1987-12-01

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the twenty-sixth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM ACT
Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride that I rise to table an historic Bill in the House today, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Bill enshrines in statute the recognition of Canada's multicultural reality, sets forth the multicultural policy of Canada, and contains a firm government-wide commitment to implement it. It provides a legislative base for multicultural programs which will assist cultural preservation, combat racism, and promote institutional change.

This legislation will establish the freedom of Canadians of all origins to maintain, enhance and share their cultural heritage. The Bill recognizes all Canadian citizens as full members of the Canadian community.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) was making a statement when he started to speak on the introduction of his Bill on multiculturalism. I am told that it was not a statement, but it is not usual for Ministers to make statements of that nature when introducing Bills. Is it going to be the new practice that when Ministers introduce Bills they explain what is in the Bill?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I hope we are not going to get into a procedural problem. My advice was that if I wanted to rise to indicate what was in the Bill within 60 seconds, it would not be a statement. If, on the other hand, there is need for a statement to be made or someone else wishes to make a statement, I have no difficulty with that. However, that was my advice with respect to the procedure in the House.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the Minister's 60-second statement. I know that the Minister's Department was probably working overnight to prepare the statement and the news release which will accompany his press conference. However, it would be appreciated if at least the critic for the proposed piece of legislation were given notice of at least an hour or an hour and a half as is the tradition of the House.
I received materials at about 10.15 or 10.20. It is difficult for the official critic to read and digest the legislation as well as to prepare our position in order to offer Canadians the position of the Official Opposition on the legislation on such notice. I think that 40 minutes is cutting it very close.
I have brought this to the attention of the Chair on previous occasions when Ministers with responsibility for immigration have been negligent. I have no problems with the Minister's statement. However, I would appreciate it if the Minister and the Government would keep the traditions that we offered them when they were in the Opposition.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years 1 believe I have introduced some four or five Bills in the House. I am well aware of those traditions. Indeed, if time permitted I usually walked over to the critics and handed them the material I was able to provide within the procedures of this House. I have done that on each and every occasion.

December 1, 1987
Petitions
Indeed, this morning, in keeping with the traditions the strict procedures of the House, I made that available to both critics, with a handwritten note stating that this was the material I was able to give them.
It is impossible for me to give them the Bill before it is tabled in the House and when I have lock-ups in the rest of the city.
As always, I appreciate the comments of my hon. friend, but I say to him that I do not accept any suggestion that this Minister or the Government has not observed both the spirit and the technical aspects of the traditions and procedures of the House. I sent a letter to the critic of the Official Opposition and the critic of the New Democratic Party with all the materials save and except the actual Bill which, of course, I am not allowed to do. As I said to the critic this morning, I hope we will be able to proceed with this historic Bill in a way which would at least match the sense of expansiveness and future that this Bill itself engenders. I think it will be unfortunate if my hon. friend wishes to bog this down unnecessarily.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am not bogging it down. I am asking a question of the Minister. I think that is unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that the Bill which was introduced has, at least in principle, support on both sides of the Chamber. Unless any Hon. Member feels a terribly burning urge to make further comment, perhaps the Chair could settle this matter by reminding Hon. Members of Standing Order 107(2) which states:
A motion for leave to introduce a bill shall be decided without debate or
amendment, provided that any Member moving for such leave may be
permitted to give a succinct explanation of the provisions of the said bill.
The Hon. Minister said that he had an indication that he had some 60 seconds. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that the message I sent to the Minister was that he had 30 seconds.
However, it is important to note that it is the case that any Member introducing a Bill can speak succinctly, as the rule states, and I shall be very firm in making sure that it is succinct.
I believe the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) is only expressing what Members on both sides of the House, depending on where they sat at different times, have always wished to be the practice. I think the Hon. Minister has given some explanation for that.
Again, as always, I would urge Ministers to do everything possible to be sure that information is given as soon as possible, especially to the opposition critics. I think it was made quite clear by the Minister that he understands that tradition and does in fact honour it.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House 553 petitions signed by residents of Canada. They are to be added to the 30,735 petitions already tabled.
They are signed by petitioners from Gaspe, Dolbeau, Gull Lake, Kipling, Torguay, Grenfell, North Battleford, Meadow Lake, Simpson, Kindersley, Carnduff, Eston, Lafleche, Quill Lake, Stonehenge, Kenaston, Davidson, Medston, Unity, Weyburn, Swift Current, Richard, Welwyn, Lodewood, Regina and Saskastoon.
These petitioners are calling upon Parliament to institute mandatory airbag restraint systems for the driver of passenger cars and are calling for the installation of three point adjustable lap-shoulder seatbelts for rear passengers.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to table in the House over one hundred petitions from residents of Sackville, Grande-Digne, Cap-Pele, St. Anthony, Cocagne, Ste-Marie, Fox Creek, Port Elgin, Moncton, Richibucto, St-Charles, St-Joseph, Memram-cook, Ste-Anne-de-Kent, Buctouche, and many other communities in my riding.
My petitioners are very concerned about the fact that the Government, which has already introduced twenty-five new taxes or tax increases, is now considering, as part of its tax reform proposals, a Bill that would include a tax on food. They humbly pray Parliament to reject any measure that would have the effect of putting a sales tax on food products.


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. 196 will be answered today.
Ms. McDonald: 1. In the past five years, by year, did any tobacco companies claim promotional activities and/or sponsorships as allowable business expenses and, if so (a) in what amounts (b) what amount was claimed for promotional activities and/or sponsorships for (i) amateur sport (ii) professional sport (iii) arts (iv) others?
December 1, 1987

2. For each of the same years, did any companies claim donations to registered charities and/or organizations, as defined in the Income Tax Act and, if so, in what amounts for (a) arts (b) sports (c) health (d) others?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: I am informed by the Department of National Revenue and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	Revenue Canada, Taxation is unable to provide the information requested. The Department's data gathering systems do not capture this type of information. It would be necessary to audit the income tax records of each company to obtain the information requested.
2.	Data for the past five years are not available. However, the following information is available.
(a) A special study done in 1983 covering corporations with assets of $25 million or more and charitable donations claimed for tax purposes of $75 thousand or more gives the following results for the tobacco products industry.
General Purpose (Arts and Culture)	1978	1979	1980	1981
	Thousands		of Dollars	
Dance/Ballet	0.9	3.8	2.0	3.6Theatre Cos.	6.0	11.1	6.8	9.7Opera Cos.	1.9	1.4	0.3	11.0Symphonies/Orchestras	3.4	3.2	5.0	6.8Choirs/Other Musical	0	1.2	1.0	1.9Museums	20.0	18.1	29.6	29.5Galleries	8.0	5.5	7.5	8.3Libraries	1.0	4.1	1.8	2.3Archives	0	0	0	0.3Language/Ethnic Groups	2.7	0	0	0Total, Arts and Culture	43.9	48.4	54.0	73.4(b) Not available.	(c) & (d) The study referred	to above reveals the following:	General Purpose	1978	1979	1980	1981Thousands	of Dollars	Welfare	226.5	258.5	351.1	453.7Health	60.4	126.9	180.1	244.9Education111	232.3	163.6	201.6	355.4Religion	29.1	31.1	45.3	73.0Community Benefits	177.3	127.7	144.2	203.6Other	8.3	30.8	30.2	23.9Total Donations	733.9	738.4	952.5 1	1354.5
(I1 Amounts displayed in the previous table are included in this line. (Total, Arts and Culture).
Notes concerning the data given in 2 (a) and 2 (c) and (d)
Only charitable donations claimed for tax purposes are available. Corporations which did not have positive taxable income may have made charitable donations which could not be claimed for tax purposes.
Customs Tariff
Charitable donations can be carried forward from one tax year to another. Therefore donations claimed in a tax year may not relate to actual donations made in that year.
The data do not include donations made by charitable foundations which are themselves non-taxable corporations.
Gifts to the Crown have been included in these data. Where they occur they are included with "community benefits".


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to report to the House and rule with respect to the report stage of Bill C-87. I understand that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has had discussion with the Table Officers with respect to his amendments.
Bill C-87 is 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.
There are 19 report stage motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-87, the customs tariff. I have had an opportunity to review the motions and I am now ready to make a ruling. After extensive discussion between Officers of the Table and the Hon. Member, I have agreed that Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on separately.

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 1,9, 10 and 11, which relate to parliamentary approval by either resolution or legislation, shall be debated together and a vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.
Motions Nos. 4 and 12 will be debated together with a vote on Motion No. 4 applying to Motion No. 12.
Motions Nos. 8, 11A, 12A and 13A caused the Chair some procedural difficulty. 1 would refer Elon. Members to Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition at Citation 523. However, because some doubt existed in these instances, I am prepared to allow the Hon. Member the benefit of that doubt. Therefore, Motions Nos. 8, 11A, 12A and 13A will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 8 will be applied to Motions Nos. 11 A, 12A and 13A.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
I should say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre that I appreciate his co-operation in the discussions that took place in making this ruling and I trust that he and other Members will be satisfied with the decision of the Chair.
The House will now proceed with Motion No. 1.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-87 be amended in Clause 15 by adding, immediately after line
26 at page 4, the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I put forward a number of amendments on Bill C-87. The first one happens to deal with Clause 15 of the Bill, which allows the Governor in Council to make regulations that deem goods produced outside a country to have originated in that country for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act. That does not, perhaps, come directly to the intent of many of my amendments, but it certainly comes there indirectly.
The problem we have with this Bill is that a Bill which in general would be seen as being innocuous-it is a combination of a number of years of work, consultation internationally and consultation with the trade community with respect to the harmonization system of tariffs-also covers a lot of matters which have been revealed as being, perhaps, wanting in the former Customs Tariff Act in the circumstances we face right now.
The circumstances we face now, as the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) is well aware, is that the Government is using its executive powers to take Canada into a free trade arrangement with the Government of the United States without effectively any detailed reference to Parliament or to the Canadian people. Therefore, we have been put in a position where, lacking a detailed text of the trade agreement, lacking an understanding of what the Government intends to do, and facing a deadline by which this deal will be signed,
sealed and delivered a month and a day from today, we simply have to try to anticipate some of the problems which the Government's headlong rush toward this trade agreement is likely to create for Canada, and try to head it off by use of the undoubted powers of Parliament to exercise control over the executive. That is specifically what is being done in the amendment to Clause 15 and the other clauses.
Just the other day in Edmonton the writer and economist, John Walston Saul, made a presentation to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which referred specifically to the fact that the United States now has agreements with Mexico which allow the duty free import from Mexico into the United States of goods produced in Mexico, provided they are made with raw materials or components which come from the United States.
In the so-called Maquiladora industrial program which began in the 1960s, this has led to a rapidly increasing amount of trade between Mexico and the United States in which multinational corporations, U.S. based corporations, establish warehouses on American territory but then build factories on the other side of the border. What meaning does that have for Canada? At present none, because those goods if they are imported and treated by the Americans as being American goods are then subjected to Canadian tariffs, most favoured nation tariffs, if they come into Canada. Under the free trade agreement, however, as it will stand, we have a situation where a government may-I do not know if it will, but it may-deem that these goods, which in fact are produced outside of the United States, actually originate in that country. We also have a situation where there may be no effective means of determining that the bulk of the value added on goods coming from the United States into Canada in fact was value added in Mexico and not value added in the United States of America. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I will read the amendment. It states that, notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), notwithstanding the power of a government to deem goods from outside a country to actually come from that country, goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States. The purpose of that is just to ensure that that particular loophole, of which the committee and this Parliament were unaware before the limited, truncated hearings began a few days ago, is not either exploited by the Americans or left available to the Americans in the negotiations which are now taking place.
Had we the text of the agreement by Hallowe'en, as was promised, then perhaps this particular matter would not have had to be brought forward. I have no choice now, as a member of an opposition Party which is strongly opposed to the agreement between the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States, as I understand it right now, but to put forward this kind of amendment.
it is not meant to inhibit Canada's trade with Mexico. I believe Canada should be seeking to expand its trading and
December 1, 1987

economic relationships with Mexico. Elowever, I feel we should do that on a direct basis, on a shared basis or possibly on a trilateral or multilateral basis, and not under a situation in which goods created at very low labour rates in Mexico will come into Canada surreptitiously and be labelled as American goods.
American manufacturers are already taking advantage of this. One of the consequences when industry fled the northern tier of states in the United States to go south, has been a rate of economic growth in those states bordering Canada a great deal lower than the economic growth in Canada over the course of the last 8 or 10 years. Some of those industries have not gone to Houston or Alabama, they have gone to Mexico. I have to ask myself, if we enter into an agreement which puts our industries on the same basis as those in the northern tier of the U.S., whether we are not going to suffer that same fate.
I ask myself, indeed all Canadians, do we really want American social services? Do we really want an economy with a 28 per cent growth rate over seven or eight years, such as that enjoyed by the border states, which of course have full free trade with the rest of the U.S., compared to the 48 per cent that we enjoy in Canada? The Government considers that this should be the case.
However, with respect to this particular Bill, if Canada wishes to make special arrangements with Mexico, it should do so directly. We have provisions in our tariff schedule, and they are included in this Bill, which allow Canada to charge lower rates all the way down to zero on goods coming from developing countries, less developed countries and least developed countries. If we want to make that arrangement with the Mexicans, then let us do so, but let us do it directly. I do not believe we should be put in a position where, because of a special trading relationship which now exists between the U.S. and Mexico, these goods are bootlegged into Canada as though they were American goods.
That is an example of the kind of problems I believe we are getting into because of the situation we face on free trade. We are essentially being given a deal on the basis, as the Montreal Gazette indicated yesterday, where the salesman says: "Buy now, you will never get another chance, and don't bother to look at the fine print". I believe that in this, as in many other respects, we ought to be looking very carefully at the fine print.
I would welcome some assurances from the Minister on this point. I see the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) is here as well. I hope they both indicate exactly what the situation is. I know that when the Minister worked on Bay Street, she would not have dreamed of counselling a client to whom she was giving financial advice to buy a business without taking a thorough look at the details, the financial statements, the balance sheet, legal encumbrances and so on.
Customs Tariff


Mrs. McDougall:: Did you read the text of the Kennedy round?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am sure that when he was teaching at the University of Western Ontario, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), if approached by an academic colleague who said he wanted to buy a house at the better end of town even though it is a bit expensive, would have advised him to look at his own financial status. Can he afford it? He would advise him to look at his goals and objectives and review the contract very carefully to make sure there is no urea formaldehyde insulation in the house, or mortgage problems, or things like that. If the Minister would give that advice to someone buying a house, and the Minister of State for Privatization would give that advice to someone buying a company, why is this Parliament asking Canadians to buy, sight unseen, a deal which may mean Canadian jobs being lost in favour of jobs in Mexico?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Hogwash.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I hear the Minister saying "no, no". Then she should get up and say exactly what this means and why we do not need to close the loophole? If she agrees there is a loophole, then let her agree to the amendment and let us pass it.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, for one, want to rise and support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Mr. Hockin:: I cannot believe that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It seems to me to be almost impossible to entertain the notion that this amendment would not be supported by members of the Government. While I am not in the habit of heaping praise upon members of the perennial third Party-although you never know, they could end up in second spot the next time around if the Government keeps going the way it is going-I have to compliment the Hon. Member for identifying what could be a major problem for Canada.
Let us talk about more than just the potential nature of this problem. If anyone were to take even a cursory glance at trade between Canada and Mexico today, they would discover a very startling statistic. Mexico sells more auto parts to Canada today than the value of all of the products Canada sells to Mexico. In addition, we are running a trade deficit with Mexico of about three to one. Yet traditionally our trade has been fairly evenly balanced over the last decade. The deficit we are now experiencing, a deficit which is growing, is attributable almost entirely to the rather dramatic increase in the export of Mexican auto parts to this country.
How did that happen? The single major initiative of the Government of Mexico, quite understandable from their point of view after the collapse of oil prices and the subsequent loss of income from their oil company Pemex, was to establish new

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
industries along the border with the United States whose prime reason for being was cheaper labour costs. We have now seen the rapid development and growth of an auto parts industry in the northern border states of Mexico. Many of those industries use some parts from the U.S. and some from Canada, but the major assembly operation is done in Mexico.
I was in Windsor last Friday and visited a Canadian company called Tri-Way Machine Ltd. It is in the business of manufacturing or building assembly lines primarily for Ford, GM and Chrysler for use in auto plants in Canada and the U.S. Lo and behold, there on the floor of the plant was a huge assembly line. It is built there, taken apart, shipped to where it is going to be used, and then put back together. A very fine gentleman by the name of Joel Jones runs this first-class company, and I asked him where that assembly line, designed to make auto parts, was going. He said it is going to Mexico.
Therefore, when the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre moves an amendment to make clear that under the terms of Bill C-87 any goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the U.S., he is not dealing with a concern which may or may not be realized one day. He is addressing, and I presume he realizes this, a problem which currently exists.
There has been a dramatic movement by the auto parts industry out of the U.S. and into Mexico. American business interests want to take advantage of very cheap labour rates. American industry is establishing new plants in Mexico to take advantage of very cheap labour rates.
Under the free trade pact that we have agreed to enter into, the auto part content rule is no longer defined as a Canadian content rule, it is defined as a North American content rule. Therefore, we are no longer required to have 50 per cent of parts from Canada in Canadian vehicles, but rather a North American content rule, and the Canadian requirement is no longer present. What happens? Auto parts that are built by American industry in Mexico using cheap labour and brought back into the United States, because of that cheap labour component-which is peanuts compared to the rates paid in this country, and that is a shame-will suddenly become part of the North American content rule. That is happening now. There will be a substantial displacement of both Canadian and American auto parts manufacturers in the content of North American vehicles that are produced on both sides of the border. That is what will happen.
I do not know to what extent the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre realizes the importance of the amendment he proposed today, but I concur with it. The Hon. Member is not talking about a hypothetical situation that may arise. He is not talking about a danger in terms of displacement of Canadian jobs in manufacturing that may occur. In fact, through this amendment he has addressed a situation that is occurring today.
When today's trade is measured between Canada and Mexico, it will be discovered that the value of Canada's direct import of Mexican-made auto parts-not imports through the United States-exceeds the value of all Canadian products of every description that are exported to Mexico, and we are running a dramatically increasing trade deficit with Mexico.
I submit that unless this very sensible amendment is made to Bill C-87, and I cannot conceive that at least this one amendment would not be accepted by the Government, we will see an escalation in the amount of Mexican-made auto parts that are displacing Canadian jobs and Canadian manufacturing effort. I concur with what the Member has said. If there is to be, and there ought to be, a healthy, vibrant trading relationship with Mexico, which is an important country on the North American continent which has a right to participate in world trade, let it be on the basis of arrangements made between Canada and Mexico and let us not have this indirect, back-door, sneaky way of displacing Canadian manufacturing effort and jobs, without the knowledge of the Government, the industry, or the people of Canada.
I hope that the Minister will rise and show that he is above partisanship. I have not attacked him for this Bill. Will he show that he appreciates a problem being brought to his attention when it is brought properly and intelligently, and inform the House that this amendment will be accepted as drafted because it does a service to the House of Commons, the people of Canada, and particularly those people in the auto parts manufacturing industry who, more than ever before, are at risk because of the initiative of this Government with respect to free trade? The Government has been done a favour, and I hope that it has the good sense to recognize it.


Thomas Hockin: I wish to respond to the comments made by the two Hon. Members, and to speak to the motion.
This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Parliament will deal with, that is, harmonizing our tariff system for the decade ahead and beyond. It is an historically important document which has been worked out with all the other trading countries in the world. There has been almost 10 years of preparation behind this harmonization. It is one of the most important non-partisan Bills that Parliament will deal with, and it is being held up by this motion, which I will speak to shortly.
The comments of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) are important to make if the motion were necessary, but it turns out that the motion will be unnecessary to accomplish what the Hon. Member wants.
This legislation is doing something massive, and it must be put in place by January 1. We are harmonizing our whole tariff system with our trading partners.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Americans are not doing it by January 1.
December 1, 1987


Thomas Hockin: The Americans will probably have it done by January 1.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Americans will not.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member wants me to follow the lead of the Americans. We are not going to follow the lead of the Americans. What the Canadians want us to do, we will do. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member also wishes the detailed free trade document. The reason that some extra time is required to work on that document is that we have some views that are different from those of the Americans.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It was all signed on October 3.


Thomas Hockin: What we wish to do with those changes is to make it tighter and better from our point of view.
This Bill takes our whole tariff classification system, which has mostly been based on end use, and to classify tariffs as to the nature of the product. Conceptually, this is a big change for this country.
In fact, Canada's Customs Tariff Act has been one of the more cumbersome, and perhaps one of the more anomalous regimes in the industrialized world. A great deal of work has been put into improving the system, perhaps more than other countries, but starting on January 1 we will be in a position to harmonize with other countries.
Does the Hon. Member have any idea what this would mean to the importers and exporters of Canada if this were not in place by January 1 ? Therefore, I regret the motion.
Let me speak to the motion. The Hon. Member's suggestion is that this Mexico-Canada import problem is not dealt with properly in this legislation.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is not.


Thomas Hockin: It is our contention, and there is no doubt that this is the case, that among the many positive things the free trade agreement we are putting together with the United States is designed to achieve, is to make this motion by the Hon. Member absolutely unnecessary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: How?


Thomas Hockin: The rules of origin will be stated in detail in our trading agreement with the United States, and will completely rule out the possibility of the concerns and the phantoms produced by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You said that the fine print is not important.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member knows that the principle of rule of origin will be part of this free trade agreement, and it will outlaw the particular phantoms produced by Mr. Saul in his article last week. I think if the Hon. Member asked Mr. Saul, he would agree that this is a red herring.
Customs Tariff


Michael Morris Cassidy: No. The power is there and it should be stopped.


Thomas Hockin: There is a second problem. It is not only designed to deal with an alleged loophole, which does not exist and will not exist in the free trade agreement, the amendment of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is intended to prevent U.S. goods which have undergone outward processing in Mexico from qualifying for duty-free entry under the free trade agreement. These goods will not qualify under the rules of origin negotiated under the agreement, and hence there is no need for the amendment.
Second, such a provision in Canadian law, the provision that is suggested in this amendment, would be totally contrary to our GATT obligations. I think that the Hon. Member knows that. It would discriminate against goods which incorporated any component from Mexico, and thus indirectly discriminate against Mexico.
As far as I can tell, the result of this amendment is that even a bolt, a nut, or a screw that was in a machine if it was made in Mexico would be banned from being placed in Canada. That is incredible. It is a highly discriminatory provision which is totally against our GATT provisions. It would be challenged by Mexico, which is a GATT member and entitled to the application of the same rules of origin by Canada as are applied to imports from other countries.
In summary, this is an important piece of legislation which is being held up as a result of a motion which is based upon a chimerical allegation that the free trade deal will not deal with the problem and that the wording-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Show us the fine print.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where is it?


Thomas Hockin: -uttered by the two Hon. Members must be dealt with.
We have an important piece of legislation which is nothing more than an agreement which we have put together with all other industrialized countries. I think every other Parliament will deal with it in a non-partisan manner. However, these Hon. Members have projected partisanship into stopping the proper progress of the Bill. 1 must ask, from the point of view of parliamentary procedure-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is what happens when you try to run over us. You have no mandate for what you are saying.


Thomas Hockin: If the Hon. Member really believes in what he is saying, why did he not raise these points in committee? He uses a classic technique. He does not raise the points in committee. He trucks them all to Parliament to raise them here and waste the time of the House, when he could have got satisfaction and the answers he wanted and needed in committee.

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
I am looking forward to disposing of these motions in rather quick order, because they are all based upon a false premise.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Minister accused us of wasting the time of the House. I think it is important for people who are watching the proceedings of the House of Commons this morning to realize that report stage debate just started 40 minutes ago.
No one is against the intent of Bill C-87. We believe in harmonizing trade; there is no question about that. However, we do not want to see the Government, through this legislation, moving toward its free trade agenda, the Mulroney package, with the Americans.
We have certain fears about what will be in the final fine print of the agreement with the Americans. Over the last couple of years we have already had a variance in what the Government was saying with regard to the Auto Pact. At the very beginning of the negotiations with the United States, we were told that the Auto Pact would not be touched. We had the assurances of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and other cabinet Ministers that it would not be affected one iota. Yet we know that the Government has already thrown in the towel with regard to the penalty clauses and that, in the negotiations which are still taking place with the Americans, the Auto Pact, tariffs, and penalties topics are still matters of contention.
The so-called free trade deal signed on October 3 is not ready and is not before the House. It would be irresponsible for the House to pass legislation, which could have a direct effect on the trade deal, before we actually have the fine print of the final copy before us.
In part, the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) reads:
Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or
partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United
States.
If the Minister, as he indicated in his speech, has some problem with the amendment-maybe he thinks that it goes too far-he or some other member of the Government has the ability to put forward a subamendment. However, for us to give the Government through Order in Council the complete freedom to deem that cars almost completely produced in Mexico will be considered American cars for the sake of the Auto Pact is a threat to thousands of jobs in Canada. We do not believe that we should give a blank cheque to Cabinet when it comes to the future of our auto parts industry.
For us to do that in advance of having the final copy of the trade deal would be irresponsible. We need to know what is in the trade deal before we can pass this piece of legislation. We cannot be faced with a situation where the House of Commons passes the legislation and the Government makes all sorts of regulations which are going to cost Canadians jobs, without the benefit of having a finalized copy of the trade deal in front of us.
I am not speaking about some idle threat. As a previous Hon. Member mentioned, the situation is such that hundreds of plants are being built in Mexico at the present time for the sole purpose of exporting goods back into the United States. A major area in which this is happening is that of auto parts. As was also mentioned earlier, we already import from Mexico more in cars and auto parts than all our exports to that country. We already have a deficit on that one item, and that deficit would increase if we allowed the Government, through Order in Council, to count as United States products all cars and auto parts produced south of the United States-Mexico border. It is a serious concern, and it is something with which we must deal.
We are in a situation where the House of Commons will be denied any real debate of the Canada-U.S. trade deal before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signs it on January 3. Today is December 1, and here we are in the House of Commons and we do not have the agreement before us. We do not have any enabling legislation or a debate on the trade deal, yet we know that as soon as possible the Prime Minister will run down to Washington to sign the deal. It is unacceptable that that should happen. No responsible Government would allow the Prime Minister to sign an international agreement when we have not even seen its final wording or have not had the benefit of a debate based upon its final wording. The Prime Minister is committing not only his Government but future Governments to a certain course of action without consulting the people of the nation.
The Prime Minister campaigned prior to 1984 against a trade arrangement with the Americans. He said that it would be wrong. He admitted that it would be dangerous. He knew that it would cost us jobs, yet he has made a 180- degree reversal. Now, in approximately 33 days, the same Prime Minister wants to sign a trade arrangement or deal with the Americans which none of us has ever seen.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) rose in the House of Commons and said that it was good enough for us to have the elements of the trade deal. She said that that was all we really had to know because it was the basic package which we were able to debate if we wanted. She also said that the committee travelling across the country right now would be hearing from witnesses and would have copies of the elements of the deal. If that is good enough, why is it that two months after the elements were signed it has been impossible for the Canadian and American negotiators to come up with the final package? If the elements of the deal are so good and so complete, then obviously the final draft could be signed and it should be in front of this House.
There are major considerations and difficulties with which the Canadian and American negotiators are dealing. For the House of Commons committee to be travelling and for witnesses to be making presentations without a final package is irresponsible. We certainly cannot, in this House of Commons,
December 1, 1987

pass legislation which will give the Government a blank cheque on the trade deal. Certainly the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) goes in the direction of helping to prevent the Government from getting a blank cheque which we cannot trust it with.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: We, Mr. Speaker, in the Official Opposition support the amendment. We are also deeply concerned about the Government bringing forward this piece of legislation at a time when Canadians cannot judge it, as they must, in the light of what the free trade agreement will mean for the opportunities opened in Canada for Mexican production.
Why the Government would take this time-if I may say so as the justice critic, when we were moving well on the obscenity legislation, which is important-to bring forward Bill C-87 and suspend the obscenity legislation can only make us very suspicious, as the New Democrats are.
The Government wants to get this legislation passed before exposing the fine print which may reveal a weakness that will make us want to refuse to pass Bill C-87. Seeing the fine print will make it clear whether or not products produced in Mexico, mostly produced in Mexico or partly produced in Mexico and then finished in the U.S., will get the benefit of free trade entry into Canada. This is an issue relating partly to ownership but mainly to labour.
We know that most of the auto industry production that goes on in Mexico is subject in Mexico to a requirement of Mexican ownership or largely Mexican ownership. We also know that Mexico, in some very far-sighted moves to encourage job creation in that country, has created zones in which the automotive industry can be owned by foreigners, even 100 per cent by foreigners, to take advantage of world market opportunities. There is nothing wrong with that and it is nothing for which you can criticize Mexico. From Mexico's point of view a lot of jobs have to be created in Mexico.
It is all very well for the Government to be satisfied, as it may be, that a lot of Canadians own businesses in Mexico producing auto parts, but the important feature for us, and about which we must be concerned in Canada, are Canadian jobs. Now we are being asked to support legislation, which may well have the effect of giving Mexican companies, whether Canadian owned or not, and Mexican-produced equipment and parts for the automotive industry, access into the Canadian market-place because they will be classed as North American production. What will the fine print say about the free trade opportunities for goods produced partly or largely-whatever the definition will be-in Mexico introduced into the North American market?
The amendment provides clearly:
(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States.
Customs Tariff
There is a concern which may be allayed when we see the free trade agreement. I believe, Mr. Speaker, you yourself expressed some reservations about the propriety of this amendment, but it would be a very important amendment if the free trade agreement permits Mexican produced goods to become part of the North American production that can enter Canada under the so-called free trade agreement.
A committee is at present travelling across the country getting opinions about the free trade agreement. It has been accurately observed that the Government is wrong in saying that what is happening now is that lawyers are settling what the fine print will be of the agreement. One member of the Government characterized it as the period between signing an offer to sell your house and the final closing that takes place sometimes half a year later when the fine print is settled. I do not think that is a proper analogy. This is not a case of lawyers knowing what their job is and sitting down to do it. The fine print is taking a lot of time to settle, and my guess is that many important issues-be they technical or complicated-[DOT] have not yet been resolved, and that is why the fine print of the free trade agreement is not available.
The Government has had a considerable amount of embarrassment seeing one deadline after another in producing the final text not met. Canadians would be very foolish, and I do not think they are, to believe that it is only a matter of sitting down to draft a deed or a covenant. That is not the type of issue responsible for the delay in this case. There are serious differences to be resolved that I am sure are being considered at a high level between the Governments of Canada and the United States. One must surely be the amount of content of a foreign-produced product, a product partly produced outside the territory of Canada and the United States, and what proportion of it will qualify the good as a Canadian good.
There are similar problems in the clothing industry. We have clothing manufactured in Canada. The fabric may be manufactured in Canada but perhaps the lining or the thread is imported from the U.S. or from some third country. You need to have a value-added or a foreign content rule to assist you in determining how much of a coat made in Canada has actually to be created in Canada for it to be considered a Canadian product for the purposes of the free trade agreement. Very small differences can make a very big difference in production. What about the case of a coat where every single component, the lining, the buttons, the thread, and the fabric were made in Canada? You could not compete in the American market with that coat because lots of coats in the American market are made totally from foreign content. Some coats are imported directly from a third country like Hong Kong, France, Italy, et cetera. There are others finished in the U.S., but like a coat finished in Canada it has a certain amount of foreign content.
When you talk about the automotive industry you are talking about one of the key industries responsible for the trade surplus that we enjoy here in Canada. Knowing that the Mexicans have made a top priority out of getting automotive

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
production in Mexico and have been prepared to do it in a variety of ways by relaxing tough foreign ownership rules or relaxing the rules of company ownership establishing free trade zones, it becomes critical that we know whether these products will be competing directly with products now made in Canada. Unless this amendment is included, Canadian industry will be at the mercy of the free trade agreement, whatever it will provide when it comes out. The link is obvious.
The decision of the Government to hoist the obscenity legislation and bring Bill C-87 before us before the fine print is available can only make us very suspicious. 1 urge government Members, and particularly those who come from areas of Canada where automotive production takes place, to insist on this amendment.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that the Liberals and the NDP, those opposite, are a pretty timorous bunch. However, today we have witnessed the spectacle of them quaking in their collective boots and trembling in fear before the economic might, not of Japan, West Germany or the United States, but of tiny little Mexico. Wee timorous beasties they certainly are.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) would have participated in this debate as opposed to simply making an interjection. After all, it has become perfectly clear this morning that while Canadians have been requesting an opportunity to participate in a debate on free trade through their elected representatives, such has not been the case, with the exception of opportunities provided by opposition days.
On the most important trade deal in Canadian history, and as the chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, indicated, the most important trade deal in the world, the Government has not seen fit to set aside any parliamentary time for debate. Canadians are expected to buy a pig in a poke. They are expected to have faith that the Government will introduce legislation that is in the best interests of the people of Canada.
I think it is rather sad that today, when the Government has provided an opportunity for government Members to debate Bill C-87, no one on the government side seems to be interested. So far, we have heard almost exclusively from members of the Opposition. This is unfortunate, but I suspect that it may be-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Deliberate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would not like to think it is a deliberate move on the Government's part not to participate in a debate on free trade but that it simply stems from the fact that those who would participate are busy at committee meetings and will be here later today. We will be awaiting their return and are anxious to hear their comments on the free trade debate.
We are now debating the first amendment put forward by my hon. friend from Ottawa Centre. I believe that this amendment is absolutely necessary. As Hon. Members know, Bill C-87 which the Government wants to pass as quickly as possible really provides that goods produced in another country can be deemed to be produced in the United States and therefore, under a free trade deal, could be traded as American products in Canada without any duties or tariffs. More specifically, if the United States, in a free trade zone with Mexico, were prepared to use very cheap Mexican labour to produce goods at an extremely low cost in Mexico or along the border, those goods could be deemed to be American products, which would then be allowed into Canada duty-free to compete with our products here in Canada in a so-called free and fair trade situation, though obviously such would not be the case. These goods, which would not even have been produced in the United States, would be considered to be American in origin.
We are interested in having a fair trade situation with the United States. We feel that if we are to be trading in a head-to-head way, the situations on both sides of the border ought to be the same. Both countries ought to have the same input costs, and then whichever country is the most productive or the most sophisticated in terms of marketing would probably come up with the sales.
My hon. friend from Ottawa Centre has moved an amendment that reads as follows:
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 15 by adding, immediately after line
26 at page 4, the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the Unites States."
That is about the purest form of an amendment that I have ever seen in the House of Commons. I would think it would get the unanimous support of all Hon. Members. If we do not support it, we are saying that goods produced wholly or partly in Mexico shall be deemed to originate in the United States. We are simply trying to clarify the situation so that if the Government proceeds to bulldoze ahead and jam the free trade deal down the throats of Canadians, we will agree that goods produced in the United States must be produced in the United States.
As many people have warned us, we will find that goods produced in Mexico will be deemed to have been produced in the United States and then will be traded into Canada as American products. That is wrong, unjust and unfair. It is an unfair trading practice. We are simply saying that it should not be allowed. I think any fair-minded person would agree with that.
It seems to be rather odd that opposition Members would even have to suggest such an amendment. It would seem to be in the best interests of Canada and Canadian manufacturers that the Government itself would put this in the legislation. Such, apparently, is not the case.
December 1, 1987

I listened with interest when the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) said that this legislation ought to go through quickly and that the Opposition should stop debating it. We have just begun to debate it. That is what we are here for. Our job is to debate in the House of Commons. The Minister of State for Finance has told us not to debate this legislation, but I say that this is one of the only opportunities we have to point out the folly of the present system as we move toward this so-called free trade deal with the United States.
Today is December 1, and in four-weeks' time this agreement with the United States will be signed. 1 ask myself if this particular Bill is covered by the deal. I suspect you are asking yourself that question, Mr. Speaker, as are many other Members of the House of Commons.
Under the free trade deal with the United States, will goods produced in Mexico be allowed to be considered American products for trade? That is a reasonable question, but we do not know the answer because we have not seen the agreement. It is a bit like asking someone to sign a will, a contract or a mortgage without reading it. It is like asking management and labour to sign a collective agreement without looking at it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is like buying a used car without checking that there is a motor under the hood.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend says that it is like buying a used car without checking to see if there is a motor under the hood. This is really peculiar. I cannot imagine how Members of the House of Commons could ask Canadians to sign an agreement that no one has seen. It seems illogical and kind of humorous. It is as though a joke has been played. Maybe someone will wake up and say: "Hey, April fool's, we've been fooling you all along". However, that is not the case. Four weeks from tonight, we will be getting ready to sign that agreement which no one has seen yet.
My friend from Ottawa Centre is an opposition Member who is obviously very concerned about this trading arrangement and about Bill C-87 which harmonizes customs definitions. He has asked if goods produced in Mexico will be allowed to be deemed American goods. Presumably government Members are saying yes to this. If they are not saying yes, then I suppose they will rise shortly to explain what they mean by their presumed opposition to this amendment.
I can only say with increasing frustration that as January 2, the day we are to sign this agreement, draws closer I wonder when we will see the agreement. As a matter of fact, I recall the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) saying on many occasions that by the end of November, we will all have seen the agreement and Canadians will then have a whole month to evaluate it. Well, November has passed and it is now December. To be fair, some of us would probably like to spend a few days around Christmas not debating or thinking a whole lot about the free trade agreement. However, we may not have the pleasure of that break.
Customs Tariff


Brian Vincent Tobin: We'll get our holiday turkey on January 2.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, we will get something on January 2.1 expect that there will be all kinds of interesting animals coming at us as a result of this.
In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, has a government in the history of this country ever said that it is entering into a fantastic major contract with another country but was not going to tell anyone what was in it, that it did not even know what was in it because it was still being negotiated, yet asked people to support it before anyone saw it?
My hon. friend, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), has moved a most reasoned amendment which recommends that we pass legislation to say that goods which are partly or wholly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States. I have seen a lot of amendments, and this is probably the most logical and sensible one I have seen in a long time. With regard to the implications which free trade will have for Canadian manufacturers, large, medium and small, we would be well advised to pass this forthwith and get on with the discussion of Motions Nos. 2 and 3.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is very straightforward. It simply says that under this Bill no goods which are manufactured or partly manufactured in Mexico shall be deemed to be made in the U.S. The Minister objects to that. He says that this is discriminating against Mexico. We could implement a subamendment providing that no goods originating outside of the U.S. are to be deemed to be made in the U.S.
The Minister says that the question of the rule of origin will be part of the free trade agreement. To make it even simpler, why not have a definition of the rule of origin right in this Bill? Why wait for the so-called free trade agreement which we have not seen? The Minister is very good at telling us that Bills are simple and technical and that we should trust him that all will be well.
I was Chairman of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association during a two-year period when the access of Greece and Portugal to the Common Market was being negotiated. It was fascinating to watch the process of product-by-product negotiation, with clear examination of economic impact at every step and a real commitment to raise the standard of living in the poorer countries.
The Government is not negotiating publicly. We do not know what is on the table and what is off. We have seen a 30-page agreement in principle, but we are waiting for the fine print. The Minister has brought in this Bill and said, "Don't worry, just pass it. It's technical. The fine print of the free trade agreement will settle everything". That is not a very satisfactory way to proceed.

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
I invite the Minister to bring forward a counter amendment which would give a definition of rule of origin which we could all support. That would probably be a very simple way of bringing this matter to a close.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak against some of the aspects of Bill C-87 by supporting the amendment of my colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The response of the Government to the amendment has been that we should trust the Prime Minister. According to all the evidence, 75 per cent of the Canadian people do not trust the Prime Minister, and I am happy to be counted among that 75 per cent.
I would like to explain this amendment and point out how it affects things which I have encountered during the last year. The clause which we are amending says:
For the purposes of this Act, goods originate in a country if the whole of the
value of the goods is produced in that country.
That sounds reasonable. However, it then goes on to say the opposite. It says:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) deeming goods, the whole or a portion of the value of which is produced
outside a country, to originate in that country for the purposes of this Act-
In other words, the Governor in Council may secretly wipe out the essential meaning of Clause 15(1). He can say that an entire product made in country A will be considered to come from country X. We may think that that was just a funny joke if we did not know of certain things that are happening.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is rushing indecently to move this Bill through Parliament before he has even signed the free trade agreement which he is asking all Canadians to support. I was an observer last Thursday and Friday at the First Ministers meeting in Toronto. It was rather sickening to hear the Prime Minister pour scorn on anyone who was not prepared to buy an agreement which he himself has not yet seen fit to sign. It is not fit for him to sign, yet he condemns everyone who does not give it support in advance.
We do not have the exact text of the agreement. A few minutes ago the Minister said that we should not worry about this point, that the agreement will make it clear. Maybe it will make it clear, but we want to know how it will do that. Almost two months after the so-called agreement was reached we still do not have the text. We were told scornfully that 1,000 or 1,800 pages of the text will be tariff information. The implication was that we would either not want to read it or would not be able to understand it. Yet, that is exactly the sort of thing that is involved in this Bill which the Prime Minister is trying to rush through before he has to tell us the truth of the agreement which he will sign.
This Bill is part of the so-called free trade deal, the Prime Minister's deal with the President of the United States, which will not be free trade but fettered trade. It will not be free for Canada although it will be free for certain corporations, mainly American ones.
This morning I telephoned one of the major unions in Spadina, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. They are unaware of what the Government is planning to do to them through this Bill in combination with the free trade agreement. In other words, the Government is trying to sneak it through.
As has been pointed out before, there is what might be called a free trade or export zone in Mexico along the American border in which American corporations have established plants. American corporations are shutting down their plants in the United States where they might pay workers $9 an hour. They are doing the work across the Mexican border where they pay workers 65 cents an hour and where there are no unions. As far as the companies and the Government are concerned, there never will be.
The deal is that the goods made in Mexico under slave labour conditions, for which the United States is responsible, are to be imported into Canada under the so-called free trade arrangement with the United States. That is what has clearly opened up in Clause 15 of the Bill. It is a disgrace.
A little over a year ago, one of the major clothing manufacturing plants in Spadina shut down suddenly, with one month's notice. It was a big plant employing 200 people, and was manufacturing Adidas basketball shorts on King Street. When I phoned the manager to ask why it had shut down, he gave me some vague talk about the market dropping. He did not say whether it was because their basketball shorts were no good or they oversold.
I learned from others that they had just opened a plant in Mexico to produce the very same Adidas basketball shorts. It is no wonder they wiped out 200 jobs in Toronto. That is the kind of deal which will become more popular with large corporations like Adidas if the Government is able to put Bill C-87 into law.
It is clearly intended to accelerate what is already being done in a few cases. It amounts to an attempt to legally smuggle goods that would not be acceptable if the deal were put before this Canadian Parliament and put openly to the Canadian people.
The Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) ducked in, made a wisecrack, then ducked out again. Of course, he did not want to be held responsible for his remark. He said that we are afraid of Mexico. I am not afraid of Mexico, but I have healthy respect for the power for multinational corporations like Adidas, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. It is not Mexico against whom this amendment must be directed, even though we are forced to name Mexico; it is corporations like General Motors and Adidas who are exploiting Mexico and the Mexican people in order to damage the employment prospects of American and Canadian workers.
December 1, 1987

The matter will probably not stop at Mexico. When I visited El Salvador in May, I asked the vice-minister of planning what he was doing about unemployment there. The lowest rate of unemployment which the Government estimates there is 50 per cent of the workforce. He speaks very good English and told me: "We want you Canadians to invest in our cheap labour". He obviously was not talking to the garment workers in Spadina or the auto workers in any of the Canadian auto manufacturing locations.
He thought he was talking to a well-to-do Member of Parliament, perhaps a colleague of another Member of Parliament who has often visited El Salvador because of his interest in shoe factories there. He invited me and my friends to invest in their cheap labour. He is not kidding that it is cheap labour. According to the Star, it is $4 a day for labour. Those who attempt to organize unions are shot, and those who complain about the shootings are shot as well. The Government has never brought any of those murderers to justice. It is the death squads in places like El Salvador and it is corporations like Adidas and General Motors which I fear in Clause 15 and against which I believe the amendment of the Member for Ottawa Centre is very reasonable.
The Prime Minister sneers at those who oppose the deal that he is writing with the President. I heard him in Toronto on Friday sneer at those who compare the deal to sleeping with an elephant. However, the Prime Minister himself said four years ago that free trade with the United States is like sleeping with an elephant, it is terrific until the elephant twitches, and if it ever rolls over you are dead. It is a sad day when the Prime Minister of Canada sneers at what he himself said when he was running for the leadership of the Party that now governs the country.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the reasoned amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to the horribly permissive clause which the Government has inserted in this Bill.
Whenever we read a clause that says the Governor in Council may make regulations deeming goods, the whole or a portion of the value of which is produced outside a country, to originate in that country for the purposes of this Act, I think we have a right, indeed a duty, to be suspicious. This clause flies in the face of reason, in the face of geography, and in the face of history. It is an Alice in Wonderland situation whereby the Government abrogates to itself this right to say that things are not in fact the way things actually are. Surely that is not the purpose of legislation within a democratic society that believes in the rule of law.
We should not give the Government the power to make a deeming decision that is on the level of saying that night should be day, black should be white, or up should be down. However, that is the import of the permissive legislation the Government is bringing forward in this instance.
Customs Tariff
We are discussing the trading relationships of the United States and Mexico that would be implied in the application of the free trade agreement which the Government believes it has signed with the United States.
This amendment is not directed toward Mexico supplying certain assembled goods to the American economy, nor is it aimed at Mexico selling these assembled goods into the Canadian market. I believe we have had a history of allowing access to our markets for manufactured goods generally and a history of at least showing some openness toward the products of the Third World.
Frankly, however, such a policy has been rather by way of indifference than policy. Canadians should be looking much more carefully at this record in terms of the interest we should take toward the economic development of the Third World and the use of our markets and buying power to promote that economic development while ensuring the survival of a healthy and strong Canadian economy.
We are not opposed to entering into a direct trading relationship with Mexico. Indeed, we should actively promote such a program to act as a counterbalance to the excessive dependence on the United States markets for our raw materials and semi-manufactured goods. However, the power conferred upon the Government by Clause 15 would essentially allow the Canadian Government, at the behest of the U.S. Government, of course, to allow Mexican goods produced in the free trade zone, known as the Maquiladora zone, to be imported into Canada as American goods.
Clause 15 would essentially endow the Government with the power to delegate to the Americans a sovereign power of government that has not previously been given away. This would, in effect, provide a back-door for entry into the Canadian market of goods that are produced at Third World wages, at Third World working conditions, with Third World levels of virtually non-existent benefits and safeguards for health and work safety.
The problems caused North America, particularly the United States, by the weakness of the economic system of Mexico, are problems that should be addressed as such and not in a proxy fashion. Canada, after all, permits the less developed countries to have their goods enter Canada free of tariffs, although there are some quotas. That, however, is a direct relationship, and those direct relationships, I believe, should be a prime preoccupation of the Canadian Government, because I believe they are worth expanding and that Canada can improve its assistance to economic development in the Third World by so doing.
As the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) pointed out, why would the Government want this excessive deeming power unless, frankly, it is to satisfy the demands of the multinational corporations and major national corporations, or

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
unless it is to facilitate the way in which corporations play off workers in one country against those in another.
Ever since the advent of the production line system, ever since the advent of multinational corporations, it has sadly and regrettably been a dream of the executives and investors in multinational corporations that there would be complete substitute ability of the labour component, that it would become totally fungible so that a product could be produced in any given country for a market, no matter where, and it could be produced under the most favourable-simply, the least costly-conditions and that workers could be treated with the same interchangeability, the same casual acknowledgment, as the dollar bill that goes with so many others to make up the capital investments required.
That is surely not something Canadian Governments, particularly faced with the economic power of U.S.-based multinationals, should be subscribing to. That surely is not the model of democracy, not the model of an economy that Canadians should be subscribing to. The model of democracy that we have heretofore ascribed to, is a model in which the people, by the exercise of their vote franchise, select governments to represent their interests. It is a model in which governments have the power to control the activities of corporations.
What is being promoted by Clause 15 in its present form, and what is being promoted, regrettably, by the Government's trade deal with the United States, is a model in which decision-making and power are shifted away from democratically elected governments into the arena of the boardrooms, the stock markets and the corporate decision-making investing processes.
While none of us deny the need for power in those fields to accomplish necessary economic development in a free society and a mixed economy, what we are saying, and what we have to say at every point, is that we will not allow those powers to override the powers of Government, either by subverting them or by openly abrogating them, which this will be part of.
The raising of economic standards in the Third World is not something-and here we include Mexico-that is going to be accomplished by the simple provision, whether deliberate or by neglect, of loopholes through which Third World products can flow. It is only going to be accomplished, in terms of long-term economic development and in terms of a democratically based economic development, by deliberate policy and strategy initiatives taken by the wealthier countries.
That is the ultimate tragedy of the Maquiladora industrial program. It is not something that has come about because of American goodwill towards Mexico, because of a wish of the Americans to help, although, heaven knows, it would be in its own economic interest to help. It has not come about because of that. It has come about because of these loopholes and because those American corporations have seen the loopholes and have started moving the jobs out of Michigan and Ohio and down into the northern provinces of Mexico.
It irks me when I hear the Minister complain that the New Democratic Party wants to debate amendments like this in the context of a tariff harmonization Bill. What are we to debate if the Government will not put its free trade measure before the House of Commons for debate? We will debate whatever we are given to debate. And we will talk about free trade because the Government cannot have it both ways.


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


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister when he spoke a little earlier today said something about this amendment not being necessary, that when we see the details of the so-called free trade agreement with the United States we will see that this amendment was irrelevant, redundant and unnecessary. If that is true, if the Minister knows now what is in the final text, surely it is incumbent upon him to have one of his colleagues stand and read that portion of the agreement he seems to now know makes this amendment unnecessary or redundant, whatever words he used.
If the Minister knows that much about it, surely he owes it to the House of Commons to tell us. Without that, I do not believe him. One must accept the Minister's word. I will accept his word, but there is a difference in accepting it and believing it. I hope the Minister will see to it that one of his colleagues tells us forthwith what is in the agreement that makes this amendment unnecessary. I feel ashamed as a Canadian that we would take part in aiding and abetting what the United States wants to do by the back door that we would not allow it to do by the front door.
I have always believed that Canada should make a direct trade agreement with Mexico. I notice that the price of a head of cauliflower is now $3. The price went up by about $1.50 in one week in the City of Ottawa. These are vegetables brought up from Arizona and California. Let us make a deal with Mexico for vegetables. It is up to here in vegetables. Let us send Mexico what it needs from us in technological assistance, in breeding cattle, and all the things it needs from us, and get vegetables in return. However, what we are doing is allowing this 18th century or 19th century exploitation by the United States, allowing it to do through the back door what we would not let it do through the front door, under the guise of trade harmonization. It may try to have some harmony, but in that harmony the name of the tune will be the Star Spangled Banner.
The Americans pay in northern Mexico 65 cents an hour. That is economic tyranny. It is economic imperialism of the worst kind. For the United States to tell us that that kind of production in the northern part of Mexico, within a few miles of the Rio Grande River, is considered to be made in the United States, is the worst kind of economic chicanery. Canada should not be a party to that. It should not aid and abet that kind of imperialism.
I do not understand the drive of the Government for a free trade arrangement. It will go to any lengths to get it. It will do
December 1, 1987

so, not only at the expense of Canadian industry and Canadian citizens, but at the expense of citizens in a third country. Canada makes special arrangements for tariff concessions to developing and Third World countries, but we do it directly. There is no going behind anyone's back, no behind the scenes negotiations between Washington and Ottawa. I do not believe this country should be party to that kind of nonsense.
I am a very strong believer in the principle enunciated by a world famous historical figure who said that "labour is prior and superior to capital. Without labour, capital cannot function". Yet when we, not only allow this kind of exploitation by multinational corporations, some of whom have branch plants in Canada, but aid and abet it, we are not deserving of very much credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, particularly the under developed and developing nations.
Surely there is not a single Canadian who would not be willing to pay more for a product from Mexico produced at a labour cost of $3 or $4 or $5 an hour instead of 65 cents an hour. I do not know of any self-respecting Canadian who calls himself civilized or Christian who would be in favour of saving a few pennies at the expense of a fellow human being in a country like Mexico.
Neither should the Cabinet have the authority to do these things by itself. It should have to present a Bill to Parliament every time it wants to make changes. Every time it wants to resort to something like this, it should be subject to public scrutiny and examination. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney), at the First Ministers' Conference, said he did not believe in government by committee. We have too darn much government by committee in this country as it is, and have had for many years. That committee is called the Cabinet, the Governor in Council, that does things that in many other countries have to come before a legislature. Why should we broaden even more the power that the Governor in Council has?
This is not a routine regulation or a simple change in procedure. This is an attempt to pacify and satisfy the U.S. Government and accept goods from them, under our law, which they consider made in the U.S.A. The fact that this stuff is made in Mexico by an American company paying 65 cents an hour does not qualify it as made in the U.S.A. Whatever deal Mexico has made with the U.S. is Mexico's business. We should not be party to this kind of economic imperialism. I find it disgraceful that Canada would sit back and make changes in its law that would allow this to happen. I find it incredible.
I would be willing to give my consent to have the Minister speak a second time on this motion. If other Members agree, he can get up and tell us what the final agreement contains that makes this amendment unnecessary.


Thomas Hockin: It will be there.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Rodriguez:: When?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If he cannot give us the whole thing, and we will be lucky to get it by December 7, he can fish out that paragraph or two paragraphs or whatever it is to prove to us that what he says about this amendment is true. Until he can do that, we consider it a most necessary amendment and we will debate it and many others because this Bill goes beyond simply harmonizing our tariff arrangements with the rest of the world. The main reason for the Bill, and the reason the Government feels it should be passed as quickly as possible, is that it will fit in with the requirements of the U.S. administration.
We have here another example of Canadian law being made in Washington, not in Ottawa. This is supine acquiescence by the Government. We have seen this in its predecessors as well. When the Americans holler, jump, and my friends across the way ask: how high?
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment will prove acceptable to the majority of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to address this amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).

and say that the Liberal Caucus and the Liberal Party are very concerned about the fact that the Government, which has yet to table the final text of the Agreement, would have us adopt, more or less sight unseen, a proposal that would very substantially change the way Canadians trade or do business with the rest of the world.
The amendment before the House seeks to exclude from this market certain foreign products, products that are manufactured in Mexico.

I want to read Clause 15 very carefully. It says:
15(1) For the purposes of this Act, goods originate in a country if the whole of the value of the goods is produced in that country.
(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations.
(a) deeming goods, the whole or a portion of the value of which is produced outside a country, to originate in that country for the purposes of this Act;-
In simple terms, that means that the Americans could have products made wholly or in part in Mexico, declare them to be American products, and bring them into Canada under a so-called free trade agreement. I invite the Minister to clarify that clause of the Bill because it addresses the rule of origin and our preoccupations with respect to clarifying the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the areas covered by a trade agreement between two countries are usually discussed beforehand and submitted for serious debate. The Government keeps telling us we should accept, without argument, the Mulroney-Reagan proposal for free trade between . . .

December 1, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 regret to interrupt, but the Hon. Member will have seven minutes remaining when we again call Orders of the Day.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
the reproductive system, or when a pregnancy occurs in the fallopian tubes.
Sixty thousand unborn human beings are killed in Canada each year under the guise of so-called therapeutic abortions. This cannot be allowed to continue. The federal Government has the responsibility to see to it that federal legislation is carried out by the provinces, and that federal statutes are enforced.
How many more thousands of unborn babies must die before this carnage is legally brought to an end? This is the question that Canadians must ask themselves and come to grips with, if we are ever to get rid of this scourge and the condonation of abortions on demand.

[Stage Direction]
*
* *

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, on November 29, the brand new Pie IX agro-food complex was officially opened, representing a twenty-million-dollar investment and 600 new jobs for Montreal East. The organization responsible for the success of this innovative venture is the Societe de developpement immobiliere COIMAC Inc., headed by its president, Mr. Vincent Cacciatore.
Mr. Cacciatore is Canadian entrepreneurship incarnate. He started in a small shop, and today he owns the most modern agro-food complex on the North American continent.
Today, in this House and in the presence of all Canadians, I wish to pay tribute to his success.


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Ontario is about to condone the opening of 12 freestanding abortion clinics. Those clinics will be nominally attached to certain hospitals in order to become quasi-legal. This action is flouting and is in direct violation of a federal law by providing abortion on demand.
By its actions the Ontario Government has been flouting and ignoring the federal law that prohibits abortion on demand. The medical profession, by and large, has been masking abortions on demand by calling them therapeutic abortions, knowing full well that only in two instances can an abortion be truly called therapeutic-when there is cancer of


HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION REVIEW ACT-NONAPPLICATION IN NOVA SCOTIA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, once again the safety of Canadian workers is jeopardized by the haphazard implementation of legislation that is meant to protect them.
In June of this year the House passed the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, with the support of all political Parties. This legislation was introduced in order that Canadian workers would be informed of the types of hazardous materials that were in their place of work. The development of the legislation involved all concerned groups. Business, labour, provincial Governments and the federal Government were consulted as the legislation was formulated in order to ensure the uniformity of this legislation throughout Canada.
We now discover that this is not the case. Nova Scotia has arranged for its claims to be processed outside the framework used by the rest of the country. This decision was made late last year at a meeting which did not involve the Official Opposition, the NDP, or the Canadian Labour Congress. No one was informed until after the Bill was passed that Nova Scotia was to be exempt. Now the workers of Nova Scotia have been left without the protection enjoyed by their brothers and sisters across the country.
Why has this happened? Why did the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia make such an unusual and secret arrangement? Is it because of the influence of the Michelin Company in that province? It would not be the first time that Michelin has been able to affect the legislation that would protect workers in Nova Scotia.
I call upon the Government to ensure that Nova Scotia complies with federal legislation, and ensure that there is a national agreement program in that province which falls under the same jurisdiction and requirements that the rest of Canada has agreed to follow.
December 1, 1987


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the plight of Yurij Shukhevych, a Ukrainian political prisoner being held in the U.S.S.R. In 1948, at the age of 14, Mr. Shukhevych was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison because he was the son of General Roman Shukhevych, the Commander-inChief of the Ukrainian insurgent army, who was killed in 1950.
When his sentence expired in 1958, Mr. Shukhevych was arrested again by the KGB and sentenced to an additional 10 years for refusing to renounce his father. He completed that sentence and was again arrested in 1972 and sentenced to a further 15 years' detention. It was alleged that Yurij Shukhevych was involved in anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.
The deprivation and isolation which Mr. Yurij Shukhevych has endured over the years have taken their toll. His physical condition has declined seriously, and he has suffered partial loss of vision. His captors have denied him access to any medical care and, therefore, his health continues to deteriorate.
In the spirit of Canada's commitment to human rights, I urge the Department of External Affairs to work in conjunction with immigration officials in Canada and in the U.S.S.R. to assist Yurij Shukhevych's efforts to obtain proper medical attention here in Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-ABSENCE OF FINAL TEXT
[Stage Direction]
or of the smaller partner in the dispute? History is full of examples where in the end the bigger partner always wins.

Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in Alma in the Lac-Saint-Jean area, a business where both management and employees are either physically or mentally handicapped has been operating for four years.
The business consists of a service station, without a machine shop but with a carwash, a convenience store, a truck and fishing-boat rental outlet, a video rental club, a photocopy service, a soft-drink outlet and a fire extinguisher sale and service outlet.
This enterprise, the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean Corporation d'integration des personnes handicapees, is unique in Canada. The CIPH, as it is called, is a business without a boss, where managers work from their wheel chairs and where junior employees, who were still in institutions not long ago, are today participating in a unique experiment in two-fold community integration.
Luc Gravel, a special education teacher and head of external services at Villa du Lys, masterminded this undertaking. Mrs. Helene Perron is chairman of the board of directors. Today, they want to persuade Petro-Canada to set aside one of it service stations in each region in this country as a potential CIPH.
Congratulations to Luc Gravel and all employees!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Canadians

find it rather odd that we have not yet seen the legal document on which the trade deal is to be implemented. We all know the importance of the small print when we sign an agreement, buy [English]
a house, et cetera.	TRADE
In addition, two years ago when the Government of Canada set out to get an agreement on trade with the U.S.A., we were told that Canada was going to seek a bargain, an exemption from U.S. trade laws, in order that we could sell our steel, potash, fish, lumber, et cetera on the American market free from the danger of being hurt by countervailing duties or other penalties.
Unfortunately, if we read carefully what has been announced so far by the Government, we did not get the bargain and the exemption we were seeking. Instead, we got a review panel which will decide whether U.S. laws, not ours, are fairly applied in the case of a dispute. When there will be one, whose opinion do you think will win? The opinion of the bigger


OPPOSITION TO CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, over the past three weeks I have received more than 100 letters from residents of my constituency on the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal. They are still coming in at a rate of 10 per day, and to date all but five oppose this trade give-away. I want to share with the House some of the concerns of citizens of northwestern Ontario.
Mr. William Blyth of Dryden states that the deal is not for Canada. He states, "It's up to you, John, and your Party to have this Government out before our country is in a greater mess".

December 1, 1987
Mr. Harry Brigden of Ear Falls says that times are difficult in the forest industry, especially for small logging contractors. He states that the trade deal "would make matters worse".
Mr. Lawrence De Gagne, a small businessman from the Fort Frances area, writes, "I have spoken with many business people and some general citizens about free trade. I have yet to hear one of these people agree with it". He adds, "I wonder where Mr. Bulloch got the news that small businessmen want free trade".
A man from Balmertown writes about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), "I think he is selling us out for big business interests-typical Conservatives".
Mr. Roger Woods of Sioux Lookout states that he has doubts about the credibility of the Government to even negotiate a fair deal.
Time does not permit me, Mr. Speaker, to share the concerns of other northerners right now, but the message I am getting is that this trade deal is a bad deal and that it belongs in the same scrap heap as the Tories' attempts to deindex seniors' pensions when they first got into office.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, over the past three or four years there has been an increasing outcry of protest over the release of a National Film Board film, "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss".
More recently it has been discovered that the director of the film, Mr. Paul Cowan, has taken deliberate liberties with the truth in that film in order to discredit Billy Bishop, the holder of the Victoria Cross. Even after Mr. Cowan's fraud came to light, his employers at the National Film Board refused to remove the film from circulation.
I call upon the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to launch an inquiry into why such a film was made, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that its theme was erroneous, and why, when the truth behind the director's intent became known, the National Film Board did not step in immediately-indeed, it still has not done so-and retrieve this monstrous waste of taxpayers' money.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the potato farmers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are fed up with the Government.
As of today, Agriculture Canada is doubling the inspection fees to 6 cents a hundredweight at shipping points. We realize that potatoes must be inspected before they can be shipped out of a province, but our P.E.I. producers must export about 60 per cent of their tablestock potatoes whereas Ontario and Quebec growers sell nearly all of their potatoes in their own provinces.
The doubling of these inspection fees blatantly discriminates against our P.E.I. farmers. To make matters even worse, the Government has also increased the inspection fees at the destination points by 2 cents to 12 cents a hundredweight.
Our farmers have been hard hit in recent years and the current tablestock prices are still below the cost of production. The higher inspection fees will be a terrible burden for our farmers. Why does the federal Government treat our potato growers with utter contempt? I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Government to reverse this decision immediately.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1986, the War Amputations of Canada launched an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario requesting an injunction against the distribution of "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss", a National Film Board film. The National Film Board declined to defend the film and instead announced it would delay the action on procedural grounds.
I call upon the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to invoke Section 21 of the National Film Act and request from the NFB an accounting of its decision to try to pass on to the War Amputations of Canada $10,000 in legal fees for an action which never occurred. I ask the Minister to prevent a gross travesty of justice perpetrated by the National Film Board of Canada.
December 1, 1987


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in funding for the delivery of quality native child welfare programs in Canada to which the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. McKnight) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) seem oblivious. The combination of poverty, housing shortages and chronic unemployment in native communities across Canada places excessive demands on existing child welfare agencies.
In Manitoba, native child welfare agencies are carrying case loads double the level acceptable within the province, and this Conservative Government has failed to make any attempt to remedy the situation. Instead, the consistent record of underfunding continues with no scheduled negotiations in sight.
Social development groups across Canada, including the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Catholic Pastoral Centre, the National Association of Friendships, and family services groups from every province join with me today in calling on the Conservative Government to make this issue a priority and work with the agencies in Manitoba to devise a plan to secure funding so that our native children will not be faced with futures shrouded in a cycle of poverty and despair.
Of course, on-reserve housing shortages aggravate the child welfare crisis. The Minister must wake up to this reality and seriously look at increasing the level of funding for housing generally and the Bill C-31 housing program.
Adequate housing is a prerequisite to improving the quality of life for all peoples. The Minister has displayed an incapacity in grasping this somewhat important fact.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, for several months now I have been keeping various Ministers informed that there are hundreds of fishplant workers and fishermen who have not had sufficient earnings this year due to low in shore fish landings to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits at this time.
I make the request again, and I beg the Government to institute a program immediately to alleviate the financial hardships these people are suffering, not only in my own riding but in other areas throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.


NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY WEEK
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Highway Safety Week. The theme of this thirty-second annual campaign is particularly well chosen: "You can improve highway safety", and it puts the responsibility for highway safety squarely on the shoulders of each one of us.
In Canada last year, 3,123 motor vehicle passengers died as a result of highway accidents, while 258,808 people were injured. Although the statistics are depressing, people still think it can't happen to them. I know from personal experience, Mr. Speaker, that highway accidents can happen to anyone, and that is why I would urge all Canadians to practise defensive driving, to abide by the traffic regulations and to buckle up, because we must make a joint effort to reduce the number of accidents on our highways. I want to congratulate all organizations and individuals who are actively promoting highway safety, and I maintain that by keeping up this joint effort, we will be able to say, truly, that it will not happen to us.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one has the chance to participate in an event which will clearly be of great significance in parliamentary history. I believe that the introduction of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in the House of Commons today is such an event.
The message of this Act is strong and very clear. It affirms the multicultural reality of our society. It says that cultural diversity enriches the communities of this land. It says that this diversity makes us more interesting and compassionate people while providing opportunities for our future prosperity in a global economy.
It is interesting to note that Canadian communications expert Marshall McLuhan first coined the term "global village". Canada is that global village, welcoming people from all parts of the world and making them part of our unique Canadian family. Now we are going beyond that early definition to become not a global village but an international nation.
The sights and sounds of our multicultural identity can be found not just in the vibrant neighborhoods of our cities but in towns, villages and remote hamlets throughout Canada. We are a people of many different origins, traditions and heritages. Therein lie the strength of our country and its greatness.

December 1, 1987
Oral Questions
I take great pride in supporting the proposed Canadian Multiculturalism Act, and I applaud the Government, which has worked with diligence and vision, to prepare this very important and timely legislation.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has finally admitted having received the long awaited Parker Commission Report concerning the allegations of conflict of interest against the Member of Parliament for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that the Justice Department is now reviewing the 500-page document. As interesting as this may be, it is not a justifiable reason to delay access to this document by Members of Parliament. If it is a substantial report, as the Prime Minister says, then let all Members of Parliament see it and let the Prime Minister table it in the House of Commons today. The integrity of our parliamentary system is something which interests all Members of Parliament and all Canadians, not just the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
Could it be that the Government is preparing a package on reform of public sector ethics before tabling the document in the House? If this is the case, then I suggest that the Prime Minister and his colleagues should have thought of the consequences before getting themselves in trouble, not after the acts were committed.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the Government on the introduction today of an historic Bill. The proposed Canadian Multiculturalism Act has been with us in spirit for many decades, yet we have lacked the legislative base which makes this Act so important not only for what Canada is today but for what our country can become tomorrow.
The Act will ensure that we continue to be a country in which Canadians of all origins have equal opportunities, in which their heritage is enhanced and shared, and in which social and working relations are based on mutual respect and understanding. In addition, the principles espoused in this Act will become part of the mandate of all federal government institutions and ministries.
This country enjoys a rich and dynamic cultural diversity. That diversity can contribute to our education system, to our scholarship, to international exchanges of scientific research and artistic achievement, and it can contribute to increasing global diplomacy and international trade. Using the knowledge and the skills of Canadians whose roots create a world-wide network of communications, this country can only be greater than it is already.
I believe that I voice the sentiments of all my hon. colleagues in offering my wholehearted support for the proposed Canadian Multiculturalism Act.
[DOT] (M20)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Since the Air India disaster of June 1985, the question of airport and passenger security has continued to be a major concern of Canadians. First, a CBC reporter in Montreal got through security with a fake pistol and fake dynamite sticks; then it was learned that half of Pearson International's 1,500 security guards failed a written test on national security standards; then Transport Canada's own personnel reported that some 25 per cent of fake weapons deliberately carried through airport screening checks went completely undetected. Now we learn that there are yet more serious flaws with a new computerized baggage matching system at Pearson Airport.
Can the Minister explain why the new security measures his Department announced in April of last year are flawed and do not seem to offer proper security to airline passengers?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one should ask first where the Hon. Member learned about these tremendous security lapses. If he learned anything at all, it must have been from CBC Radio which this morning had an entirely inaccurate report on this very subject. That is what he says he learned it from.
Mr. Assad Kotaite, the President of the Council of ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization for those who do not know what the initials mean, noted last August that Canada now leads the world in airport baggage screening security. That is the state of security.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that since the terrible incident involving the Air India aircraft which occurred in June of 1985, the Government has authorized and is spending a total of something like $60 million on improving and enhancing civil aviation security at our airports. We have
December 1, 1987

authorized in excess of another 100 person-years. A series of nine steps have been taken, including doubling the number of RCMP officers who are now located at our various airports. At the 10 major international airports, including Vancouver and Gander, Toronto, of course, Ottawa, Mirabel, Halifax, Winnipeg and Calgary, we have spent $24 million on enhancing security.
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, our system will stand up to that of any other country in the world. I quote the President of ICAO for confirmation.


CBC REPORT ON BAGGAGE HANDLING
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, we are not disputing the fact that certain measures have been taken. We are only saying that there are major flaws in those measures.
Some reports claim that the new computerized baggagematching system used for domestic and international flights is ineffective against terrorist bomb attacks. The CBC reported this morning that over 50,000 pieces of luggage per day are placed on board domestic and international flights with no security whatsoever. In this case, what is the Minister doing to correct this major flaw and to reassure the travelling public?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what I intend to do in this case is to correct CBC Radio, that is what needs the correction.
In October, 1986, Canada instituted a complete baggage match system for all international flights from Canada to the rest of the world. This was a requirement that ICAO said should start by December 19, 1987. As the Hon. Member can see, we are a year and several months ahead of ICAO's schedule. As a matter of fact, western European countries have called upon ICAO to give them some more breathing time and to delay this request until April of 1989. However, we have now had it in effect for a year and several months.
In addition, the situation with domestic flights is that, once baggage is checked into the system, the passenger cannot get access to it. If there is a risk situation or threats phoned in, special measures need to be taken and then the passenger match system or an x-ray system goes into effect. However, in the ordinary course of events, that is the security procedure taken on domestic flights. We are working on a baggage match system for domestic flights but we are not able to start that until we get computer systems that can handle it because of the chaos that would otherwise be caused.


SYSTEM'S TWO WEAKNESSES-INQUIRY AS TO WHAT MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the security problem is not the CBC but the airport baggage screening system. In fact, the computerized baggage matching system can be circumvented in two ways: first, a passenger who becomes ill at the last minute fails to board and
Oral Questions
does not withdraw his baggage; second, a passenger on standby may be turned down at the last minute while his baggage goes off with the plane just the same.
What kind of measures does the Minister intend to take to correct these two flaws in the system?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are no weaknesses in the system. The baggage match system is in full effect on international flights.
There are two situations in which exceptions are made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Bull Durum.


John Carnell Crosbie: It may be Bull Durum or it may be anything the hon. gentleman wants to make it. He should know better than to sit there fuming away about Bull Durum.
On international flights, two exceptions are permitted. If someone is taken ill at the last moment, the baggage may remain on the aircraft. Sorry, that is for a trans-border flight. If the person is an employee of an air carrier and does not get on the flight because it is full and the employee has a bag on it, that is permitted, as it is if a passenger has been denied boarding because of stand-by status. These are the only exceptions for international flights that are allowed when the baggage match system is in effect.


X-RAYING OF BAGGAGE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister and is on the same subject. Canadian air passengers assume that they are being protected by the Government of Canada. The facts seem to suggest otherwise.
I would like to ask the Minister whether all baggage, both national and international, is x-rayed before it is boarded onto aircraft, and if not, why is it not?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is just the point. The Government has chosen to follow the recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Rather than having a system of x-ray examination of baggage, we have chosen the baggage match system as being the best system. Therefore, on international flights there is no longer an x-ray of baggage. If there were to be a special risk situation, that would be different, but in the ordinary course of events there is a baggage match. The baggage is matched up with the passengers.
By the way, that is why the union official quoted by the CBC story is so eager to speak. He represents the persons who are employed to do the x-raying. There are fewer of them now doing the x-raying because of the baggage match system. They naturally prefer the x-ray system to the baggage match system, but we are going by what security experts and the International Civil Aviation Organization advises to do.

December 1, 1987
11364_________________________________
Oral Questions SECURITY MEASURES-PROVISION OF PERSONNEL


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Minister will agree that the baggage match system is flawed in that if a terrorist wanted to bring a bomb on board, he could under the baggage match system. However, if the x-ray system were utilized with all baggage being x-rayed before being boarded on aircraft, security would be enhanced.
In September of 1985 a secret report which reviewed airline and airport security in Canada stated the following:
It could however, be argued that DOT rather than the carriers should
provide the personnel necessary to operate the security measures for checking
passengers, baggage, and cargo.
In light of the serious problems over the last few years, why did the Government not adopt this policy proposal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are following the system which was followed by our predecessor Government. Apparently it thought that the present system was in order. Its supporters are now having second thoughts.
I will point out once again to the hon. gentleman that which has been said by those who should know, not those who listen to CBC Radio at seven o'clock in the morning waiting to pick something up for Question Period so they will have something with which to fill their empty little minds and to ask about.
The aviation industry in Canada and the Canadian Government have taken the lead role in the development of a passenger baggage match system and have more than fulfilled their international commitments. We lead the world in airport baggage screening security according to the President of ICAO. I will take him over CBC Radio, lock, stock, and barrel, any day of the year.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-DELAY IN PRODUCING FINAL TEXT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will recall that when he initialled the trade deal on October 4 he said that we would see the final deal in a matter of two or three weeks because only the legal wording was being worked on.
We see in news reports today that Simon Reisman indicates that the main areas of disagreement which exist include maritime shipping, energy, textiles, autos, and the dispute settlement mechanism. These are, in a sense, the major portions of the entire agreement.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada please explain to us just what is going on and when we can expect to see the final draft?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the Hon. Member can show us anything that says that Mr. Reisman said this is what they are talking about. I read the same story from which the Hon. Member is reading. It says "apparently" this is what is holding them up.
They are down to the final stages in solving the interpretation problems with the agreement as they are putting it together. We are hopeful that it will be available for this House and the Canadian people in the very near future.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You've been saying that for weeks.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing about these final stages and that it is 99 per cent complete for weeks on end.


PROJECTED DEADLINE FOR PRODUCTION OF FINAL TEXT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. After the initialing of the agreement, "the most important trade deal in trade history", in the words of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister promised the people of Canada that they would see the completed text by the end of October.
That time has now come and gone. He then promised the people of Canada that the final text would be available by the middle of November which would allow ample time for evaluation. That did not occur. He then said that it would be available by the end of November. That did not occur.
Will the Prime Minister indicate what his most recent promise is as to when the people of Canada will see the final text so that they can make a fair, total, and accurate evaluation of the deal?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Answer, Brian. Don't chicken out.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not make those statements in the way in which the Hon. Member said that he did. That is very unfair and he knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: He did and the people of Canada know it.


John Horton McDermid: The Prime Minister said we hoped to have it in three weeks time. He did not promise it in three weeks time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has asked a question and the Parliamentary Secretary is replying. I know that the Hon. Member would want his own colleagues to give the Parliamentary Secretary a chance to reply.
December 1, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has been misrepresenting what the Prime Minister has been saying.
That Party has been saying that we should rush into things. We want to make sure, on behalf of Canadians, that this agreement is done rightly and properly. We are making sure that every i is dotted, that every t is crossed, and that it makes absolute sense.


Ms. Mitchell:: Scrap it.


John Horton McDermid: It will be released very shortly. We are confident of that. It will be a great agreement for Canada. We are really confident of that.


REQUEST THAT DATE BE GIVEN FOR PRODUCTION OF FINAL TEXT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the Government wants to take the time to ensure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed. We want to have time to evaluate the total agreement. We want to see the agreement before that evaluation is made.
I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Committee hearings are being held today. Monday is the last day for hearings. From reports today it looks as though we will not see this agreement until Monday at least, if not beyond that.
The Prime Minister has indicated time and again that we would have enough time to evaluate this particular deal. It was the end of October, then the middle of November, then the end of November. It is now the beginning of December and reports today indicate that the final agreement is still a number of days away. There are only a handful of days left between now and the parliamentary Christmas recess. There are only 30 days left before the deal is to be signed.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada indicate clearly when the people of Canada and their elected representatives in the House of Commons will have an opportunity to evaluate the completed final draft? We have been waiting through a number of promises. Will he not promise us, in a clear and distinct way, when we can expect that draft?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am totally surprised at the concern of the Hon. Member and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party said that it will tear up the agreement. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre said the other day that if his Party had anything to do about it they would tear up the agreement. Why is the Hon. Member concerned about seeing it? He has already made up his mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: You're unbelievable. This is a democracy. This isn't Haiti, this is Canada.
Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: The Canadian people will have ample opportunity to examine the final agreement and this House will have ample opportunity to examine legislation that arises from the agreement.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Nonsense.


John Horton McDermid: There will be all kinds of opportunity for Canadians and parliamentarians to examine this deal very carefully.


Nelson Andrew Riis: After the fact.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where's the Prime Minister? Why won't he answer? He's afraid. He chickened out.


Mr. Grise:: Who's afraid of you?


Mr. Nystrom:: Where's the Gucci boy?


REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE POSTPONED
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister since the Parliamentary Secretary has totally missed the point, that is, that Canadians want to see the final deal before it is agreed to and initialled.
The Commons committee will complete its public hearings on Monday. Those public hearings will obviously be finished before the final text is available. Can the Prime Minister, therefore, indicate that he will change his own timetable and postpone the signing of the agreement from January 2 to a later date in order to give the Commons committee proper time to hold public hearings based upon the final document so that Canadians will have a right to participate? After all, this is a democracy and people do have a right to participate in important decisions.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been an agreement or policy of any Government in this country on which there has been such wide consultation with the Canadian public.


Mr. McCurdy:: Oh, get off it.


John Horton McDermid: I can cite chapter and verse of the consultations which have taken place, continue to take place, and will continue to take place with the affected parties. Canadians will have ample opportunity to examine this agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever about that in our minds.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE HEARINGS BE EXTENDED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary knows better. He knows that as a result of testimony before the committee women's organizations, social organizations, labour organizations, and consumer organizations have all been denied any opportunity to consult on this agreement before it is signed.

December 1, 1987
Oral Questions
Now we are faced with a situation in which the Prime Minister's word to the Elouse is being denied once again. He is once again breaking a promise to the Canadian people giving them a right to participate in this decision.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered. Considering the terrible delay in providing a final document, is the Government prepared to give the Commons committee an extension of its time so that it can hold hearings based upon the final document? Will it set the signing date back so that Canadians can participate? That is the point of these questions. Will you give Canadians the right to participate in making this decision before you sign this country away?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair hesitates at all times to interrupt any Hon. Member when asking a question. But I must ask Hon. Members not to use personal pronouns in addressing other Hon. Members. The reason is very clear. It leads to disorder. I would ask experienced Members especially to keep that in mind.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply invite an experienced Member of the House who has been here for some time to compare the consultation in this particular process with anything that has taken place before. There were 15 SAGIT'S created that involved consultation with the industry across the country. There were nine First Ministers' meetings, some lasting up to eight or nine hours, to discuss the matter.


Michael Morris Cassidy: All in secret.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There were full-day debates in the House of Commons-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: What about the people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and ample debate at committees and in Question Period. There were parliamentary committees of the Ontario Government and the Quebec Government. There had been prior consultation and analysis in Royal Commissions such as the McDonald Royal Commission.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Still no document.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You do not care about the people.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There will be further opportunity to discuss-


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about the people?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Shut up!


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about the people, Mr. Prime Minister?


An Hon. Member:: You do not represent the people, Cassidy.


Richard Grisé: Where is your majority?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this is a pattern of consultation with the Canadian people through parliamentary committees, through debates, through their Members of Parliament, that I believe is probably unprecedented in its thoroughness. There can be further debate and further consultation as time goes on.
To put it into perspective, I invite my hon. friends who are being so critical of this degree of consultation to compare it with the last time the federal Government concluded a major trading initiative, which was 23 years ago when the Government of Canada concluded the Auto Pact. The Liberals concluded the Auto Pact without so much as a "by your leave" to the Government of Ontario and without a single reference to the Parliament of Canada. There is the difference between our approach of consulting with the people, and the Liberals and the NDP who cared not for it to be raised.


AIR SAFETY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for the Minister of Transport. He and his predecessors have repeatedly avowed that there will be no compromise in safety and security in air or any other mode of transportation. I wrote to the Minister on November 5 and gave him five cases of airlines violating the ICAO requirement for baggage sequencing. I have seven more cases which I will give to him.
Employees are being put through the wringer by being subjected to fingerprinting, credit rating, loyalties, police records and questioning on sexual proclivities, all of which applies to their spouses as well. If the Minister's security is so good under ICAO, will he explain the case of Air Canada flight 870 on November 13, Mirabel to Charles de Gaulle, when a bomb threat was received after the flight took off and the decision was made for the flight not to stop in Gander? Who made the decision and why did someone not overrule it?
What about the case of the Toronto to Puerto Vallarta flight, one passenger was a no-show, bags not removed. I have seven more for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the Minister can answer if he wishes. I point out that the Hon. Member is getting into a series of detailed questions that, strictly speaking, might more properly be placed on the Order Paper. However, the Hon. Minister may answer if he wishes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my answer has to be that I am surprised the hon.
December 1, 1987

gentleman would try to raise fears among the travelling public by getting up in the Elouse of Commons and giving these detailed examples of certain things that he alleges occurred, when the way to proceed would be to ask for them to be examined to see if they ever happened.


Mr. Blaikie:: You never answered him.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will answer the hon. gentleman as soon as I can get a chance to answer him. It is possible to get around any security system occasionally. No one in the world will claim that they have a perfect security system. It so happens that Canada has one of the best security systems in the world. However, we all know that there are occasions when someone might be careless or it might not be observed, or whatever. It is possible that there was one of those instances. If so, I would certainly see that action is taken against those who have offended.
The rules are in place. There are just two exceptions to baggage match on an international flight. When an employee who has loaded his bags on a plane discovers all the seats are filled, the plane is allowed to proceed in any event. The other case is where the same thing happens to someone who is waiting on a standby basis. These are the only two exceptions allowed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I find it strange that the Minister does not know. I would like to know who is in charge.


AIRPORT SECURITY-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONTROL
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada Flight 856 on October 24, Toronto to London-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -flight released before security checks were completed.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret interrupting the Hon. Member for Regina West, but the questions are very detailed. The reason that our rules do require that detailed questions of this nature be put on the Order Paper is so that they can be dealt with in a detailed response. I must ask the Hon. Member to put his question, but I will have to rule him out of order if he insists on completing a series of detailed matters. I know that it is his intention, and certainly a laudable one, to point out that he has some information which may indicate that there have been lapses or otherwise. However, I ask him to put the question and stay within the rules.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister was so anxious to blame it on the CBC, I was just trying to reverse the situation.
Will the Government agree to take over all airline and airport security, operate it by employees of his Department, regional, provincial, or Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and
Oral Questions
not leave it to the whims of airlines which want to do it on the cheap and take shortcuts with airline safety and security? Will he take all this over and operate it himself? If not, he better have his resignation ready if anything happens.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I offended the Hon. Member when I dared to utter a word of criticism about the sacred CBC. If I have offended, oh, Lord, please forgive me.
First, the hon. gentleman gives certain detailed cases and he says it is all my fault. I am supposed to be at 10 international airports and 50 domestic, checking every piece of baggage that goes in every plane in Canada. Then, after having criticized me heavily, he suggests that I take it all over.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not going to take it over, Mr. Speaker. We think we have a satisfactory system. The people who now do the security checks have been through special courses. I saw one at the airport the other day when I was boarding a plane. You could not get your thing through the little pipe business and, by golly, that was it, you were not allowed on. So I believe we have people there who can do the job.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who will know that nurses working for the federal Government are concerned about the impact of a recent decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which has resulted in nurses earning less than nursing assistants who work for them. I wonder if the Minister could indicate what steps he is prepared to take to resolve this inequity?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are certainly aware of this difficult problem that has been caused by the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Ms. Copps:: You didn't do anything when you met with them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East wants to answer the question, perhaps I can sit down and let her do it. Either that, or extend the courtesy to allow us to answer. It is a very important question.
There have been a number of meetings on this issue between members of the Treasury Board and representatives of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. A fast-

December 1, 1987
Oral Questions
track approach has been established. A substantial interim pay adjustment has been put on the table to try to go part way in resolving this issue.
I should remind the Hon. Member that it is a matter that is within the domain of the collective bargaining process, and together with adjustments and the collective bargaining process we would hope that a satisfactory resolution could be achieved.
I should also say that a meeting was slated for November 24, which was unfortunately cancelled by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. As the employer, we stand ready and hope we can sit down and negotiate this in a satisfactory manner.


STATUS OF BILL C-33
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. It concerns the area of public service compensation issues, namely, Bill C-33, which was introduced in the House almost a year ago.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order!
Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton: I wonder if we can get an indication from the President of the Treasury Board of when the Bill is going to have second reading in the House so it can then go to committee-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on!


John Barry Turner: -for public input?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. We hope to proceed with this very quickly. It is an important Bill that provides a new mechanism for ensuring indexation. We hope that we can work out some sort of arrangement with House Leaders that we might be able to proceed with this in a very expeditious manner.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Terra Nova Telecommunications, commonly known as TNT in Newfoundland, a federal Crown corporation, sent letters to 400 employees in Newfoundland saying that their company could be up for sale as early as next week. The 400 employees who received these letters live in Gander, St. John's, and Cornerbrook. I ask whatever Minister is responsible for this atrocious decision by what logic did the Government of Canada decide to sell this company, which is making money
for the people of Canada and employs so many Newfoundlanders, when a sale to its biggest competitor, Newfoundland Telephone-that happens to be, by the way, in Ottawa having meetings-would cause a substantial lay-off of people in the very province that has the highest unemployment rate in the nation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is hard for members of the Opposition to understand that it is extremely hard to sell companies that are not making money. That is one of the reasons for selling them, when they do make money, if you have other reasons for such activity.
The situation is that Canadian National is actively considering the sale of Terra Nova Tel, which is a telephone company subsidiary in Newfoundland, and its other non-rail assets, because it has a huge debt. I think it amounts to something like $3.4 billion. That is why it is deciding whether or not, depending on the prices it can get, it should sell any of its nonrail assets so it can concentrate on its main business, which, of course, is the rail business.
If it does reach a decision that it should sell Terra Nova Telecommunications, it is going to proceed by ensuring that full commercial benefits accrue to the corporation, that the employees are fully protected, that established levels of service are maintained, and that the interests and concerns of any communities involved are protected, including the town of Gander. It will use a commercial bid process, and among the conditions of sale will be a requirement for the new owner to honour all existing labour agreements and assume all pension obligations now in place.
If you want to spread a false rumour, Mr. Speaker, there are three ways; telephone, telegraph, or tell-a-Baker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CN TOWER-FATEFUL PROSPECT
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that non-rail assets of CN are under consideration for sale. All right, the CN Tower, the tallest free-standing structure in the world, is an non-rail asset. So I ask the broadest free-standing structure in Cabinet, the Minister of Transport, who, if he went to the CN Tower perhaps it would no longer be the tallest free-standing structure in the world, is the CN Tower now under consideration for sale?
Is CN Explorations, with considerable oil and gas holdings in western Canada, also under consideration for sale? Is Northwest Telephone in northern British Columbia also under consideration for sale?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have pointed out all non-rail assets. Now, unless the CN Tower can go choo-choo-chooing along, it is a
December 1, 1987

non-rail asset, and presumably-well, the Hon. Member knows what he can do with the CN Tower.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think, given the time, we will move on.


TAX REFORM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week, VAssociation des prospecteurs du Quebec asked that flowthrough shares and the earned depletion allowance be maintained. Does the Minister realize that this request was supported by a long list of municipalities, by the Quebec Union of Municipalities, metal workers, the Employers Council, the Montreal Stock Exchange, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian association of cities, and so forth? Considering this request, what does the Minister intend to do to maintain an active mining sector in remote areas of Quebec and Canada, when this incentive is taken away?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to assure the Hon. Member that I am very much aware of the comments that have been made on flow-through shares. He mentioned a number of representations that have been made. They also were the subject of a recommendation in the report of the Finance Committee, of which he is a member. Quite frankly, as I have said on many occasions, I am not going to be able to comment specifically on these until I present my Ways and Means Motion later on this month, which will make clear where we stand on a number of these issues.
Quite frankly, I thought the Hon. Member was going to ask me a question on the announcement this morning of the real growth in GNP of 4.3 per cent-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -where business investment is up 21 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINING EXPLORATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask a question about the economic situation in Schefferville, a town that was closed by the Prime Minister and where the unemployment rate was around 30 to 35 per
Oral Questions
cent. Last year, thanks to flow-through shares, $19 million was invested in mining exploration in this community. What does the Minister intend to do to maintain this level of exploration after 1988? Or does the Minister of Finance intend to close Schefferville again, after it was closed the first time by the Prime Minister?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded to that question quite clearly in my first answer.
There was something else. Housing investment is up 12 per cent. Machinery and equipment investment is up 28 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, I asked him why his Government pleaded before the courts in Alberta against the trial proceedings of Luc Paquette being conducted in French. The Prime Minister admitted he was not aware of the facts, but he added nonetheless, and I quote, "this Government has never failed to promote both our official languages."
Today, he must know that my statement was correct, and I ask him: Why is his Government against that trial being conducted in French in Alberta?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, as I said yesterday, I had not read the whole judgment and unfortunately, the Minister of Justice is not in the House today.
But allow me to tell the Hon. Member this about the Paquette decision that is divided in two parts-

In the first half of the decision in that case, rendered on September 11, 1987, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the position of the Attorney General of Canada that the French language can be used as of right in criminal proceedings in Alberta because Section 110 of the former Northwest Territories Act is still in force in that province with respect to criminal matters.
In the second half of the judgment, rendered last Friday, the Court of Appeal decided that Part XIV. 1 of the Criminal

December 1, 1987
Privilege-Mr. James
Code, which gives an accused the specific right to be tried before a judge or a judge and jury who speak his or her official language, is not yet in force in Alberta. However, Bill C-72, the Official Languages Act, introduced by this Government and the Minister of Justice on June 25, 1987, will amend the Criminal Code to confirm language of trial rights for everyone and to ensure that Part XIV. 1 comes into force no later than January 1, 1990, in all provinces across Canada.
The provisions that will shortly be before the House with respect to the Official Languages Act will correct a historic problem and do honour to all Members of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister then tell the House why his Government has not begun discussions with the Province of Alberta, and will it now do so, to bring Part 14(1) into effect so that when this Bill is brought forward, if it ever is, people like Mr. Paquette will be able to have their trials in French?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the situation which my hon. friend refers to was not created last year. It has persisted for many years and throughout the long reign of my hon. friend's Party in government. This Government is now acting, and I think quite swiftly, to correct it. If my hon. friend waits just a little while, he will have the opportunity to support amendments to the Official Languages Act to correct something which ought to have been corrected under previous Governments many years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns his recent visit to Central America. Can he tell the House whether or not he raised with the leadership of El Salvador, specifically President Duarte, the question of the charges made against that country's amnesty program to the effect that it would permit the murderers of the four American nuns and the murderers of Mr. Anaya, head of the Human Rights Commission there, to go free? If he did, what was the response and what is the Minister's response?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when I was in El Salvador, and indeed elsewhere during my visit to Central America, I raised questions relating to the amnesty. I think everyone understands that there is bound to be, in any successful peace accord in that region, some very rough justice. There is bound to be
controversy over the granting of amnesty to people who have committed or are alleged to have committed crimes. I think it is the general conclusion of the Governments and observers involved that it would be difficult to have general acceptance of an amnesty program without that occurring.
I raised the matter particularly with the Government of El Salvador. As the House knows, there have been two explicit exceptions to the application of the amnesty in question. One had to do with the death of the bishop, and the other had to do with the death, I believe, of the humans right leader to whom the Hon. Member made reference.
Some days ago, before my departure, the Hon. Member asked me if I would report to the House on my trip to Central America. I am going to accept that suggestion and I look forward to making a report here tomorrow.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I appreciate the Minister's answer and I hope he also appreciates that there is a difference between rough justice and injustice.


HONDURAS-PRESENCE OF CONTRA FORCES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister have an opportunity to press the Government of Honduras with respect to its position vis-a-vis the Contras now on its territory, and what was the response?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, on November 5 the Honduras Foreign Minister spoke to the Organization of American States. He set forth a quite detailed proposal that would allow action by both the Government of Honduras and the Government of Nicaragua regarding the use of their territory. There has now been an informal response by Nicaraguan authorities to that proposal.
My understanding is that there will be initially informal discussions to see if an agreement can be worked out by the Governments of both countries that will allow the kind of compliance that would not only deal with the question of Contra bases or Contra activity in Honduras but also with problems of a similar kind which might be occurring on Nicaraguan soil.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of the House that I have received a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) and 1 will hear him now.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have reference to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on November
December 1, 1987

25, 1987. The Hon. Member asserted that I, as chairman of the legislative committee studying Bill C-204, acted in a biased manner. After careful perusal of Hansard and other documents, I believe my rights as a Member of the House of Commons have been called into question and I would like to speak to that point.
The Hon. Member indicated there was a delay of 12 sitting days after second reading before the first meeting of that committee was held.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given the floor to respond to an application made a few days ago by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood on a question of privilege. I know Hon. Members are leaving the Chamber for other duties and I ask that they extend the appropriate courtesies to the Hon. Member so he can make his presentation to the Chair.


Kenneth Albert James: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The date of second reading of Bill C-204 was May 29, 1987. By letter dated June
9,	1987, I was appointed by you as chairman of that committee. I received that letter of notification on Wednesday, June
10,	1987. My schedule for Thursday, June 11, through Monday, June 15, was totally booked, and so the first meeting of the committee was held on the following Tuesday, June 16, 1987. The first witnesses were from the Departments of Labour and National Health and Welfare.
In point two the Member indicated there was a 19 sitting day delay between the third and the fourth meetings. The date of the third meeting was June 26, 1987; the date of the fourth meeting was June 17, 1987. The days do not compute, so I do not exactly know.
I would like to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that on that particular day, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood stated in committee, "Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we can realistically plan any future meetings before the end of June. What I think we should do is plan to start work right promptly when the House resumes". That was under the assumption that we would reconvene on September 14, as the House calendar indicated. We then established a work schedule based upon that situation.
Additionally, the Hon. Member indicated in her accusations that there was active obstruction in the committee during the period of June 26 to October 6. During that period, I as chairman of the committee was given instruction by the committee, as the minutes will indicate, to contact the witnesses who might want to appear before the committee. I was also given authorization by the committee to advertise during the summer, if it was so advised. That was done during the summer. The House was recalled on August 11 for a special emergency session to deal with the refugee legislation. The House was originally to be reconvened on September 14.
Privilege-Mr. James
I was then appointed the chairman of the committee on Bill C-55, on August 14, 1987. That committee met for 55.5 hours, heard over 30 witnesses, and reported to the House on September 15, 1987. On September 17, 1987 the meeting of the committee on Bill C-204 reconvened.
I wish to notify you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood who has raised the allegations was not in attendance at that meeting. At that meeting we discovered from communication that the clerk had with the witnesses that there were certain problems in receiving from the witnesses the specific proposals, resumes, and briefs that we should get from them. At that meeting of September 17 it was decided by the committee that we should write to all those who had been suggested by the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood and other members on the committee, and advise them of specific dates to reply by, and hear back from them. That was decided then to be September 15 and September 30 respectively.
Following that, the committee then carried on and had meetings on October 6, 8, 13, 15, 20, 29; November 3, 5, 17, 19,24, and 26.
Another allegation brought forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was that the chair had acted in a biased manner. I submit to the House the letters that I have written to my constituents wherein I stated, "As chairman of the legislative committee on Bill C-204 it is essential that I perform my duties as the chairman in an impartial and neutral manner". That is the manner in which I carried out my responsibilities as chairman. Nowhere in the minutes do 1 find an allegation by the Hon. Member who has brought forth these allegations challenging the chairman or the members of being biased.
I have instructed the clerk to work closely with the Hon. Member's office, as she is the author of this Bill, in ensuring that all the witnesses were received and given the opportunity to be heard. I challenge the Hon. Member to find and produce any evidence that I have operated in a biased manner. I am seriously concerned over those allegations, and they certainly impinge upon my privileges as a Member of Parliament who has attempted to act in an unbiased manner, hopefully with good management, to hear and deliberate upon this very important legislation.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to rebut the allegations made.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to reply to the concerns raised by the Hon. Member. When I raised the issue of privilege and felt that the work of the committee was being held up, I did not at any time state that it was the exclusive responsibility or the actions of the chairman. I raised a whole list of problems that had occurred, and I think the responsibility must be shared among a number of members.

December 1, 1987
Privilege-Mr. James
I raised the question of the obstruction in the committee work, and the fact that at some meetings there were as many as five Conservative Members who were opposed to the Bill, and raising preposterous questions-


Mr. Speaker:: The other day the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) gave a full explanation of her grievances. Unless the Hon. Member has something specific to add to what the Hon. Member for Sarnia- Lambton (Mr. James) has stated to the House and to the Chair, I do not think there is any particular need to go forward.
In reciting her grievances, the Hon. Member has stated that she was not blaming the chairperson, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton alone, but was blaming others. That is helpful to the Chair, but it is not helpful to the Chair to receive a repetition of the extensive points raised by the Hon. Member the other day.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the dates for the third and the fourth meetings, if I have the numbers wrong and they are the fifth and the sixth or the fourth and the fifth, that can be checked. But I was referring to the very extensive period of time over the summer. An alternative way to proceed would have been to appoint another chairperson, given that the chairperson of this committee was not able to act-


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the Hon. Member, and I am presently considering the comments that she made, as recorded in Hansard. As soon as possible, I will return to the House with a response to the application of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.
The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton has risen on one specific item. He claims that it was alleged that he was biased. He has put on the record certain facts which he asks the Chair to consider and decide that, under those facts, the charge of bias is such that it affects his privileges in that he is not able to do the job that he has been elected to do. I will consider that.
Unless the Hon. Member has something which is new and that I have not heard before, I must ask her to bear with the Chair. I do have her comments. Of course, I will hear the Hon. Member, but I ask her to keep in mind that it is not appropriate at this time to restate that which was stated before.
If we are going to become involved in an argument about what dates were what, unless I am persuaded that it is very important, we are getting into an argument of fact, and that is not the easiest thing in the world for the Chair to solve.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was replying to new information brought forward by the Hon. Member today, not repeating arguments of the previous session.
The Hon. Member made quite a to-do about timing and his availability. I was replying to that. I feel very frustrated that I
am not permitted to reply to that aspect. I thought he was raising a number of concerns, but it appears that you wish me to deal with only one of the ones he raised, namely, the question of bias.
I think the record will show, and you can have a look at the proceedings of the committee meetings, that I was frequently interrupted in the course of questioning witnesses, for example, by the chairman. Other Members were not interrupted or not frequently interrupted. Other Members changed the subject of the discussions. Other Members strayed completely from the health aspects. They were not interrupted, but I was interrupted. I am the author of a Bill. In effect, as a private Member I am a Minister in that capacity. I would have expected the cooperation of the Chair. Co-operation was, indeed, received with regard to scheduling witnesses, but in many things I did not receive any co-operation.
The question of the swearing of witnesses is another point. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, of a situation in the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, when a Member asked to have witnesses sworn in and the chairperson of the committee facilitated in that. In this situation, I alerted the chairman of the committee of my desire to have witnesses sworn in. Whether or not he supported me, I do not know, but when the substitute chairman appeared there was this business of Conservative Members not appearing until my motion could be defeated. I do not know if the chairman spoke to the deputy chairman in favour of my request to have witnesses sworn in or against the person acting in his behalf-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate again to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I heard this earlier. I have to remind Hon. Members that this is not the place to go into a long argument over and over again about what did or did not happen in the committees.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has made her point and stated her grievance. I will have to consider whether it is privilege, but she has made it with great vigour and she has made it extensively.
I have listened to the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton who has responded basically to the charge of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood that his conduct was improper. He has put his facts on the table. Unless the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is to rise and say that any of the facts which the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton put forward are wrong or that she disagrees with them, then anything else is of very little assistance to me. It may well have been that other Members did all kinds of things within the committee. It is not for the Chair to do other than listen to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood, and she explained her grievances, as I say, with great vigour and extensively, and the Chair listened very carefully. The Chair cannot take up the time of Members to listen to them again.
I know the Hon. Member from Broadview-Greenwood feels very strongly about this matter, and the Chair is very
December 1, 1987

cognizant of it. I would ask her to consider carefully what I am saying because I am also bound by procedural rules.
If the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood disagrees with anything that was set out by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton, of course I will hear her. It is not the role of the Chair to allow this argument to go back and forth because some Member will get up, undoubtedly, and respond to some of the things the Member from Broadview-Greenwood is saying, and then we will have no end to it. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, one very particular area where I disagree with the presentation by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) concerns the scheduling of witnesses in September. There was a break over the summer. The committee chairman was directed to schedule witnesses as soon as possible in September-and he referred to that in his remarks today-but it took two organizational meetings to get the scheduling done. There was a great deal of obstruction. I did not blame the Hon. Member from Sarnia-Lambton for this obstruction. I recited it as one of the facts that impeded the work of my committee.
It should be clearly understood that his response today is an incorrect one. The record will show clearly that there was agreement that witnesses be contacted and a schedule set up. That was not done, which has impeded the work of my committee. I did not say that the Member bears exclusive responsibility for the fact that that work was not done because many Members bear responsibility for that, Conservative Members who were obstructionist in committee meeting.
I think I have been responding to the concerns that the Member raised. I conclude by saying that at no time did I state that he was the only person responsible, but I cannot agree with his presentation of the facts and I urge you to look at the proceedings for the committee meetings in question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton now. I hope that he will take into account the comments of the Chair and direct his remarks solely to the issue which he is raising, which, as I understand it, is a question of privilege with respect to what he says is an allegation of bias.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I think any indication, if it is not personal, is an indication of the Chair's responsibility in managing the committee.
As you deliberate on this matter I do not think you will find in the committee minutes any time where I have been challenged as being biased. In the management of the committee when there are interruptions of the witnesses, I think it is the responsibility of the chairperson to keep order.
I want also to bring to your attention a mistake in facts. It was stated that on five occasions a deputy chairman was substituted for the chairman and mention made of a Member
Customs Tariff
in particular who has bias. I would like to advise you, Sir, that at the point in time as of November 24 only three instances are recorded when the chairman designated another Member to act as chairman, namely, on November 15, 17 and 24. I want to notify the House unequivocally that the Member named by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was never designated as chairperson of this committee. That is another incorrect statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood but I would ask her to be as brief as possible.


Lynn McDonald: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I do not have the dates in front of me but I attended committee meetings. My recollection is of a number of instances. Perhaps the proceedings of the committees do not show a substitution. I am referring to who was actually sitting in the Chair, not just who is designated for an entire period of time. The designation of a chair for part of a meeting certainly counts as a problem if that chairperson acts in a particular fashion and if it is a person who, for example, is in a conflict of interest situation on this subject.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the international Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Cassidy, p. 11346).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Before the House took recess at 1 p.m., Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the Bill and dealing more specifically with the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) which would somewhat limit access to the Canadian market of goods coming from the United States, which had been wholly or partly produced in Mexico.
Clearly the Hon. Member is trying to change Clause 15 of Bill C-87, and I should simply like to indicate that we agree on the proposal, because not having seen the final text of the Mulroney-Reagan free trade or so-called free trade agreement, many claim that Canada would come out the loser on a deal such as this, because it is quite possible that the Americans, having gained access to the Canadian market, could export to this country goods with "Made in the USA" labels but which in fact would have been wholly or partly produced outside the United States, more specifically in Northern Mexico.

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
We are concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, because such experts as Economist Writer John Ralston Saul, who appeared before the House Committee considering the whole free trade issue, raised the possibility that Mexican goods could be exported to Canada under the guise of an American label or as processed there, as originating in the United States.
Mr. Saul, in testimony before the committee, made clear to all those interested that indeed we may be entering into a deal which could allow Mexican products produced with cheap labour to be distributed in Canada, thereby giving our Canadian products a very bad deal in terms of jobs, permanency and production.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that the United States has a virtual free trade pact with Mexico or at least with the northern parts of Mexico. Apparently, there is a region of Mexico which contains 1,200 U.S. factories employing some 300,000 Mexican workers, mostly teenagers, nonunion labour of course, earning about 65 cents per hour. These so-called Maquiladora industries are expanding at a phenomenal rate and constitute the second largest industry in Mexico, second only to petroleum and larger than tourism.
This economist is telling us to be careful because we may be entering into a deal which exploits cheap labour. God knows that we do not want to enter into any deal which would exploit human resources, and especially not to the detriment of Canadian jobs and the Canadian economy.
We asked the Government to make sure, in the final legal text which we have yet to see, that there is a provision preventing this kind of product from entering Canada. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) put such an amendment to the House. His motion is very clear and would amend Clause 15 by adding the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States."
The motion is clear and logically follows Clause 15 which describes the country of origin. The motion specifies that notwithstanding any regulation under the power of the Governor in Council, these recycled products made by cheap labour are not brought into our country and that we will be protected from the abuse of such trade.
Just to put the debate in perspective, in 1969, only 2 per cent of manufactured goods imported by the United States came from Mexico. Now it is 40 per cent. Mexico, not Canada, is the largest exporter of manufactured goods to the United States. The Hon. Member's amendment suggests that in the final text of the free trade agreement, we ensure that no cheap labour products are recycled through the American economy and distributed in Canada. Such products would be unwanted and it is more than morally wrong to exploit cheap labour.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the motion put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The Bill that is before us certainly has implications as far as free trade with the United States is concerned. In fact, this Bill provides for a harmonization of commodity descriptions and the coding system.
The motion that has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre amends Clause 15 by adding the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States."
It has been asked why the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre put that motion forward. That is a good question. Certainly it is not because this Party of which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is a member wants to put the brakes on a country that is developing and developing rapidly. It is not that we want to prevent other countries in the world from having a share in economic development. The reason for the presentation of this motion has to do with what we were told by an economist, John Ralston Saul, who appeared before the parliamentary committee that is dealing with international trade and particularly the free trade agreement.
It seems to me that we owe Mr. Saul some thanks for having pointed out what appears to be a gap in the free trade agreement. In fact, from what I understand, when Mr. Saul raised this question before the parliamentary committee, the chairman scurried off, got on the telephone and spoke to Mr. Ritchie, the under-secretary in the free trade negotiations. The chairman finally came back and said that he was assured by Mr. Ritchie that in fact the question that was raised by Mr. Saul does not pose a problem for the free trade agreement.
What was it that Mr. Saul raised which may have been overlooked by Ambassador Reisman in the negotiations on the free trade agreement? It is something which goes back to the 1960s when Mexico and the United States reached an agreement that the area which runs along the Mexican-American border for 3,000 kilometres, several kilometres deep, would be called the Maquiladora industrial program. It was basically an attempt by the United States to compete effectively with Asian industries. It was, of course, in the interest of Mexico to ensure that jobs were created for Mexicans. That is a legitimate interest for Mexico.
In the Maquiladora corridor factories and plants were established which were originally designed as labour intensive operations. The raw materials came from the United States to these factories where they were manufactured into final products. Without the imposition of any tariffs or duties they were returned to the United States and sold as American products with only a slight value-added tax put on them.
The wage rates in the Maquiladora corridor are 65 cents an hour and there are presently about 300,000 employees who
December 1, 1987

work there. They are mostly teenagers. They are now moving into the production of high tech equipment.
One of the main arguments for entering into a free trade agreement with the United States is that Canada can get an entree into the American market and compete with Americans in finished products. In fact, Canada will be competing against products which are manufactured in the Maquiladora corridor. There is no possible way that Canadian-manufactured products can compete against wage rates of 65 cents an hour. The original design of that program from the American perspective was to compete with low-cost Asian products coming into the United States.
The only question I have about the amendment moved by the Member for Ottawa Centre is with regard to identifying a product coming into Canada. How would we know that the components in a radio, for example, were not manufactured in the Maquiladora corridor industries? There is apparently no way to determine that the components of a finished product were made in the United States. We would need a horde of agents. With such a highly complex economy as that of the United States, it would be very difficult to track down a component from the Maquiladora corridor which is put into a product in the United States.
This, therefore, has serious repercussions for Canadian finished products going into the United States under a free trade agreement. The basis of the Government's argument for this free trade agreement is that it will create all sorts of new jobs and that Canada will gain a lot of new industries. Evidence is now coming out which shows that the agreement will not be all it was made out to be by the Government.
One would hope that the Government is addressing this issue but we cannot be sure because we do not have the final text of the agreement before us. We heard in Question Period today that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the text in October, then for the middle of November, then for the end of November. We are in the first week of December and still do not have the final text. Yet the agreement is scheduled to be signed on January 2.
Although the Government says that we can compete with American finished products, the fact is that there is a gaping hole in the deal. In fact, Canada will not be competing with the United States but with Mexican products which have been produced with very cheap labour. Is this what the Government means by harmonization? In order to hold onto our small share of the manufacturing sector in the United States do we have to reduce our wage rates? Is the Government saying that we have to harmonize our standard of living with that of the Maquiladora corridor? That is, of course, what the Government is saying.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has proposed a safeguard which should receive approval from all Members on all sides of the House.
Customs Tariff



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)- Religious Persecution-Iran-imprisonment of Baha'i leaders; the Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada Post Corporation-rural Post Offices- request for halt to closures/committee recommendations- Government position; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-External Affairs-Haiti-massacre of citizens-Canadian reaction.



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 appeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 1 (Mr. Cassidy, p. 11346).
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honour of being recognized by yourself and of having an opportunity to speak to the matter brought forward by the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) with regard to the so-called Mexican connection.
This matter was brought before the Standing Committee on External Affairs last week at its hearings in Edmonton by Mr. Saul, who is a novelist and an economist. That is a wonderful economist indeed. It means that he can make economic matters almost lucid. The impact of his presentation was quite dramatic and profound on all members of the committee. I think it fair to say that even the Conservative members of the committee took the matter seriously. They did not see it as a partisan jab but more as an indication that this particular aspect of our trade relations could have a very major bearing upon the proposed agreement on trade with the United States. It could put many of the supposed benefits in real jeopardy.
I believe Members have already heard how this particular process works under Section 806 and Section 807 of the U.S.

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
Tariff schemes. Perhaps it could simply be described by using the example of someone who will ship the fabric for making bluejeans in North Carolina across the border to Mexico for the assembly of that particular garment and return it to be stamped "Made in America". While a minimal duty is imposed by the Americans on the cross border shipment for the value added based upon the labour, the fact is that it is accepted as a "Made in America" product. Therefore, there is an assumption that once those articles are in circulation they can find their way into the trade flow into Canada.
While the research staff of the committee and the trade negotiators office gave certain assurances that the proposed trade agreement with the Americans takes this problem into account, they were not prepared to answer serious questions about how the enforcement of this mechanism would work. Unfortunately, the motion I made at the committee to have Mr. Reisman or Mr. Ritchie appear before the committee was not heeded by the majority.
Efowever, it is important to point out to Members of the House that this matter will be examined by the committee next Tuesday. Mr. Ritchie has agreed to appear before the committee a week hence, to try to describe the way in which the free trade agreement that was initialled last October will be capable of enforcing this particular and very dangerous tariff-free movement of basically Third World goods into Canada.
I think it would be irresponsible for the House not to delay voting on this matter until we have had an opportunity to hear the trade negotiators themselves explain their position. I compliment the Member for Ottawa Centre for introducing this amendment. If nothing else, it brings to our attention that we should not agree to the initiatives in this clause, and certainly in the free trade agreement, until this Parliament receives a proper explanation.
I caution the Government about proceeding with this initiative because the trade negotiators office is still deeply concerned about this aspect of it. The Government is really caught in a dilemma. The Government may say that the rules of origin section of the trade agreement provide it with the legal right to keep the Maquiladora products out of Canada. That implies two things: First, that all U.S. exporters will work on good faith and would never believe that they would commit a fraud by shipping to Canada a product clearly labelled "Made in America" as something that has been manufactured totally and completely in the United States. Certainly we have enough experience with various trade problems to know that one cannot always rely on 100 per cent good faith and honesty of those who are selling goods into this country or, for that matter, our selling goods to other places. There is always a degree of chicanery involved in these efforts.
The second implication is that in order to enforce this, it would require a host of customs agents at our own borders conducting the most extensive examinations possible.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has suggested to consumers and all Canadians that the proposed
free trade agreement would basically be a recipe to open our borders. People can imagine themselves coming to Winnipeg from Fargo with their arms loaded with VCRs and TVs that are totally tariff-free. We know that will not be the case.
There would be a legion of customs agents at the border who would essentially have to dismantle every item to ensure that it was not manufactured in another country. If anyone believes that it is difficult to get across the border now, wait until the agreement. Customs agents will be required to conduct incredibly detailed investigations. Surely the Conservatives can understand that. Even those simple-minded champions of free trade will realize that they are caught in a hell of a dilemma on this matter.
If these requirements are not strictly enforced Canadian businesses will be faced with unfair competition. Rather than a level playing field, it will be very tilted because of the opportunity to totally undermine the input costs into many materials, including clothing, electronics and machinery. These are items now being manufactured with American components in that area of Mexico.
I want to refer to a report in the United States which has clearly indicated that this particular procedure is not without controversy in its own country. Opposition in the United States has come from organized labour, which contends that the Maquiladora investment by U.S. firms has the effect of exporting jobs. That is what would happen here.
Either a large number of Canadian manufacturers would lose out under this system, or we would be forced to begin trying to compete with these low cost manufacturers. That would mean a substantial decrease in wages, social and health standards and other basic infrastructure that Canada has prided itself on building up over the past several years.
The Conservatives are not telling it as it is when they say that matters of social policy will not be affected by this agreement. They are not describing the real situation. They know that even without the Maquiladora process the low minimum wages and the low standards in the right to work states in the south will result in uneven competition. When one adds the aggravation of having products being made under the wage scale of 65 cents an hour, who in Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Halifax will be able to compete without fundamentally changing the kinds of wages our workers are paid or changing the standard we apply to our environment, health and labour? That is the dilemma facing the Government and for which it has yet to answer.
There must be an answer to this particular dilemma. Therefore, I suggest that at least until Mr. Ritchie appears before the committee next Tuesday morning to address this problem, the House should recognize the validity of this amendment or at least delay a decision until Parliament and the country knows exactly how the Government proposes to contend with one of the most serious challenges facing Canadian manufacturing in centuries.
December 1, 1987


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would certainly welcome the suggestion of the Hon. Member for the Liberal Party. If in fact the Government wished to simply defer this section until the hearings take place next Tuesday, that might be a constructive suggestion. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), or some other responsible Minister, is prepared to make that suggestion here in this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member might want to negotiate that with the House Leaders. I will recognize the next speaker. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have an opportunity to say a few words about the amendment to this particular clause which was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).
When I first looked at Bill C-87 and read its title, I was quite fascinated, if not confused. Intimidated, perhaps, is a better word. I will take a moment just to read it. It describes Bill C-87 as 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. Even, as I read it again today, I nearly fell asleep. It is one of the most convoluted descriptions of any piece of legislation.
When I actually read the legislation itself, I can understand why not only the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, but other Members who have spoken on this Bill, have raised some serious concerns.
These concerns are indeed tied into what may happen under the free trade agreement at some time in the future. The implications are described under Clause 15 of Part 1 of the Bill. The clause reads as follows:
(1)	for the purposes of this Act, goods originate in a country if the whole of the value of the goods is produced in that country.
Subclause (2) however, makes an exception to this. It states:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a)	deeming goods, the whole or a portion of the value of which is produced outside a country, to originate in that country for the purposes of this Act, and
(b)	respecting the determination of the origin of goods.
On the one hand the Act talks about any goods originating in a country can come into Canada as long as they are identified as being produced in that country. However, it is then totally reversed. It says, however, exceptions may be made if the goods, the whole or a portion of the value of the goods which is produced outside a country, can be deemed to
Customs Tariff
originate in the host country. That is absolutely ridiculous, and I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. John Saul who appeared before the House of Commons committee which is looking into the free trade agreement. He spoke about the dangers of that very thing happening under the free trade agreement. His concerns were expressed because of the very real situation occurring in the United States at the present time with cheap goods produced in Mexico which are in effect considered to be produced in the United States.
You may wonder how that could possibly happen, Mr. Speaker, and rather than go into detail on the comments Mr. Saul made before that committee, several days following his appearance he wrote an article on this very same subject, which is found in The Globe and Mail, which I would highly recommend for reading because it sets out the arguments very well and very clearly.
In recognizing these dangers, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has moved an amendment to protect Canadians from the same kind of thing which is happening in the United States. We could be saved from the same experience if this amendment were adopted. What the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is proposing is that this clause in the existing Bill be amended by adding the words:
Notwithstanding any regulation made under Subsection (2), goods wholly or
partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United
States.
In putting forward that motion, the Hon. Member is not saying we should not enter into any trading partnerships with Mexico. In fact, to the contrary. I remember several weeks ago the Leader of my Party making the same argument to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that rather than throwing all our eggs in one basket by entering into a free trade arrangement with the United States, what Canada should press for is a trading agreement between not only the United States but also Mexico. He used the argument that Mexico has in fact proven itself to be a stronger negotiator with the Government of the United States on trading matters than the Canadian Government.
I think if one takes a look at what the Mexicans have managed to do in their trading relationships with the United States, the commentary of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is absolutely right on. I want to give a perfect example of the industry I came out of. The electronics industry, at least the section I worked in, used to produce vacuum tubes for radios. These vacuum tubes were the subject of great competition from the U.S. parent company, of which ours was a subsidiary, and from the American subsidiaries located offshore. The end result was that the U.S. owners decided that even though the Canadian plant continued to be profitable, it did not make enough profit, however "enough profits" was defined. In any event, it decided that the Canadian company, which employed at that time some 650 workers, was not making enough profit to keep the head office in Syracuse happy. So it started laying people off. We ended up with a workforce of about 50 people who no longer produced

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
vacuum tubes in that plant. Their job was to receive bulk shipments of the vacuum tubes that Canadians used to produce. Their job was to unpack the tubes from the bulk cartons and repackage them in cartons that were stamped "Made in Canada".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is disgusting.


Neil Young: The cartons with the vacuum tubes which were produced offshore went into stores and Canadians bought them thinking they were buying made in Canada products.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Is that not illegal?


Neil Young: I thought it was illegal, and when we caught onto it, we went after the Government of the day, making the argument that some 600 Canadian jobs had been lost as a result of this multinational corporation which, by the way, had profited quite handsomely over the years by being allowed to exploit the Canadian market-place by selling these tubes. We told the Government this did not look right to us and asked it to investigate. It took months to persuade the Government of the day that perhaps it should be doing something about it, so we went after the parent company. It was told that at the very least this smells of deceptive advertising, that it cannot have a tube made in Japan in a carton printed and stamped "Made in Canada" going onto store shelves where Canadians think they are buying Canadian products and in doing so they are contributing to the Canadian economy and are helping to create employment for Canadians.
Finally, the multinational company decided this could be an embarrassing situation. What it ended up doing was to have the 30 or so workers in this plant grind off the stamp "Made in Japan". There was then no country of origin on the tube and it would then go into the "Made in Canada" package.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Was the package made in Canada?


Neil Young: That is another interesting point. I remember the story about the Japanese producer who decided to form a company town and call it Ontario. That company produced a product made in Ontario but it forgot to mention that this Ontario happened to be in Japan, not in Canada.
When John Saul raised these very serious concerns, I understand that people involved in the free trade negotiations were not even aware of this gaping loophole. Therefore, I highly recommend that the House seriously consider the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. Even though certain weaknesses would remain in the legislation, it would at least close that one gaping loophole and we would all be better off for it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 had the opportunity to join the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade last week when it went to western Canada. I was in Edmonton when Mr. John
Ralston Saul made his presentation, which was identical to the article that appeared in The Globe and Mail, and I can tell you that I think all members of the committee were concerned as to whether or not there was a gaping hole in the trade agreement. Despite what one might otherwise think of the agreement, and obviously members of the committee quite strongly disagree with each other as to its over-all wisdom, all Members were concerned about this accusation.
Some of us argued that we should have Mr. Reisman and/or Mr. Ritchie appear before the committee immediately to answer these charges. We were unable to bring that about but we received a communication from the office of the trade negotiators and Mr. Ritchie to the effect that they had taken this matter into account, giving us a number of reassurances in that regard. I do not find those reassurances particularly all that reassuring, I might say, but to be fair, the negotiators claim to be on top of it. Of course, the question is whether or not you can ever be on top of this kind of situation when unscrupulous manufacturers and distributors have available to them the kind of procedures just described by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). There is also the question of even if we have rules of origin which allegedly cover products from this Mexican free trade zone, would Canada not be required to have a rather financially burdensome army of inspectors at the border and elsewhere in order to make sure that the increasing number of goods produced in that zone are not coming into Canada as American goods?
As I understand it, one of the features of the agreement between Mexico and the U.S. is that these goods will be considered as American goods in a way that other goods coming from other countries into the U.S. and going out again are not. It is in the very nature of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico that these goods will not be as distinguishable as other goods coming from third countries.
I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is here. Even though we may disagree on the trade agreement per se, I hope the Government is making sure that the negotiators are covering this concern in the last minute negotiations which we know are going on at this time.
Mr. Saul's presentation dealt with the Mexican free trade zone, but he also dealt with some of the issues implicit in the kind of agreement we are now about to enter into with the U.S. as a result of the Prime Minister's intention to sign an agreement with President Reagan on January 2. In doing so, he dealt with the whole notion of competition in a way which is not articulated often enough in this House. I would like to quote not at great length but to a certain extent from the article. He says:
The word "competition" is used enthusiastically by those in favour of North American economic integration, as though there existed one universally accepted definition. In reality, each country understands something quite different by competition. And when intelligent agreements are struck to remove tariffs between countries, they are invariably based upon a prior agreement covering the nature of competition; in particular, the standardization of social policy.
December 1, 1987

He said these kinds of agreements are generally based upon a prior agreement covering the nature of competition; in particular, the standardization of social policy.
What we have before us is the agreement first and then a process whereby we and the U.S. will come to terms over the next five to seven years with respect to standardization, not only or even necessarily, of social policy, but health standards and various other non-tariff concerns on which there is an expressed intention to harmonize, hopefully over the next five years, but if not, over the next seven. We are doing exactly the opposite of what other countries which have reached this kind of agreement with each other have done in the past. They have agreed on all the non-tariff issues, first, if you like, so that when they enter into the elimination of tariffs in a true free trade agreement, they are not exposed to the shenanigans, if you like, or the policies of the other with respect to non-tariffs. What the Government proposes is to do it just the opposite way around.
It is clear, if you take Mr. Saul's argument seriously in this respect, that standardization of social policy is something which should precede any kind of agreement.
The present relationship between Canada and the United States is certainly not one of standardization of social policy. Indeed, I think that all Canadians would agree that not only is there no standardization of social policy, but it is generally agreed by Canadians that our social policies are superior to American social policies. The worry is that if we enter into this agreement, there will be pressure for standardization, but that the pressure will be for Canada's social policies to become more like American social policies.
I know when this is stated it generally irritates proponents of the agreement, but it is a fact that was recognized even by proponents and supporters of the agreement in the course of our hearings throughout western Canada last week. A member of the British Columbia business community appeared before the committee, a Mr. Matkin, and during the course of a discussion with me on social policy, he admitted that this would eventually come to be one of the things that would be calculated, as to who seemed to have a competitive advantage over another country, in this case between Canada and the United States.
The origin of that discussion was when he stated in his testimony that one of the reasons he was not worried about investment leaving Canada was that one of the advantages we had was that investors liked to locate plants here because they did not have to deal with all the social security, health, and other hassles involved in being an American employer. The reason that some companies locate here is because of our social programs, medicare, unemployment insurance, and others.
In response to that evidence I said to him, if that is the reason why people locate here and not elsewhere, is it not conceivable that some day, particularly when we are entering
Customs Tariff
into this five to seven year debate about which non-tariff policies of each country could be construed as giving one country a competitive advantage over the other, the Americans might argue that our social policies give Canada a competitive advantage over the Americans and, therefore, we ought to change them. He stated he would have to admit that, although in his opinion, entering into this agreement would tend to protect us from that type of argument. We disagreed there, but the point is that both of us agreed that social programs and social policy are part of the calculus in this type of negotiating. It could happen in a number of other ways.
Depending upon the circumstances, Canadian companies could argue that they were being made uncompetitive because they had to pay the higher taxes required to pay for medicare, or that they were having to pay unemployment insurance premiums that their American competitors did not have to pay. There are a number of ways in which our social programs could enter the debate.
This is what we have meant all along, Mr. Speaker, when we have stated that there is a threat here to our social programs. It will not happen overnight, or the day after the agreement is signed, perhaps not even a number of years after the agreement is signed, but over time. This is a legitimate argument.
I see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is present, and I think that this is an argument that the Government has to take seriously, particularly if it is going to proceed, and particularly if it is going to be the tough negotiator that we wish it to be in that five to seven year period, if the agreement goes ahead.
I see that you are expressing that I am out of time, Mr. Speaker. In winding up, I wish to make a few comments. Time passes so fast when you are having fun!


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Speak for yourself.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I can understand why the Minister of health is not enjoying this.
I wish to close with a further quote from Mr. Saul, and then I will sit down.
We often hear comparisons between what has been done in Europe and what is being done here. In a manner that should enlighten us all, Mr. Saul states:
The key to Europe's success, for example, and the explanation for its slow, careful evolution, has been a determination to force a raising of standards toward those of the more advanced countries, not a lowering toward the more backward. No European nation could succeed in open competition against Korea or Thailand, both of which maintain nineteenth-century labour conditions. The European Community therefore limits that competition to its own definition of the word. To do otherwise would be to lose an unequal combat and, in losing, to subsidize and encourage an unjust social system. To accept the Asian definition of "competition" would be to destroy European society.
There is a second socially undeveloped industrial zone, and that is the southern part of the United States. It is precisely by accepting the notion of competition which exists in that part of

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
the world in the United States that this Government endangers the social policies and the level of economic justice that we have attained in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Elon. Member, who was quite a football player in his old days, knows that this sign means time out, and that this sign means two minutes. I do not understand why he did not realize that I was requesting that he wind down.
On debate, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because he is from Winnipeg, and the way that the Blue Bombers went this year, they do not understand the signals either.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A point of order, point of privilege, point of everything, Mr. Speaker. There are certain things I cannot take here.


Iain Francis Angus: I am a supporter of the Blue Bombers, but it is an eastern team now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You really know how to hurt a guy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the Chair is impartial, but today I am happy to be able to crow about the fact that I came from the city which is the home of those fine bunch of boys who won the 1987 Grey Cup against Toronto in Vancouver on Sunday.
I congratulate Commissioner Douglas Mitchell and the Edmonton Eskimos on a great game.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder how long you have been sitting there with that note to yourself looking for an opportunity to inject that into the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was waiting for someone to bring up football.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it was you who brought up football.
Bill C-87 before us, among other things, is 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.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has moved an amendment to Clause 15. Clause 15 states:
15(1) For the purposes of this Act, goods originate in a country if the whole of the value of the goods is produced in that country.
(2)	The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) deeming goods, the whole or a portion of the value of which is produced outside a country, to originate in that country for the purposes of this Act; and
(b) respecting the determination of the origin of goods.
The amendment moved by my colleague is that there be a new subclause (3) which would state, "Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2) goods wholly or partially produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States".
The reason my colleague put forward that motion is because of his concern, and that of the New Democratic Party caucus, that in effect it is a back-door free trade agreement with Mexico. Without that wording or preventative clause, it is conceivable that goods produced in Mexico, using extremely low wage rates, non-unionized or almost child labour, would be able to come freely into Canada and compete unfairly with products produced in Canada, let alone products produced in the United States.
During the hearings in Edmonton of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade a gentleman by the name of Mr. John Ralston Saul stated:
The United States already has a virtual free-trade pact with Mexico; or rather, with a strip of Mexico, several kilometres deep and running the full length of their 3,200-kilometre shared border. This official trade zone contains more than 1,200 U.S. factories employing some 300,000 Mexican workers, mostly teen-agers, non-union of course, and earning about 65 cents U.S. an hour.
Mr. Saul went on to say:
These "Maquiladora Industries" as they are known, are expanding at a phenomenal rate. They constitute the second largest industry in Mexico. Second only to petroleum. Larger than tourism.
We do not think it was the intention of the Government to allow for such a free flow of goods. That is why we want to give the Government the tool to prevent Bill C-87 from being used to undermine further the ability of Canadian manufacturers of all kinds to compete and sell their products to Canadians. We also see it as part and parcel of the over-all trade agreement, initialled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada and the President of the United States not too long ago, on which we are rushing forward to finish waiting for the dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's. We can then go from the 35 or 40 pages of principles to see what the nuts and bolts are, what the real benefits are, not the suggested benefits, what the real detractions are and what the negative impact will be on Canada in the short and long term.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, at least within this Party, are very concerned about that agreement. We feel that it will change the very nature of the country. We will no longer have the ability to make the kinds of decisions that we feel are appropriate, the kinds of decisions that started very soon after the commencement of the country when we decided that we wanted to be an east-west nation, not a north-south one. We developed our transportation infrastructure in such a way as to connect British Columbia, in particular, with central Canada, which just prior to that was known as Upper and Lower Canada.
December 1, 1987

Now we have a Government that is intent upon shifting that direction, forging greater north-south links, supposedly because of the belief in the free enterprise system which means, in a nutshell, that if you can compete you can win. In some cases the private sector can compete fairly both within Canada and on the world stage. But there are times when it cannot. There are times when fledgling industries need some extra protection to allow them to develop their product line and their markets to the point where, because of the volume and the quality, they can produce a product at a per unit cost that is competitive. There are some that may never reach that point. We, as a country, have decided over the years that it is important to have those products produced in Canada by Canadians, sold primarily to Canadians, and, where possible, sold to individuals in other lands. That is the nature of our country. We on this side of the House want to keep it that way. A button I have seen states "We want to buy from our brothers and sisters, our neighbours and our friends, our friends and neighbours in Canada".
Whether it is an automobile produced in southern Ontario or Quebec, or components thereof, whether it is a by-product of wheat on the Prairies, or whether it is a McDonald's hamburger bun, we would prefer to use our earnings to reinvest in our country not in someone else's. Sometimes it means that we have to pay a little bit more because we have a smaller population, a smaller consumer group, than our neighbour to the south and, therefore, we are not able to maximize our distribution systems and our volumes because that consumer group is spread across a very narrow corridor, at least the bulk of it.
There are other parts away from that corridor which are even more expensive to reach than the grid system in the United States where a plant in almost any area is within a reasonable distance of a fairly large consumer base. Our neighbour to the south also has regional disparities. The Americans have differing laws that have drawn their industrial sector from the northern fringe of their country, the industrial heartland of the United States, into the deep south where the wages are $3 less per hour, fringe benefits are lacking and there are very few, if any, unions. That is what will happen here if the trade deal goes through. We do not have a Bill or a resolution yet. We do not even have an agreement and we have no details.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What do we have?


Iain Francis Angus: We have a lot of fluff and a lot of wishful thinking, Mr. Speaker. We are concerned that this headlong rush into a deal that will last for many years will do to Canada what Alabama has done to the United States, namely, draw off the work, the jobs and the creation of wealth. We hear people say "They will be able to invest in Canada", but what will the Americans do? They will come here, buy a few more branch plants, close them and move south, transferring the jobs away from Canada.
Customs Tariff
I have taken the opportunity in the last little while to speak to my constituents specifically about this agreement. 1 made a point of talking to individuals, whom I know personally, but are committed to parties other than mine. I have spoken to Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats. When I raised the question of the trade agreement and asked them "What do you think about it", their answers were identical. 'I am scared of it" and 1 agree with them, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 which relate to parliamentary approval by either resolution or legislation shall be debated together and a vote on Motion No. 2 will apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7,9, 10 and 11.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 43 and 44 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"other Act of Parliament.
(3)	The rates of Customs duty set out in Schedule 1 and section 46 and the customs duties imposed by this Act are further subjected to such increases, reductions, removals or other exceptions as may be specified in any regulation or order made under this or any other Act of Parliament, provided that no such regulation or order shall have effect for more than sixty days unless it is adopted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 22 by striking out lines 11 to 17 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"22.(1) Subject to sections 23 and 24, goods that originate in a country listed in Schedule III as a beneficiary of the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff are entitled to the rates of customs duty set out with respect to those goods in the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff in Schedule I.
(2) No country listed in Schedule III shall be granted rates of customs duties lower than those of the Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff without prior approval of the new tariff rates by an Act of Parliament."
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 36 by adding, immediately after line 11 at page 12, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4)	For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 38 by adding, immediately after line 7 at page 13, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 54 by adding, immediately after line 31 at page 16, the following:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line 4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (2), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by striking out lines 9 to 45 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (1) on the basis of a report of the Minister of Finance, an inquiry made by the Canadian Import Tribunal under section 48 of the Special Import Measures Act or an inquiry made by the Textile and Clothing Board under the Textile and Clothing Board Act, the order ceases to have effect on the expiration of
the sixtieth day from the day on which the order is made if Parliament is then sitting or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on the expiration of the fifteenth sitting day after that day, unless before the order so ceases to have effect it is approved by a resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament."
Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 60 by adding, immediately after line
27, at page 21 the following:
"(9) Where an order is made pursuant to subsection (7), the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the date on which it becomes effective or, if Parliament is not then sitting, the fifteenth day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting, unless, not later than that day, the order is approved by resolution adopted by both Houses of Parliament.
(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), a day on which either House of Parliament sits shall be deemed to be a sitting day."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a bit of leeway because I would like to explain briefly for viewers what those motions mean in a very simple language. Right now, Clause 60 of the Bill allows that in the event imports are causing injury to Canadian producers, the Government can order a surtax but that surtax must be approved by resolution of Parliament within 180 days or it can be in force for up to three years under recommendations from the Imports Tribunal. Therefore, Bill C-87 contains the selective idea that certain actions relating to tariffs by the Government are subject to parliamentary approval by resolution.
This series of amendments makes that selective approval into a general approval. Motion No. 2 which amends Clause 19 will require that no regulation or order relative to tariffs can remain in force if it is not ratified by Parliament and I have suggested that it be ratified by Parliament within 60 days.
Motion No. 3 amends Clause 22 and requires that no mostfavoured-nation country can get lower tariff rates than most-favoured nation rates without an Act of Parliament. I will return to that very important clause because that is essentially what the Government intends to do with the United States.
Motion No. 5 which amends Clause 36 requires the approval of Parliament within 60 days if there are changes to extend or withdraw the general preferential tariff to developing countries. In other words, it offers a principle of accountability even on a tariff matter that does not cover the United States. Motion No. 6 amends Clause 38 and likewise requires approval within 60 days by Parliament if there is a granting or withdrawal of a free rate of tariff to least-developed countries. Likewise, Motion No. 7 which amends Clause 54 covers the withdrawal of free rate of duties to countries in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
Motion No. 9 amends Clause 59, a very major clause of the Bill. It allows retaliation against trade discrimination by means of a surtax, higher tariff rates or import controls. In effect, what is suggested is that that should be laid before Parliament in the same way that a surtax under Clause 60 is required to be laid before Parliament and approved.
December 1, 1987

We are dealing with a very basic principle of accountability here. I referred particularly to Clause 22, one of the clauses to which we have proposed amendments, which amendments require that no country benefiting from Canada's mostfavoured-nation tariff like the United States could get lower tariffs than the most-favoured-nation rates without an Act of Parliament. That sounds very simple, but in fact the reason this is required now while it has not been required in the past is because in the past, it has not been an issue.
Governments with a certain amount of credibility acted responsibly on tariff matters. We have now a Government that has no credibility, is down to 25 per cent of public support and did not have a mandate for free trade in the last election. That Government is now moving to sharply cut rates of tariffs to the United States, our greatest trading partner, without an Act of Parliament.
I suggest that because the Government has violated the trust Parliament has put in previous Governments to deal with customs matters, this Bill which might otherwise be a routine one has become an extremely important Bill. It is important because it enshrines basic principles about parliamentary accountability. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during Question Period earlier today: "What about the people?" The Prime Minister suggested that there had been ample consultation about this and cited the Macdonald commission report. No one knew the Macdonald commission report would recommend free trade until it had reported.
The Prime Minister suggested that there had been consultation with various industry groups. That is true, but the members of those sectoral advisory groups have all committed by oath not to share information with anyone in the public sector and I presume that even means other people in their own industries. What they are doing within their own trade groups I do not know, but trade unionists, workers, consumers and citizens of the communities in which those companies operate have had no information through that form of consultation.
When it comes to consumer groups, trade union groups and the opposition Parties, which I remind Hon. Members represent half the population according to the last vote in Canada and which today represent something like 75 per cent of the electorate according to the opinion polls, there has been no consultation at all.
Why do we suggest that there should be parliamentary accountability and that no reductions in MFN tariff rates should go forward without an Act of Parliament? It is because the Government is violating the trust of Parliament.
I listened with concern to some of the statements that were made both today and at other times. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), for example, rose in the House a few minutes ago and said that it was unfortunate that this most important piece of legislation which is historically important was being subjected to what he called delays. He spoke in the
Customs Tariff
forty-fifth minute of debate, hardly a lengthy delay in my opinion.
This matter has been discussed by the Government of Canada in consultation with the trade sector since 1981. The Government has been in power for more than three years. It chose not to bring this legislation before Parliament until the beginning of October and now it suddenly says that it is rush, rush, we must put it through. In addition, the Minister of State for Finance said that the legislation is needed by January 1 because Canada has made a commitment. I would suggest that he misleads the House because in the-


Charles Joseph Clark: Order!


Michael Morris Cassidy: His comment is misleading. During the seminars and information sessions which were held with brokers and importers by the Department of National Revenue over the course of the last few months, the commitments which were made were quite specifically otherwise.
I have a document which was distributed to importers about two and one-half months ago which indicates, as the Minister of State has indicated, that Canada has been committed to a change-over to the harmonized system of tariffs for some years now and began to develop the Canadian tariff based on this system in 1981.
It says that in early 1986 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) confirmed the adoption of a new system for January 1, 1988, under the condition that our major trading partners, i.e., the U.S. and Japan, adopt the harmonized system at the same time. That is what was being told to importers only two months ago, just before this Bill was published.
We have taken care to find out the situation of our major trading partner, the United States. Are they in fact putting this harmonized system into force? Given the degree of interchange between the two countries it would make sense for computerization, record keeping, and so on that the two countries move to the same system at the same time. Contrary to the statements made by the Minister of State for Finance, and contrary to what was said to the brokers and importers, that is not taking place.
We talked to the head of the trade division of the Department of External Affairs last week. He indicated that there is "still some uncertainty" as to whether or not the United States will move to this new harmonized system on January 1. The information of External Affairs was that the harmonized system was part of the omnibus trade Bill which is as protectionist and objectionable a Bill as we can imagine. According to our officials, the Americans have now removed their Bill from the omnibus Bill and introduced new legislation. However, it remains uncertain that the Americans will deal with the legislation prior to January 1.
That was the American story. When we talked to the American trade representatives here in Ottawa, the American

December 1, 1987
Customs Tariff
story which we heard was that the American Bill for the harmonized system is still part of the larger and objectionable omnibus trade Bill which I think all Canadians hope will be vetoed by the President if it is in fact adopted by Congress during the next few weeks.
However, Congressman Gibbons plans to introduce separate legislation next week, that is, some time after December 7, to deal with the harmonized system. The American House, like this Parliament, can move quickly when it has to, but at the very least uncertainty reigns and there is clearly no guarantee that the Americans will keep their side of the bargain despite what Canada is being asked to do.
I read reports in the papers over the weekend of the Prime Minister saying that consensus reigns on the issue and it is, therefore, okay to go forward. There is certainly not consensus in the House of Commons, as must be evident to the public from this debate and many other debates which have taken place. My Party believes that Canada should not get locked into a trading deal with the United States unless there is a general election first.
The Prime Minister himself, the Minister of State for Finance, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Finance have all said that this is the most important commercial arrangement being made by Canada within a generation. The President of the United States says that it is a new economic constitution for North America. Despite all that, we are being faced with a fait accompli, with a bunch of snake oil salesmen and saleswomen on the Government side trying to stampede Canadians into a deal without our knowing whether it is really a deal for Canada and without our knowing what the fine print says.
We have seen the elements of the agreement. 1 have a copy here which 1 read from time to time. Every time I read it I find new areas which raise questions in my mind rather than satisfying them. We have received Overview on the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. However, to put it mildly, Overview is misleading and deceptive, if not intellectually dishonest. If I could say it lied in the House of Commons and be parliamentary, I would use that phrase too. However, in deference to your authority I would not use such a phrase.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member realizes what he has just done. I hope he will withdraw before he carries on.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Since I did not say it lied I do not think there is anything to withdraw. However, I will nonetheless defer to your authority and withdraw any remarks which you may have found to be unparliamentary. I think it is fair to say that this, like the speeches made by the government Ministers, is intellectually dishonest.
I will give you an example. The Government has been saying that $2 billion of tariffs will disappear and that that will mean
money in consumers' pockets. The Government has not said how it intends to make up the $2 billion in lost revenues. That is an example of the intellectual dishonesty.
I will return to the basic point of these seven or eight amendments which is that, given the actions and irresponsibility of the Government, it is imperative that Parliament take the authority, that the Government be accountable, and that major trade and tariff actions of the Government not be undertaken without prior approval by Act of Parliament or resolution of Parliament. That is a fundamental principle in a parliamentary democracy. This is not Haiti yet. This is still Canada. I hope Hon. Members will support these amendments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have a chance to support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The point of his motion is to insist that the Government cannot change regulations regarding reductions or other changes in import duties in response to some deal with another country without referring it to Parliament.
The question has been raised as to why we want this amendment in the law. The answer is that the times demand it. In the past Governments of the day have made such changes by regulation. However, we were now faced with a secret and massive document which may run to a couple of thousand pages of which the majority, according to the Government, is tariff regulations. The Government has said that approximately 1800 pages would be composed of tariff regulations. We have not yet seen those regulations. The Government has promised again and again to show them to us but has not brought them forward.
The Government wants us to give it a blank cheque to change the customs regulations. Such changes have, in the past, wiped out sections of the garment industry and the electrical appliance industry. The Government is asking for a blank cheque to do that in any industry on which it may make a secret deal with any other country, particularly with the United States, which can import products made with cheap labour in order to export them to Canada, not for the benefit of the people who gave that cheap labour but for the benefit of multinational companies based in the United States.
We are asked to trust the Government. We are asked to trust Mr. Reisman, the chief negotiator of this deal, in spite of the fact that a year ago Mr. Reisman said that he would never recommend an agreement to the Canadian Government that did not make substantial progress in limiting and constraining the unilateral right of the United States to use retaliatory measures against Canadian trade. He said that he would never recommend a deal which did not give us the power to defend ourselves against those.
A year later, on October 25 of this year, he said that to suggest that this agreement should provide us with an exemption from American trade remedy law is just the silliest
December 1, 1987

proposition he had ever heard of. Well, he was the author of that proposition. That is just as unsatisfactory as the spectacle of last week to which I have referred of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sneering at people who used the very words that he used four years ago. We cannot accept a trade deal based on this kind of misrepresentation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved: that Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was some 12 years ago that Parliament took the last steps in an attempt to examine the operation of the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. In 1975, the Badgley Commission was appointed to study the operation of the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. Since that time, no government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has recognized the fundamental inequities existing under the present provisions of the Criminal Code. No Government, be it Liberal or Conservative, has displayed the courage to move forward with the only appropriate response to these inequities, which is the repeal of Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My name was cited as being the seconder of this motion, whereas I believe it should be my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) who is the seconder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Spadina will be the seconder of the motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Badgley commission which conducted investigations in most hospitals throughout Canada concluded that the law was not working and the provisions of the Criminal Code which, in theory, provided access to safe therapeutic abortions for women were in fact not working.
The Badgley commission stressed that women did not in fact have equal access to therapeutic abortions for various reasons. One was that the numerous provincial directives or regulations governing the establishment of a therapeutic abortion committee in hospitals, and the attitude of hospital boards of directors and members of the medical profession often lead to limited interpretation of the provisions of the Criminal Code.
Abortion
The second is the reality that it is only a very few hospitals in Canada which have indeed established therapeutic abortion committees. I believe the most recent figures indicate that fewer than 15 per cent of all hospitals in Canada have therapeutic abortion committees. Indeed, many of those hospitals with committees do not perform abortions at all.
There has been a deterioration in Canada in the number of hospitals providing safe therapeutic abortions.

The deterioration of abortion services in Canada is such that several provinces are faced with a real crisis. In 1984, for instance, out of the 244 hospital clinics which existed in Canada, 18 per cent performed no abortion and 42 per cent performed only a limited number, from 1 to 100 for the whole year. That is why Mrs. Sylvia Gold, President of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, has urged the Federal Government to take action and to reiterate its position on the abortion issue. The Council's recommendations in this regard are as follows: recognition of abortion as a medical process which need not be carried out in a hospital; approval by the Federal Minister and the Provincial health services of subsidies to birth control clinics, independent from the hospital network, and finally the removal from the Canadian Criminal Code of the section dealing with abortion.
That is the purpose of my Bill today, Mr. Speaker.

That is precisely the purpose of my Private Members' Bill which is before the House today. It would implement the principle of child birth by choice.
Child birth by choice means freedom of choice in the planning of one's family. It means that a woman should not be pressured to bear a child against her will and similarly, it means that a woman should not be pressured to have an abortion against her will. Pro choice simply means that women should have the freedom to choose for themselves whether or not to continue an unplanned, undesired pregnancy.
This position is very much in line with that which is taken by the International Conference on Population and Development at Mexico City in August, 1984, which said that: "Major efforts must be made now to ensure that all couples and individuals can exercise their basic human rights to decide freely, responsibly and without coercion the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so".
1 and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party were very pleased when earlier this year a motion that would have entrenched in the Constitution of Canada a denial of this fundamental freedom of choice was brought before the House and defeated resoundingly.
The policy of the New Democratic Party is clear. As a Government, we would remove Sections 251 and 252 from the Criminal Code. We would pardon all qualified medical

December 1, 1987
Abortion
practitioners convicted under Sections 251 and 251 and drop prosecutions under those sections. In that context, I pay tribute to the leadership and courage that has been shown by Henry Morgentaler in leading the fight for access to safe therapeutic abortions in Canada. We are all awaiting the outcome of his challenge to these provisions of the Criminal Code.
Finally, the NDP would provide adequate facilities in hospitals or special clinics for sterilization and abortion procedures.
In that context, we support the campaigns which have been launched by coalitions in Ontario, Manitoba and my own Province of British Columbia recently, and elsewhere, to establish free standing medical clinics which provide a wide range of gynaecological services, including birth control counselling and abortions, fully covered by provincial health insurance plans.
It is shameful that in Canada today there is still a lack of access based upon the location of a woman. The present provisions of the Criminal Code harshly discriminate particularly against women in rural communities. They discriminate particularly against young women, teenagers, women immigrants, working class women and women of colour.
Indeed, during the hearing of the appeal from Dr. Morgen-taler's acquittal on abortion charges, one of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Willard Estey said that a person would have to be affected with "legislative blindness'' not to see that there are areas in the country where there is no access to abortion. He pointed out: "You've got whole provinces that are carved out of the process". He asked: "Is this some kind of local option which has slid into the Criminal Code?". While the question may have been rhetorical, the answer tragically is yes, that is exactly what has happened.
For example, there is no access whatsoever to safe therapeutic abortion in the Province of Prince Edward Island. It was in June, 1986, that a vote of the hospital board resulted in the deletion of the therapeutic abortion committee from the Prince County Hospital, which was the only hospital that was even theoretically providing abortions.
Since 1982, the hospital had not even allowed for any abortions whatsoever. What does this mean? It means delays which result in the risk of complications. This is particularly serious in the case of teenagers and young women. In many cases, these teenagers are afraid to tell their parents that they are pregnant.
Some time ago, June Callwood wrote very eloquently in an article about a 14-year old girl who was 10 weeks pregnant before she summoned the courage to tell her mother. She pointed out that this is not uncommon and that in some cases teenagers keep hoping that what has happened to them is merely an irregularity in their periods. However, because of the delays as a result of the provision of the Criminal Code, in too many instances complications will arise.
The same Government that refused to take any action to eliminate these inequitable provisions of the Criminal Code has been cutting back on funding for the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and on funding for other programs which would help to reduce the number of abortions in Canada.
The Planned Parenthood Federation has called on governments in Canada to follow policies which would ensure universal access without financial barriers to the complete range of educational counselling and medical services relating to human sexuality and reproductive health. I might say in passing that the Planned Parenthood Federation has noted that one of the implications of the legislation on pornography, which is currently before this House, may very well be a reduction in access to information about sex education and that, in turn, could lead to an increase in the number of abortions. Too often it is the same right wing element in our community calling for a denial of choice to women which is pushing for this kind of legislation that would also deny access to information to teenagers and others who are concerned about preventing unwanted pregnancies.
The situation in Alberta is grim, indeed. The Alberta Conservative Government, in a vicious attack against women's rights, has pulled reproductive counselling, IUDs and sterilization off the list of medicare services entirely. What this means in practical terms is that far too many Canadian women are forced to leave the country in order to obtain safe therapeutic abortions. The figures are staggering. For 1984, for example, over 400 women from Prince Edward Island had to go to Maine in the United States for abortions. From Ontario, 1,200 women went to New York. From Manitoba, 680 women went to North Dakota and 700 women from Alberta went to Washington State. That is a clear indictment of the system in Canada of access to safe therapeutic abortions.
I want to take this opportunity as well to commend those organizations in Canada that have been courageously waging a tireless battle, with very limited resources, for freedom of choice for Canadian women. I speak, of course, of CARAL, a national organization that has been leading this fight, and the provincial coalitions which have been active in seeking to achieve provincial free-standing clinics.

I am referring to the Coalition quebecoise pour le droit a I'avortement libre et gratuit. It is this coalition which was responsible for an action taken on October 18 and 19, just before-at any rate, it was felt that it would take place just before the Supreme Court's ruling on the legality of abortion. Women, everywhere in Canada, demanded that this Federal legislation on abortion be rescinded and insisted on obtaining open and free access to abortion services. As Mrs. Denise Larochelle, representative for the Coalition quebecoise pour le droit a I'avortement, was reported as saying: We will continue to fight until this abortion legislation is removed from the
December 1, 1987

Criminal Code. We must fight to obtain free abortion services if we want to guarantee its accessibility to women from all social and economic strata.

That is one of the grave concerns of those of us in the New Democratic Party. There must be access to safe therapeutic abortion. It must not be denied on the basis of economic considerations. Those who would deny access to safe therapeutic abortions, those who are anti-choice, are in fact denying a fundamental matter of choice and integrity for the women involved. In some cases it is argued, why does she not have the child and give it up for adoption. That is an insult to the woman because, of course, the reality is that carrying a child to full term and then giving that child up for adoption is more traumatic in many cases than an abortion itself. As well, it denies the right of a woman to make that fundamental decision about her own body. Surely, we must recognize the unfairness and harshness of that.
It is time that we as a society recognize that we should be placing more emphasis on the role of men. It is about time we recognize that men must accept their responsibility. Why is it that contraception in too many cases is only spoken of in the context of women? When contraception fails, it is the woman who must bear the burden. I think we have to recognize that as a problem that we as a society must address as well.
I want to say as well that this is not the first time I have risen in this House to promote free access to safe therapeutic abortions in Canada. It is not the first time I have pointed out the fundamental harshness and inequity of the current provisions of the Criminal Code. I must say that I very much regret that the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, has chosen to remain silent. It has chosen to refuse to take a stand on this fundamental question. Time and again when the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, is called upon to take a stand, it is silent. It refuses to indicate any support whatsoever on this very important and sensitive question. Oh yes, when those Members are out around the country and talking to groups which support freedom of choice, then it is a different story, but when it comes to the crunch and the Liberals are asked to take a stand here in the House of Commons, they are silent. They say nothing. They cop out. I very much regret that. At least Conservative Members, even though many of them are opposed to free choice, are prepared to stand in the House and indicate exactly where they stand on this fundamental question of choice.
The situation in Canada today is desperate for far too many women. The provisions of the Criminal Code are harsh, unjust and inequitable. They deny access to safe therapeutic abortions. Those provisions should be repealed and we should put far more resources into organizations such as the Planned Parenthood Lederation and others. We should promote the development in Canada of reproductive health centres which will deal with the full range of reproductive health concerns for women.
Abortion
At the time when the only Newfoundland hospital with an abortion committee had to shut down its facilities because the one doctor who provided abortions took sick leave, the medical director of the hospital said: "I think it is disgraceful myself, to be frank with you, disgraceful bordering on the unethical". I want to ask how much longer will elected representatives of the people of Canada, including some 52 per cent of the population who are women, continue to deny to the women of Canada that basic freedom of choice which is theirs? How much longer will we continue to maintain on the books laws which in effect drive women from their own communities, from their own provinces, out of their own country, in order to have access to safe therapeutic abortions?
I hope during my tenure in the House-obviously, it will not be while this Government is in power-that it will be an NDP Government which will have the courage and integrity to move forward and repeal the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to abortion and to provide for true freedom of choice for the women of Canada.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the abortion section.
This Bill would abolish therapeutic abortion committees and allow qualified medical practitioners to perform abortions without having to get the prior authorization of these committees. I must speak out against any Bill which encourages abortions, unless, as I have stated in this House before, the mother is in danger of losing her own life as a result of continuation of the pregnancy. This Bill will make abortions even easier to obtain and I find this appalling, to say the least.
The number of abortions performed in Canada in 1985, over 60,000, prove that abortion is no longer a medical necessity but undertaken for elective, socioeconomic reasons. Further, the argument that a woman has the sole right to control what happens to her body assumes that the unborn child is just an extension of the woman.
Genetically the child is unique and separate from the mother. Even at his or her earliest development, the unborn child is just at one special stage of life. There is no difference between the existence of that child two weeks in the womb after birth, or at 2 years, 10 years, 40 years or 80 years. The only difference is the stage of development. By assuming that you become a "person" only when you are full-term or capable of sustaining life independent of the womb makes me wonder how we view a full-term infant who is incapable of sustaining life independently due to some physiological problem. Do we have the power to say, then, that this is not a life? The same holds true for the unborn child.
If we were to make an analogy, we can compare the child in the womb to an astronaut in a spaceship. Both require that specific environment to shelter them, provide nourishment and warmth, but neither are "part of' the environment. The child

December 1, 1987
Abortion
is not an extension of the mother anymore than the astronaut is an extension of the spaceship.
The Member who introduced this Bill is from my home province and should be aware of the abortion statistics for B.C. We do not have a record we can be proud of. In fact, the figures are frightening. B.C.'s abortion rate just two years ago, in 1985, was over 50 per cent higher than the national average. That means that for every 100 live births in B.C., 26.1 abortions are performed. In 1984, 11,509 infants were killed by abortionists in B.C. Since 25 per cent of abortions in B.C. are repeat abortions, no one is going to convince me that all these women were in grave danger as a result of their pregnancies. What is now termed "therapeutic" abortion is nothing short of murder of unborn children.
Even pro-abortion advocates agree that abortion is not necessary to preserve the mental or physical health of pregnant women. A leading proponent of abortion, the late Dr. Alan Guttmacher, wrote: "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness, such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save her life".
The 1969 changes to the Criminal Code led to induced abortions becoming a deliberate decision to terminate the life of an unborn child. The changes recommended in Bill C-208 will have even greater repercussions.
I am now talking about the effects of abortion on the woman herself. I can certainly see that an unwanted pregnancy could create psychological stress for a woman or girl, but I believe abortion can only result in permanent irreparable damage to the mother's conscience and health. If a woman can just go out to her doctor for an abortion as soon as she finds out she is pregnant, without any counselling, she will have had the abortion in a moment of panic. Instead of encouraging this "aloneness" we need to give these women our support and encouragement.
We must not let Bill C-208 pass. The unborn child deserves the protection all Canadians can give. Only in situations where the mother is in actual physical danger should an abortion even be considered.
I want to reiterate that abortion in Canada today is an elective procedure, mainly chosen for socio-economic reasons. It is no longer a medical service. This attitude must be stopped, and Bill C-208 does just the opposite. Our children are our future and they deserve our protection.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-208 introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) deals with an important and delicate issue.
I am not without any opinion on the question of abortion, on the contrary, but like my fellow citizens, recent events such as
the legal proceedings launched against Dr. Morgentaler, have led me to ponder over it.
To understand how this question of abortion stands, it is necessary to consider more generally the response of Canadians to that issue. The Canadian way of life has in the past few years undergone several major changes which have altered the fundamental traits of people. Those changes relate to the number of desired children, sexual behaviour and the use of contraceptives.
While this country was evolving from a rural community to a highly industrialized society, different social expectations and the improvement of the standard of living have resulted in fundamental changes in individual activities, in what is expected out of life and in the attitude towards induced abortion.
Many changes have occurred in this area with respect to ideas held in the past, and there is no unanimity as to the current situation or future actions to be taken, far from it.
Abortion is a human concern with a high risk of personal and collective prejudices, which influence one's attitude towards facts, as to their interpretation and their use. Abortion is one thing in a group of issues which involve sexual behaviour and the family while including family planning, genetic consulting, extramarital birth and social security programs, that seldom have been rationally considered in that wider context.
Since abortion can become an almost explosive issue, it seems to me there is a certain segment of the general public which has chosen to ignore it. Efficient and direct solutions to serious differences have not been sought. One of the attitudes has been: "If you ignore it, it will fade away sooner or later." Other people with different views had this to say: "This is what is happening, this is what has to be done". Between those two positions, there is a range of deeply felt but not always easily expressed opinions that are held according to region, religious persuasion, political affiliation, culture or other social circumstances. Those views reflect on the one hand a determination to preserve the life and the physical health of mothers, and on the other hand a concern for the whole social environment of women and their family situation. Each of those two attitudes, respectively shared by a number of Canadians, is based on a different view of family ethics and the changing role of women in our Canadian society.
That issue deeply involves standard principles and professional ethics, and is therefore fraught with emotion. It will remain so because there is and there will be no easy solution. As in the cases of other major issues involving the concepts of life and death, abortion is a concern of many people who would have preferred avoiding the issue. But it is one of the difficult choices that any woman capable of becoming pregnant may have to face some time or other in her life. The large number of women who have resorted to abortion have been ostracized and have experienced some kind of stress that has left them in a permanent state of anxiety. They are concerned
December 1, 1987

about the long term effects of that operation on their health and are in constant fear that their anonymity might not be preserved.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, this in my view is an issue that has been there for years and that will remain with us. But we should not forget that although this Parliament, is responsible for the drafting of the Criminal Code, the responsibility rests with the provinces to enforce that Code. I would therefore consider it very much ill-advised to support the Bill at this point, because it must be kept in mind that enforcement is a provincial responsibility, and I do not believe at this point it would be appropriate to get involved in the debate.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-208, which we have before us today, is essentially to recognize that the decision to terminate a pregnancy fundamentally belongs to the woman concerned in consultation with her physician. This Bill would abolish therapeutic abortion committees and allow qualified medical practitioners to perform abortion without having to obtain prior authorization from such committees.
I welcome the opportunity to add a few words to this debate which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). This Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code and make abortions available on request to any pregnant woman.
1 do not think that Private Members' Hour is the appropriate place to be considering an amendment to the Criminal Code on such a significant issue. I would like to tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
1 wish to stress that it is essential that we ensure that any decision to amend the Criminal Code as proposed will be taken only after full examination of all the issues, and with full understanding of what is involved.
In 1955 the federal Government appointed a committee to study the operation of the abortion law, to conduct a fact finding study to determine whether the procedure provided in the Criminal Code for obtaining therapeutic abortions was operating equitably across Canada. Federal and provincial government Departments co-operated with the committee and provided assistance in assembling and analysing existing information. The committee and its research staff undertook several surveys and made a large number of site visits.
For example, the committee visited 140 Canadian hospitals of various sizes both with and without therapeutic abortion committees. These site visits enabled the committee to obtain information on the operation of the abortion procedure, and the reasons for decisions not to establish therapeutic abortion committees from more than 1,000 individuals connected with the hospitals. Information was obtained on the operation of hospitals with and without therapeutic abortion committees in order to analyse their role in the abortion procedure.
Abortion
The completed questionnaires returned to the committee represented 77.4 per cent of the hospitals which were considered to be eligible in terms of provincial requirements to establish therapeutic abortion committees. Surveys were also conducted of hospital staff, as well as physicians and patients. A total of 4,912 interviews were conducted with patients in the period of February to May, 1976, in 24 hospitals, in 8 provinces; all 1,196 obstetricians-gynaecologists were included in a survey because of their direct involvement in the abortion operation, as well as a random sample of 3,839 family doctors. Gallup polls were also conducted to obtain insight into the public attitude toward the topic. The committee made a number of findings on matters with and related to its terms of reference.
First, and this is very important, it found no consensus for major changes in the existing Criminal Code provisions with respect to the abortion law in Canada. There was no consensus for major change.
Most Canadians were neither in favour of removing abortion from the Criminal Code, nor of refusing therapeutic abortions under any circumstances. Further, the Badgley report observed that the law was not operating equitably throughout Canada. There were sharp disparities in the distribution and accessibility of therapeutic abortion services, and unreasonable pressure on some physicians in hospitals. The burden of the equitable operation of the abortion law was seen to fall on women who were less well educated, who had lower incomes, and who lived in smaller centres of rural areas with no direct access to abortion services.
The committee found that the 1969 amendment to the abortion law had resulted in a sharp reduction in illegal abortions. In addition, there was a substantial reduction in deaths resulting from attempted, self-induced, or other illegal abortions. Provincial regulations, and the practices of hospitals and the medical profession rather than the abortion law itself were observed to have led to the inequities of its operation. The issue of abortion causes divisions within the Canadian populace like almost no other issue today.
I am a member of the justice committee, together with the Hon. Member for Burnaby. I respect the concern of the Hon. Member that he evidently bears for this issue, and I commend his effort in this area. But I must reiterate that I believe that this is not the proper occasion for bringing forward an amendment to the Criminal Code dealing with such a sensitive issue.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak on Private Member's Bill C-208. At the outset, I wish to state that I certainly do not support the position put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). In my remarks, I intend to give the reasons why I do not support this position.
Abortion is an issue on which fundamentally differing and opposing views are strongly and genuinely held by many

December 1, 1987
Abortion
Canadians. There is definitely a lack of consensus supporting any major change in abortion law. Because of the opposing views held by many Canadians, I believe that it would be premature to bring forth such an amendment.
I would like to spend a few moments putting forward my reasons on this very sensitive and divisive issue. A therapeutic abortion is a matter of fundamental concern since it involves human life. Attitudes to human life inevitably affect all society and each of us individually. Some consider that this is one of the many changes in social attitude and must be considered dispassionately. However, many of us stand firmly against abortion; but we must remember to be charitable in our attitudes to those who hold opposing views. All too often we see deep divisions develop, particularly in areas that involve controversy, and we become rather hostile toward those who have differing views. A free discussion rather than polarization of opinions would seem to be the preferred approach.
Consideration of the matter of abortion can be made from differing aspects including moral, legal, and medical aspects. I wish to touch on some of the points in the area of morals. From the moral standpoint, I feel that since a human concep-tus is a human being from the moment of conception, it should receive the same respect as any other human being. Therefore, direct therapeutic abortion which removes it from its environment and therefore causes its death should not be contemplated except for the most serious reason.
That reason was stated a few moments ago by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) when he stated that only in the event of the death of the mother could one even consider an abortion. I would certainly support that position.
The conceptus contains all the genetic material which will constitute his or her person to the end of his or her days from the very moment of formation, that is, when the sperm unites with the ovum. He then has the indelible imprint of his individuality with the determination of such things as his skin and eye colour, approximate height and body build, ability in athletics and intellectual pursuits. He is a human being with potential from the moment of conception. He is not simply a potential human being, as some would lead us to believe.
During this discussion regarding the time of the actual beginning of human life, we consider the newborn baby to be human and by his nature have all the rights of a human person. Similarly, just before delivery the foetus, or the unborn baby, which is not essentially changed by the process of delivery, really has all the same rights to life. As we trace the development of that foetus day by day back to the time of its conception, there is no time at which we can say that today he is a human, yesterday he was not. Therefore, complete respect for his life must be maintained at all times.
* 0 740)
Some would say that true human life does not begin before the time of implantation in the uterus, about six days after
conception. Others would say that it cannot be said to exist until the possibility of twinning has passed which may occur until as late as day 20. These matters may be settled in the future, but possibly no definite decision will ever be made. Regardless of this decision, the point remains that abortions which are covered by the law, are performed at a much later date, and almost certainly are dealing with human life in the form of the conceptus. It is an accepted scientific fact that the conceptus is human with its unique genetic structure and is living as a distinct individual. Understanding this fact is fundamental to the whole discussion.
We have heard a good deal during the debate today and also in the unending debate that goes on regarding abortion concerning the pro-choice and the freedom of choice which individuals must have. With choice and with freedom comes responsibility. Any time that we are in any way diminishing that respect for life, and it certainly is done through abortions, then we, as a human race, are losing something.
Respect for life is one of the cornerstones of our civilization. Any assaults on humans who are already born result in severe penalties on the perpetrators. Yet many in our society condone the barbaric acts inflicted on unborn human beings. I invite anyone who doubts this to view some of the films that are available today-I will not go into naming them-dealing with abortion and watch the horror of abortion recorded in living colour. If a person can watch that film and maintain that there is no human being involved, then I think that person's mind is already closed to the facts. We cannot have a double standard. Either life is accepted as sacred for all society or society runs the risk of cheapening the value of human life.
There are some other very interesting arguments that have been brought forward. I would like to refer directly to some information made available from the Surgeon-General in the United States dealing with the post-abortion syndrome in that country. For years it has been thought that the unborn child was the only victim of abortion. We are finding out now from recent studies released that women who have abortions are also victims. There is an increasing body of evidence that now shows the post-abortion syndrome is fast becoming the most serious mental health issue facing women. The symptoms of post-abortion syndrome include denial, anger, guilt and depression. These problems in turn can lead to substance abuse, sexual dysfunction, relationship dysfunction and a general decrease in coping skills. Research has shown that up to 82 per cent of American women suffer from acute symptoms of post-abortion syndrome for up to three years following the abortion. Latent symptoms can manifest themselves five to 10 years following the abortion.
The Surgeon-General of the United States has recently authorized a study of post-abortion syndrome in the U.S. In Britain, the effects of abortion on women will be studied by a bipartisan Conservative-Labour committee. This is a new area about which we are only beginning to hear and it is one with which we must deal.
December 1, 1987

In summing up my remarks I strongly support the pro-life position. In fact, I have had this conviction throughout my entire life. There is no doubt in my mind that the unborn child, the foetus, whatever term you want to refer to it, is simply that term. It is the same as referring to a pre-schooler, an adolescent, a teenager, a middle-aged person or a senior citizen. It just happens to be a time at a particular stage of development.
I feel very strongly about this issue because the unborn cannot speak for themselves. It is incumbent upon those of us who are elected to represent the people of our areas to stand up and proclaim the necessity to respect all human life and to oppose any change in the abortion laws and any change in making abortions more readily available.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the chance to speak on Bill C-208 sponsored by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I have great respect for his judgment in a number of areas but on this particular Bill we differ totally.
Let me read again the purpose of the Bill:
The purpose of this Bill is to recognize that the fundamental decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the woman concerned in consultation with her physician. At present, the Criminal Code requires the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees and in most parts of Canada accredited hospitals have refused to set up such committees thus, in fact, denying many women access to safe legal abortions.
This Bill would abolish therapeutic abortion committees and would allow qualified medical practitioners to perform abortions without having to obtain prior authorization from such committees.
The previous speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) stressed respect for life. That is my theme also. I do not think anyone is totally comfortable with the laws as they now stand. I for one would greatly regret it if the current laws were liberalized.
Speaking very personally, in our own family some 20 years ago-we had three children at the time-we decided that a fourth child should be an adopted one. We adopted young John Fraser. He was 11 months old. His mother was a young woman who had one other child and who was unable financially to handle an additional child. We brought that 10 pound youngster home, blond hair at the time-our other three were redheads-and we were so proud to love him, hug him and bring him along. It struck me so many times over the last 20 years that if abortion laws had been a lot more liberal then his birth mother might very well have sought an easy means from whatever was in her heart and mind at that time and we would not have had the privilege of raising that young man who is now 20 years old. There are many other families like this.
My sister who resides in Peterborough and her husband were not able to have a child and adopted two many years ago. They are both in their twenties now. Many members of our church have done the same thing. If for hardship or for other reasons a mother does not want to go through with her pregnancy, there are Canadians who would welcome a baby and be very joyous to have it. The one major qualification I put on the whole process, and I think it is inherent in our
Abortion
current laws, if the mother's life is at stake, then I think the mother's life comes first. Everyone does not share that particular view, but it is one I share.
I wanted to speak on this Bill to share personally why I could not support further liberalization of the whole process. I could go on with other points but perhaps in the interests of other Members who want to speak on this Bill I will end my remarks. It is with some regret that in a way I differ with my colleague but I do so from the bottom of my heart on this particular issue.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to speak about Bill C-208, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), sponsored by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
Of course, Mr. Speaker, this a topical issue, and will always be so, and it is also extremely sensitive because it is so personal. Without being directly related to any other debate in this House, such as the debate on the death penalty, it remains a matter of personal definition, attitude and psychology.
Discussing a Bill such as that introduced by the Hon. Member for Burnaby is something I find essential not only for each of us as Members of this House, but also for the Canadian population and especially for the couple or the woman who has to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
Before making such a decision, Mr. Speaker, we also have to look at the situation in which such a decision would be made and at the personal, psychological, emotional and economic context.
Mr. Speaker, how many women, how many young couples, how many young women would have opted for an abortion had there been therapeutic abortion clinics at every street corner? Because of their economic situation, it is often young women of 17, 18 or 20 without much financial resources and whose spouse or partner is still in school who would have decided to go immediately to the nearest abortion clinic. But then, they decided not to do so, Mr. Speaker. Then, when the child is born, there is a radical change in the life of both parents. The birth of the child brings a new awareness and new responsibilities as parents. How many of these parents are happy because they now have what is most precious in this world, a child? These men and women accept their responsibilities as parents in spite of all the obstacles and difficulties they will have to face in life, especially when they are young. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is not easy at 20, 21 or 22, when you are still in school, to face responsibilities and take care of a child. They nevertheless possess something even more precious than all natural resources in the world, a child.
In that context, Mr. Speaker, it is much more difficult, and how many more examples .. . There is no problem when the

December 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
mother's health is at risk, but there are so many cases, so many different examples. How can we generalize readily when confronted with something like that and in particular, Mr. Speaker, make that operation even more easy to obtain. How many young girls who discover through their doctors or with a simple drugstore test that they are pregnant would go right away to an abortion clinic, without even telling their parents and supposedly to save their family honour, with possible consequences, Mr. Speaker, traumas for the rest of their lives!
I could go on for a long time, but I want to allow other Members of this House to speak on that question. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill, however commendable, is still premature, and each one of us must examine his or her conscience and consult again even more closely with the Canadian people on that very serious subject.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am please to rise on Bill C-208, especially at this time when our values, the values that we have inherited from the previous generation, are questioned by many. Personally, I would be inclined to vote for this Bill. However, I find that it would be very inappropriate to do so at this time because, while there are many statements being made concerning the sanctity of life, and the respect of the individual what is at stake here is justice. I believe there is presently a case being heard before the Superior Court and I believe the judicial process must be respected as well. Mr. Speaker, when the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) was debated in this House, 1 have stated that I was against that motion because we do not have the right as legislators to turn our children into criminals, or rather to put in our statute book legislations that will make it a criminal act to decide whether or not one want to have a child. And we do not have a right to introduce in our society a double standard, that is those who have the money to obtain an abortion abroad and those who do not have any money and who must put up with the situation or stand to be prosecuted.
So in the name of justice I would like to indicate that yes, I would be favourable to this Bill. I would like the procedure to be made simpler, but I think that the present legislation is the result of a compromise, a compromise that is difficult to live with and 1 believe we have examples of this everyday in our daily life. That compromise . . . You know, the teacher in school would dearly like all the students to be at the same level. However, sometimes one must be humble enough to take people as they are and not as one would like them to be. The apprenticeship of freedom is an ongoing process.
So in that context I believe the compromise that presently exists deserves to be lived with and to be debated and after that, there will be an opportunity to discuss it further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on November 17, 1987, I questioned the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) with regard to Canada's efforts to halt the persecution of the Baha'i community in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Since that time I have received more information to indicate that the fate of the Baha'i community in general, and of 17 individuals in particular, is in grave danger.
The evidence I have received seems to indicate that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran is engaging in a long-term plan to terminate believers of the Baha'i faith. Over 200 Baha'is have been murdered or executed since 1979. There are currently over 10,000 homeless Baha'is in Iran who have been terrorized through the seizure of their properties and the dismantling of their educational and religious organizations. Indeed, the Baha'is have been described by the highest levels of the Iranian Government as being "unclean infidels, worthy of death for their beliefs".
The Baha'i faith was established in the 1840s and members of this faith have lived in Iran since its formation. The Baha'is have been the target of severe discrimination and persecution under all regimes in Iran. I am extremely concerned, as are many of my colleagues in the House of Commons, with the situation of the Baha'is in Iran since the current regime came to power in 1979 after the revolution. The statistics I have seen are staggering.
There are approximately 300,000 members of the Baha'i faith in Iran yet their Government refuses to recognize them as a religious minority. As a result, Baha'is are denied every human right. According to documentation I have received from the department of public affairs of the Baha'i community of Canada, the Baha'i religious minority has no protection under Iranian law of their personal status. They are routinely deprived of their inheritances, business licences, and education solely because of their religious beliefs. The denial of any individual's human rights is something which Canadians find repugnant. The situation in Iran is particularly distressing because, although Iran is a co-signator to the international covenant on civil and political rights and has stated that the covenant is compatible with Islamic law, it is guilty of severe violations of guaranteed rights.
The Baha'i community in Iran suffers terribly because of its religious beliefs. All of their holy places and religious sites
December 1, 1987

have allegedly been confiscated and many, including the holiest Baha'i shrine, have been totally destroyed.
The Secretary General of the United Nations presented an interim report dated October 12, 1987, on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. This report was prepared by Reynolds Galindo Fahl of El Salvador in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1987/55 of March 11, 1987.
I want to quote some excerpts concerning the treatment of members of the Baha'i community as follows:
All the persons appearing before the special representative stated they had spent periods of various duration in prisons in Iran and consequently they described in detail the circumstances of their arrest, their interrogation methods, their trial and the conditions prevailing in the prisons in which they were held. Several of them affirmed that they had close relatives or acquaintances who were executed, or had themselves witnessed executions.
With regard to right to life I quote from page 7 as follows:
Mr. Javad Keshavas stated that he had witnessed numerous executions in Vakilabad Prison near Mashad. Among those whose execution he witnessed were a 16-year-old youth, Akbar Adalatian, and a woman together with her young son. Another youth from Mashad was executed in the prison by hanging from a crane.
With regard to the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, I quote from page 7 as follows:
All the persons who appeared before the special representative alleged having been subjected to ill treatment and to physical and psychological torture.
Beating often started upon arrest. It was, however, during their interrogation that these persons allegedly suffered the most severe forms of torture, including flogging with cables on all parts of the body, denial of food and sleep, torture of one's spouse before one's eyes and mock executions.
With regard to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of expression I quote from page 12 as follows:
Baha'i cemeteries allegedly continued to be desecrated and closed. In many cities, including Tehran, Rasht, Tunikaban and others, the Baha'is had difficulty burying their dead.
The right to leave Iran legally was allegedly still denied to Baha'is who were allegedly required to recant their faith in order to obtain a passport and exit permit.
It is interesting to note that the Iranian Government has denied all the allegations in the 22-page report without specifically referring to any of them. As you can see from the excerpts of the interim report at the United Nations, the situation in Iran is urgent.
Since 1979, an average of 700 Baha'i have been imprisoned annually. According to the most recent information, there are currently over 250 Baha'is imprisoned in Iran. Prison conditions are reported to be horrendous. Many prisoners are tortured physically and psychologically. They are all in grave danger.
Adjournment Debate
On September 28, 1987, in Tehran, two Baha'is, Amir-Husayn Nadiri and Ardishir Akhtari were executed. Both of these men were dismissed from their jobs and imprisoned in 1984 because of their religious beliefs. They are the most recent of over 200 Baha'is executed under the current regime for refusing to recant their religion.
On October 21, 1987, five Baha'is were arrested and imprisoned in Tehran. Their names have been added to a list of 12 others who are believed to be in imminent danger of execution.
Two of these men, Mr. Jamalu Din Khanjani and Mr. Hasan Mahbubi were members of the former National Spiritual Assembly, the elected national governing body of the Baha'i community in Iran, which was banned by the Islamic regime in 1983.
The Baha'i followers are a tolerant, loving people who want to practice their faith without persecution. I want to quote some remarks written by Mr. Khuzayn of Hamadan from prison before his execution on June 14, 1981:
It is now 11 p.m. We have been transferred from the prison to the court premises. They are about to execute all seven of us. Praised be God, we are all in the utmost submission to His will and we are most content.
He went on to say:
I beseech your prayers. I hope that our insignificant blood will water the blessed tree of the cause of God, that the faith will soon gain its independence and the Baha'is of Iran their freedom, and that our future generations will be able to serve the cause with the greatest comfort.
I am pleased to report that this United Nations resolution condemning Iran, which was co-sponsored by us, was passed with a strong majority of the third committee. Fifty-eight members voted for the resolution. It is expected that the General Assembly will vote on this important resolution later this week.
There are over 20,000 members of the Baha'i faith in Canada and they have expressed their deep appreciation for the continued efforts of the Government on behalf of their sister community in Iran.
It is interesting to note that one-quarter of Canadian Baha'is are native Indians and Eskimos.
We must make every effort to ensure that all Baha'is in Iran are granted their full rights and urge that the 17 individuals' lives be spared. The discrimination, persecution and execution of the Baha'is solely for their religious beliefs must stop and Canada must continue to speak out vigorously to condemn the human rights violations occurring in Iran.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this additional question. In fact, in my capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, one of the first charges d'affaires I received happened to be the Iranian charge d'affaires, who wanted to ask Canada to reopen its embassy in Teheran, which

December 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
had been closed as a result of certain events which I am sure those who were in the Elouse of Commons at the time will remember even more vividly than I do. The answer was no, because Iran's condition was that we would apologize for our actions at the time, which was of course unthinkable. One does not apologize for saving lives.
Mr. Speaker, the situation in Iran today is indeed of great concern to Canada. We have had reports of arrests without cause, cases of torture and arbitrary executions, and also of discrimination against this community over there.
Mr. Speaker, we are taking action on two levels. First of all, and the Hon. Member has already mentioned this, we are sponsoring a resolution before the United Nations on human rights in Iran. The fact we are sponsoring this resolution proves how seriously we are taking this matter.
Second, we are sending firm and clear messages, which have been communicated twice during the past month to the Iranian charge d'affaires, to the effect that human rights should be respected.
Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, Canada is now urging Iran to abide by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which that country is a signatory. Canada is appealing to the Iranian authorities to show compassion for the members of the Baha'i faith who are now being held in prison.


CANADA POST CORPORATION-RURAL POST OFFICES-REQUEST
[Stage Direction]
FOR HALT TO CLOSURES/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on October 26, I asked the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation whether he would order the Corporation to stop all closures of rural post offices.
For about one year, we asked many questions about this and were always told that the Canada Post Corporation had a ten-year plan to close rural post offices. This plan was finally made public not too long ago. There is even a manual on how to close a rural post office which clearly indicates that Canada Post will avoid any participation in public assemblies and consultations on the eventual closing of post offices.
A committee of this House has examined the whole issue. I sat on this committee and we heard many witnesses from various parts of this country. These witnesses clearly underlined the importance of rural post offices. They are a means of communications and 80 per cent of the people who work in these post offices are women. Rural post offices are a major source of employment for women, and we all know how much money the Canadian Government spends on job programs each year. If we have permanent jobs which must be protected and which provide an essential service, why are we at the same time eliminating jobs and creating an awful fear in our rural communities?
Last week, I visited the rural constituency of Portneuf, in Quebec, where the post office is not being threatened by closure, but there was still a public meeting where people came and expressed the fear that their office would be closed one day or another. The Canada Post Corporation was not represented at the meeting. The Corporation is incredibly arrogant, which angers the population. The committee to which I referred earlier had specifically recommended that, before closing post offices, there be real consultation, and that if the local population, including the elected representatives, concludes that the post office must remain open, the Canada Post Corporation respect the will of the community.
The committee also said that, during the minimum 90-day consultation period, the Canada Post Corporation should listen to the various solutions proposed by the local population instead of saying: Your post office will be closed and here is what you will get.
We therefore have a serious national problem, Mr. Speaker. The Canada Post Corporation is following its own plan, simply informing the public without having consultations, and the Minister still lets the Corporation do as it pleases. I cannot accept this, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I wanted to say this evening that I disagree with the way the Minister is letting the Canada Post Corporation do whatever it wants. We have a Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation and he should see to it that all Canadians have the postal service to which they are entitled.

I know, Mr. Speaker, your home town is Edmonton. I have here a copy of the Edmonton Examiner. There is an article entitled "Supermailbox angers residents". It concerns a resident who bought a house two years ago because he was sure he would have door to door mail delivery. Now, all of a sudden, he finds out he has to go to a supermailbox to pick up his mail. That man and his wife feel like second-class citizens. They pay the same taxes as everyone else. They invested their money to buy a new home, and created jobs by buying a new house. They are being penalized by this Canada Post plan.
The same article says there is no consultation. All of a sudden people wake up in the morning and see someone digging a hole for the supermailboxes. I have the same problem in my own riding. Everywhere there is new residential construction, we are facing what is almost a revolution. How long is the Government of Canada going to allow Canada Post to act with arrogance and install the supermailboxes anywhere it wants to, whether it is in front of a garage, a house, on private property or municipal property? This is incredible. We have to stop it, and soon, because Canadians cannot take any more.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon.
December 1, 1987

Member should check a study carried out by Canada Post which shows that 93 per cent of its customers are satisfied with the super- boxes. That something!
I think that the Hon. Member who sits in the Opposition is doing his job, but the fact remains Mr. Speaker, that times have changed and the services of ten years ago are no longer required today.
Today, Mr. Speaker, life for couples is made easier especially when both spouses are working. Therefore business hours must reflect this new factor which alters the situation which existed previously when we had to go to the Post Office between such and such business hours.
Within most communities, Mr. Speaker, there is a post office operated by Canada Post employees and, in several cases, the locations of these post offices were selected sometimes 10, 15 or even 20 years ago. Today, the needs of the market place and all of that have changed.
The operating costs of some of these offices may absorb nearly all their revenues and even more, which leaves practically no funds to cover other costs.
Mr. Speaker, we should remember that it is the Liberals when they were in power who created the Canada Post Corporation and they should show some consistency. The policies put forward by the former Liberal Government are those which the present Government is trying to implement, since the Marchment Committee insisted that it should go ahead with the Canada Post Corporation.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I can say that in all the regions where the Canada Post Corporation has made changes, it was done after consultation with the communities, their elected representatives and the people who now really enjoy their superboxes and could no longer do without them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-HAITI-MASSACRE OF CITIZENS- CANADIAN REACTION
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of State for External Relations concerning the tragic incidents in Haiti, and 1 am glad to see that the departmental Parliamentary Secretary will answer me today.

The whole world was repelled by the stark tragedy that beset the island of Haiti last Saturday night and Sunday morning. We are told that 34 people were killed, 60 injured, for no greater offence than making their way to the polls to cast their franchise in an election that they thought would give birth to democracy in their long exploited, tyrannized republic.
When polling began at 8.30, little could they know that murder was about to strike, and that a scant 30 minutes later the polls would be closed.
Adjournment Debate
We have just concluded an hour debating abortion. A social political abortion took place in Haiti when an embryonic democracy was torn from the womb of possibility and left to die. The blood of men and women was flowing in the streets literally without exaggeration.
This calls for immediate action, because it was not done by criminals alone; there seemed to be a conspiracy of at least silence and indifference, if not more.
For example, General Namphy, the head of the Provisional Government did nothing to stop the campaign violence that had been directed against candidates, members of the electoral council, and random citizens. He refused to provide protection or assistance to election workers to ensure a fair enumeration or the proper distribution of ballots.
The army did not support the election, did not provide security for candidates or election officials, and reneged on a promise to provide helicopters to deliver ballots. It roamed the streets not to protect, but to cast the shadow of a callous indifference upon those who were under attack, until the murder was finished and the pathetic body of democracy in Haiti lay dead.
The United States immediately cancelled aid to Haiti. I have asked for this adjournment debate because we in Canada should be responding with the same action and concern, not necessarily with the specifics, but effecting our aid program and using it to at least demonstrate as a country through Parliament and Government that we join the civilized world in both expressing our revulsion and in taking any action open to us.
We have been told in the House that we must wait, that we must seek further information, and then we can appraise the situation. I asked for this brief adjournment debate because I have to renew the question, what are we waiting for? How much information does the Government need? Is there any doubt that the people are dead? Is there any doubt that the elections were cancelled? Is there any doubt that the military are still on top?
Via television we have seen with our own eyes the bodies prostrate on the ground, prostrate in the streets, prostrate in the polling booths. How much more do we need to know? Along with those dead bodies democracy is dead. Can we be silent? For example, must we not go to the United Nations to express and call upon it to express the revulsion of the civilized world for this is indeed a crime against humanity. It would not be an idle gesture for no government, not even the Government of Haiti, can totally ignore world opinion. The UN should show that the November 29 massacre will not be accepted in silence. This crime against humanity will not go unjudged. These murderers will be punished.
I asked for this debate for a further opportunity to bring to the floor of the House of Commons, before the highest court in the land of Canada, this crime to be judged, to call forth from

December 1, 1987
Adjournment Debate
this Parliament, from this Government, an action that is appropriate to us.
It has been suggested with sincerity and with some reason that we should endeavour to seek new elections, to use the arm of the United Nations to establish such new elections. I submit that such a gesture would be premature until the security of candidates and voters can be assured. A jungle is no place for an election. That is precisely what Haiti wants this weekend with wild beasts in the form of men roaming the streets, devouring those who went about the business of trying to give birth to a democracy.
Once more I bring before this House of Commons the plea that the dead shall not have died in vain but that their blood may call forth the entire civilized world to join together in putting pressure on what passes for a Government in that sorry land and to demand that steps be taken to secure what was aborted.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the two questions which have been raised this evening during this additional question period are very topical, and I have to say that we are deeply concerned over current events in both Iran and Haiti. The situation is dramatic since the Haitian election was cancelled, and department officials are now keeping a close watch on this drama.
As I am speaking, the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) is waiting for a detailed report from our ambassador in Haiti who earlier today was in touch with the President of the National Council of the Government of Haiti. The ambassador is expected to report at the earliest opportunity.
Our ambassador had been asked by the Minister for External Relations to convey to President Namphy, in no uncertain terms, our deep deception as a result of the cancellation of the election, as well as our indignation with respect to the circumstances which brought about this decision. The ambassador was to remind the president how imperative it is to
honour his commitments, as defined during his intervention late Sunday afternoon. The president did promise he would act quickly and take the measures required to hold another election by February 1988 at the latest.
The Canadian Government wants to voice its concern with respect to the individuals who set up the interim electoral council or lent their support. In light of the first reports sent by our observer mission, Canada believes that the interim electoral council had lived up to the challenge of finalizing the organizing of election based on the most democratic criteria, in the particularly difficult historical and social circumstances in Haiti. It is therefore imperative that these people be able to return rapidly to normal living conditions if they so wish and at the forthcoming election, and our ambassador has expressed this message in the clearest terms.
Mr. Speaker, should the legally constituted Haitian government fail to take constructive steps to restore the situation, there might be a possibility, as the distinguished Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) indicated yesterday, that Canada, along with other nations, would refer the matter to the international courts involved. Keeping in mind Haiti's tormented history, already bearing the scars of colonial times and foreign interventions, Canada still expresses first and foremost the sincere hope that a solution may indeed be found within the Haitian community itself.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about suspending our assistance, and the suspension of American assistance has been cited as an example. I would remind these people, with full respect for our fellow Canadians of Haitian origin, that the American assistance is military assistance. Ours is strategic assistance designed to help the Haitian people restore the kind of unblemished democracy they deserve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, December 2, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers