to this House for study and debate within 60 sitting days as proposed in previous amendments. We think this only makes sense. It provides an opportunity for the House to be part of decisions which affect the revenue-generating capacity of the country and tax initiatives which the House of Commons is supposed to hold sacred. We therefore urge Members to consider a $25 million level for such initiatives.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this amendment because I think it is an important amendment. As we have heard this morning, the Government talked many times about accountability in the House of Commons. Although we are not wed to the figure of $25 million, we think that tariff remissions of a substantive amount should be brought before the House of Commons.
In debating the free trade agreement we have not taken into account that there will be about $2 billion less national revenues collected. When revenues are not collected, they become an expenditure. We ask that such an expenditure be brought before the House of Commons. We are not asking the Government to take a giant step. We are only asking it to implement the values it said it stood for.
It is ironic that New Democratic Members are putting themselves in the position of the Conservative Government in that we are quoting that which the Conservative opposition
Customs Tariff
said so often. The House of Commons should have the ability to decide where a $25 million tariff remission will be taken from. Will it be taken from social services, child care programs or even nuclear submarines? I do not know what the priorities of the Government are because it has never been very clear on that.
If such initiatives are not brought to the House of Commons the Government will be following the old traditions which allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the authority to spend that amount of the money of the Canadian people. Under the American-Canadian free trade agreement remissions can be allowed with a simple signature and there is less and less accountability. I do not think that is what Canadian people are looking for. The Government, which campaigned on accountability and openness, should realize that the Canadian people are getting pretty fed up with the constant turn-arounds on all its programs. A simple amendment such as this does not destroy the Bill. It only implements the kind of value system about which the Conservatives talked so often.
We have heard nothing about how the billions of dollars in revenues which will not be collected will be replaced. In response to questions asked in the House we are told that there will be less spending for consumers as prices will be lower. However, no one talks about how the Canadian Government is going to operate with less revenue. I believe that a government which keeps talking about fiscal responsibility should be accountable. It should be able to tell the House of Commons that when a tariff is remitted, x, y, and z methods will be implemented to replace the revenues. There is nothing in this legislation which says that.
Through this amendment we are asking that any substantive remission be brought before the House of Commons. Our intention is not to obstruct the business of the country. If smaller amounts need to be remitted, we have no problem with that. However, we believe that when it gets to a certain level, the House of Commons should be able to examine it and find out which programs are being cut back or cut out because revenues are not available due to the tariff remission.
I do not think that is too big a step to ask the Government to take. Ordinary Canadians have asked for that kind of accountability for a long time. As I said before, the Government campaigned on that kind of accountability. I do not understand why they object to this now. I believe that it would facilitate the operation of the Government of the day. It would enable Canadians to know exactly what is happening under international agreements. Huge amounts of tariffs would not be remitted without the people of Canada, through the House of Commons, being aware of it.
I, therefore, urge the Members of the House to support this amendment because I believe it will help the operation of the Government of Canada.


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

December 4, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Nystrom) negatived.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that I call it eleven o'clock and we proceed to Statements by Members?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission has released a study entitled "Pesticides in Canada: An Examination of Federal Law and Policy". From it one learns that Canadians are changing their attitude toward the use of chemicals and pesticides.
The study recommends that the Pest Control Products Act be amended to: one, require consideration of groundwater contamination potential when pesticides are proposed for registration; two, provide for public access to health and safety tests relied on in support of a registration application, a 60 or 90-day comment period, and a right to require a hearing before a board review; three, set up a system of priorization for pesticide re-evaluation reviews and to screen registered pesticides to identify those registrations which are based on old or incomplete safety data and for which new evidence suggests they may endanger human health or the environment; four, increase fines under the Pest Control Products Act substantially; five, require that a substantial share of the pest control research budget is spent on research into non-chemical alternatives to pest control.
These are some of the recommendations found in the report entitled "Pesticides in Canada". The Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Wise) should launch a public review of the Act using this report as a foundation.



FERRIES


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the level of ferry service between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, and Pictou, Nova Scotia, will increase substantially next year. I am pleased to advise the House that the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), has approved 400 additional round trip crossings for the spring and fall months of 1988.
This is great news, not only for the trucking industry but for all people travelling between the Provinces of P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. The people in my riding are particularly pleased because they depend upon this ferry crossing to move goods and services throughout the spring, summer, and fall months.
With a total of some 6,600 round trips expected next year we will see additional employment created at Northumberland Ferries Ltd. and, of course, more goods and services will move between the Provinces of P.E.I. and Nova Scotia.
OO)
That will assist our economy greatly and demonstrates the Government's commitment to upgrade and improve this ferry service. As well, Cabinet is considering the provision of new vessels for the Northumberland ferry service.
I expect that we will soon have a positive decision in that regard. I can tell the House that it is great news for Prince Edward Island.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia better wake up fast to the reality facing Quintette Coal in northeastern B.C.
The 10 Japanese steel mills that purchase this coal are predictably playing hardball over price. Quintette was originally paid SI02 a tonne and over the past four years has shipped 17 million tonnes, for a total of $1.62 billion, through Prince Rupert. Now the steel mills are paying $95 a tonne and are demanding that the price be lowered to $57.85 a tonne. In
December 4, 1987

fact, southeastern B.C. producers are now receiving only $56 a tonne.
Reports from B.C. indicate that shipments to Japan are now 300,000 tonnes behind schedule, threatening closure of the mine because Quintette has run out of room to stockpile coal.
The difference between the price being paid Quintette and the world price for coal has reached $180 million a year. The Japanese have asked for arbitration to determine whether or not the buyers have the right to terminate the coal purchase contract.
The taxpayers of Canada have put up hundreds of millions of dollars to float this project. Someone in the Government had best wake up to the fact that the Japanese are trying to torpedo it.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Minister responsible for the development of the Montreal region made a statement pertaining to the Picard report which was tabled in this House over a year ago. As if a reminder is necessary, it so happens that this Government has been in office for three years already. Before the election the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had said that he would do everything possible so that Montreal might regain its role as Canada's great metropolitan region. Well, the first move right after the election was to transfer the air transport investigation office from Montreal to Ottawa. First loss of responsibility for the city of Montreal.
Since then the Picard committee was set up and its report included a series of 70 recommendations. The Government took a whole year to act on it, and here is a newspaper article published after the Minister's statement: "Federal commitments in principle were Mr. de Cotret's general response to the recommendations of the Picard report. There was some confusion about which specific aspects of the report had been taken under consideration, so much so that after the Minister's briefing spokesmen for the city of Montreal and the Chamber of Commerce asked for a written summary of commitments made. In a number of cases it is just a matter of continuing studies and consultations about carrying out such or such project. Mr. de Cotret did not make any financial commitment."
This situation is totally unacceptable and, as my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) put it, the Conservative Government took a whole year to produce an utterly meaningless document: nothing but pious wishes, nothing concrete for Montreal East, nothing specific to create jobs in the city of Montreal.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to learn during a recent briefing by the Canadian Mining Association that the Canadian mining industry has been operating financially in the black for the last two quarters and that global metal consumption is at near record highs. This follows six years of depressed global metal prices.
More important, I want to report to the House that the Mining Association of Canada completely supports the enhanced trading relationship with the United States. The background of this is that this industry vital to Canada was facing major import restrictions on potash, uranium and steel products, together with trade barriers being threatened for the base metal industry. The health of these industries is vitally dependent on trade relationships across the North American markets.
Furthermore, the Mining Association supports the White Paper on Tax Reform and, in fact, urges the federal Government to move as quickly as possible to Phase II of tax reform at an early date.
It is reassuring to know that the Canadian mining industry, which is so important to Canada, is returning to economic viability and supports the economic policies of the Government.



AIR TRANSPORT


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the United States and Japan signed an agreement on November 4, 1987, which proposes to have plutonium flown over Canada. The Government has consistently said not to worry about this cancer causing substance being flown over our North because the transport route has yet to be selected.
Yet in a letter dated April 30, 1987, Secretary of State George Schultz said: "On the question of routing, it requires only that the aircraft returning plutonium from Europe to Japan must take a polar route or another route that avoids civil disorder and natural disasters." Given this information, the only possible route is across our North.
I will put money on it that if attempts were made to fly the plutonium powder across the 48 lower States, civil disorder would definitely be provoked.
The Government also said that it would be premature to take action to block these flights because no official request to

December 4, 1987
permit such overflights has been received. If anyone cares to read the agreement, they will see that it is contingent upon air transport of plutonium. In other words, the agreement specifically requires air transport.
Another very important concern is that the Government keeps saying it will only agree to the shipments if safe casks are to be used.
What is the Government's definition of safe? Currently, Canada officially adheres to the International Civil Aviation Organization guidelines. For the air transport of radioactive material, ICAO in turn defers to the International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines which require a cask capable of withstanding a 50 kilometres per hour impact test. We are concerned with air transport, not automobile transport. The Government must say no to plutonium overflights now.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Statistics Canada released the new unemployment figures in Canada. Unemployment is down to 8,2 per cent, the lowest level in six years.
Mr. Speaker, this clearly shows that the efforts made by our Government have brought concrete results, even if Opposition Parties have constantly and fiercely attacked our policies; they are using exactly the same approach with the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the months and years to come will do justice to this Government and its great Prime Minister. Deals such as the Meech Lake Accord and the Free Trade Agreement with the United States are historic and extremely profitable for Canadian men and women in general.



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last Fall, Mr. Speaker, the Government announced substantial cuts in the budget of the National Research Council as well as major capital expenditures in a new space agency in Canada. In an atmosphere of total confusion which we are getting accustomed to after three years, the Government announced that the space agency would become a major research instrument. At the same time, it was announced that Canada would not
participate in the greatest space research program, namely, the United States' Strategic Defense Initiative.
Since then, nothing! We do not know when or where the new space agency will be established; the promised research resources have not materialized; in short, utter "Mulronian" uncertainty and confusion prevail.
Will the new agency be based in Ottawa? Will it be based in Montreal? Will it be based partly in Ottawa and partly in Montreal? Nobody knows! As a matter of fact, the Minister himself has recognized to the media that the Prime Minister is the only one who knows. He has informed us that he has detailed information, and that it would be a political decision on the part of the Prime Minister.
What really concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the admission by the Minister responsible for Science and Technology that this will be essentially a political decision of the Prime Minister. We do not need a political decision, but a decision based on good sense applying effectiveness and productivity criteria.
Unfortunately, since coming to power, this Government has not come up with many rational decisions. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this space agency should be established in the National Capital region.



CHILD CARE


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Yesterday, I, like millions of Canadian parents, was delighted by the announcement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with respect to a new national strategy on child care.
The $5.4 billion program over the next seven years will not only double the number of child care spaces in Canada, but will provide a much more realistic tax break for families with young children. Increasing the tax deduction to $4,000 per child for receipted child care expenses for children six years of age and under, will really be a boon to millions of middle-income families across Canada. The $200 a year refundable tax credit recognizes the role of parents who stay at home with their children or use informal baby sitting arrangements.
Most important, this new policy reinforces the rights of parents and provinces to choose the child care arrangement most suitable to their needs. The 75 per cent assistance for non-profit day care centres will certainly expand their activities and their spaces. The new arrangements with the provinces for cost sharing will help the provinces shape programs most suitable to the regions.
December 4, 1987

For the first time after years and years of discussion and debate, it is this Government that has taken real action on child care needs. As a woman, I know that this will ensure that women across the country finally have a chance to reach the goal of economic equality. As a parent, I know that parents as well will now, for the first time, have realistic choices and opportunities to meet their child care needs.



WORLD CUP SKI JUMPING COMPETITION AT THUNDER BAY

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the eyes of Canada and the world will be on Thunder Bay this weekend. Big Thunder, the home of the National Sports Training Centre, will be host to 93 competitors, representing 17 countries, at the Molson World Cup of Ski Jumping, the kick off event for this year's international ski jumping circuit.
Canadians will be watching our own team, Horst Bulau, Colin Capel, Tod Gillman, Ian McGrath, Ron Rautio and Ron Richards as they take on the world. We will also be watching young Steve Collins, our Ojibway jumper, as he returns to the World Cup circuit. We all want to wish them good luck.
Thanks go as well to the hundreds of volunteers and the staff of Big Thunder for making this event possible. But the Government of Canada can make it even better. It can announce before this weekend that it has agreed to support Thunder Bay's bid for the 1991 or 1993 World Nordic Games. That would be the cap on an excellent weekend ahead.
I encourage all Canadians to tune into the World Cup this weekend to watch Thunder Bay host the world.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the Conservative Government of Canada are legion. The record shines with promises fulfilled and an ever improving national economy.
Unemployment, which had continuously increased under the Liberals, in line with their high interest rate policies and constraints on Canadian enterprise, is now being brought under control. Under our new enlightened Government, Canada has seen the creation of over one million new jobs. Today the unemployment rate stands at only 8.2 per cent, the lowest since 1981. In many regions of the country it is virtually zero, and even in hard-core areas people are finding more jobs are available.
The success of Conservative economic policy is evident to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were thrown out of work by the Liberal-Socialist coalition but who are now gainfully employed and making good money under the Conservative Government.



TOXIN TAINTED MUSSELS-PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT TIMEFRAME

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a telephone call from a woman whose father is in intensive care in the Montreal General Hospital. Much to my surprise, I also received a press release from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which shows that his Government hid the information about the tainted mussels for at least two days before releasing that information to the public.
It is possible that not only did the Government try to hide the information for two days, but we have information that the mussel tainting may have been hidden for up to seven days, a situation which has put the industry at risk and, more importantly, has put Canadians at risk. This particular woman's father ate those mussels during the period when the Government, in making a public announcement about the situation, could have prevented more Canadians from being hospitalized.
1 call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who issued a statement which clearly showed that for at least two days he did not make a public announcement when he knew about the tainted mussels, to come clean with the public and, in particular, to report to this House why he did not tell Canadians that eating mussels could possibly put them at risk.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the high interest rate charged by Canadian banks is a serious contributor to the cause of our national debt, our farm and small business debt crisis, and the slow growth in our national economy. Not only do chartered banks pay very little income tax but their high interest rates are the reason many selfemployed people do not have to pay income tax themselves.
Banks are also ripping off the public by charges to an account, from taking money out of one's own account to depositing money into one's own account, plus many, many more charges. I was glad to hear the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) say that those charges are going to be investigated.

December 4, 1987
Oral Questions
There is now a 6 per cent spread between some interest paid to customers and interest charged to a borrower.
Banks must be made responsible to the public and must share some fiscal payment to reduce the deficit of the federal Government. Banks should not be looked on as loan sharks but rather as respectable businesses in our society. This can only be attained if they change their ways.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is extremely unfair to quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) using his own words but I will do so anyway. On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister sent a letter to Members of Parliament in which he said about conflict of interests:
We have taken great pains to ensure that the new Code leaves no doubt that the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal Government rests with the Cabinet and, more particularly, with me.
He said further:
In carrying out that responsibility the Government is directly accountable to Parliament and through Parliament to the people of Canada. You will find no quasi independent agencies in this Code that will allow the Government to shirk its responsibility by saying that the problem belongs to someone else. Nor will you find anything which will relieve me and my colleagues of the necessity of exercising judgment.
Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has failed to exercise judgment when he has maintained in the past that there was no conflict of interest in relation to the issue involving the Member of Parliament for York Peel (Mr. Stevens). Very clearly the Prime Minister has misled the people of Canada-inadvertently probably, of course.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member just saved himself, I guess, by saying it was inadvertent misleading. But whether that "inadvertent" came out as the Speaker rose, I will never know.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CHILD CARE


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) tabled the federal response to the report of the Special Committee on Child Care, of which I was a member. I would like to compliment the Minister on his announcement. The strategy acknowledges that Canadian
parents should have the choice of child care for their own children. Tax assistance initiatives will respect their choice.
Many low and middle-income families who care for their children at home, or who have a friend or relative care for their children, will be eligible for a new supplement to the refundable child tax credit. This will be increased by $200 a year for a child six years and under. This increase will be phased in over the 1988 and 1989 tax years.
The existing deduction for receipted child care expenses will increase to $4,000 for a child aged six and under, or a child with special needs.
This strategy in no way usurps the provinces' authority but is done in concert and to augment the provincial Governments' child care policies. The National Strategy on Child Care recognizes that parental choice is paramount by offering to families a policy which will help all Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On April 30, 1986, I asked the then Deputy Prime Minister about the conduct of the Hon. Member for York-Peel. The Deputy Prime Minister in that Question Period made the following statement:
-the responsibility of the Prime Minister to the House and to the country is to ensure that there has been full compliance with the code of conduct which has been established for the guidance of Ministers of the Crown. That responsibility has been discharged. The Prime Minister, the Government, and 1 are satisfied that there has been full compliance with the code of conduct by the Minister.
That was in April, 1986. I think it is important, on the day following the close of a sorry episode in the life of this Government, the expenditure of over $3 million, the disgrace of a Minister, that we find out here what the Government and the Prime Minister have learned from it all. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge his own responsibility, that his assurance to the House was false that the Hon. Member for York- Peel had done nothing wrong-


Mr. Speaker:: The House will understand the difficulty that the Chair can be in with respect to this particular subject.
Hon. Members have every right, of course, to ask questions concerning the general issue. However, I wish to make it very clear that the Chair will not allow questions or preambles to amount to a charge of any type against any Member in this place.
December 4, 1987

If it is the desire, or if there is some reason why any charge should be made against anybody, whether they are members of the Cabinet or outside the Cabinet, then there is a proper way to lay that charge, and it is not in Question Period by way of a preamble.
The Hon. Member for York Centre is a very experienced parliamentarian who has occupied positions of high importance and trust in the country, and he knows the rules as well as the rest of us do.
I am not stopping him from asking questions about conflict of interest guidelines, or what the Government may or may not have known at the time, but I will not permit Hon. Members to use preambles to make charges against people. If that is what they feel they must do, there is another way to do it.
The Hon. Member will continue his question and keep in mind the Chair's admonishment.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will do so, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the guidelines that I referred to, and that he has introduced, were not respected, that the guidelines were not policed at all, and that the Prime Minister had no basis whatsoever for claiming that that Member would be back in Cabinet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that I and the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the House was complete and forthcoming, was based on all of the information that we had at that time, and was secured in a proper and appropriate way. That information was shared with the House.
Clearly, when the article first came out, there were meetings between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, there were meetings between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister, and there were meetings between myself and the Minister in respect of each and every one of those allegations.
Based on the assurances that we received, the Deputy Prime Minister and I spoke to the House in the manner in which we did. I take back not a word of what I said, because that was based upon information imparted to me and to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Clearly, the Parker Royal Commission, having interrogated and examined this matter very carefully for some 18 months, has adduced new evidence which is before the country. I acknowledge that we accept that version, and will be acting upon it.


ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister says that he takes nothing back; the Member for York-Peel says that he takes nothing back and did nothing wrong. I began by asking what had been learned from this experience.
Oral Questions
I wish to ask the Prime Minister, in light of all that has happened, has he changed? Are the guidelines going to be enforced? For example, in light of everything that has happened has the Prime Minister taken any steps to assure that those guidelines are now being respected by his Ministers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear, and I know that my hon. friend would want this not to be subject to any misinterpretation.
When I stated that I take nothing back with regard to what I said, that dealt with the information that I supplied to the House pursuant to an examination of the material and discussions and questions submitted to the Minister by me, by the ADRG, by the Deputy Prime Minister, and conveyed to the House that same day. It is in regard to that that I ask my hon. friend to understand my use of the phrase.
In regard to the conflict of interest guidelines and problems, I appointed an impartial Royal Commission, and a Chief Justice of impeccable character to conduct this investigation fully, which he did. As evidence unfolded before the commission, which only came out in the course of using the instruments available to a Royal Commission and not available to an ordinary Member of the House or even to the Prime Minister, in light of this I instructed the Associate Secretary of the Cabinet, Mr. J. L. Manion, to review personally with each Minister his or her situation under the code very carefully, and advise me in regard to that interrogation.
I received the advice from the Associate Secretary of the Cabinet that, in his opinion, all the principles and the procedures were being complied with in all cases of members of the Cabinet. I share that information with my hon. friend.


PRIME MINISTER'S TELEPHONE CALL TO FORMER MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister was reported by the Member for York-Peel yesterday as having made what was characterized as a "call of encouragement". In the light of the revelations today, it is interesting that the Prime Minister had discussions or exchanges with the Hon. Member for York-Peel, and in spite of that he was prepared to give him a call of encouragement.
In light of the press release and statement put out yesterday, what was the tenor of that encouragement? Given that the Member for York-Peel does not accept the judgment, he indicates that he is considering appeal, I want to ask whether the encouragement of the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty here is strictly procedural, and that is whether or not that question pertains to the administration of the Government. I do not want in any way not to give the Hon. Member the appropriate opportunity to ask questions, but I have some considerable doubt as to whether the private conversation between the Prime Minister and the Member of Parliament relates to the administration of the Government.

December 4, 1987
Oral Questions
I am wondering if the Hon. Member for York Centre might find another way to place his question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me come directly to the public policy aspect. Does the Prime Minister's encouragement include an intention that the taxpayers of Canada should pay for any legal actions now that the Member for York-Peel might take?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the telephone call to which my hon. friend refers took place after the tabling of the report in the House of Commons.
It was a call on behalf of my wife and myself to another human being, to express the sadness that any Member of Parliament would feel at the plight in which he found himself.
It in no way detracted from the statement that I issued wherein we accepted fully the recommendations and the judgments issued yesterday by Chief Justice Parker.
As a human being I would feel the same sadness for any Member of the House irrespective of the Party that he represented.


PRIME MINISTER'S DISCHARGE OF DUTY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister on the same topic.
On September 9, 1985, the Prime Minister appointed no less a person than himself to ensure that Ministers complied with the conflict of interest guidelines. Judge Parker concludes in his report that the Minister broke the rules no less than 14 times in his tenure as Minister of the Crown and demonstrated what has been referred to as complete disregard for the rule of conflict of interest.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that he has failed in the discharge of his duty of administering the conflict of interest guidelines in the way he said he would himself? What will he do to ensure that he and his Cabinet colleagues follow the rules now and from here on in?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 1985, I took the guidelines that had been set out by Mr. Trudeau, we typed them up, improved upon them, we believed, and conveyed them to all Members of the House. Clearly as I have acknowledged, and as anyone would know, the guidelines are not perfect. They were good in type but clearly imperfect and the judge has referred to that in his Royal Commission Report and we accept that judgment.
I draw the Member's attention to an important statement by the judge at page 361 of his report where he says this:
It is important to remember that no conflict of interest system can, by itself, guarantee ethics in government or prevent dishonourable conduct on the part of cabinet ministers or other public office holders. Ultimately, public trust and
confidence in the integrity of government depends upon the integrity of
individual public office holders and their individual sense of honour.
That is the responsibility upon all of us. While we can and shall act further to improve the Code of Conduct and tighten up even further, as the judge suggests; in respect to conflict of interest, ultimately in the end it is our responsibility as individuals to the House of Commons and to the country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the last comment of the Prime Minister. Improving guidelines is one thing but changing the attitude of Governments and members of a Government is another.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: And of the House.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that the Prime Minister has failed in his task to administer the conflict of interest guidelines, as pointed out by Judge Parker, is the Prime Minister prepared to ask a more competent person to administer these guidelines? Is he prepared to legislate these guidelines and is he also prepared to include penalties, since obviously a code of ethics was not sufficient as far as this Government was concerned?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of anyone failing in his task to administer conflict of interest guidelines or the like. As Judge Parker pointed out in his sizeable report, it is ultimately the Member's responsibility to behave in accordance with the guidelines at all times. The most fool-proof system in the world is useless unless the Member decides to abide by it. There is the basic issue of human nature. As far as we are concerned, we have carefully read the judge's recommendations, and we will make further improvements and provide even stricter criteria for the guidelines that will be submitted very shortly.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION IN APRIL, 1986
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On the morning of April 29, 1986, knowledge of Mrs. Stevens' loan from someone dealing directly with her husband's Department became publicly available. From that moment on, in the words of Judge Parker, surely there was what he described in the following words:
The mingling of private and public business-that clearly involves a conflict
of interest and is wrong by any measure.
Is the Prime Minister saying today that he still believes he was carrying out his responsibilities at that time in not asking then, promptly and immediately, for the resignation of the Member for York-Peel?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Member asks me whether I was carrying out my responsibilities. This is the article that appeared that morning
December 4, 1987

in The Globe and Mail, the morning of the twenty-ninth. When it appeared-and this is on the record-I immediately instructed the Deputy Prime Minister to meet with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to examine this matter. I instructed the Deputy Prime Minister to meet with the then Minister. I met with the then Minister myself. I fully reported to the House in that regard.
On the basis of information and responses provided to us, the decisions we took at the time were appropriate. Clearly in the light and with the benefit of an 18 month royal commission, the evidence adduced during the life of that commission is different from the information imparted to us and of which we had knowledge that morning.
The article appeared when we arrived at the office and at two o'clock we were providing this House with the information that we did. The information that we provided the House with was all of the information that I think any reasonable person could have been expected to acquire in those time frames and with the instruments available to us.
Obviously there has been a change in the perception of a conflict of interest. I do not disagree with the assessment of the judge, given the benefit of his power of inquiry and the opportunity that he had to reflect upon this evidence, to bring down a value judgment in the course of an 18-month inquiry. But I am satisfied that I acted promptly and properly in advising the House as I did at that time.


MINGLING OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BUSINESS-TIMING OF REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret the Prime Minister's answer. I am not referring to information that Judge Parker brought out in the course of his inquiry. 1 am not referring to any facts that came out after the twenty-ninth. I am talking about facts that became publicly available, particularly in this instance, that Mrs. Stevens had stated she had made this loan with someone with direct business dealings with her husband's Department. The Minister then admitted that he was aware of that loan on that day.
Given Judge Parker's very concise and, I think, accurate description of what a conflict of interest consists of and his talking about a co-mingling of private and public concerns, surely at that moment when it became public knowledge that that loan had been made to the wife of the Minister, the Prime Minister ought to have understood in the most basic sense that a conflict of interest existed from then on, and he ought to have demanded the resignation of the Minister. Why did he not demand that resignation then?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should not get exercised. The question deserves an appropriate response. He asks why. The answer is that the public official charged with ensuring compliance of the conflict of interest guidelines, the ADRG, provided the Deputy Prime Minister that very morning with
Oral Questions
the assurance that the Minister in question was in full compliance with the guidelines.
Subsequent to that, in regard to other allegations in the story, there was a meeting between the Deputy Prime Minister and others and the then Minister for a careful examination, as there was with me, prior to coming to the House. 1 conveyed to the House all of the information imparted to me and to my colleagues, and the view of the ADRG.
I acknowledge, with the benefit of this Royal Commission's 18-months work, I can tell my hon. friend without reluctance that if I had had this kind of information available to me, or any semblance thereof, clearly I could have come to a different conclusion. On the basis of the evidence provided to us that day when I spoke to the House, prior to my departure the next day for the Far East, 1 gave my hon. friend and colleagues in the House all of the information that was made available to us, together with the value judgment expressed by the ADRG that the then Minister was in full compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines.


JUDGE'S FINDINGS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, for whatever reason the Prime Minister is simply missing the point. I am talking not about what Judge Parker revealed. Judge Parker was well aware that he had no mandate to pass judgment on the Prime Minister in terms of his exercising his responsibility. Some of us wanted that included in the terms of reference, and the Prime Minister knows it was not included, but 1 want to give the Prime Minister Judge Parker's comments and ask him now if he thinks it was pertinent to the public knowledge that he had at the time? Judge Parker says:
The mingling of private and public business .. . that clearly involves a
conflict of interest and is wrong by any measure.
Since the Prime Minister knew on the morning of April 29, 1986, that Mrs. Stevens had in fact obtained this interest-free loan from a person doing direct business with her husband's Department, does the Prime Minister not agree that Judge Parker's precise description of a conflict of interest applied then and there to the Member for York-Peel? If the Prime Minister does agree with that, why did he not demand his resignation then?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that I knew something, presuming that I knew for certain that that was the truth. 1 did not know. What I did know was that there was an allegation made in a newspaper, and in political life there are many of these. It is incumbent that while we act thoroughly, we act with prudence, and that people at least be given the benefit of some degree of the presumption of innocence.
The newspaper allegation appeared the first thing in the morning. 1 immediately instructed the Deputy Prime Minister to meet with the ADRG who is responsible for ensuring

December 4, 1987
Oral Questions
compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines and received the assurance that there was full compliance. I went further and instructed the Deputy Prime Minister to meet specifically with the then Minister and received further assurances. I met with him myself and received the assurances that I conveyed to Members of the House of Commons.
My hon. friend says in his prefatory remarks that he wanted a certain question included in the terms of reference. I beg to differ with my hon. friend. My recollection is that opposition Parties did not want an impartial Royal Commission at all; they wanted some kind of a parliamentary group. We are the ones who established an impartial Royal Commission to get all the truth out because we had absolutely nothing to hide and we wanted Canadians to have all the truth via an impartial Royal Commission.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ETHICAL STANDARDS OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Canadians want honesty and morality to be the practice of the Government of Canada. Morality can begin to be restored if Mr. Justice Parker's recommendations on conflict of interest are followed. I believe that honesty can begin to be restored if the Prime Minister accepts today his personal responsibility for the failure of the conflict of interest guidelines authored by the Prime Minister.
In that regard I would ask the Prime Minister if he stands by his words of September 9, 1985, in a letter to all Members of Parliament, in which he said that the ultimate responsibility for the ethical standards of the federal Government rested with the Cabinet and more particularly with him.
If the Prime Minister stands by those words, is he prepared to acknowledge today in light of the findings of the Parker Commission Report that in fact the Prime Minister did not take all the action necessary to enforce his conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question is do I accept responsibility for what happens to members of my Government and the answer is yes. That is the responsibility of the Leader, the Prime Minister, and I say that without any hesitation.
If my hon. friend wants to be fair in a sensitive matter that applies to all Members of the House, I would refer him to what the Chief Justice said. He said:
It is important to remember that no conflict of interest system can, by itself, guarantee ethics in government or prevent dishonourable conduct on the part of cabinet ministers or other public office holders. Ultimately, public trust and confidence in the integrity of government depends upon the integrity of individual public office holders and their individual sense of honour.
Having said that, I will say that I think we had what many people would consider to be a good set of conflict of interest guidelines. The judge thinks that they are less than adequate and he has made some recommendations for full disclosure
and other matters that I have accepted, and we will be acting upon them quickly.
I think, in the circumstances, the appropriateness of appointing an independent royal commission to examine fully the conduct of the Minister represented a substantial departure from past practice in regard to allegations made in this House. I think it was helpful to the political process in Canada and provided the beneficial rule changes that have been suggested which the Government will be dealing with very quickly.


PRIME MINISTER'S ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer but I believe, with respect, that he missed the point. There have been many occasions when the Prime Minister rose in the House with respect to allegations that had been made, either outside the House or inside the House, and gave the House his personal assurance upon his personal investigation that there had been no problem, no conflict of interest or no wrongdoing.
The Prime Minister is telling us today that in the case of the Member for York-Peel he was wrong in retrospect. That calls into question the process that was followed on the many other occasions the Prime Minister had given similar assurances in the House.
My question is simple. The process of restoring the public's confidence in the morality and honesty of Parliament and the Government of Canada can only begin if the Prime Minister rises in his place today and accepts his personal responsibility for failing to impose a set of conflict of interest guidelines authored by the Prime Minister himself because adequate measures were not taken to investigate and ensure those guidelines were being followed. Will the Prime Minister admit that today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, I accept at all times the responsibility for what happens to my Government and my Party and their members. That is a fact of political leadership. One ought never to shirk that responsibility and I am not seeking to, under any circumstances.
My hon. friend is asking whether the conflict of interest guidelines were appropriate. I believed they were when I brought them in. I think many Members on both sides of the House thought they were demanding and exacting when compared with those of other jurisdictions, but clearly that is not a view that is shared by Chief Justice Parker who, having examined this matter, recommends full disclosure and the enactment of legislation in regard to conflict of interest.
Conflict of interest is an extremely complex and difficult human problem. As the judge has pointed out, and I am not trying to hide behind anything the judge has said, the best system in the world will never function unless all Members of Parliament want to live by the spirit and the letter of that law.
December 4, 1987

The best system in the world cannot exist unless human beings agree to be bound by it and to honour it at ail times.
I thought we had made major improvements in past conflict of interest guidelines. I think there is general agreement that we had. Clearly the judge feels that we can improve further on them. In light of the comprehensive review he has made and the seriousness of his recommendations, and indeed the requirement for greater disclosure, I have commended the judge for the thoroughness of his inquiry and the seriousness of his recommendations, and I have indicated publicly the intention of the Government to act quickly in regard to them.


ACTION TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. During today's Question Period the Prime Minister is making it appear that if he had the report of the Parker inquiry on April 29, things might have been different. I think Members of the House view the situation somewhat differently.
This is not just a matter of available information. What we do know is that the Member for York-Peel admitted to the knowledge of the interest-free loan on April 29 and Judge Parker has said that from April 29 on there was a conflict of interest by any measure, not just by the measure of the guidelines that were in effect then.
Was it only political pressure that brought the Prime Minister to take action, because the action was not taken on the basis of information alone?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the action I took was the appointment of the independent Royal Commission with full and complete access, something which is most unusual pursuant to actions in this House of Commons.
The reason I took this action was because I felt it was right and appropriate and in the interests of Canada and the Public Service of Canada and those of us who seek to serve the public that this be done. I appointed a royal commissioner and we gave him complete freedom to select as counsel whomever he wished, and to conduct his inquiry in the manner in which he wanted to, and he did a professional job. He brought in a major series of recommendations for improvements. That is why it was done, because it was in the national interest that it be done, and that is what motivated it.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PRIME MINISTER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think many of us in Canada felt, as we listened to the Hon. Member for York- Peel yesterday, that we were having a replay of Richard Nixon.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Come on, Jim.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the Hon. Member, especially on this subject, would stay away from argument in the preamble, set the facts and ask the question.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I think all fair-minded Canadians now know that two people failed in understanding the trust of public office.
After knowledge of the interest-free loan became public on April 29, 1986, the Hon. Member for York-Peel knew and the Prime Minister knew. As he left for his trip to the Orient, the Prime Minister said: "Don't worry about it. We are leaving the country. In a few days nobody will be talking about it." Why did he say that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not at all either the spirit or the approach that motivated me as my hon. friend can see from my appointment of the independent commissioner. The day after this allegation appeared, I left for Vancouver en route to Tokyo for the Economic Summit and an official visit to Japan. From there I went on to China and an official visit to Korea, and then back home. The day after this appeared I was effectively out of the country for some two or three weeks representing Canada at the Economic Summit and on these official visits.
During the course of that trip, information was provided to me as it arose from time to time. On the basis of new information, I felt that the appointment of a completely independent commissioner was appropriate. It was for that reason that I acted in a manner which I think was clearly in the national interest.


PAYMENT OF FORMER MINISTER'S LEGAL FEES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He failed to answer a question from the Hon. Member for York Centre in this respect. Agreeing that the Prime Minister said he accepts the findings of the Parker Commission, we saw the spectacle of the former Minister thumbing his nose yesterday at the commission, thumbing his nose at Members of Parliament thumbing his nose at the media, aided and abetted by his lawyer who challenged the credibility of the Royal Commission.
Was Mr. Sopinka, in his capacity as legal counsel at the press conference for Mr. Sinclair Stevens, paid by the Government of Canada? In addition, will the Government continue to underwrite the cost of this incredible claim by the Minister that he has absolutely nothing to hide and he is going to appeal this decision? The Prime Minister cannot say he agrees with the findings of the inquiry and continue to pay the legal bills of the person who claims those findings are false.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I am sure the Hon. Member is not suggesting that, notwithstanding the fact there has been a finding by the Royal Commission, the Hon. Member for York-Peel is not able to state his legal

December 4, 1987
Oral Questions
position and pursue that position which he thinks is appropriate? That right is respected by all Canadians and should be respected by the Hon. Member.
With respect to the payment of legal fees, that was announced some time ago and is in accordance with precedent.
Finally, while it is a rather hypothetical question because I do not know the intentions of the Hon. Member for York- Peel, there is no intention to pay any further legal costs. Our commitment was with respect to the Royal Commission.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I accept the commitment by the Minister of Justice that no further legal bills will be paid in the former Minister's attempt to cloud this issue.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will repudiate Mr. Stevens' statement, quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail, in which he said he was a victim of an atmosphere of hysteria whipped up by the news media and Hamilton Liberal MP Sheila Copps?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will the Prime Minister repudiate that statement by his former Minister?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that question is totally inappropriate and has nothing to do with the very important issue we are dealing with here today at great length.


INTEREST-FREE LOAN QUERY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The House knew and the former Minister admitted on April 29, 1986, that there was an interest-free loan. Since the Prime Minister knew about it then, why did he not act at that time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have responded fully and completely to all matters relating to that question.


ENFORCEMENT OF GUIDELINES IN FUTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if he has responded fully to all matters relating to that question, what confidence can the people of Canada have, when there is another situation like this in the future, that the Prime Minister will carry on a proper and full investigation and enforce the conflict of interest guidelines? What confidence can we have that this will not happen again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the confidence my hon. friend seeks should be restored by the fact that he is looking at a Royal Commission report. He is a veteran Member of this House. Perhaps he can
tell us how often Prime Ministers in the past, when confronted with allegations of conflict of interest, have appointed a Royal Commission to investigate the matter fully? I think he will find they were few and far between. This report indicates we have absolutely nothing to hide and we did exactly the right thing on behalf of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHILD CARE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that day care spaces have been growing at the rate of 19 per cent per year, and if that rate continued for the next seven years there would be almost one million day care spaces in Canada, why does the Minister's plan aim at only 400,000 spaces by 1994?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, we have 220,000 day care spaces now, approximately half of which are subsidized. There is a legitimate point of view that we need more subsidized day care spaces accessible to low-income families. The plan we put forward, keeping in mind the plans of provinces like Ontario and Quebec just to name two, was for a 200 per cent increase in subsidized spaces over seven years.
I am not saying for a minute that the Hon. Member is trying to play with the figures, and the percentage she uses is correct. However, that was outside the Canada Assistance Plan. She has to keep in mind that we are talking about subsidized spaces for low-income families. I believe very sincerely that, with the subsidies now available as the provinces decide, for profit spaces will grow possibly at the same percentage rate we have seen in the past. My obligation was to provide a mix, and to provide spaces for low-income families, because that was the requirement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, even accepting the Minister's explanation there is still a shortfall of numbers. With two and a half million children in single-parent families or families where both parents work, 200,000 new spaces over the next seven years do not begin to meet the need. Can the Minister say if he is trying to limit the natural growth, or if he has another plan which has not yet been made clear?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to limit growth at all. I am trying to build in another factor to increase the growth. What I was trying to explain to the Hon. Member and the House was that we were not seeing a sufficient growth on the subsidized side. The committee very clearly pointed that out.
December 4, 1987

So I am looking for a 200 per cent increase over seven years in that sector.
Additionally, the provinces have responsibility in this field. 1 listened to what they said, looked at their reports, and looked at the trend lines which they projected. We believe that with those trend lines and our money we can meet their requirements as well.
The Minister from Quebec said:
My first reaction is I think it's a good program. It's very flexible and it respects the jurisdiction of the provinces. With the help that we are having from the federal Government, it will help Quebec to develop and also diversify the choices.
Mr. Sweeney from Ontario said:
It seems the kind of things we wanted to see in our program in terms of who we wanted to fund and the dollars look to be appropriate.
With respect, I know that this is an emotional issue, but there has to be an understanding of both capacity and fairness. 1 have tried to be as fair as possible keeping in mind that I had a bottom line. I wanted to increase spaces, and I am not going to impose upon parents one system for taking care of their children.


FINANCING OF NATIONAL STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Mis. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister's use of 40 per cent of the child care money through tax measures offers an insulting $17 a month to low-income women rather than licensed quality child care services, while by 1991 he will have grabbed one-third of their child care benefits through deindexation.
Will the Government be fair and honest with Canadians for once? Will it put child care dollars into child care?
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am being honest and very straightforward. Through the Canada Assistance Plan we are putting $140 million per year into child care spaces and the subsidization of them. We will increase that on an annualized basis over a seven-year period to $600 million plus. By any measure that is a substantial increase and is in addition to what the provinces are putting in.
I ask the Hon. Member to be honest for once and to recognize what 1 have done.


AVAILABILITY OF CHOICE TO PARENTS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that his program gives choices. I would like to know what kind of real choice a low-income person has who does not pay income tax and is now paying $800 a month for child care. She has absolutely no choice. Will the Minister tell her what choice she has?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer that question. I have analyzed the NDP response to the Special Committee on Child Care. Our system will provide for 200,000 subsidized spaces. Dividing that by seven we arrive very quickly at a rate of growth of roughly 28,000 spaces a year. The Hon. Member and her Party were willing to put in 21,000 spaces a year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that there will be a question from the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe followed by a question from the Hon. Member for Mackenzie. That will close off Question Period.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON QUEBEC AGRICULTURE
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The UPA held a convention recently in Quebec City, where farm producers had an opportunity to express their profound concerns.
Also, Minister Page has said he is very concerned about the fact in the Agreement, Section 11 of the GATT is not mentioned or even referred to.
Could the Minister and the Prime Minister provide assurances that a specific reference to Section 11 will be included in the Free Trade Agreement and furthermore, could the Prime Minister give us the assurance that there will be no negative impact on Quebec agriculture as a result of this enterprise?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. I think the free trade agreement is excellent for all of agriculture, not only Quebec agriculture. The marketing boards are in place.
I saw that they were concerned about hatching eggs, for example. 1 met with farmers in the egg-hatching industry. Twenty-five per cent of hatching eggs now come across the border from the United States. There is a 3.5 cents a dozen tariff on them which will be reduced over a ten-year period. They admit that that has no effect on importation.
That is one of the concerns which was raised at the meeting and I could go on to list many more. It is still protected under the quota system. I believe that Quebec agriculture is treated very well in this agreement.

December 4, 1987
Interparliamentary Delegation Report [Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION CONCERNING SECTION II OF GATT
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the question. It is simply this: Will Section 11 of GATT be included in the Agreement or will there will be a reference to this Section?
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks farmers have repeatedly accused this Government of not telling the truth. Instead of constantly making excuses, why doesn't the Government make an effort to prove it is telling the truth?


Mr. Speaker:: the Hon. Member is of course asking a very serious question. I also think the Chair has allowed him a very substantial preamble. The Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the accusation that the Government had not been telling the truth on this stems from the statement by the farmers' union that the Government said that agriculture would never be on the table. The Government never said that.
Right from the beginning there were some very important agricultural issues which had to be negotiated which have been very good for Canadian farmers. The Standing Committee has heard all kinds of testimony to that effect.
In response to the Member's other question, this agreement operates under the guidelines of the GATT. We negotiated the agreement under Section 24 of the GATT. GATT rules still apply. We are still a member of the GATT as is the United States.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Jack Scowen: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Self-employed people who pay into CPP do not make any money in some years and, therefore, cannot contribute to CPP in those years.
Would the Minister explain what happens to those individuals' accounts when this happens? Has the Department considered allowing these individuals to contribute in poor years?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there will obviously be an effect on the amount of pension benefits received at the time of retirement by Canadians who are contributing to the Canada Pension Plan whose earnings fluctuate from one year to the next, whether they take early retirement at age 60 to 65 or wait until the age of 70.
The plan provides that 15 per cent of the years of lowest contribution are dropped for purposes of calculation. This does help to remove some of the years of lowest earnings. It increases the pension benefits for those individuals.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report of the delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canadian Branch, which visited Jamaica from November 8 to November 15, 1987.


FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs relating to Bill C-64.
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from residents of Yukon Territory who wish to express their deep concern about the proposed plutonium overflights over northern Canada. In view of both the environmental hazard and the risk of hijacking where this plutonium could fall into hands for military use, these petitioners ask Parliament to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canada.
December 4, 1987


Hon.   Andre. Ouellet@Papineau: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling petitions from my constituents in the riding of Papineau who have heard the Conservative Government is about to impose a special tax on food. Obviously, my constituents object to a measure that would have a very harmful impact on the elderly, large families, the unemployed and low-and middle-income Canadians who are already forced to spend a substantial part of their income on food. They are asking the Government not to go ahead with this proposal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 217 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: 1.	During the postal strike from September 30 to October 16, 1987 what were the costs incurred by Canada Post Corporation for (a) salaries paid to scab workers (b) helicopters (c) buses for transporting scab workers (d) purchase of food for scab workers who had to remain in plants longer than regular shifts for safety reasons?
2.	What amount did Canada Post Corporation pay regular workers for overtime over the first seven days following the end of the strike?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
The information requested is currently not available. Information relating to expenses incurred during the postal strike from September 30 to October 16, 1987 will be reflected in the Corporation's next Annual Report which will be released at the end of the 1987-88 fiscal year.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Customs Tariff



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 39 by adding, immediately after line 6 at page 54, the following:
(3) Where a tariff and Schedule I is charged as a consequence of an order or regulation made under this section, no additional amount of tariff shall be levied on any good which is imported between the date of coming into force of this act and the date of the order or regulation made under this section.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 15 is to eliminate the retroactivity component in the Bill.
Because the harmonized system has been developed over a number of years and is complex by its nature and may well have some adverse and unforeseen effects on certain industries, the Government is giving itself the power, through Clause 139, to change the new tariffs in Schedules I and II for a period of 18 months on a retroactive basis until January 1, 1989.
Some importers continue to complain that this may mean that they could retroactively face a significant increase in tariffs after they have, in good faith, imported goods, paid the tariff that was in force at that time, and then sold those goods at a price which was based on the tariff that was in force at that time.
The purpose of this is simply to ensure that if a tariff is retroactively increased, then an importer who brought in goods in good faith is not unreasonably penalized.
I understand that the Government has established an interdepartmental review board with respect to tariffs that may need to be reviewed under Clause 139. The Government will probably argue that this is sufficient. However, our argument still is that where retroactive action increases a tariff, it would be unreasonable to penalize importers who had acted in good faith. The Government's response is useful but does not obviate the need for our amendment.
Most affected by this clause are small businesses that have not had the time or the money to seek out the new system as did multinationals.
I encourage the Government to give consideration to this amendment. We must ensure that the legislation does not

December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
adversely affect smaller businesses or people who operate quite clearly in good faith.
One can think of many examples of how companies would not have the ability to recover those costs. For example, a company that imports a widget with a 10 per cent tariff would add that cost to the retailer who, in turn, would add his markup when selling it to the consumer. If the Government informs the company a year and a half later that it has increased the tariff to 25 per cent, the only source of that increased cost will be the operating capital of the company. Such a situation could put companies at risk.
I am certain the interdepartmental committee would take that into consideration, but I would rather see an error made on the side of caution in this matter and provide protection by eliminating the retroactivity.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), in support of this amendment. The decisions of the Government in regard to tariffs and the prospect of future changes to tariffs are so uncertain that my constituents have difficulty in taking orders for imported products which they sell. They have difficulty putting in orders because they do not know what rate of tariff they will have to pay, if any tariff at all. Since they are unable to quote a price to a prospective customer, they are in no position to make an order in the country from which they hope to import the product.
Let me deal for a few moments with some comments made earlier today by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He talked very proudly about the fact that substantially more people have found jobs since the Government took office, and that the rate of unemployment is at its lowest in a number of years.
While that is true, it is reported in the Ottawa Citizen today that Ottawa, one of the most prosperous cities in the country, expects an increase of 9 per cent in the welfare rolls in the coming year. The same report has come from Toronto, probably the most prosperous city with one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country, as well as from my City of Winnipeg.
Let us keep in mind what that means. According to the National Council on Welfare, in every city and province in this country, people on welfare are living substantially below the poverty line. In fact, it has been estimated that in 1986 people receiving social assistance lived from 20 per cent to 53 per cent below the generally accepted poverty line. In some cities such as Toronto, 70 per cent of the benefits they receive goes for payment of rent. That is not supposed to be the case, but the fact is that the price of rental accommodation in major cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver is substantially higher than the rent calculation in the monthly welfare cheque made by the provinces.
The Minister also boasted about, as he calls it, his plan to reform the tax system. I remind the Minister that the parliamentary committee that looked at his White Paper, a committee of nine members, seven of whom were fellow Conservatives, said that the federal Government's changes to the standard tax deduction for dependant children will slash benefits from middle income families and do nothing for the poor taxpayers. The proposed changes, coupled with other measures introduced by the Conservative Government since 1984, will cut real child benefits by half or more for upper and middle-income families by 1991. In other words, the people who will really gain from the Minister's proposed tax changes will be precisely those who-I see a Member opposite shaking his head, indicating that what I am saying is not correct. Let me put on the record some of the facts with respect to income distribution and who gets what. In 1981, the top 20 per cent of income earners enjoyed 45 per cent of the national income. The bottom 20 per cent enjoyed just 4 per cent of the national income. If we look at the wealthy, it is even worse. The top 20 per cent income earners enjoyed 68 per cent of the national wealth, while the bottom 20 per cent owned less than 1 per cent of the national wealth. Indeed, it is even worse than that because the top 10 per cent of income earners owned more than 50 per cent of the wealth.
Among the 20 western industrialized countries, Canada has the lowest over-all tax on wealth. Canada is the only industrialized country that permits large amounts of wealth to be accumulated and to be passed between generations without tax liability. I remind the Member who disagrees with me that it was the present Minister of Finance who proposed a year or so ago that there be no tax on the first $500,000 of capital gains.
Canada does not have an annual net wealth tax as do countries such as Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark. In 1985, one in six Canadians lived in poverty. In 1986, the top 1 per cent of high-income Canadians, 63,000 families, had average incomes of $212,000 a year. I also remind the Member that 258 Canadians with incomes over $100,000 paid no income tax at all.
Let us look at corporations and the way the corporation tax system operates. I remind Members that the last major tax change to benefit the wealthy, introduced by the then Liberal Government-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are at report stage debate on a specific amendment. The facts presented by the Hon. Member may be interesting but in what way are they relevant to the specific amendment we are debating? I think that should be clear or he should not be allowed to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has the floor and there are two minutes left in his time.
December 4, 1987


David Orlikow: I would put to the Hon. Member, and to you, Mr. Speaker, that customs tariffs bring in revenue, several billion dollars worth of revenue, and when decreases are made, revenue is lost. I am discussing that kind of thing and comparing those changes with the kind of tax losses we have when Governments give away tax concessions to individuals or corporations. To illustrate, the former Liberal Government brought in the scientific and research tax credit system. It believed it would cost the tax system about $300 million. In fact, it cost the taxpayers of this country $3 billion. When the Conservative Government took office, there was plenty of evidence that this had developed into a tremendous boondoggle which would benefit the wealthy and those who legally, and sometimes contrary to the law, were able to rip off the system. But what did the Government do? It said it was going to stop it but, instead, it grandfathered it so that more than half of the $3 billion was lost while the Conservatives were in office.
Through key deductions, including the three year tax holiday for new mines and the incredibly generous write-off and depletion provisions, the tax rate for resource industries was 20 per cent versus the tax rate of 42 per cent for other corporations. Four mining companies alone saved $250 million because of the three year tax holiday, and these operations had assets of $11 billion. So I say that this amendment is more than necessary and I intend to support it.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleagues on this side of the House-the best side-to vote against this amendment, because we have no intention of proposing tariff increases that will be retroactive to the effective date of the Bill. There is therefore no reason for amending Section 139 as requested by the Hon. Member.
In response to what he said earlier, at least about the issues before the House, he is using statistics to prove that there are people in the highest income bracket who do not pay taxes. He referred to a taxation system, to a position taken by the Economic Council of Canada, and I may remind the Hon. Member that the same Council said that Canada had shown the highest growth percentage in GNP. He did not mention that. He did not mention the present drop in the unemployment rate, as proven by this morning's statistics. In the Ottawa-Hull area it is 6.2 per cent and in Winnipeg, 7.1 per cent, not what other people were saying. These factors are also important for the development of our economy.
Some people would like a society where everybody earns the same salary and everybody pays the same price for goods. Not long ago, I was visiting countries where everybody earns the same salary and everybody pays the same price. You can't even buy stamps!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would therefore challenge the spokesperson for the Government at his word. He says the Government has no intention of
Customs Tariff
using the retroactivity sections of this Act. Is it then prepared to simply delete Clause 139, which is very clear in its ability to tax retroactively? It reads very clearly:
Any order or regulation made pursuant to this Act may, if it so provides, be retroactive and have effect with respect to any period before it is made but no such order or regulation may have effect from a day earlier than the day on which this Act comes into force.
Subclause (2) of Clause 139 states:
(2) Subsection (1) ceases to have effect eighteen months after the day on which this Act comes into force.
Therefore, there are 18 months after the coming into force of Bill C-87 during which time the Government can go back to whatever is date of the coming into force of this Bill and impose additional tariffs.
The effect on small businesses, the chief importers of goods into this country, could be phenomenal. The assurance of the Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) that the Government has no intention of using this clause is not very reassuring. If it has no intention of using the clause, why is it in there? If it is going to be in there, we think it needs a third subclause, which is what our amendment is, stating that the retroactivity portion of this could not come into effect.
As Members of Parliament we constantly hear from importers who are generally small businesses complaining about retroactivity on tariffs. It means that they can face significant increases in tariff costs after they have, in good faith, imported the goods, paid the tariff in effect, and oftentimes resold the goods based on their cost including the tariff. The ability for the Government to come in with a retroactive tariff and impose it after the fact could very easily and effectively put many of those small importers out of business, if this rule were used improperly or without good recognition of the problem.
Retroactive taxation is not something that the House likes to indulge in. Retroactivity in regard to the imposition of tariffs and duties is something that makes it impossible for importers, who are often small businessmen, to continue to exist.
If the Government has no intention of using it, I say that it should withdraw Clause 139 in total. If not, it should accept the amendment that we have made which takes the teeth of retroactivity away from the Government.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am as astonished as my colleagues at the remarks of the Hon. Member from the government side who stated that the Government has no intention of using this clause.
We have proposed an amendment that would effectively stop or severely restrict the application of retroactive tariffs or duties. As a result of the statement made from the government side, it looks as though we do not need this amendment, but we need an amendment that states that Clause 139 should be

December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
deleted. The Government has stated that it has no intention of using it. What the devil is it doing in there?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Ask the bureaucrats.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is suggested from the other side that we should ask the bureaucrats. That is their job on the other side, they are the Government, not us.


John Napier Turner: We did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You got an answer that said they had no intention of using it. I do not understand why any Government would put such a clause in the Bill.
As has been pointed out, often by the time a retroactive tariff or duty is put on, the importer has imported the goods into Canada, they have gone from the importer to the wholesaler, from the wholesaler to the retailer, and they have all charged prices related to their costs including whatever the duty was, if there was one, and then up to 18 months after this Bill comes into force the Government can institute a retroactive tax. Surely that flies in the face of natural justice.
If an importer, a wholesaler, or a retailer brought goods into Canada surreptitiously without paying a duty, then of course they would be subject to the laws of the land, would be taken to court, receive heavy fines, and perhaps even jail terms. The Government has that recourse against those who would try to smuggle goods into Canada without paying a prescribed tariff or duty.
Therefore, it is totally unfair and improper to have a clause allowing retroactivity. We have moved this amendment, and we hope that the Government will accept it in light of its own statement that it has no intention of using that clause.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, would you accept a subamendment that deleted all the words in Motion No. 15 and substituted therefor the words "That Clause 139 be deleted"? I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if that is permissible under the rules?
The Government has stated that it has no intention of implementing Clause 139, obviously the clause should be deleted. I do not know if it is a proper thing to do. We would need the advice of the Chair. I or perhaps a government Member would be willing to move such an amendment to Motion No. 15, and we can get it cleared out of the way and settled very quickly.
I would appreciate your advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Since the clause is so outrageously bad, unfair, and improper, no wonder the Government states that it has no intention of using it.
I would like to ask that you advise us, Mr. Speaker, as to what action we can take at this particular point at report stage. I also ask that the Government itself move the appropriate amendment, for which I think there would be unanimous consent, to delete Clause 139 and get it over with; or failing
that, to accept the amendment that we have moved to Clause 139.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wishes to move an amendment, would he move it in writing, give it to the Chair, and the Chair will make a ruling on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could we allow Motion No. 15 to stand and proceed with Motion No. 16 to allow a couple of minutes to send a note up to the Chair, in the hope that it will prove acceptable to the Chair, and then acceptable to the Government? Would that be the proper way to proceed and let this stand for a few minutes?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent to stand Motion No. 15 and to go on to Motion No. 16?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.
If the Hon. Member wishes to move an amendment, he would have to do it now. However, the Chair will give the Hon. Member time to write the amendment. The Chair must regretfully inform the Hon. Member that the proposed amendment is out of order as it is a substantive amendment which would have required prior notice.
Is the House ready for the question on Motion No. 15?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-87, be amended by deleting Clause 141.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, one of the bases for the total Bill is an international agreement. The Canadian companies were assured by Revenue Canada that Canada would move to the new harmonized system on the condition that our major trading partners, including the United States, move to the new system on January 1, 1988. In fact, I have a copy of what looks like a replica of an overhead slide which Revenue Canada used in some seminars with
December 4, 1987

brokers and importers throughout Canada in describing the new system. Let me quote from it:
In early 1986, the Finance Minister confirmed the adoption of the new
system for January 1, 1988 under the condition that our major trading
partners, i.e. the U.S. and Japan, adopt harmonized system at the same time.
We understand that things are not moving as fast in the United States as they should. Feet are being dragged. As of December 2, the harmonized system legislation was still part of a large omnibus trade Bill that is moving slowing through Congress. According to the United States trade representative, Congressman Sam Gibbons will be introducing separate legislation governing a harmonized system next week. There is little assurance the Bill will be dealt with before the January 1 implementation date.
Officials in the U.S. trade division of External Affairs have confirmed that there remains a great deal of uncertainty about whether the Americans will move to the new system and when they will do so. In fact, at committee, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) conceded this.
We think implementation of the Bill itself should be delayed until such time as our major trading partner is in a position to implement its side of the bargain. For that reason we have moved to delete the implementation clause. I would suspect that if that motion passes, the Government of Canada would be required at a future point in time to bring in a one clause Bill that would provide for the implementation.
Given the fact that quite clearly people who are directly involved, the brokers and the importers, were told that it was conditional on our major partners being ready as of January 1, the Government should either accept our motion or bring forward its own to provide some flexibility. Certainly we should not be locked into the January 1, 1988, date. Clearly there will be an imbalance. If the American legislation is not through then, once again our people will be treated unfairly and be at a disadvantage. It makes a lot of sense to delete the coming in force clause so that we are not locked into it for January 1, 1988-which is not too far away. It is amazing how close Christmas and New Year's is, and I hope we are away from Ottawa at that time. I hope the Government will give consideration to the amendment so at least we can have some balance between Canada and the United States in the harmonized system.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this amendment. The amendment talks about the coming into force of the whole Bill or the denying of this Bill coming into force. I think, therefore, that I am at liberty to speak about the whole purpose of the Bill given the intent of the clause in question.
I sympathize with what the Hon. Member has just expressed to us. I would like to support the thrust of the amendment, but let me say that the amendment would probably have been more acceptable to the Government had it said something to the effect that the actual coming into force would be on
Customs Tariff
proclamation. The House could have indicated to the Government that it wished not to proclaim this Bill until the Americans had done the same thing. Had this been so, the amendment would have stood a better chance at passing than it has in its present form because we have created a eunuch Bill which, with this amendment, will virtually have no power at all. I do sympathize with the mover of the amendment because the United States has not moved to harmonize its tariff in a similar manner to ours, but there could have been a better way to word that amendment.
Throughout the debate on this Bill, we have seen a number of amendments basically trying to curtail the possibility of the Government changing many of our customs duties without the consent or an Act of Parliament. I have concerns with going that way. I know that most of those amendments will not pass anyway, nevertheless, I have to express reservation about bogging the House down with passing minor Bills in the future because we did not give proper and sufficient power to the Minister by regulation to do what Ministers should be doing.
I will give an example, Mr. Speaker. I have a textile factory in my constituency-I have several actually-but the one I am thinking of is Texturon in Hawkesbury. The Associate Minister of Defence (Mr. Dick) knows about it. He was commenting about Texturon the other day in not such a complimentary way, but that is not what I want to talk about now, Mr. Speaker. This company which is located in my riding has applied to the Tariff Board to have the general preferential tariff on polyester textured yarn changed to the mostfavoured-nation tariff. These products come in from a number of countries including Mexico, Brazil, Romania and Korea. Unfortunately, the company was not successful in its attempts at the Tariff Board, but I did write to the Minister asking the Minister to intervene in this case. 1 note that the Minister is actively studying the file.
This factory in my riding is now forced to compete against factories in Mexico and elsewhere. The imports of products similar to those manufactured by this factory have increased. Over-all imports of these products have increased from 482 tonnes in 1985 to 657.3 tonnes in 1986. In the specific case of Mexico, the import of such products has increased from 122 tonnes in 1985 to 623 tonnes in 1986. There has been a dramatic increase in import of polyester textured yarns. This is having a negative effect on an important industry in my constituency.
This one factory now employs 72 people. Of course, as the Associate Minister of National Defence will know, if free trade passes, it will not employ any people because it will have to shut down. The Minister says that it deserves to shut down, but I disagree with that. I do not think it deserves to shut down because of free trade or because of any other reason.
I have written to the Minister asking him to effect some of these tariff changes. I am sure Members of Parliament have

December 4, 1987
Customs Tariff
requested similar changes on a number of occasions, as have the industries themselves. The Government has been able to make such changes through regulation, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament must have authority to make decisions.
If too much of Parliament's time is taken up making minor decisions, it will not have time to deal with more substantive issues. I am concerned by the tone of some of the amendments which would in fact deny Parliament its right to deal with important issues for the reasons I have outlined previously.

Mr. Speaker, according to the example I gave a few minutes ago, if the preferential tariff had been removed, for instance in the case of Texturon, a company located in Hawkesbury, the price of imports would increase from 13 cents to 15 cents per kilogram, thus giving the industry in Hawkesbury and other companies like Ambertex in Brantford, Ontario, Celanese in Millhaven, Bermatex in Beaconsfield and probably many others, a chance to regain their previous prosperity.
I give this example to demonstrate that we should not, by adopting or proposing amendments to this legislation, make it impossible for the Minister to make future changes, which some of us may find desirable at some time or other when we are approached by our constituents. As I said earlier, it is important not to propose amendments that, on the face of it, would give more power to Parliament but might ultimately paralyze Government operations and prevent us, as parliamentarians, from making representations or even prevent industries from approaching the Government with requests for changes that may be necessary. I am thinking of a situation, for instance, where the Minister might wish to change a tariff and would have to wait until his Bill is adopted by Parliament. There might be a delay of several months, and meanwhile, jobs might be lost in several ridings.
I wanted to express my concerns about a number of amendments to this Bill, and I also would like to point out that although there is some good in the last amendment, Motion No. 16, it might have been better to word it a little differently, for instance, by suggesting that the Government have the Bill ratified as soon as the United States has harmonized its own tariff, otherwise there would be no justification for the Bill's existence and it would of course be useless.

Mir. Les Benjamin (Regina West): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada and the Government of Canada have received promises or commitments from other nations, particularly the United States and Japan, that they will pass similar legislation at the same time as we pass this legislation. I am not sure what Japan is doing on this matter, if anything. Certainly the American trade representatives, while they knew of the commitment that the new system would only be adopted if our trading partners, including the United States and Japan, adopted the harmonized system at the same time, have bogged it down in an addendum to a major trade Bill which is before the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress will be recessing very soon for its Christmas and New Year's break. I believe that break lasts until the end of January. The omnibus trade Bill is moving very slowly through the U.S. Congress. In fact, according to Congressman Sam Gibbons, he will be introducing separate legislation governing the harmonized system next week, but there is little likelihood that it will be dealt with before the January 1 implementation date.
How can it be that our Bill comes into force at a time when our largest trading partner has not lived up to its commitment? I do not understand the logic of the Government in its desire to proceed at this time.
The Government has no assurance or guarantee of which I am aware that the U.S. Congress will act on this matter before January 1 or that it will act on it at all. When one watches the goings on in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and sees the protectionist atmosphere that pervades every sector of the United States economy as well as the Congress, one can only have nothing but extreme doubt that the U.S. Senate will pass legislation like this very quickly if at all. That is why we want to delete the coming-into-force clause in this legislation.
I do not understand the Government's logic. It says that it will never use Clause 139, but it has refused to delete it. It received a commitment that the United States would pass the same kind of legislation at the same time as we do, but it did not. The Government insists on proceeding anyway. That also seems illogical.
It is about as logical as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) who today claimed that the trade deal will be good for agriculture.


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friend says: "Hear, hear". I want him to go and tell that to the grain producers of western Canada. Tell that to the 60,000 members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool who do not like losing the two-price wheat system which will cost producers $260 million.


Ross Belsher: What about the consumers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not understand the logic. The Government says it is a good deal for agriculture, but we are going to take $260 million from grain producers under the two-price system.


Mrs. Mailly:: Wrong again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is what the deal calls for.


Arnold John Malone: No, it does not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, it does.


Arnold John Malone: You get the same amount of money.
December 4, 1987


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Government should tell the western grain producers about losing the benefits of the Western Grain Transportation Act on exports of rape-seed meal and grain screenings to the western U.S. Under the deal those grain companies will have to pay the commercial rate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not convinced this matter is relevant to the clause in question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was just pointing out how illogical the Government is when it tries to say that this is good for agriculture. Tell that to the agriculture producers of Quebec. Ask the Minister who was booed and heckled by those farmers the other day. They and the Government of Quebec have come forward with 10 demands which must be in the trade deal if the Government wants to keep the support of that province. Yet the Government says it is good for agriculture. Even though there is a clause in this Bill which the Government says it will never use, it will not delete it. The Government has a commitment that the U.S. will pass a Bill like this at the same time as we do, yet they are not doing so. I do not find any logic in any of those matters.
The commitments and assurances Canada has received, particularly those from the U.S., are not worth the paper they are written on by the Department of National Revenue. I would be surprised if the U.S. Congress follows through. Even if it did, it may not be for another year. In the meantime, Canada is committed to implementing the harmonization system next January 1. That leaves us out there by ourselves.
When you are dealing with the Yankee trader, as the saying used to go many years ago, you keep your back to the wall and your gun loose in your holster. The Government has failed to do that. I do not mean that literally, of course. You had to do it literally a hundred or more years ago, but at this point it is just figuratively speaking.
The Government is being had again for the umpteenth time, and we have a classic example contained in a statement from the Department of National Revenue itself. That is why there should be nothing in this Bill which specifies when it comes into force. It should only come into force if, as, and when our trading partners, particularly the U.S. and Japan, have passed the same kind of legislation. Then we can go ahead and bring ours into force.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the new tariff was proposed following a close public consultation which began several years ago. We were involved in an harmonization process. We shall deliver the goods.
The Canadian business community, including importers and exporters, is looking forward to this Bill and has taken many steps to ensure its implementation. This legislation will be extremely beneficial to businesses, because it will increase
Customs Tariff
their effectiveness and reduce their costs. Both the Government and the private sector have devoted considerable time and effort putting this Bill together.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have here letters suggesting that it would be a disaster not to make these tariff changes, because everybody is now ready. Delaying their implementation would cost millions of dollars and we have the backing of such major organizations as the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Association of Customs Brokers, the Canadian Importers Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association (BIG 4) and so on and so forth. This list also includes the Canadian Textiles Institute.
Moreover, effective January 1, our main trading partners will adopt the same Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System and expect Canada to play its part in the area of international development, and that is what we are dealing with this afternoon.
I therefore urge my collegues in the House to vote against this motion.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the point in introducing this motion is that the Opposition does not have the right to propose a motion which says that an Act shall be proclaimed at the appropriate time. That impinges on the royal prerogative. The only option left to us is to make some complaints about this Bill having a clause which indicates that it will come into effect on January 1, 1988. That may not be an appropriate time given that our major trading partner has not yet shown any indication it will produce similar legislation of its own. The latest information we have is that Congressman Sam Gibbons may be introducing something next week. The harmonization system is still apparently a part of the large omnibus Bill, but it is moving very slowly through Congress. The Government and other sources tell us they are banking on Congressman Sam Gibbons initiating companion legislation on the other side of the border.
If that does not happen, this legislation puts our importers and brokers at somewhat of a disadvantage. We will have complied with the harmonization scheme, and our exporters will have to work under a different set of rules than the Americans. This will continue until both sides are willing and able to implement the agreement which they have been working on since 1981. We think it only makes sense for Canada to not implement its side of the bargain until the other side is ready as well.
Since this is the last clause of the Bill, we are making this point as part of the over-all argument we made in presenting improvements to this Bill. I remind the House that we have attempted, throughout the course of this debate, to give Parliament more rights and a faster overview of any trade

December 4, 1987
Criminal Code
legislation affecting customs tariffs and imposition of duties so Parliament again regains its traditional role.
We believe that, until such time as the other countries which are supposed to be partners in this agreement are ready and able to meet the requirements of the Bill with regard to harmonization, this particular section should be withdrawn. We urge Members of Parliament to see the advantages to Canada, in keeping equitable and economic relationships with our trading partners, of not putting this harmonization program into effect until both sides are prepared to do so, until our largest trading partner is able to reciprocate with effective legislation permitting the harmonization of collective duties and tariffs. In that way, our exporters and their importers will benefit equally and equitably by the imposition of this system.
We believe that implementing our side of the bargain on January 1 while we await American action is neither an equitable nor effective way of conducting trade relations with a neighbour, whether a good neighbour or not. It is just not an effective way of doing business. We urge the Government to delay the implementation of this until both sides are able to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) seeks the floor on debate. The Member has moved the motion and is therefore deemed to have spoken. The only way for him to speak would be with unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought if the Hon. Member was not in the House another Hon. Member had to be named as moving the motion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He used me.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Were you in the House?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 16, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the Bill now before the House. However, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 13(5), the recorded divisions will stand deferred until six o'clock, Monday, December 7, 1987.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 11291).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker-


Claudy Mailly: He doesn't even know what Bill it is.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Member says that I do not know what Bill it is. In fact, I was not certain that we had finished with the other Bill and I was just looking at my notes.
I want to speak on this Bill because it is a tremendously important issue. The Government is proposing legislation which has been criticized and condemned by a larger group of individuals and organizations than I have seen react to any other Bill brought forward by the Government.
I have always been of the view that in a democratic society we ought to permit the greatest possible range of freedom to speak, write, publish, and broadcast. I have always been very skeptical about any attempts by governments or individuals to restrict the rights of any individual, publication, or organization to express their views.
The reason for my position is very clear. We have seen many successful attempts in the past to restrict these rights. During my time in Parliament, the Supreme Court of Canada, by a very narrow margin of five to four, ruled that the book Lady Chatterley's Lover, written by an author considered to be one of the greatest writers in the English language of this century, D. H. Lawrence, was not pornographic. This book is now
December 4, 1987

considered by most people who are knowledgeable about literature to be a classic. I give that as an illustration of why I am a believer in the right of people and organizations to express their views on every subject with as little restriction as possible.
However, one must be realistic. I am a grandfather. I have two grandchildren, a granddaughter who is eleven and a grandson who is six. Albeit as a believer in free speech, I must admit that I am appalled at some of the material which is now available in print, on film, and through other media. I have faced reality and am now prepared to agree to some restrictions to which some years ago I probably would not have.


John Horton McDermid: Changed your mind, did you?


David Orlikow: Like anyone who has any sense, which excludes the Parliamentary Secretary who just interjected, I try to face reality.


John Horton McDermid: Yet you criticize the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for changing his mind. Double standard.


David Orlikow: I am very happy to support the resolution on pornography which was passed by the Federal Council of the New Democratic Party in 1983. It reads in part as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the Federal New Democratic Party:
(1)	defines as pornography material which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings and condemns the production and distribution of such material whether in film, video, print, or any other form;
(2)	condemns the production and distribution of material which portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children and calls for severe penalties for offenders;
(3)	calls for a strengthening of Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada to reflect these concerns;-
It goes on to give some detailed suggestions for amending the Broadcasting Act and so on.
This proposal with which we are now dealing was first brought forward in a Bill by the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), was criticized very severely. Calls were made by a large number of very responsible organizations for the Bill to be withdrawn.
Now we have the second version of the Bill that was brought forward by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The reaction of very responsible groups and individuals has been one of criticism. The Bill has been criticized by editorials in The Globe and Mail, La Presse, Le Devoir, The Ottawa Citizen, The Toronto Star, the Toronto Sun and The Vancouver Sun. I never thought I would live to see the day when The Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun would agree on anything, but both have criticized this Bill.
I am sure that this is by no means a complete list of the newspapers in Canada that have criticized this Bill and called for its withdrawal or major revisions.
Criminal Code
Organizations which are opposed to the Bill include the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canada Council, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, and ACTRA, which represents most actors, writers and film directors.
Let me put on record the views expressed by The Globe and Mail in an editorial on Tuesday, December 1. The title of the editorial is: "The Bluenose Bill". I will only read part of it:
Ottawa's anti-pornography Bill is an unjustifiable intrusion into freedom of expression, sloppily drawn and meanly defended. It seeks to criminalize taste in the guise of defending morality and expresses a rigid intolerance of human sexuality and eroticism. It panders to prudery with reckless disregard for justice. It denies Canadians access to harmless and pleasurable materials. It demands a regression in time that will spark a revolt in practice. This is a gratuitous and clumsy piece of work that should be withdrawn and replaced with common sense.
Let me put on record the views expressed for the Canada Council by its chairman, Maureen Forrester, one of the best known Canadians who has sung with every major opera company in the world.
In a statement on November 27, the Canada Council indicated:
The Canada Council has been on record, since January 1985, in opposing censorship of the arts. Since Bill C-54 received first reading in May 1987, the Council has made representations to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to express its concern at the negative effect Bill C-54, if passed in its present form, would have on the legitimate creative activity of professional artists. The Council fears that Bill C-54 will result in an unreasonable limitation of the freedom of expression of Canada's artistic community, as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A large number of artists' organizations, representing a majority of the Council's clientele, have stated that they find Bill C-54 to be not acceptable as drafted. The Council agrees with this position and will communicate its concerns directly to the legislative committee in the strongest possible way.
Like other Members of Parliament, I have been receiving letters from people expressing their concerns about the large quantities of pornographic material which they say is available. They have been urging support for legislation, and I am not opposed to legislation. I have already indicated that I am not opposed to legislation which will limit material that is clearly pornographic, whether it be in print or on film.
This Bill does not do that. This Bill will put severe limitations on much more than pornography because, according to people like Maureen Forrester, Pierre Berton, and many other individuals who have expressed opposition to this Bill, it goes much further than simply dealing with what is clearly pornography.
This Bill would put restrictions on any erotic material, whether it is in books or films, on television or tapes.
Sex is a part of life. One cannot ignore it or legislate against it. One cannot prohibit it by law.
If this legislation is passed, the depiction of any form of sexual activity will become illegal. The only legal images will be those defined as erotica, or those determined by a judge to

December 4, 1987
Criminal Code
have artistic merit or an educational, scientific, or medical purpose.
1 recall sitting at home in Winnipeg watching a movie on television. This film had been shown at all first-run theatres across Canada. My wife and I found that the movie was rather dull and switched to another channel. About a half hour after we switched channels I received a telephone call from one of my constituents who expressed his shock at what he was watching, which turned out to be the film that I had turned off. He was protesting that there was a scene in that film being shown on television which showed a woman naked to the waist. He said that he had young children and did not think they should see such films. I told him that he has every right to choose what he wishes to watch and, if he believes that film is one that he or his children should not see, he could have changed the channel.
This film had been shown in movie theatres in every province of the country. Manitoba is the only province that does not have censorship, but simply a classification system. All other provinces which censor films screened this movie before it was shown.
I said to him: "Do you really think this film should not ever be shown in movie theatres in this country?" Some people really believe that, but but I do not believe the Parliament of Canada should be expected to pass a Bill which has been endorsed, promoted, and pushed by certain groups in society who have such restrictive views. Believing as 1 do in free speech and democracy, I agree they have every right to promote their views. However, to try to impose a set of morals on this country which would take us back to the Victorian or pre-Victorian days, 1 certainly cannot accept that.
As I indicated, the artistic community is particularly worried about the effects of both the definitions and the defences provided in this Bill. The onus has been clearly placed on the artist or writer to prove the material is not pornographic, thus creating legal obligations on them that they can ill afford. It seems that provision is completely contrary to the basic fundamental principles of our system of justice. Under our system of justice a person is considered to be innocent until proven guilty.
What this Bill says is that if there is a complaint that an artist has painted a picture which might be classified or considered to be pornographic, or if a writer has written a novel which someone considers to be pornographic, they can be charged. The usual procedure is that someone can make a complaint to the police. The police will look at it and, if they believe the complaint is justified, they take their evidence and views to the Crown prosecutor. The Crown prosecutor, as senior legal official in this kind of situation, decides whether that charge is justified. If the Crown prosecutor believes that the material alleged to be pornographic is in fact pornographic, then he or she proceeds to lay a charge, and the charge will
eventually be heard in court before a judge or a judge and jury. The Crown prosecutor will give the evidence. Then the artist who has been charged, has the opportunity, together with his or her legal counsel, to enter a defence.
The provisions of the Bill turn that procedure on its head, The Bill says that if there is a claim that some material is pornographic, such as a novel, a film, or movie cassette, it is for the artist to prove it is not. I believe that kind of concept is so contrary to our whole system of law. By that provision alone, we are making a major change in the way in which our system of justice operates. I believe it would be a mistake which will lead to tragic consequences.
That kind of provision, along with many others, is completely unacceptable to me and to other individuals and groups, as well as writers, some of whom I have quoted. For that reason, and for many other reasons, a few of which I have tried to put on record, I and my colleagues intend to vote against this Bill.


Mr. Grise:: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and I realized that the Hon. Member was taken unawares at first and had a lot of trouble because he did not have enough information, and in fact that was obvious throughout his presentation. The Hon Member for Winnipeg North may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, that we are now considering the motion by his colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the effect of which would be quite simply-

-to scrap the Bill. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) a question. Is the president of the Canada Council, Maureen Forrester, saying in her letter that we should simply ban the Bill, just as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is stating in his motion that "this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography as material that condones violence", and so on?
Does the Hon. Member believe that Maureen Forrester believes that we as Government should not address pornography in which children or young people engage in sexual conduct, extreme violence in a sexual context, sexually violent behaviour, degrading acts in a sexual context, bestiality, incest, or necrophilia?
Does he believe that we should not address those kinds of sexual conduct? Is it the intention of Miss Forrester to tell the New Democratic Party to scrap the Bill, or is she saying to pass the Bill on second reading and refer it to a legislative committee for amendment by Members of the House of Commons in line with parliamentary reform?
Where does the New Democratic Party stand on parliamentary reform? We present a Bill in the House on second reading, and those Hon. Members say, "Oh, no, we will not send it to a legislative committee. We want the Bill scrapped". What is the Hon. Member's response to this?
December 4, 1987


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I did not deal specifically with the amendment moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Obviously, I support it.
The Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that if we oppose this Bill and support the amendment, somehow we are accepting the freedom of individuals, groups, or organizations to promote the kind of material he listed. Nothing could be further from the truth. I thought I made it very clear in my remarks that I am prepared, as are my colleagues-and as the resolution passed by the Federal Council of the New Democratic Party made very clear-to vote for legislation which deals with the problem areas. However, the point is that editorials have been written in newspapers, some of which I have put on the record opposing this Bill, and organizations have opposed the Bill as it is drafted at the present time. Individuals such as Pierre Berton and a host of others also oppose this particular Bill.
Let me deal with the question with respect to the Canada Council and what Maureen Forrester said. I put on record in the course of my speech, the full text of the statement. I will read the relevant part which I think answers the question put to me by the Hon. Member. It states:
A large number of artists' organizations, representing the majority of the Council's clientele, have stated that they find Bill C-54 to be not acceptable as drafted. The Council agrees with this position and will communicate its concerns directly to the legislative committee in the strongest possible way.
I have been here for quite a number of years, much longer than the Member who asked me the question. When we vote on Bill C-54, if the vote carries, which given the Government's majority I am sure that it will, the House of Commons is approving the provisions of this Bill in principle. The amendments that would be considered in committee, or back in the House at report stage, can only deal with a certain few of the clauses.
We are saying that this Bill as drafted is bad, wrong, and dangerous, and we want this Bill withdrawn. This is version number two. If we can go from version number one to version number two, there is no reason we cannot go to version number three. Therefore, if the Government withdraws this Bill and brings forward a Bill with provisions that deal with the question of pornography in a realistic manner, a Bill which would get the support of the newspapers which have opposed it, would get the support of the organizations which have opposed it and called for its withdrawal, and would get the support of the people who are knowledgeable in the area, then we in the New Democratic Party would be very happy to support it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a point of agreeing with the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) in his characterization of the NDP's position as identifying themselves with those who oppose any form of regulation of pornography.
Criminal Code
I spoke on the Bill and indicated our grave reservations about this Bill which seriously encroaches upon freedom of speech. This Bill shows an insensitivity on the part of the Government and a characterization of all sex as dirty, something which is ridiculous in contemporary society and which is way out of tune with the feelings of the Canadian people as we in the Official Opposition understand them.
On the other hand, there is a lot wrong with the present pornography law. The former Government commissioned a royal commission which came out with very sensible recommendations which we would have liked to have seen implemented. I am afraid the position the NDP is taking, if it is accepted by the Government, will result in nothing happening. The Bill will disappear in the first round, which is what Members of the NDP state that they would like, and what will follow? Perhaps nothing.
Therefore, on behalf of my Party I have put forward a strategy which I would urge on the NDP of expressing our views on the repressive features of the Bill, but trying to do our work as parliamentarians to make it better.
I can understand why Maureen Forrester is very worried that this issue has been entrusted to a Government which has shown such a lack of understanding of human sexuality and of the right of free speech. She is correct about that. But they are the Government. I would urge that after a full debate on second reading, we allow this Bill to go to the committee. Let us be sure that we consider the sensible advice of Maureen Forrester, and the position taken by the NDP National Council, the position taken by my Party, and the position taken by public opinion polls which show a fair consistency across the country in approving sexuality in literature as long as it is not violent, degrading, capitalizing, and exploiting children. We do not want that. I urge the Hon. Member to change his opinion on the amendment, to let the Bill go forward, and see what we can do to make it into a sensible piece of legislation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) knows that even if we wanted to prevent this Bill from going forward, we cannot do so, because the Government has a huge majority.
The debate will end within a reasonable time; we will vote against it; the Liberals, who know how bad it is, will vote for it-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: No, we are voting against it.


David Orlikow: -to get to committee. When it gets to committee, our members on the committee will be making reasonable amendments, just as I had hoped the Hon. Member would.
I want to say to the Hon. Member that we would have been happy to support a Bill which would have been based on the recommendations made by the Badgley commission. The trouble with the Hon, Member for York Centre, not only on

December 4, 1987
Criminal Code
this issue, is that he is afraid to take a stand. He wants to be able to say to people who are opposed to this Bill and other Bills that he is on their side, as well as being against them. He wants to be on both sides of the question on every question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon on a very important Bill, and I am of course referring to Bill C-54.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disagreement with the amendment proposed by the NDP. This amendment says, and I quote:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that"
and substituting the following therefor:
"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54-
In other words, the New Democratic Party is offering us the alternative of not having the Bill exist at all. I suppose we are to assume that according to the NDP, Parliament should not pass legislation on pornography.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I entirely disagree with a motion that one would not have us legislate at all in this area.
I have received several letters from my constituents urging me to support Bill C-54. I must say I also had some reservations about Bill C-54, and I want to say that I would not be able to support this Bill unless it is substantially amended. However, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between wanting to amend an imperfect Bill and wanting to drop the Bill outright and thus presumably reject the proposal to legislate in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I want to read you a letter I received from one of my constituents, Mrs. Cecile Clement, of Embrun, Ontario, who writes: "As a parishioner of Embrun, I am committed to the fight against violence and child pornography which degrades women and children." Mrs. Clement asked me to support her campaign against pornograghy.
A priest, Father Paul-Yvon Menard, of Embrun, also wrote to me on November 21, 1986, asking me to support a Bill that would either stop or control the pornography around us today.
I have another letter here from Mrs. Therese St-Amour of Embrun, also asking me to join the fight against pornography. Father Lucien Charbonneau sent a similar request on November 28, 1986. Mr. Speaker, I have many other letters from many communities in my riding, all asking me to adopt legislation on pornography.
I have before me another letter-
I have here another letter from a Mrs. Betty McDonald of Green Valley, Ontario. She writes:
I am a concerned citizen and grandmother who has four grandchildren
growing up in the '80s.
I would urge you to encourage and support the necessary changes to the
Criminal Code that will eradicate pornography in our society.
Very clearly there is a will and a desire on the part of the population that we legislate in this matter. Pretending that one can just move a motion to delete the Bill, or to have the Bill disappear from the Order Paper, is not what I consider to be a viable solution to this very important problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister tells us that his Bill is aimed at responding to public worry, to ever growing concern over the proliferation of violent and debasing pornography, and pornography in which children are involved. Hon. Members will recall that this is the Government's second attempt at enacting legislation in this field. Sure enough, the former Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's, once tried to get a legislative measure through the House of Commons but it proved to be a major failure because his bill went too far and was unacceptable to a contemporary civilization. Victorian is the label which certain Canadians would put on Bill C-l 14, the first measure.
The Government has now introduced its new Bill, Bill C-54, and it is certainly not as Victorian, dated and unacceptable as Bill C-l 14, it is admittedly better but it still goes too far in certain fields and arbitrarily enforces the law. This is why my colleagues in the Liberal Party have no intention of unduly delaying the second reading of this Bill, although we will be voting against it in principle as a way to indicate that the Bill needs to be amended. Still, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, if the Government is prepared to make the necessary amendments as soon as possible when the Bill gets to committee, I can assure you that I would be prepared to support this Bill on third reading, provided major amendments are made to it.
One of the aspects of the Bill which worry me, and I must tell you this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that Bill C-54 makes it an offence applicable to pornographers, preventing any individual from importing, making, printing, publishing, selling or renting pornographic material. Sure though most of my constituents and I may be that distributing pornographic material has to be stopped, I think it would be important to make a real distinction with respect to sanctions meted out to those who make such material-a highly-paid profession, as some people have suggested-and, for example, a convenience store owner in my riding who rents videotapes and gets maybe 50 cents in commission on each such rental. The Bill does not seem to make any distinction between various categories of people who might break pornography laws. I think it must be said that these two individuals whom certain people might call pornographers ought to be treated differently under the law.
We know that Bill C-54 contains new provisions dealing specifically with pornography involving children.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Hon. Members are supportive of a Bill aimed at curbing child pornography.
December 4, 1987

Under the Bill, a person would commit an indictable offence and be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or so I am told, when inducing, inciting or coercing a person who is or appears to be under age 18 to produce pornographic movies or material.
I think it is important to underscore the words "person who appears to be under age 18" because some people enjoy making pornographic material, perhaps in certain cases with individuals over 18, but they show or attempt to show that these individuals are much younger, they try to show them as being perhaps only 12 or 13 years of age.
I realize that in some cases it will be difficult to decide whether a person is shown as being younger than he or she actually is. But in certain cases, for example, how can one say that someone aged 19 is shown as being only 17? These are difficult cases. I am sure that those who will be responsible for dealing with these cases will use their judgment in such circumstances.
Still in most cases we see something really different. For instance, we see a young woman dressed and with her hair done to look as though she is 11 or 12, an attempt to show that she is much younger. In such cases I think the Bill should contain specific provisions to deal with these people, including indictable offences applicable to people who radically change their age or appearance in an attempt to appear much younger that they are.
Mr. Speaker, here is the position of our Party with respect to this Bill. First, in terms of principles, we agree that legislation is needed and that time has come for Parliament to take action in this field. It is no longer good enough to say that we reject any attempt to pass legislation, and this is why we want this Bill referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible.
Still it must be noted that we want to amend certain provisions, for example those which relate to erotica, for often there is confusion about what is erotic and what is pornographic.
We are also concerned about the great severity with respect to sexual relations which, in this Bill, are purely and simply forbidden. I would suggest that if there is no violence, and so on, showing a sexual relation in a film is not always necessarily pornographic.
Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I have left I should like to conclude by simply telling the House that I hope this Bill will be referred to the legislative committee as soon as possible so we can make the necessary amendments. I want the Bill to go ahead once the required amendments have been made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Property Rights


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Reimer:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last time this matter was debated, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak. I have not had the occasion to participate in debate for such a long time.
The last time we discussed this motion, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) had moved a motion suggesting that we consider amending our Constitution by adding the right to own property. I suppose that as a general principle, if I were to ask anyone for his or her initial comments on whether or not people should have the right to own property, the first answer would obviously be yes. However, looking at the issue a littie further, one sees that the so-called right to own property does not in fact always exist. Perhaps there is good reason for this.
I bring to the attention of the House, for instance, the fact that a number of provincial government agencies have the right to expropriate property. That, of course, is necessary for the good functioning of Government in a civilized society.
There must be good and proper expropriation procedures to ensure that individuals are reimbursed in cases where expropriation is necessary. There must be evidence to suggest that such expropriation itself is necessary. Once those criteria have been met, expropriations can take place.
I recall that during my days as a Member of the Ontario Legislature this issue came up from time to time. Interestingly enough, one of the greatest opponents of property rights during the time I was there from 1981 to 1984 was in fact the Progressive Conservative Government of the Province of Ontario.
Sometimes people associate Tories with being great defenders of property rights. That, of course, is totally erroneous. Tories have no monopoly on virtue, as we all know,

December 4, 1987
Property Rights
nor should we compliment them for anything they are doing in this regard.
I could be partisan and say that we should not compliment Tories on anything at all, but far be it from me to raise an issue with that tone. I would never want to do that, even if 1 should.
Let us recall expropriations of the past. As far as I know, the biggest expropriation ever to take place in Canada was the expropriation of assets relating to the Crown Trust, Seaway Trust, and Greymac Trust companies by the Government of Ontario. That is interesting, considering the fact that a Conservative Member is proposing this property rights amendment, pretending that Tories are the great defenders of that issue.


Mr. Mitges:: What about Mirabel?


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member across is talking about Mirabel. I am glad he is trying to draw a parallel between those whose property was purchased in an expropriation and those whose property was expropriated in the Crown, Greymac, and Seaway Trust matter and whose assets were never reimbursed. If that is a parallel, the Government across is even more frightening than I thought it was.
In that largest expropriation I have described, people's life savings were taken away. People who had invested their life savings in those corporations were left with nothing. Sure, those who had put their money on deposit managed to get their money back with the assistance of the federal Government through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, but those who owned shares had their property expropriated, and the Government of Ontario said that it was necessary. It dealt with the issue for years and, as far as I know, it is probably still not all resolved even though it happened some four years ago.
Obviously the point I am making is that Conservatives are not totally virtuous and cannot claim virginity as it pertains to expropriation without due compensation.
There are other things about property rights that merit our attention. For instance, we know that in some jurisdictions property rights have in the past been interpreted by courts of law as meaning that someone who owned a factory could actually have the de facto legislative power to prevent workers in the factory from unionizing or associating. If a property rights clause were entrenched in the Charter, it would do more than simply protect from expropriation those who own real estate. It would do more than protect those whose property had been expropriated without due compensation by Conservative Governments of the past. It could be interpreted in many ways that would deny other rights based on the fact that property rights would supersede those other rights.
Although many people are in favour of the entrenchment of property rights in our Constitution, I must say that I am very concerned about its possible effects.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). The motion states that property rights should be included in the Constitution.
Canadians from all across Canada support the idea of including property rights in the Constitution. Like my colleague from Kitchener and many others, I believe that it is extremely important to amend the Constitution so that property rights are protected.
It has been a long-standing policy of this Party that property rights should be well protected. We tried to get it into the Constitution, but the Liberal Government, dealing with the NDP, did not want to protect the rights of Canadians during the historic Constitution debate.
Property rights were included in the Magna Carta of 1215, the English Bill of Rights of 1627, the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the American Constitution of 1791 and 1868 respectively, and in 1948, the United Nations saw fit to include property rights in the Declaration of Human Rights. In 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights also included the protection of property rights. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed once again the need to have this right entrenched. It declared that property does not have rights, people have rights.
A fundamental interdependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That property rights are basic civil rights has long been recognized. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Canada signed in 1948, stated that everyone has the right to own property individually as well as in association with others. It also said that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is therefore important that we amend the Constitution to let the world know that Canada offers everyone his or her basic rights.
At this time provincial Governments may pass legislation which, in most people's minds, violates property rights, and our judges would be powerless since that would not violate a protected constitutional right.
History has shown that property rights mean more than simply a right to own land. It is not impossible to conceive the idea that social programs like social assistance, chattels, personal property, and patents could be challenged. At this time our Constitution does not protect us, and the courts may find it difficult to disregard one type of property yet allow another.
Some in this House would not want this type of protection for fellow Canadians. It is interesting to note that at this very moment in the Soviet Union, citizens are being given the opportunity to own enterprises, albeit a limited amount. Nonetheless, they are moving in our direction.
December 4, 1987

Since 1981 this Government has been seeking changes in the Charter of Rights. Unlike the previous Government, the Conservative Government sees its responsibility and it would be dishonest, morally and intellectually, not to seek changes that will ensure our rights in all facets of life, including the enjoyment of property. It should not be left to the whims of arbitrary interpretation. It must be entrenched in the Constitution.
Let me state again that the individual must have a right to not be deprived of his or her property except in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Elowever, we need as well to ensure that someone will receive fair compensation should the need arise, and public interest overrides private interest. At this time we have no safeguards against unjust compensation. In the case of expropriation, we need to make sure that people displaced because of the public interest are treated fairly.
The previous Government at times forgot its responsibility to the people in a mad dash to erect white elephant airports like Mirabel and Pickering. We need to ensure that these problems do not occur again. In the case of Pickering, we are all well aware that the airport was eventually cancelled and somewhere down the road the property owners were given a chance to repurchase their property if they were interested in doing so.
Recently the Real Estate Association of Canada commissioned a Gallup poll which indicated that a great majority, 81 per cent, of those questioned believed it was fairly or very important that we amend the Constitution in order to protect our property rights. I suppose I must declare more than a passing interest in that subject since I have been a real estate broker for 40 years, give or take, and am therefore well aware of how important it is that a purchaser have clear title to the property. Certainly they would have a lot more peace of mind if they know that their property cannot be expropriated by any level of Government.
This right should be in the Constitution. This Government, in its ongoing endeavours to provide Canadians with responsible Government, will ask the House to vote in unison to accept this motion.
Again let me commend the Hon. Member for Kitchener on bringing forward this motion. I hope this House gives very serious consideration to voting in the affirmative because people do not want to be subject to the will of any Government with respect to owning property, no matter at what level.
I am aware, as the previous speaker said, that there are times when one level of Government will have its eye on a particular piece of private property. Of course, it could be for something that was in the public interest, but in those cases I feel the owner should be well compensated for having to give up his property.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), he reinforced my understanding that what we have
Property Rights
here is the setting up of a straw man by the supporters of this Bill so they can knock it down. No one questions the right of individuals or companies in Canada to own property. We have now come to a point where the majority of Canadians own their own house. They may still have a mortgage on it, but they own it, and no one questions that right. It is because no one questions that right that we believe there is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution or put a clause in the Charter of Rights guaranteeing people the right to own property.
When property is purchased or expropriated by a federal or provincial or municipal Government, it is not done on a whim. When they believe it is necessary-and I will indicate some of the reasons why it may be necessary-they either reach an agreement with the property owner, or there is legislation which outlines the way in which a public body can move to expropriate the property it wants or needs. The case will be heard by a court which will rule on the validity of the move or on the amount of compensation, or anything else.
As the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) indicated-and I wish the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had listened-the Conservative Government of Ontario, when this matter was being discussed in Parliament, advised us of its opposition to entrenching property rights in our Constitution, as did most of the other provinces, as would most cities, and as would any federal Government which was realistic and honest.
For example, suppose Ottawa grows to double its size and it becomes necessary to extend the length of the runways at the airport. They may well have to expropriate some land now owned by a farmer which abuts the Ottawa airport property. In Winnipeg the airport is right in the city and, if the runways have to be extended, property may have to be purchased. If this proposal is entrenched in our Constitution that may be very difficult. A court may rule that the federal Government does not have the right to expropriate the land.
In my Province of Manitoba there are repeated proposals, requests, and demands that the highway from Winnipeg to the American border be widened to four lanes. If that proposal is approved by a Government of Manitoba, of whatever political stripe it may be, such a clause as this in our Constitution may create tremendous difficulties or even make it impossible for the province to do that.
During the time of Conservative Governments in Ontario, Highway 401 was almost doubled in size. I am sure that a great deal of property had to be purchased. I have no direct evidence of this, but I would be very surprised if there were not property owners who were dissatisfied with the offer made by the then Government which required the Government to take measures through expropriation. The ability to take such actions is needed by cities as well which also have to improve roads and bridges and build new schools.

December 4, 1987
Property Rights
With such a clause in our Constitution we may see a time when the courts would strike down the initiative of Governments to improve safety in the workplace or to make technological change. Inspectors from relevant departments may tell a factory owner that the heating system of his building does not provide the necessary quality of air and that he has to make major or minor changes. However, under this kind of clause an owner may say that he is not prepared to make such changes and that to be forced to do so is an infringement on his right to own the property and deal with it in the way in which he wants.
This could interfere in a marked way with the ability of a province to implement pollution control systems. These are only a few of the reasons we should not pass this resolution.
The Government prides itself in its determination to deal fairly and co-operatively and to consult with the provinces. To include a clause such as this in the Charter would be a massive intervention in the rights of the provinces. Under our Constitution the federal Government is given certain areas of jurisdiction as are the provinces. One of the major areas of provincial jurisdiction since Confederation is over property. To put property rights into the Constitution would interfere with the right of the provinces, as spelled out in our Constitution, to deal with property and property rights.
1 have seen no evidence that the rights of individuals or corporations to own and manage their property has been unduly interfered with by Governments at any level. The present laws protect property rights in a legitimate way. This proposal is not only unnecessary but would create very dangerous and difficult problems for Governments at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels. Therefore, we ought not to pass this Bill.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to speak today on the motion which the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) has placed before the House. The motion seeks to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include the enjoyment of property.
1 am in support of this motion as are several of my colleagues on this side of the House. Even though the Canadian Bill of Rights includes the enjoyment of property, it is only a statement of general principles and does not confer real rights. In the final analysis, this right in the Bill of Rights remains an ordinary common law principle which is incapable of actually protecting property rights.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been accorded a constitutional status capable of overriding federal and provincial legislation. Unfortunately, it is deficient in the field of property rights. The deletion of the right to property in the 1982 Charter of Rights may have been a Liberal Government side-step to avoid an issue which was so strongly opposed by the New Democratic Party and the provincial Governments
whose legislative authority from the 1867 Constitution Act could have been affected.
Even today the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) alluded to how his Party is still against the legitimate right of individuals to be the owners of property.
It looked for a time in 1982 as though the Government of the day would have the sense to include the Conservative amendment to add "the right to property and the right not to be deprived thereof'. The Liberals withdrew their support of the amendment on January 26, 1981. They caved in.
I am happy to say that the Government of the Province of British Columbia passed a motion on September 21, 1982, which authorized the amendment of Section 7 to include the enjoyment of property. However, that is but one province.
Having spoken to many people on this issue over the past three years, it is obvious to me that many Canadians want the right to enjoy property entrenched in our Charter at a national level. One can compare the situation of not having this specific right in the Charter with the notion that someone has the ability to print a newspaper without having the right to own the printing press. We need the assurance of this right.
Ownership is conducive to an individual's independence, freedom, and happiness. A man's house is his castle. However, what happens when he does not have the right to own that castle? From earliest times property has been defended. Aristotle expressed a strong defence of property and advanced the idea that private property is ordained by natural law and that ownership is conducive to progress. According to this famous philosopher, ownership of property promotes the growth of character because two important virtues result from it-self-control and liberty.
Property is a source of pleasure. Throughout history those supporting absolute democracy, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, considered property necessary for the well-being of individuals and society, and thus should be protected by law.
The motion we are discussing today must go through the process of constitutional amendment, if it passes the House. The process might be lengthy. Nonetheless, the process is necessary.
The right to property is a prerequisite for incentive and human progress. It has the support of a great many Canadians, and 1 hope that we in this Chamber have the foresight to pass the motion and get on with entrenching our right to the enjoyment of property in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Again, I compliment the Hon. Member for Kitchener for bringing forth this motion. I support it whole-heartedly.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and support the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) to install
December 4, 1987

property rights in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a very important concept and one which most Canadians believe is already theirs within the Constitution. When 1 talk to people at public meetings they are very much surprised that they do not have this right. The overwhelming majority want to ensure that such a right is entrenched in the Constitution quickly.
Of course, there are many precedents of countries establishing the right to own property as a basic right. Indeed, the United Nations has established such a right. In our common law history, this goes back to the Magna Carta in 1215 and was reconfirmed in 1627 in the English Bill of Rights. It was one of the early amendments to the U.S. Constitution and has been a fundamental right in the United States for well over a century.
In 1948, Canada implicitly recognized the right by signing the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article XVII of that Declaration reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association with others.
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
As I said, many other countries have formally recognized the right to own property in their Constitution. These include the United States, Australia, West Germany, Italy, Finland, and Sweden. Many national organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, have stressed the need to add property rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Other organizations include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Real Estate Association.
Canadians have been polled on this issue. In addition to my personal experience, a national Gallup poll shows that 81 per cent of Canadians feel that it is either very or fairly important to them that this right be added to our Constitution.
Some people say that we already have property rights in the Canadian Bill of Rights. That is true. The Canadian Bill of Rights, proposed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker, was an important landmark.
However, the Bill of Rights is simply a statement of general principle. It does not in itself confer or create real rights. The Charter of Rights which this motion is seeking to amend indeed overrides all other laws in the country, subject to reasonable limitations.
Indeed, property rights were almost in the Charter of Rights in 1981. On Tuesday, January 20, 1981, the Conservative Party introduced an amendment seeking the inclusion of property rights in the Charter. On Friday, January 23, the then Solicitor General, in his capacity as Acting Minister of Justice for the Government, accepted the amendment on behalf of the then Liberal Government. However, that Sunday evening, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), having conferred with his caucus and provincial
Property Rights
counterparts in Saskatchewan, informed Canadians on national TV that the NDP would withdraw its support for the Constitution if property rights were to be included.
The following Tuesday, Prime Minister Trudeau told Parliament that the property rights amendment had to be dropped. I can understand the NDP opposing property rights since it appears to be part of their national platform to expropriate property without reasonable compensation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go to hell! You have got to be kidding. If you believe that, you believe in the Easter bunny.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: There are certainly sections in their national platform about nationalizing banks.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is an insult. It is not without compensation.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: It certainly is there. Furthermore, if they do believe in the principle of expropriation with reasonable compensation, they should be the first to be up to support this motion, because the only thing that this charter privilege conveys is indeed that absolute right to have reasonable and full compensation for property.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said in his speech that no one questions the right to own property in this country. The point is that Parliament itself has questioned the right to own property in this country, on several occasions.
I am sure all Members are aware of how property has been expropriated without proper compensation in establishing national parks. Certainly there has been a case in the media within the last few weeks about a person in the Maritimes who has been holding out for proper compensation because an Act of Parliament deprived him of his property without proper compensation.
The National Energy Program was an Act of Parliament, supported by the NDP, which expropriated property in the gas and oil sector in the North and in Hibernia without proper compensation. The point is that without charter protection, Parliament itself can and has acted, supported by the NDP, to expropriate property without compensation.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North suggested that somehow it will not be possible to extend a runway or carry out the necessary expropriation for a municipal or provincial highway. That is simply wrong. Everyone knows that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I do not think there is any doubt that any court would rule that the Government had the right to expropriate where there was a legitimate government need. The question is one of compensation when the property is expropriated, and whether Parliament itself can legislate to expropriate without proper compensation.

December 4, 1987
Property Rights
Similarly, I think the Elon. Member's suggestion that we cannot bring in pollution standards or air control standards if we pass this motion is the reddest of red herrings. The United States has this right in its Constitution, and it does not seem to stop that Government from building airports or interstate highways. It does not seem to stop it from bringing in pollution controls.
These arguments that somehow government will be ground to a halt if property rights are conveyed on Canadians are absolutely specious.
I believe the will of Canadians deserves to be heard in this case. Canadians want property rights. Property rights are viewed as a fundamental right by Canadians and should be entrenched in our Constitution. I will support the motion when it comes to a vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion. Because of the record of the CCF and the New Democratic Party on human, civil, and property rights since 1933, I take it as something of a personal insult.
I ask my hon. friend opposite-who was it when not a single Liberal or Tory would speak up, who stood in the British Columbia Legislature and in the Parliament of Canada and opposed what was done to the Japanese Canadians in 1942? Every single Grit and Tory said their land, property, and machinery could be seized, and most of them did not get any of it back. Where were these "enjoyment of property" Tories then? They were the ones who stood and supported a Liberal Government. If it had not been for Harold and Ernie Winch in the British Columbia Legislature, and J. S. Woodsworth and Angus Maclnnis in the House of Commons, no one would have said a word. Yet those Hon. Members have the gall and the nerve, without the courtesy of blushing, to talk to us about the enjoyment of property!
I invite my hon. friends to examine the record of CCF and NDP Governments in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Manitoba, on having the best and fairest of expropriation laws with compensation anywhere in the country. We do not need these fatuous insults from the hon. gentleman about our record on human, civil, and property rights. It was the people in our movement who fought against the grasping, racist activities of governments of past years. We were the only ones who stood up to be counted.
Who opposed the War Measures Act in 1970? The War Measures Act allowed the takeover of property, the search of persons and property without warrant, arrest without warrant, and incarceration without charges. Every Tory who talks about the enjoyment of property has the unmitigated gall to come into this Chamber and tell us how they want the enjoyment of property. I can go back to the not too distant days when I was a kid, the days of R. B. Bennett. I challenge my hon. friends opposite to start some move with all the Tory Governments in Canada, federal and provincial, to do something about
expropriation laws, and we have a mess of them, right across the country. In some provinces they are unfair and mistreat people and do not do what the motion calls for except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.


John Horton McDermid: Why don't you support the motion, then?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just wait for it. The changes in expropriation law and compensation, and who pays the legal costs, is where there is a denial of fundamental justice. No self-respecting Government, whether it is school-boards, municipal, city, provincial, or the national Government, can allow a private or individual interest taking priority and precedence over the public good or the public or national interest.
I resent these guys with the Texas or Oklahoma cowboy syndrome who import ideas from the great U.S.A. to the south. The next thing we know, they are going to talk about the right to bear arms. By the way, some of them have. I have run into some of these Neanderthals in various parts of this country. They want to imitate, copy, or ape what has been put forward by the Neanderthals south of the 49th parallel. Well, this country is different. It is something more than and better than the kind of nonsense that goes on to the south of us, or the kind of nonsense they want to provide here.
"Enjoyment of property" is a neat little phrase. When I received my last tax notice I was not sure whether I was enjoying my property very much.


John Horton McDermid: You can sell it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would not sell it to what could be called the atypical used car dealers I find seated opposite. I would not deal with them.


John Horton McDermid: What have you got against car dealers?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let us go back to 1867. Had there been such a clause in our Constitution then, every time a school-board, city, province, or the federal Government had to do something in the public or national interest, it would have been faced with litigation at every level of the courts, right up to the Supreme Court. It would not have been faced by the little homeowner who could not afford to go to court. Every Government at every level would have been faced with the likes of those who want this kind of amendment to the Constitution.
The oil companies like it. These barefoot boys from Bay Street think it is great that the oil companies like it. They think it is great that the Real Estate Association likes it. They think it is great that big property developers like it.
The Government of Saskatchewan prohibited the development of a housing development beside the Regina airport, because those guys who were going to make a fast buck building homes would have put the houses right at the end of the runway if they could get away with it. We had to move in to overrule the city and the real estate developer and say, "No, you are not going to build. You are not going to enjoy your
December 4, 1987

property if it means putting up a housing development at the end of a runway at the Regina airport". Any responsible Government has to have the authority to put the public interest and good ahead of the grasping, greedy investors who speculate in property, buying, selling, and putting up developments.
We could ask the people of Prince Edward Island who opposed this. I do not know if they still have the law on their books, but they did have a law which opposed foreign ownership of land in their little province.


Mr. Gass:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the clarification of the Elon. Member who is speaking, anyone who lives in Prince Edward Island can own land in Prince Edward Island.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But, according to its law as I understand it, anyone who does not live in Prince Edward Island cannot. If this amendment went through, Prince Edward Island would not be able to implement its own laws.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not a point of order. The hon. gentleman can get up and make his own damn speech.


John Horton McDermid: Then quit telling untruths.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He can get up and correct me if I am wrong.


John Horton McDermid: That is what he is doing. Let him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He cannot do it on phoney points of order.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman just stated that the people who do not live in P.E.I. cannot own land there. That is totally untrue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There will be one minute left on the speech of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I recall the objections of the Government of Prince Edward Island in 1981, perhaps my hon. friend has a short memory. But this applies to every province.
We could not have forced the CPR and the Hudson's Bay Company in Saskatchewan to develop the mineral rights on which they had the leases. We prevented them from enjoying their property. They hauled us into every court in the land, but we beat the buggers anyway!
We could not have brought in a land-bank. The day will come when it comes back. How could we have got some of our national parks if there had been this type of clause in the Constitution? What difficulties would a province or a national Government have had through every court in the country?
Property Rights
The laws that we have are somewhat inadequate. The protection of individual ownership of property is there, but it is not good enough. If I were in the ranks of my friends opposite-heaven forbid-they would do something about improving expropriation laws in order that people were treated more fairly and equitably, and quit trying to ape the United States in our Constitution.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will never be able to understand how the brain works of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), if indeed it works at all. The Hon. Member has presented some of the best arguments that I have ever heard in favour of putting property rights in the Constitution. For example, the dispossession of the Japanese Canadians during wartime, and the imposition of the War Measures Act and what that did to the property of people in Quebec at that time.
These are the best arguments we have had in favour of the proposition put forward today by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), but the end position of the Hon. Member for Regina West is that he will vote against it. That is completely unimaginable.
I wish to give a little lesson in pre-history. At one time in the history of the human race on this planet-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you a member of it?


Dave Nickerson: Like all good Conservatives, Sir. I have some doubt about some other people in the House.
Years and years ago property rights might not have been as important. I am talking about ownership of real estate, land, and buildings more than personal possessions. When people made their living by hunting and gathering, when they were engaged in nomadic herding, even to the stage where people were engaged in agricultural endeavour but moved from place to place and without permanently founded acreages, property rights probably were not thought about. The concept of ownership in land probably did not exist, because it would have no reason to exist.
When I talk to some elderly people in my constituency, it is sometimes difficult for them to understand the concept of ownership in land. As soon as society went to fixed agriculture, and later when we became a industrial society, that is the time when property rights probably became the most fundamental and important of all the human rights that we enjoy.
Today, whether or not we believe in property rights is the determinant of whether or not we believe in the freedom of the individual. People who own property and cannot be dispossessed therefrom are pretty independent people. It is difficult for the state to kick them around. For this reason, the idea of dearly held property rights has not been looked upon as being desirable by people in the employ of government, the professional bureaucrats, for want of a better word. They do not like the idea of independent people who cannot be easily persuaded to do one thing or another as the state might wish them to do,

December 4, 1987
Property Rights
because they have that independence, they can make a living for themselves and are not dependent upon government. This is what property rights mean.
In the part of Canada that I represent, which is one of the most highly governed areas anywhere in the world, that lies in the back of the mind of the people who administer us there. They are very reluctant to let Crown land be sold, or even on occasions to let it be leased. They want to keep it in the collectivity, so to speak, instead of allowing individual ownership, knowing full well that once people become property owners they will demand that degree of independence.
Property rights are notoriously absent in the constitutions of Communist countries. That has not prevented people in those countries from still having that inherent desire to own something. I remember on several occasions talking to people in Moscow, and other cities in the Soviet Union. Their greatest pride and joy was their dacha in the countryside. They are not able to actually own it, but they can get some title or lease. They told me that what they liked to do more than anything else in the summer was to go out there and sit in their dacha. But they would really like it to be theirs, and not belong to this great collectivity. So even in countries where they have tried to stamp out property rights, it still keeps surfacing again and again.
Why is it not in our Constitution? It is not there primarily because of the opposition from the NDP. I understand that when we were discussing these matters in 1981 the Liberals
might have been in support of the motion that was put forward by members of the Conservative Party to enshrine property rights in the Constitution. But after what I assume was reflection, they decided to go along with our socialist colleagues.
Of course, if the fundamental element of party philosophy is that the means of production, which is of course largely land and buildings, should be owned by the state and not by the individuals, as if the individuals are not to be trusted to own this, then of course one would not want property rights in the Constitution.
In closing, I notice that British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Ontario have now passed resolutions along the lines suggested by the Hon. Member for Kitchener. Thus, despite the efforts of our Liberal and socialist friends, it looks like eventually we in Canada will also enjoy these fundamental property rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 3 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, December 7, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers