1987-10-29

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Reports of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of people in Alberta communities, including Grande Prairie, Valleyview, Spirit River and Wembley.
These petitioners are concerned that the federal Government's White Paper on Taxation includes tax reform that would still permit 60,000 profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all and they draw to the attention of Parliament that the federal Government is still planning to levy a tax on food and other essential items through a national sales tax and is also failing to provide full indexation to the personal tax system.
Therefore, they call upon the Government of Canada to reject these proposals and especially reject a tax on food. They are asking consideration for the restoration of full indexation to the personal tax system.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a certified petition from a number of Canadian citizens in a number of locations across Canada pointing out that in February, 1985, the Government ordered the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to prepare a report on equality rights in Canada. In October of that year, the subcommittee on equality rights submitted a report to the House recommending that the Canadian Human Rights Act be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all areas under federal jurisdiction, including the RCMP and Canadian Armed Forces and in age of consent legislation.
In March, 1986, the Government accepted this report and its recommendations, saying it would take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Government has yet to introduce significant legislation acting upon these recommendations supported by the Government.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament act to implement the recommendations contained in the report.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a large number of petitions from the riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, from Western Quebec, Ontario, the South Shore and Vancouver, totalling several hundred signatures.
Your petitioners humbly inform the House that Canada Post's new corporate plan has created two classes of citizens by installing its super boxes in urban and rural areas; that closing rural post offices deprives Canadians of a unique federal presence and reduces postal services that are vital to rural areas; and that rate increases, especially for second class mail, jeopardize the distribution by mail of many newspapers, weeklies, regional papers, magazines and religious publications.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan and urge the Corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without exception.

October 29, 1987
Petitions
REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ROY^L ASSENT TO BILL C-22


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour and privilege to present a duly certified petition on behalf of residents of Edmonton, Alberta, most of whom are employed in the pharmaceutical industry. The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Senate stops delaying the passage of vitally important legislation, namely, Bill C-22.
The petitioners clearly state their desire for the House of Commons, the duly elected body representing the Canadian people, which has passed amendments to the Patent Act, to urge the Senate to stop its stalling tactics in order for the benefits of Bill C-22 to be realized. More than $100 million and several hundred high technology jobs will benefit the Alberta economy. The petitioners are anxious to benefit from the medical advances the legislation will create and they urge immediate Royal Assent of the legislation.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the petition 1 am tabling today was signed by residents of Ville Saint-Laurent, Westmount, Saint-Leonard, Ville Mont-Royal, Pierrefonds, Saint-Hubert and Montreal North. Your petitioners deplore the fact that in 1986 over
100,000	people were homeless in Canada; that the number of young people, women and entire families who are homeless is increasing steadily; that the amount of affordable accommodation is still declining; and that the Government has yet to do anything to deal with this problem.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to take immediate action, so that all Canadians will be housed in accommodation that is sanitary and adequate and to introduce social adjustment programs to help these Canadians in need back into the mainstream of Canadian society.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition signed by approximately 525 residents of Metropolitan Toronto who are concerned that the Canadian Embassy in Ecuador has been opened and closed twice in the past 10 years and is now closed, causing hardship to many people seeking visitor or immigration visas to Canada, particularly because the waiting time for an interview at Bogota, the nearest consular point in Colombia, would be about six months.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to express support for the reopening of the Canadian Embassy in Ecuador and to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reverse the decision
to close the embassy. As in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a number of people in Metropolitan Toronto who are concerned that Bill C-55 threatens Canada's traditional commitment to assisting refugees and sets out measures designed to keep most refugee claimants out of the country as opposed to ensuring that genuine refugee claimants are given protection.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament will withdraw Bill C-55 and substitute legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of the claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the immigration commission, universal access to these hearings for every applicant in Canada and the right to appeal on the basis of fact. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House of Commons and Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents of Canada, at Wilno, Ontario, now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your House will therefore provide a remedy, and relevantly declares that the Canada Post Corporation has already started reducing services in certain rural areas of Canada.
The Canada Post Corporation intends to continue systematically to close an important number of post offices in small municipalities. The population is firmly opposed to any reduction in the postal personnel and the normal services to which the rural citizens are entitled. The population does not accept and will not accept at any time that the small communities be penalized by the planned reductions.
For those reasons they ask Parliament to give an immediate answer to their request regarding the fact that their rural communities will not have to suffer any form of discrimination to the quality of their postal services. They ask that Parliament agree that the rural municipalities will not be penalized by the closing of their post offices.
They finally ask that the rural communities which have already been badly affected by the reductions will recover the complete postal services to which they were accustomed. The fight for the Wilno post office is the fight of every rural community in Canada. They want to retain those services.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), a senior Member of this place, has presented, as is his right, a petition on behalf of certain Canadians with respect to certain matters. However, I would
October 29, 1987

ask Elon. Members to keep in mind that it has been traditional here, and 1 think it is appropriate, that while some remarks are made giving us some indication of what the subject matter of a petition is, it is not customary to go through the entire petition.
I am sure all Elon. Members would want to co-operate with the Chair on this matter.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a very large number of constituents from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Actually, there are 745 signatures. This petition is in addition to a previous petition signed by 250 residents which I tabled in this Elouse. That comes to a grand total of 995 petitioners.
These people are very concerned with internal documents of CN Rail which suggest that this corporation wants to shut down the Alexandria subdivisions in my constituency and the Alderdale subdivision in the riding so well represented by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). The petitioners are asking for the Parliament of Canada and the Government to ensure that the Alderdale, Beachburg and Alexandria subdivisions of CN Rail remain open so that the constituency I represent and the constituency the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke represents, can keep on having train service so that our industries can continue to prosper. Without this, our areas will be in serious financial difficulty.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a few petitions from people in New Brunswick who are opposed to Canada Post's new corporate plan which creates two classes of citizens by installing super boxes on a permanent basis, both in urban and rural areas.

The people all over the province of New Brunswick are extremely concerned. They are asking that the Government reject the corporate plan proposed by Canada Post Corporation and instruct the corporation to proceed with mail delivery to all Canadian taxpayers without discrimination.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the petitions I would like to submit this morning are from a number of citizens in many communities in Ontario, including Scarborough, Agincourt, Don Mills, and Pickering. The petitioners protest the plan on the part of the Government to close rural post offices and ask the Government to reconsider such a decision because of the negative consequences that decision would have.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling, pursuant to
Order Paper Questions
Standing Order 106, a petition that is one in a series of several dozen similar petitions which I have seen as my duty to table, and this petition reads as follows:
Whereas since September, 1984, tlie federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life and the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, low-income taxpayers and youth;
wherefore the undersigned petitionners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has received a request from the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that we revert back to presenting reports from committees. The Hon. Member was unable at that time to present the report. The Chair would ask if the Hon. Member has consent of the House to do that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If it was anybody else in the House of Commons I would say yes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 156, 183, 190, 199 and 201


Mr. de Jong: For the period April 27, 1986 to March 19, 1987, did (a) Chasse Inc. (b)
Imprimerie Interglobe Ltee (c) Les Fibres de Verre Crorak Inc. (d)
Equipements Industriels de Beauce (e) Acrylica Inc. (/) Creations Meduse
Inc. (g) Telesystem National Ltee (h) Gestofor Inc. (/) Les Industries
Rancourt Ltee (/') Tisbek Vertical Ltee (k) Solarco Inc. (/) Les Industriel
Paquet Ltee (m) Wilfred Paquet et Fils Ltee (n) Carold Pichette et Fils Ltee
(0)	Les Rotisseries de Cafe de Quartier Inc. (p) Clermond Hamel Ltee (q)
Boa Franc Ltee (r) Beton Bolduc Inc. (5) Les Constructions Beauce-Atlas Inc.
(1)	La Chemise Lapointe Inc. (u) Les Industries Unik Inc. (v) Les Industries

October 29, 1987
Order Paper Questions
P.B.L. Inc. (w) Sovebois Inc. (x) Les Sechoirs Montmorency Inc. (>>) La Compagnie de Machinerie Rennel Inc. (z) Decalco Inc. (aa) Les Moulures Begin Ltee (bb) Enerco Fibre Inc. (cc) Bomem Inc. (dd) Pro-Pac Ltee qualify for financial assistance under the Industrial and Regional Development Program (IRDP) and, if so (i) what were the specific criteria under which it qualified and has it met the criteria (ii) has it received the full amount of the financial contribution?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: For the period April 27, 1986 to March 19, 1987 all of the above-mentioned companies, with the exception of Bomem Inc., have accepted an offer of financial assistance under the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
(i) In order to qualify for financial assistance under the Industrial and Regional Development Program, the projects submitted must meet the program criteria listed below: -the elegibility of projects is determined in accordance with the Industrial and Regional Development Act and Regulations;- assistance is strictly reserved for projects which, for reasons involving their site, scope, or scheduling, could not be imple-
Period	Recipient
Sept. 4 1984 to March 31, 1985	4 Individuals
April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986	5 Individuals
April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986	David Rubben
April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986	University of Toronto
April 1, 1985 to March 31, 1986	York University
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987	9 Individuals
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987	Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987	University of Toronto
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987	York University
April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987	Native Business Summit Foundation
April 1, 1987 to date	20 Individuals
April 1, 1987 to date	University of Toronto
April 1, 1987 to date	York University
Total of Grants	
Only one loan was approved in Metropolitan Toronto, under the Indian Economic Development Fund, on February 2, 1987 for Northern Hides Incorporated in the amount of $75,000 for Hide Collection Program Marketing.


Mr. Henderson: mented without outside support;-the project must be considered commercially viable within reasonable bounds of risk; and-the project and the exploitation of the results of the project must represent significant economic benefit to Canada.
(ii) None of the companies mentioned have received the full amount of financial assistance. The terms of payments are detailed in Section XII of the Regulations on the Industrial and Regional Development Program.
DIND-GRANTS AND/OR LOANS TO METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA

Question No. 183-Mr. Redway:
Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The department made grant payments since September 1984 as follows:
	Amount	Purpose
$	253.00	Mobility and Occupational Skills Training
	500.00	Mobility and Occupational Skills Training
$	1,750.00	Cultural Grant
	5,700.00	Northern Science Training Program
	46,000.00	Northern Science Training Program
	1,700.00	Mobility and Occupational Skills Training
	24,500.00	Northern Science Training Program
	56,500.00	Northern Science Training Program
	47,000.00	Northern Science Training Program
	1,500,000.00	Native Trade Show
	1,790.69	Mobility and Occupational Skills Training
	48,000.00	Northern Science Training Program
	40,000.00	Northern Science Training Program
$	1,773,693.69	
1.	In (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (4) 1987 to date was the Business Excellence Awards ceremony, sponsored by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, held and, if so, on what date and in which location?
2.	For the same years, (a) did the Department of Supply and Services issue the request for proposals for the staging and video-taping of the Awards ceremony and, if so (i) on what date (ii) how many firms submitted proposals (b) did the department award the contract and, if so (i) on what date (ii) on what date was the successful firm notified (iii) what was the value of the contract?
October 29, 1987

3.	In (a) 1985 (b) 1986 (c) 1987 to date, were contracts relating to audiovisual productions awarded to Steve Shaw Productions of Toronto by the department and, if so, how many?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Industrial Expansion and Supply and Services as follows:
Order Paper Questions WELL DRILLINGS OFF ATLANTIC COAST


Mr. Howie: 1.	From January 1, 1986 to date, how many drillings have been carried out off the Atlantic coast in search of oil pools?
2.	How many of these drillings found an oil pool large enough for future oil production there to be financially feasible?
3.	What is the anticipated yield, in barrels, of these oil reserves?
1.	The presentations for the Canada Awards for Business Excellence were held in the following cities and on the dates indicated below:
1984	Toronto	May 251985	Montreal	November 51986	Vancouver	October 91987	Halifax	September 22ily and Services awarded	four audio-visual production contracts for the Business Excellence Awards ceremony over the past four years:1984	(a) A request for proposal was sent out April 26 to five companies; three responded, (b) A contract was signed for $20,000 on June 14; the winning firm was notified of its selection May 25.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. During the period January 1, 1986 to September 29, 1987, a total of 24 wells were drilled off the Atlantic coast. Fifteen of these may be regarded as exploratory wells in search of new oil and gas; the remaining nine were delineations of existing discoveries.
2.	& 3. Under Section 101, subsection 7, of the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, tow years must pass from the well termination date before information or documentation in respect of an exploratory well can be released. Also, such information would not include an estimate of oil reserves in a particular field as it would require an interpretation of data which might prove prejudicial to commercial interests.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1985	(a) No request for proposal was issued because by the time the decision to use an audio-visual presentation was made, there was not enough time to do a request for proposal. A supplier was sole sourced based on guidelines, (b) A contract was signed for $36,739 on October 16. An amendment for $6,000 additional work was signed February 17, 1986.
1986	(a) A request for proposal was sent out June 23 to eight companies; three responded, (b) A contract was signed for $44,895 on August 12; the winning firm was notified of its selection July 16. The contract was amended for $1,000 additional work on December 12.
1987	(a) A request for proposal was sent out June 25 to five companies; all five responded, (b) A contract was signed for $69,660 on August 18; the winner was notified of its selection on July 13.
Not all four contracts were for staging and videotaping. The audio-visual productions evolved over the four years from a simple slide show transferred to videotape to a complex multiimage presentation including slides, videotape, master of ceremonies, staging, and original award presentation music.
3.	In fiscal years (1985-1986) (1986-1987) and this fiscial year to date, five contracts have been awarded to Steve Shaw Productions for audio-visual presentations. All five contracts were competitive.
Since 1970, has the government investigated the feasibility of building a parking garage for visitors to Parliament Hill and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what was the result and for what reason is there still no visitors' parking on the Hill?


Hon. Stewart  Mclnnis@Minister of Public Works: In so
far as Public Works Canada is concerned:
A traffic and parking study for downtown Ottawa and the Parliamentary Precinct was undertaken by Public Works Canada and the National Capital Commission in March, 1982. The consultant was M.M. Dillon Ltd. (Reference Summary report #7 by NCC/PWC). The purpose of the study was to identify traffic patterns and volumes to assist in the future development of the Parliamentary Precinct. As this was essentially a planning study, no proposals for a parking garage for visitors were made.
A long-range development study by NCC and PWC is under way to develop and integrated approach for possible locations for new buildings, pedestrian circulation, traffic, and parking structures in a manner which would be appropriate to the heritage importance and character of Parliament Hill.
The over-all administration of parking is the responsibility of the Speakers of the Senate and House of Commons.


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

October 29, 1987
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: that Bill C-75, an Act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to bring to the attention of the House that it is sometimes difficult for Members of Parliament to prepare for debate when the Order Paper published for the good conduct of business of the House is changed at the last minute by the Government. I object strongly to that procedure because it is difficult enough for Members to cover committees of the House without having somebody playing games with the agenda of the House.
1 see this morning that we have on the Order Paper a motion to resume debate on Bill C-46, a motion of the Minister of Supply and Services. I have in place my spokesperson, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), who is able and willing and able to proceed with this motion. I see that the Government has changed the order to Bill C-75. I find that not only unfair but totally not in keeping with the normal proceedings of this House. I object strongly, Mr. Speaker, to this procedure being undertaken by the Government in the future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise in reply to the same point of order.
The offices of both Parties were informed early this morning, I would say about 9.30 a.m., to the effect that we would not be proceeding with Bill C-46 but that instead we would proceed with the back-up legislation from yesterday, legislation which is very important to the Province of Nova Scotia, which was unfortunately held up yesterday-I would not say longer than necessary but by a longer than planned debate on Bill C-46. Therefore we are going to proceed with second reading of Bill C-75 today.
Both Parties were informed that this would happen at 11 a.m. We think that we should be able to get through that
quickly and send it off to a legislative committee and then proceed with Bill C-87.
I appreciate that my hon. friend is inconvenienced, but we did try to notify the offices as soon as possible. Naturally, we try to stick to the projected order of business wherever possible. I am sorry if there was any inconvenience, but we did notify the offices at, I would say, approximately 9.30 a.m.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to indicate that while the Order Paper indicates that we will be discussing Bill C-46, legislation in respect of the Royal Canadian Mint Act, that the-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Projected order of business.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was the projected order of business. I simply want to indicate that there was an effort by the Deputy House Leader to inform the opposition Parties about 9.30 this morning that he was intending to change the order of business. Again, I just want to confirm that. Yes, an effort was made.
However, I want to take some issue with the point made by the Deputy House Leader that our debate on Bill C-46 was rather protracted. Rather, we have just started the debate on the Mint Act, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. Our representative from the New Democratic Party was simply making the case that we have to debate this at some length now because of the implications of free trade.
It would appear that the Government is now setting the stage to privatize the Mint which, of course, would then make it eligible for an American firm to purchase our Mint. We are very concerned that the United States might gain control of the Canadian Mint as a result of this legislation.
So I am simply saying to the Chair, who is concerned about the procedure and the work of the House, that we do not plan necessarily to expedite this debate in light of the free trade threat to the Mint of Canada.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am standing in my place to say a word on this matter because it does affect my privileges as a Member of this House, as it would other people in similar conditions.
We were proceeding with this matter yesterday and games were being played in here by the New Democratic Party. The Government moved yesterday to proceed with Government business and we had votes in the House yesterday afternoon over all these procedural matters. I can only say that I was prepared to speak yesterday. I am prepared to speak today.
As my Whip said, we have dozens of other things to do, yet we have to come in here which wastes the time of Members of the House of Commons. With our time as precious as it is to get our other work done I think it is totally unfair to be changing this at the last minute.
If we are going to have a good debate on the Mint, then let us go ahead and do it. But let us understand that we will do it
October 29, 1987

decently. Yesterday we were ready to proceed with this matter without any problem whatsoever. The NDP started moving motions and the Government tried to proceed with business. Really, Mr. Speaker, if the Canadian Mint were run the way that this House of Commons was run yesterday it would go broke.
I think that the Canadian people should know what kind of tactics are going on in the House of Commons. We are here to do work. We came here yesterday prepared to do work and then we ran into games all the afternoon. This Parliament is not for that purpose. This Parliament is to debate the issues of the nation and to say our piece, make our points and do the best we can in Opposition against the large number of government Members.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that if this keeps happening I am going to be on my feet every day opposing it. The Members of this House have a right to know what is definitely going to be on the Order Paper today, tomorrow, and so on. That is why we have consultation among House Leaders. If these commitments are changed on the spur of the moment then it disrupts all our own schedules that we have to go through in the day-to-day process.
All I ask is that we have fair play in the House, that Members know what the Government is going to do and that when we have debate we debate seriously.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Regarding the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I think the Hon. Member is aware, having been a Member of this House for a number of years, that the Government's prerogative to determine the orders of the day is absolute, and even if we do have this projected order of business, the Government may change the order at any time, without notice. I think the House is aware the Government gave notice to the Opposition this morning. I am sorry, but I will have to reject the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
[DOT] (U30)


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to again address this House to encourage the passage of Bill C-75 at second reading. It deals with the implementation of the agreement between the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing.
Moreover, this Bill contains certain measures from previous agreements which were retained and modified to make them consistent with the new agreement.
As this second reading will broaden the debate, it seems to me normal that the Minister responsible for this sector, who I
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
am representing today, should put forward the necessary information as a representative of the Government of Canada. The Minister together with his provincial counterpart will be responsible for enforcing the application of the Act which is under his responsibility.
I wish to discuss briefly the heart of the Bill. The passage of this Bill, which was tabled before the House for first reading on June 26, 1987, will enable the Government of Canada to respect its commitment to the Government of Nova Scotia whose corresponding provincial Act was passed on May 19, 1987. In fact, this legislation is mirror legislation to that passed by the Nova Scotia provincial Government on May 29, 1987. It will show the manifest solidarity of the Government of Canada with the Government of Nova Scotia in terms of the importance that we attach to the legislative framework within which resource exploitation will take place.
The accord which we seek to ratify today will replace the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement of 1982 on offshore petroleum and gas resource management and revenue sharing. This new accord contains several improvements, which I will discuss later in detail.
If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I will cite a few now. First, it will ratify the creation of an independent body to administer and regulate all aspects of offshore petroleum and gas activities. Second, it will modify the development fund so that $200 million will no longer be considered as a loan, but will now be considered as a grant. Third, it will authorize the payment of the sum of $25 million by the Government of Canada to Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. which will enable it to participate in the exploitation and development of offshore activities.
This agreement, which is intended to build on the Atlantic Accord, will give concrete form to a co-management concept which both levels of Government wish to make effective and efficient. Furthermore, it will be consistent with this Government's over-all approach to the management of eastern Canada's offshore resources.
When the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mulroney), signed the agreement on August 26, 1986, he correctly observed that, "This accord constitutes a clear improvement over the 1982 agreement, in that it makes Nova Scotia a full partner in the development of its offshore area".
As you can see once again, Mr. Speaker, the era of confrontation with the provinces, fueled in the past by the previous Government, is well and truly over. Only through co-operation, actively encouraged by this Government since September, 1984, will we build a strong and united Canada. The fundamental option that we took as a Government at that time means that today we can reap the fruit of our efforts, and make them work, not only for Nova Scotia but for Canada as a whole.
To achieve this end we have adopted the simple philosophical principle of Jules Lequier, "What one does, one

October 29, 1987
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
becomes ..." Therefore, we have not dragged our feet in energy matters; we have helped to bring harmony to a country that had been previously divided. One only has to be reminded of the national energy policy perpetrated on the country by the previous administration to understand what we mean when we talk about division.
I wish to discuss briefly the objectives of the agreement. The Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia have therefore agreed, through this accord, that the petroleum and gas resources of the offshore area must be developed in such a way as to harmonize the interests of all Canadians, particularly those in Nova Scotia, and that a durable and profitable socioeconomic infrastructure is essential.
The agreement is designed to establish a fair tax system and consistent administration of the petroleum resources which are based on the same principle of equity and parity that prevail with the other producing provinces, taking into account the special situation of the offshore area.
The sanction by Parliament of this Bill will endorse the development of the petroleum resources at the earliest opportunity, in the interest of both Governments, and will thus contribute to the security of our energy supplies. It will also confirm Nova Scotia as the principal beneficiary of the activities related to the petroleum resources, and will enable its Government, among other things, to see the benefit of the measures adopted, as if the resources were on land.
Finally, it will reaffirm the equality of the two levels of Government with respect to the actual management of the resources and the maximization of the economic and industrial benefits for Canada and Nova Scotia.
1 wish to discuss the key elements of the agreement. The Bill that we are proposing today takes into account the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, which deals with the management of petroleum rights, and which we passed earlier this year, as well as the Canada Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, which deals with the technical regulation of offshore petroleum activities.
As the provisions of the Crown share contained in the 1982 agreement with Nova Scotia were repealed in 1985, we negotiated with the provincial Government a new arrangement which makes it eligible to receive from the Government of Canada annual payments equal to the share of net profits that it would have received under the previous arrangement with respect to offshore projects. This measure should reflect more accurately the actual costs and revenues of the projects in question. It will remain in effect until Nova Scotia reaches the average of the tax level of the other Canadian provinces.
The result is that the Nova Scotia Government is given the responsibility for setting and collecting royalties, as if those resources were on its territory and, therefore, administering the revenues from petroleum and gas activities. The provisions on equalization contained in the 1982 agreement are maintained in this agreement.
I should like to explain briefly the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore petroleum board for my colleagues. The actual concept of co-management will take on its full meaning in the creation of an independent body which will replace the present Canada-Nova Scotia Petroleum and Gas Resources Board. The mandate of the new board will be to make decisions on matters directly affecting the management of offshore petroleum resources. The offices and personnel of the board will be in Nova Scotia and will perform the functions previously performed by the Canadian Oil and Gas Lands Administration with regard to all offshore operations in Nova Scotia.
The body in question will be called the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and will be composed of five members including a chairman appointed by both Governments. The latter will appoint two members respectively and may appoint alternate members to act as members of the board in the absence or incapacity of any of the regular members. Furthermore, not more than two members of the board may be public servants of the signing Governments.
The board will make decisions on announcing discoveries. It will regulate activities in the petroleum fields and exercise special powers in emergencies. It will also approve the technical aspects of development plans. It will collect royalties. It will carry out public inquiries designed to elucidate matters related to its mandate. It will make recommendations in respect of possible amendments to the Act or regulations flowing from the agreement.
Certain decisions of the board considered vital will require the ratification of both Governments. Examples would be the call for tenders, the ensuing issuance of exploration permits, the definition of specifications related to major discoveries and to production licences, as well as the final approval of development plans. As the decision related to certain Nova Scotia projects is specified in the Bill, they will require only the approval of the provincial counterpart, the Minister responsible for energy in Nova Scotia.
Like other producing provinces, Nova Scotia may now, as a result of the passage of this Bill, participate fully in the negotiations and consultations with the Government of Canada in all matters related to offshore petroleum.
The 1982 agreement saw the creation of a development fund of $200 million to put in place the necessary infrastructure, but before any petroleum and gas production would begin. In the new accord the Government of Canada renounces that condition.
I will now refer to the drilling fund. We had agreed, within the framework of the drilling fund created with a view to bringing offshore petroleum rapidly into production, to pay a sum of $25 million to Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. so that it could participate in the exploration and bringing into production of petroleum in the offshore area of Nova Scotia.
October 29, 1987

We included in this Act the provisions related to environmental protection contained in the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act which guarantee the same protection for all other frontier lands. In the event of an offshore disaster, the future Act provides for a financial compensation plan for fishermen, or other persons affected, for any damage resulting from wastes or spills.
Subject to ministerial directives, the board will determine the need for a public review in relation to the exercise of any of its powers or the performance of any of its duties when such a review proves necessary. The board may establish terms of reference in a timetable which will permit a comprehensive review of all aspects of the matter and appoint the commissioner or commissioners.
It may require the person who proposed the potential development to submit a preliminary development plan, an environmental impact statement, a socio-economic impact statement, as well as a benefits plan. Finally, it may require that the commissioner or commissioners hold public hearings in the province or elsewhere in Canada and report on them to itself as well as to both Governments.
I should like to make a brief statement on access to production. Aware of the need to reduce substantially Nova Scotia's dependence on foreign oil, the two Governments agreed to encourage within that province the use of oil and gas produced off the East Coast. Furthermore, in the event of a shortage of petroleum in the province, when deliveries are insufficient, Nova Scotia will be given first choice in purchasing under market conditions offshore petroleum not included in a contract.
I should also like to allude to some of the benefits. I see that both parties finally agree to ensure the maximum of the benefits related to offshore petroleum activity for all Canadians, particularly for Nova Scotians. The benefits plan submitted to the board by companies fully involved in offshore exploration must indicate that first consideration will be given to competitive goods and services produced in Nova Scotia and, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that workers in that province will be given first consideration for training and employment.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think you can see that the passage of the Act will mark another milestone in the history of the country, the now more harmonious history, I might add, of federal-provincial relations. The Act will finally sanction the regional development to which Nova Scotia is entitled that in turn will result in the creation of new jobs. The economic and industrial benefits are significant for both Nova Scotia and indeed for Canada.
Although Martin Heidegger maintained that "the will to do something is tantamount to accomplishing it,"-and that is from page 102 of Essays and Lectures by Gallimard-it seems to me that we must take one more step in the right direction by ratifying as quickly as possible this important accord, because
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
the Government and the people of Nova Scotia are awaiting its passage.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation, Bill C-75. I find this to be rather perplexing in that we are dealing today with a piece of legislation which is completely irrelevant at the present time because of the policies of this Government toward the offshore, particularly the offshore off the East Coast of Canada.
The short title of the Bill we are debating today is the "Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act". Not only is the Government's policy completely incomprehensive, it practically made the short title of the Bill incomprehensive.
I am very concerned about quite a few things in respect of the offshore and the Government's policy. First, I would like to deal with the way the Government has tried to frustrate the implementation of energy policy in the country. In January there was an Energy Ministers' conference, which was to be the way that energy policy would be formulated. The energy Ministers of the ten provinces and the federal Minister of Energy met, and they were to meet again during the summer to formulate the ideas which the various public servants and bureaucrats of the respective provinces had formulated during the intervening period.
They met in January. Of course, there were the discussions, all the talk and the completely ridiculous statements the Energy Ministers made about how they would solve the energy policy problems of Canada. To begin with, the federal Minister of Energy did not even wait for the summer and a second meeting of energy Ministers to say what he wanted to do. In June he came out with a paper entitled Energy Security in Canada which does not deal with the question of security of supply at all. In fact, the main thrust of this publication by the Minister is to stockpile oil in case there is a shortage of it in Canada, but I will get into that later.
First, we have the Minister instigating a meeting of Energy Ministers. He did not wait to meet a second time before coming out with his own policy. When the second meeting took place in St. John's in August it fell flatter than a pancake. Then we have the second attempt in the spring of 1987 before the first attempt was completed. The second attempt was "Energy Options" and a well known individual on Bay Street, Mr. Thomas Kierans, was asked to head a committee and make recommendations for energy policy. If you want to get someone to determine energy policy in Canada, Bay Street is not the best place to go. Nevertheless, this is what the Minister of Energy did.
There was a meeting in Calgary in June and since then there have been other meetings. The hearings will be wound up in Montreal in December. We do not know what will be brought

October 29, 1987
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
forward, but that did not stop the Government with respect to the Energy Ministers.
A third link was started. The Government brought forward the recommendations of the White Paper on Tax Reform which are completely contrary to developing energy security. The Government when it was in Opposition said that there should not be grandiose energy programs in Canada, such as the Petroleum Incentive Program, that they are too costly and there are better ways of developing energy reserves and encouraging some energy security in Canada.
The present Government said in the 1984 election campaign that it would do it through the tax system. But what did the Government do? It came out with a White Paper and cut back tax programs to encourage the development of oil and gas. While it knows it is cutting back the incentives to develop oil and gas projects in Canada, the Government feels the projects should be encouraged through special programs targeted to those particular or respective energy projects. The Government has reversed itself completely.
In 1984 during the election campaign the Conservatives said that oil and gas development should be encouraged through the tax system, yet in this year's White Paper the Government said no, that it wanted to cut back the assistance through the tax system to target various projects. Not only did this break the promise in the election campaign about help through the tax system, it changed the Government's position completely about not targeting for special projects.


Jack Wendele Shields: You are grasping at straws.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Now the Government is saying that it is going to target special projects. But we really do not know what the Government means because the Government has not done anything constructive to date. What is the Government doing through the White Paper? First, it has cut back on the put in use rule which was very important in Canada because it was targeted largely to major projects. The put in use rule said that you cannot use deductions for major projects until they are actually put in use.
If you have an offshore project, perhaps a Hibernia, where a gravity based drilling operation is to be put in place costing between four and five billion dollars, the developers, Mr. Speaker, cannot use deductions until the platform is actually put in use, costing the developers millions of dollars.
The Government said that the rule would apply to property acquired after 1989 and stipulated that neither the capital cost allowance nor the income tax credits could be used prior to an asset being put in use or, if earlier, the year in which the construction of the asset is completed.
In addition to the put-in use stipulation, the Government cut the rate of capital cost allowance for these types of projects in drilling and exploration facilities from 30 per cent to 25 per cent.
Third, in the White Paper, with respect to the investment tax credit, the Government did not touch the actual rate of 25 per cent for high cost exploration. That is unchanged, but the Government proposed that the investment tax credit could only be applied to one-half of the federal tax payable.
With these three stipulations, the Government of Canada has greatly reduced the inclination of possible developers from going to the East Coast and developing oil and gas reserves existing in that area. That applies not only to the East Coast but to the Beaufort as well. That was the third attempt at trying to set some energy policy.
Fourth, the most recent one, is the free trade agreement. It completely nullifies and makes obsolete the other ideas which the Government said it would bring forward, not that those ideas were ever going to come forward. We have only the Government's word that there would be any ideas coming forward. I would like to deal with the free trade agreement later on, but I want now to concentrate on the offshore.
We have a tremendously serious situation because of lack of activity. I want to refer to some things said by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that things are wonderful now because there is no confrontation with the provinces. We are talking about an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia which replaces an agreement entered into between Nova Scotia and the previous Liberal Government. Not only that, the agreement between Nova Scotia and the former Liberal Government was entered into in the final days before the election in 1984. Nova Scotia obviously wanted to enter into that agreement. There was no confrontation or bad feeling between Canada and Nova Scotia at that point. In fact, the way it looks right now Nova Scotia would have done better by sticking with that agreement than entering into this second one with the present Government.
We criticize the Crown's share and say that the Crown's shares are no longer applicable. The present agreement says that Nova Scotia will get something, but the federal Government is doing absolutely nothing to promote the offshore. Until the federal Government does something to promote the offshore, to create some activity, there will be no activity, and Nova Scotia will reap none of the benefits from the production of oil and gas. What the Government has been saying about the relations between the Province of Nova Scotia and former Liberal Governments is just not true. In fact, those relations were most cordial.
This Bill will do to develop oil and gas on the offshore. There is nothing here. It is only a means of conducting meetings and of regulating what will happen if perchance exploration and development does take place, but it is not taking place. Until actual exploration is carried out in Nova Scotia and there is development of the oil and gas reserves, this Bill will just be an academic exercise.
October 29, 1987

The Parliamentary Secretary said as well that this Bill will cut Nova Scotia's dependence on foreign oil. That is just not true. This Bill will not do anything to cut Nova Scotia's dependence on foreign oil. For instance, at the present time we in Atlantic Canada are dependent almost exclusively on imported oil. In fact, in 1986 the whole of Atlantic Canada relied on foreign oil for 99 per cent of the oil that was used. The Province of Quebec relied on foreign oil for 60 per cent of the oil it used in 1986.
In Atlantic Canada, 180,000 barrels of foreign oil a day were imported in 1986. In the first nine months of 1987, that increased from 180,000 barrels per day to 200,000 barrels per day. The actual dependence on foreign oil is increasing.
We have the reserves but nothing is being done to develop them. The one puny utterance from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) was contained in this document, Energy Security in Canada, in which he advocates stockpiling oil. He does not advocate moving ahead to develop the reserves that exist in the offshore. He wants to stockpile foreign oil. That is fine as an interim solution, but that is no plan for developing the energy security of this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this Bill gives Nova Scotians, in times of shortages of supply, the ability to have the first option on oil produced in Nova Scotia. I would like to refer to Clause 39 of the Bill which is entitled "Regional Security of Supply." Clause 39(2) reads:
(2) Where there is a shortfall of petroleum deliveries in the Province, the Provincial Minister may, after consulting with the Federal Minister, give notice to holders of production licences in the offshore area that the consumers and facilities referred to in paragraphs (l)(a), (b) and (c) that are specified in the notice have, during the term of the notice, the First option to acquire, on commercial terms, petroleum produced in the offshore area unless a sales contract with respect to that petroleum has been entered into prior to the giving of the notice.
For one thing, of course, it is dependent upon a sales contract not having been entered into. That, of course, is a very big "if'. Second, it flies in the face of the Government's free trade agreement with the United States. The Government cannot now make assurances to Nova Scotia or to any other province that it will get this kind of priority access to its own reserves. The Government saw to that. It gave away any right that Nova Scotia or any province would have to the first option to production in its jurisdiction. We do not know where that oil will go or where the natural gas will go. The free trade agreement makes sure of that.
I would certainly agree that the Parliamentary Secretary stated the philosophy of his Government when he said the will to do something is tantamount to accomplishing it. The will is the only thing it has, because it has not accomplished anything in developing the offshore of this country. If the will exists, it is certainly a well-kept secret.
This summer we were supposed to have, according to the statements of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), some agreement with the developers and the owners of Hibernia. We did not get anything. The Minister of Transport said, as
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
reported by his local newspaper, that they are asking too much, they are not being fair. This coming from the same Government that says we should let the private sector develop our energy opportunities. This is the same Government that says we should let Petro-Canada operate as a private sector corporation and not restrict it to being an arm of public policy. Yet at the same time, it will blame the lead players in the development of Hibernia for not doing anything.
We do not know what this Government is doing. We certainly have not heard anything from it as to what it will be doing to try to help develop the oil and gas reserves off the East Coast of Canada.
It is completely ridiculous that the Government would say that it is doing something to develop these reserves. Just recently, when he was in St. John's, the Minister of Energy told the people of Newfoundland that the free trade agreement would be good for the development of Hibernia. He said that with the free trade agreement, Hibernia will have all sorts of new markets. Atlantic Canada is 99 per cent dependent on foreign oil. Quebec is 60 per cent dependent on foreign oil. What is wrong with the markets that already exist?
Is the Minister saying that the oil and gas off the East Coast of Canada is not good enough for Atlantic Canadians and the people of Quebec, that it should not be wasted there but should really be sold in the United States if it is to have any major purpose whatsoever? That is just ludicrous and it is an insult to the people of eastern Canada.
We have been told that under the free trade agreement, even in times of energy shortages, the United States is to get a proportionate amount of Canada's energy. That is quite significant, particularly with respect to oil. This country is rapidly running out of supplies of light and medium crude. It is not the policy of the Liberal Party to say that we should not be selling oil to the United States. Up until the free trade agreement, we had the National Energy Board to tell us when we would be running short and when we would have a scarcity of supply. We relied on it to do this job.
The Liberal Party was the first Party to endorse the decision of the National Energy Board to do away with the surplus test. We felt that that was the best way to go. It was fair to the suppliers of natural gas and it was in the best interests not only of the sale of Canadian natural gas to the United States but to the development of new reserves.
We did not and could not, nor could anybody, accept the Conservative Government's agreement to completely gut the National Energy Board. We will not know when we are running short and, if we do, we will not be able do anything about it.
We have said that we will give a proportionate amount of our energy to the United States and we do not know how much that will be. Let us just look at some of the rumours we have been hearing about energy. Supposedly there will be a block period which will indicate what percentage will be going to the

October 29, 1987
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
United States. We do not know when that block period will be, or for how long it will be, but supposedly that is what it will be. If that block period is the first six months of 1987, then 37 per cent of all oil produced in Canada will be earmarked for the United States, because in the first six months of 1987, 37 per cent of all the oil produced in Canada was sold to the United States. That means we are obligated even at times when we do not have security of supply for our own needs.
The Government is backing away from developing an energy policy, which means we do not have the assurance that our supplies of light and medium crude are going to be replaced through new projects, such as oil and gas on the East Coast, the tar sands, the Beaufort, or through upgrading. We do not have that assurance because the Government has waffled for three years on this question. We are no further ahead now than we were in September of 1984, regardless of all the government statements, commissions, committees, brochures, periodicals, and free trade agreements with the U.S.
The Atlantic Accord did nothing to help the oil and gas industry off the coast of Newfoundland. Now we are talking about the Nova Scotia offshore and this Bill will not make any difference at all. In 1987, this year, only $33 million has been spent on the Nova Scotia offshore. It is only because of the grandfathering of the Petroleum Incentives Program that we have that. That was put in place by the former Government. In 1984, $600 million was spent on the Nova Scotia offshore, so it is completely ludicrous for the Government to say it is concerned about exploration in the Nova Scotia offshore.
Under this agreement the Government turned the $200 million loan under the former agreement into a grant, but look at where the money was spent. Some of it went into things that were not even within miles of the Nova Scotia coastline. That is not easy because it is almost completely surrounded by water. The money was turned into a political slush fund.
What about the $25 million for Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. to develop its reserves in Nova Scotia? That, unfortunately, is woefully inadequate for that company which has a very high debt. Unless it is able to take part in some kind of profitable development of oil or gas very soon, the situation is only going to get worse.
What we want is to develop the reserves to add to the security of supply in Canada, which is minimal at the present. We want the Government to stand by what it said it was going to do-develop security of supply. Do not tell me that the major players in projects like Hibernia and Venture do not want to go ahead. It is up to the Government to develop a fiscal regime that will encourage them to do so. After all, it is the Tory Government that said the private sector was going to do it.
It is no good to say that the Government will give loan guarantees to Mobil. That company does not need loan guarantees. It is not going to go broke. What they want is a
plan. They also want to make money, of course, and the Government said there is nothing wrong with that. If Mobil makes a profit, that is great. However, there is something very important at stake here and that is energy security for Canadians. The Government has to do what it said it was going to do, get development going on the East Coast. This legislation is not going to have any effect at all until the Government develops the political will to do something for Nova Scotia.
A great deal of this legislation is similar to the wording in the Atlantic Accord. There are a few things in there that I question and I will do that in committee, but that is the easy part. The difficult part is to get the Government to realize the importance of the offshore to Nova Scotia as well as Newfoundland, indeed to all of Atlantic Canada, and to start honouring the commitments it made, take them seriously and not just try and slough off this very important industry in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say a few words on behalf of my Party concerning Bill C-75, which implements the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia dealing with the offshore.
Before I do that, since this is the first time I have had an opportunity to say a few words in my new capacity as energy critic for the NDP, I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). For many years he was a very competent spokesman on energy for our Party. I want to say how much I, my Leader, and all of us in caucus appreciated the contribution he made in this field. He had some expertise in this area gained in the work he did before being elected to this House and made a great contribution, not only on behalf of his Party but on behalf of all Members of Parliament, to understanding the problems of energy in this country. The Hon. Member has done some good work on this particular issue, offshore resource development, made a few speeches and raised a number of questions.
As the House already knows from those speeches and others, our Party of course supports the agreement we have before us today. This is simply mirror legislation to that already passed in the Nova Scotia Legislature a number of weeks ago. The most important thing we can do today is raise some questions about the future of energy in this country and then send it off to committee for detailed study. There we can call in experts and government officials and make sure we scrutinize the Bill very closely.
This Bill is very similar to Bill C-6, an agreement between Canada and the Government of Newfoundland on the Newfoundland offshore. It is very similar as well to the Atlantic Accord which has already been dealt with in this House.
As I said, we support this arrangement but we have a number of questions we want to raise in committee. Those
October 29, 1987

questions will be positive, of course, and I want to say a couple of very positive things about the Bill before us today.
First, I am glad to see that there is an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia. There was a time in the 1970s and early 1980s when this kind of agreement was not possible. I am not going to place the blame for that squarely and solely on the doorstep of the former Government. The 1970s were very turbulent times in the oil business around the world and in Canada. It was very difficult at that time to come to this kind of agreement. It was also a time when a great constitutional debate was taking place and these kinds of agreements were more difficult to achieve.
The second positive aspect about this agreement is that it now includes provincial involvement in the offshore business in Canada. I believe provincial involvement is very important, and I suggest that we should try to carry this a step further and consider a constitutional amendment to enshrine provincial control of offshore resources in the Constitution of Canada. That is very important to provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
I know how important it is to Saskatchewan for the Constitution of Canada to include some control regarding energy. In 1981 our Party was instrumental in persuading the government of the day to insert in the Constitution of Canada an amendment which provided for some control over resources for provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta. I believe that was a very important step in terms of our controlling and husbanding resources such as gas and oil and potash which are so important for our development.
I know the importance of this control because in Saskatchewan we have a gas and oil industry and a potash industry. We have many other natural resource industries. Such control is also important to Alberta, and we should seriously consider a constitutional amendment extending the same kinds of rights to people in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in regard to offshore energy.
I want to raise a number of questions about the Bill which I know have been raised in Nova Scotia, and before in the House. For example, it is not clear whether there is enough protection in the legislation for aboriginal land claims in the Province of Nova Scotia. I suggest the committee should closely examine the Bill to make sure that the rights of aboriginal people, our original Canadian citizens, are adequately protected in Bill C-75. I also want to make sure that there are some public rights to inspect development and benefit plans in the Province of Nova Scotia, and that there is adequate access to information and adequate benefits in terms of royalties to-the Province of Nova Scotia. We must have enough details and information about how these programs regarding royalties and other benefits will be carried out under this legislation.
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
My third concern is that, according to my understanding of the legislation and the comments I have heard, there is no provision for an independent environmental impact assessment of what this will mean in the offshore of Nova Scotia. There should be provision for an environmental impact study, because the environment is important not only to today's generation, but to the generations of the future.
My fourth concern is that there is no requirement for a public hearing process on applications. This is another question that should be considered at committee stage.
The fifth and probably most important concern of Nova Scotians about this agreement between their government and the Government of Canada is that there may be inadequate protection for the fishery on Georges Bank in relation to offshore drilling. The Georges Bank is one of the richest fishing banks, not only in this country but in the entire world. There is some concern in the Province of Nova Scotia that the Bill should provide more protection for this extremely wealthy renewable resource from offshore drilling.
For example, I am aware that Texaco is attempting to get permission to drill in the Georges Bank. While oil and gas is important to the future of Nova Scotia and this country we must never forget that the fishery is a much wealthier resource, a renewable resource and one that we must protect with all our ability so that it will continue to produce for many generations to come. I understand there was some protection for the fishery on Georges Bank in the previous accord five years ago. Although it may not have been adequate in 1982, that protection has now been removed.
Finally, I believe the committee should ask some serious questions about the protection of security of supply for the people of Nova Scotia. I am not convinced that anything in this legislation addresses the issue of adequate security of supply.
Let me conclude by making some general observations about this legislation. I have not seen from this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) or his predecessor, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), any vision or plan for the future of energy policy in this country other than relying on the private sector and primarily the huge American multinational corporations to develop energy for us. I do not see any vision to Canadianize the industry, to control it for Canada, to plan our developments and, in some cases, conserve the gas and oil for future generations.
Rather than a true Canadian plan, I see something that makes me fearful as a Canadian. It is a continental energy policy in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States that will develop our energy in this country lockstep with the energy needs of the United States of America.
As we debate this legislation before the House today, we must raise questions about the future security of supply for Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and all Canadians. We must ask how we can use that resource to best develop

October 29, 1987
Canada-Nova Scotia Accord
our country, create jobs, and provide energy supply at a reasonable price for Canadians.
The most serious aspect of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States is the complete integration of the North American energy market in Canada and the United States. In fact, President Reagan said that this free trade agreement is the economic constitution of North America.
The Hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), the former mayor of Toronto, is in the House. I know that as mayor of Toronto he wanted substantial control at City Council in order for the people of Toronto to make decisions that affected their own lives.
I argue that the same thing pertains in this situation. Canadians should have the ultimate say on the price of energy in this country, and the ultimate say over security of supply. According to the free trade agreement, the only option available is to charge the same price to Canadian consumers as we charge to consumers to whom we are exporting in the United States.
I was in the House in the 1970s when there was a tremendous increase in the price of oil. Many people supported a two-price system at that time which kept the price for Canadian farmers in my riding, of whom there are thousands, at a much lower price than they would have had to pay if we were to charge our farmers the world price. People were able to heat their homes for a much lower price because we had a two-price system. People were able to pay a lower price for gasoline because we had a two-price system.
If we adopt this free trade agreement we will not be able to adopt such a system, because we will have to charge the same price for the person in Kamsack, Toronto or Halifax as someone in Los Angeles, Chicago or San Francisco. I believe it is detrimental to the future of Canada to give away our sovereignty.
While current situations may warrant similar prices now, we do not know if that will be the situation in the future. However, there may be a time when the Government and Parliament of Canada will have to introduce an act similar to that in the 1970s when consumers were cushioned from the crisis in the Middle East when oil prices went through the ceiling in a matter of months. It is beyond me how the party of Sir John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker can forever give up this sovereignty over the price of energy in Canada.


Mrs. Sparrow:: They are not giving away sovereignty.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member from Calgary says they are not giving away any sovereignty. Just read the free trade agreement. It is a broad agreement to assure the freest possible bilateral trade in energy, including non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies and secure market access for Canada to energy markets in the United States.


Herbert O. Sparrow: The provinces have total control of it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The provinces, under this agreement, can no longer charge a different price for consumers in Alberta than what they sell it for in the United States.


Herbert O. Sparrow: We don't want that, anyway.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member from Calgary confirms that. She says they do not want it anyway. My argument is that we may want it. In the 1970s we had a Canadian price which was much lower than the price of exports to the United States. I support that kind of policy very strongly and there was massive support for that policy in the Province of Saskatchewan.
I would like to challenge any member of the Conservative Party to come into my riding and put the argument that my farmers do not deserve a lower Canadian price when prices go through the ceiling, as they did in the 1970s. I am really concerned about that. It is a debate that we are going to have. I see the Member from near Toronto, the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), smiling.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Simcoe North.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I remember the anger of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) a few years ago when certain Albertans came out with a bumper sticker that said, "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark". There was a lot of anger in this House. I was angry. As a western Canadian, I thought it was a very unfair comment to make about central Canadians. But it will not be Albertans who will say that in the future. It could be the Americans because they control our energy policy, and I do not agree with that.
We could have long term contracts without giving up our right to set a Canadian price. We could have long term contracts without giving up our right to control supply in a time of crisis. What we are giving away in this particular free trade agreement is the right to security of supply because it says that in the time of crisis the United States must have proportional access to the diminished supply in Canada and we must not discriminate on price. We cannot use energy to develop in a discriminatory fashion the economies in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec because we must charge the same price in the United States.
I hope that becomes a major issue in the next election campaign. If it is, the Conservative Party will be tossed out on its ear because Canadians want their sovereignty and the right to set their own energy prices and to control their own security of supply. That is exactly what the people of this country want. They were very happy back in the 1970s to have a two-price system. The people in my riding were very happy to have that system and I was very proud to support a two-price system that provided the farmers of Kamsack with a price for their fuel that was much lower than they would have had to pay if the Conservative Party had been in power.
October 29, 1987

I want to campaign across this country for the right of Canadians to set their own price and to control their own security of supply. I am surprised that this kind of policy would come from the Party which fought so hard against free trade with the United States in 1911. The party of Sir John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker had a Canadian vision. Canadians want to control their own sovereignty and they want the power to make those decisions.
I will conclude by saying that this will be a long debate because it concerns the future of Canada. It is very surprising to me that my Conservative friends opposite want to give up the right to set our own price and the right to control our security of supply. That is an incredible thing. I ask my friends opposite if they are Members of Parliament of this country of Canada, or are they really Congressmen from the United States, because they are giving those rights to Washington and not to Canada? Our Party will fight them on that.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges to give effect to the international convention on the harmonized commodity description and coding system, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters, and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce Bill C-87 which will replace the existing Customs Tariff and incorporate the provisions of the Duties Relief Act. This is the bulkiest legislative measure ever tabled in the House-three tomes and 1,905 pages.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill reflects the Governmen't pledge to implement the new Customs Tariff by January 1, 1988. Parliament was made aware of the Government's intention through notices of ways and means motions tabled with the
Customs Tariff
Budget documents on February 26, 1986 and February 18,
1987.	The Bill will also enable us to enforce the detailed provisions of the notice of ways and means motion tabled in the House on Friday, October 2, 1987.
Since our customs legislation had to be overhauled, the Government is introducing measures designed to replace the entire Customs Tariff. The original approach of the new legislation will make it possible for the Government to set up a tariff structure which, as we near the turn of the century, is more in keeping with a modern, technology-based economy.
The Bill has been drafted to account for the principles underlying the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. This system is the result of an international endeavour aimed at standardizing the tariff classification and the system of statistics pertaining to commercial exchanges among the world's major trading nations.
Under the harmonized system a given good will basically be classified according to its characteristic or nature rather that the use to which it may be put. It will be classified only once to avoid resorting to multiple choices.
The Harmonized System is an entirely new approach to commodity classification. It was developed in consultation with government and private sector experts, in order to allow for present-day technology and the range of products involved in international trade.
Together with its main trading partners, Canada is committed to implementing the new tariff system as of January 1,
1988.	The tabling of this Bill in the House was an important step in a lengthy process that started in 1981, when the Canadian Government decided to adopt the Harmonized System.
In 1981, most countries were using a common commodity classification system for customs purposes. The system, developed in Brussels by the Customs Co-operation Council, was the predecessor of the Harmonized System.
Canada and the United States each had a different system for tariff classification. Both countries understood the advantages of using a system they would share with the rest of the world. That is why we participated in the development of the Harmonized System, together with the other members of the Council, including major trading countries such as the members of the Common Market and Japan.
Canada has an important role to play internationally by helping improve the climate of trading relations, and this Bill will help it play that role. The Harmonized System is an important step towards a more rational and more specific world trading system. Adopting this system will benefit our importers and Canadian business people in general.
The new Customs Tariff is set up in a more logical manner, which makes things easier for the importer and for the customs officers who have to classify imported goods and determine the applicable duty. This should simplify import formalities and

October 29, 1987
Customs Tariff
reduce the number of appeals from tariff classification decisions.
The Elarmonized System also lends itself better to computerized import procedures. Revenue Canada has developed a brand new data processing system that will be introduced at the same time as the Harmonized System. The private sector has also taken steps to adjust its methods for processing imports and exports to the Harmonized System. As of January 1, 1988, importers will face fewer administrative formalities and be able to clear goods through Customs faster then was the case under the old system. The new system will also result in a savings to business and the Government.
As far as international trade negotiations are concerned, by adopting the Harmonized System, countries will be better able to understand their respective tariffs. The outlook for multilateral trade negotiations like the Uruguay Round in which Canada is participating today would be considerably brighter.
The Harmonized System also provides for a statistical coding system integrated in the tariff classification system, which will vastly improve the statistical data on Canada's imports and exports. This process will also make it easier to compare Canada's trading statistics with those of other countries.
The proposed new tariff was adopted only after close public consultation. A working paper highlighting the benefits flowing from the adoption of the new tariff classification system had been released in 1981. In 1984, draft tariff provisions covering all goods included in the current Customs Tariff, converted to the harmonized system, were submitted to the Tariff Board for public consultation. Board officials held public hearings on the Government's proposals and heard evidence from commercial organizations, corporations, consultants and customs brokers. Their testimony and the board's detailed analysis were the basis of recommendations contained in the four reports tabled in the House.
The Bill now before the House features a great many of the Tariff Board's recommendations. It also takes into consideration the results of the international trade negotiations to which Canada was party so that the rights of our trade partners will be respected throughout the conversion process.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) for his helpful co-operation. He did his utmost to keep importers aware of the Customs Tariff amendments we are proposing.
In 1986, Revenue Canada Customs and Excise officials launched a public information program featuring leaflets, briefings and training seminars. This program has been recently accelerated and expanded. Importers and customs brokers from coast to coast were convened to learn more about the impact of the new tariff on their day-to-day activities. They were also able to become familiar with the improved customs processing system scheduled to be set in motion by Revenue Canada on January 1, 1988.
Once the new system is operational, occasionally goods may be classified under an item not provided in the Customs Tariff. The Government will then use a special procedure to deal with any problems that may arise. To enable the Government to respond quickly and efficiently, the draft Bill included a provision that will authorize the Government to make any necessary changes in the schedules during the 18 months following the Bill's coming in to force.
I may also draw your attention to a provision in the Bill that would extend the prohibition on importing pornographic material or hate literature, as it appears in the present Customs Tariff, beyond the expiry date of December 31, 1987.
Mr. Speaker, as you no doubt recall, this provision, which appears in Schedule C of the present Customs Tariff, was last amended in 1986. The expiry date was to apply to this provision since it was expected that amendments to the provisions in the Criminal Code dealing with pornography would have become effective by that date. Hon. Members are of course aware that the legislation provides a more specific definition of pornography and that these definitions, as soon as they have been approved by Parliament, will be included in the Customs Tariff. Since amendments to the Criminal Code are subject to scrutiny by the House, the Government has preferred to extend the application of this provision for an additional period of six months to ensure effective control of imports of this kind of material.
There is another point I would like to mention. The revised legislation maintains the present tariff treatment for books and other publications. Hon. Members will notice that books and other publications are generally taxed at a rate of 10 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I may explain that despite this statutory rate, books will continue to enter duty free by order of remission. We found it necessary to maintain the 10 per cent duty because of the multilateral trade negotiations now proceeding in Geneva. The Government would consider reducing these tariffs in the course of these negotiations, in exchange for concessions by our trading partners.
The Harmonized System will bring about a fundamental change in the way goods are described for customs purposes. Under the new system, there will inevitably be a number of changes regarding the rate of duty applied to certain goods. However, we have tried to keep the impact on Canadian importers and producers to a minimum. Generally speaking, the conversion will have no impact on revenue.
I should like to deal now with the question of timing. Hon. Members are fully aware that the date set for implementing the harmonized system-January 1, 1988-is getting ever closer. This is why we will have to proceed with dispatch in our consideration of this Bill so that Canada be in a position to honour its commitments to its international partners. Hopefully Hon. Members will give due priority to the study and speedy adoption of this measure.
October 29, 1987

The Government acted as quickly as possible to be sure it would be able to have the legislation passed before January 1, 1988. Canada's trade sector, particularly importers and exporters, look forward to seeing this legislative measure in the statute books. Similarly our main trade partners who will also be switching to tariff systems based on the harmonized system next January 1 expect Canada to play its role in international development.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that Bill C-87 is an important initiative on the part of the Government. It has the support of importers and businessmen who made a number of representations to pave the way for implementation on New Year's Day 1988. It deserves the full consideration of Hon. Members. After examination I am sure they will agree that this Bill will bring significant improvement to Canada's tariff statutes. Given the benefits which businessmen and Canadian industries stand to gain under the new system, I hope all Hon. Members will readily support the Bill.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Ways and Means motion in this particular case looks remarkably intimidating and runs to two big volumes. However, the principle of this Bill is quite simple. It is one of harmonizing the descriptions of commodities and the coding system that are now used for tariffs. This is the first fundamental revision since Confederation.
Our present system is quite complex because goods are slotted into one of 12 groups according to end use. Therefore goods will often fall into more than one category which can cause confusion.
The decision to harmonize and to standardize so that the major industrial countries would be using approximately the same system was undertaken on a multilateral basis with the European Economic Community, the United States and Japan. In Canada work on this has been going on since 1981, although the international negotiations only began in October, 1986.
The Bill before us will increase the number of tariff items from 3,500 to 8,000, and that is simply the subdivision of items. Naturally, we all know that as a result of Canada's negotiations through the years with GATT more and more of our trade is free of tariff.
Also as a result of increasing the number of categories, this Bill will increase the accuracy of trade data. It should be easier for both importers and exporters to classify their goods, therefore, business should be free of the need to have classification appeals which are time consuming and expensive for industry, and also for government, because they eat up a lot of taxpayers' dollars.
The detailed categories should be easier to use. Also, there should be advantages, from the point of trading, because our
Customs Tariff
major trading partners will be using the same classification system for tariffs. This does not necessarily mean that in each case the tariffs will be the same. In theory, this Bill before us is revenue neutral. That is one of the things that remains to be seen.
We are usually told when this type of Bill appears in the House that it is simple, it is technical, and no one disagrees on the principle and, therefore, we should be able to pass it quickly. We have all found through experience that a Bill which appears simple to officials and bureaucrats often has hidden costs and complexities; hidden that is from bureaucrats but very obvious to the business people using the Bill.
Although I do not feel that we need an extensive debate at second reading on this Bill, I would certainly suggest that it go to a legislative committee which would call witnesses. The witnesses who should be heard from would include the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representatives of importers and exporters, and representatives of small business. Before we put this Bill in place we should know exactly what is involved in terms of costs and convenience for the users of this new system. We should be assured that they are satisfied that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
While the Minister has stated that the new legislation will be of significant benefit to Canadian importers, manufacturers, and producers, and that it will result in a more transparent "user friendly" tariff system, we should also know of any possible complications on the other side.
One fairly clear advantage of this new system, and of having it co-ordinated with systems of our major trading partners, is that for the first time statistical trade data will be compatible with the tariff. That should both improve Canada's trade statistics or the quality of reporting, and it should also make it easier to reconcile and compare trade statistics as between Canada and other countries.
Of course, having more accurate import and export data is an advantage in international trade negotiations such as the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in which Canada is a participant. It has also been said that the new system is more compatible with modern automated customs processing procedures, and that it will form a fundamental part of National Revenue's new customs commercial system to be implemented on January 1, 1988.
Members in the House regularly receive complaints from importers about delays in getting their goods through customs. If this particular reform is part of anything that assists and speeds up that process, it would be a distinct advantage.
I stated at the outset that this is the first fundamental revision of our commodity description system since Confederation. As the Government is modernizing that system, it has also taken the opportunity to include in this Bill some updating of the legislative provisions to the customs tariff, some of which contain wording from the last century.

October 29, 1987
Another change in the Bill is the incorporation of the Duties Relief Act into the customs tariff, so that we now have brought together in one statute all the legislative provisions relating to the conditions under which customs duties on imported goods are either imposed or relieved.
We have been told that officials have consulted extensively on this Bill with trade associations, customs brokers, and interested parties. But I would repeat, no matter how extensive those consultations have been, they are no substitute for a committee of the House receiving witnesses, holding public hearings, and being quite sure that all the implications have been fully taken into consideration.
The Minister has stated that this was designed to be revenue neutral over-all, but within that some individual rates of duty will be increased or decreased. Before giving this Bill third and final reading, Members of Parliament should be very clear about the exact financial implications, and which sectors will be impacted by these increases and decreases.
This Bill does retain special preferences for the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. It should also be carefully reviewed in committee to ensure that the provisions for developing countries match those in the general preferential tariff.
There is another exception in that the Government has retained the current 10 per cent statutory rate of duty on books and related publications. This is an item on which many of us in the House disagree. But by virtue of a remission order, in fact the goods are entering Canada on a duty-free basis. We may wish to consider whether it is satisfactory having one thing in the statute, and a remission order to negative it, and whether it is not time to change the statute.
In his press release the Minister stated, that,-"given the magnitude of the tariff conversion that has taken place, some 'fine-tuning' may be required for a limited period following implementation on January 1, 1988". I would suggest that if we have good enough committee hearings, perhaps some of the necessary changes could be made now before the Bill comes into effect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do not leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 26, the Government defeated every opposition amendment which attempted to correct ambiguities and gaps in the Meech Lake Accord.
In particular, the Government refused amendments which would have protected the Charter of Rights from any possible impact by the Accord. I personally do not believe that the Meech Lake Accord impacts adversely on the Charter, but others do, and there is legal uncertainty as a result.
In the circumstances, in order to clarify these matters, and to prevent time-consuming and costly litigation, I ask the Government to make a reference now to the Supreme Court of Canada to get an interpretation ruling on these important questions.
This was done with the constitutional process in 1981 and should be done again. If the court rules that there is a serious derogation from the Charter, then that can be corrected at the next constitutional conference.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the House that we are presently in the middle of Small Business Week. Small Business Week is an excellent way to inform and promote one of our most valuable assets-our entrepreneurs. Some Hon. Members might be surprised to know that there are over three-quarters of a million small businesses in our country, employing 40 per cent of our labour force and providing 26 per cent of the total wages paid.
In my home Province of British Columbia small business is even more important. There are relatively few corporate headquarters or large manufacturing operations, so we rely on the 128,000 small and medium-sized enterprises for employment and economic growth.
Small Business Week provides a forum in which to establish and reinforce the environment where we can all appreciate the qualities of the small business owner. In today's world, qualities such as creativity, hard work, and the desire to succeed should be actively encouraged. In light of the free trade agreement with the United States these values take on increased importance.
October 29, 1987

Our Government is committed to promoting these values and maintaining a positive economic environment. Lower interest rates, a fairer tax system, and increased investment opportunities ensure that Canadian small businesses will have the opportunity to meet the challenges ahead.



SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the continuing willingness of the Canadian Government to let the United States of America control our trade agenda appals me. This past Tuesday the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), in a speech to the Canadian Wood Council, said that Canadians are not speaking from a position of strength in discussions with the United States pertaining to the export of Canadian softwood lumber.
The Minister suggested that the U.S. lumber sector is likely to reject the formula worked out between the federal and provincial Governments to replace the 15 per cent softwood export tax with a system of provincial levies. This formula, I might add, has not yet been presented to the U.S. negotiators.
The Minister admitted that the free trade agreement will not assure our current share of the U.S. softwood market. The Government's supine approach to the softwood lumber issue astounds me. When will it wake up and emulate the actions of the U.S. Government and industry by vigorously negotiating our side of the issue?



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed by the insinuations and aspersions which have been cast upon the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) during recent Question Periods. I am disappointed that supposedly experienced Members of the House have stooped so low as to impugn the integrity of someone who has served Canada so well and for so long.
The owners of the West Edmonton Mall and Canada Fantasyland complex in Edmonton have also been on the receiving end of the Opposition's ill-informed barbs. I want all Members to know that I resent any slurs which may indicate that these people are anything but tremendous assets to our community. This incredible facility has brought over 9 million visitors to Edmonton in the last year alone, resulting in untold millions of dollars being pumped into an economy which sorely needed it.
It is significant to note that out of a 1.25-inch thick Auditor General's report, all the Opposition can criticize is a grant to a corporation which has created 15,000 new jobs, injected over $200 million back into a stagnant economy, reduced the provincial tourism debt by 50 per cent,, and given Canada an attraction that can only be described as the eighth wonder of the world.




Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the CBC on the very successful handling of the Corporation's financial affairs during the last fiscal year. As you know, last year the CBC experienced tremendous difficulties in implementing a very complex new financial information system which prevented it from receiving a complete audit from the Auditor General.
The board and staff have worked hard and well since then'to sort out and perfect the new system and this year have earned the complete approval of the Auditor General who remarks in his report released this week that the CBC:
-has provided to the Government and, ultimately to Parliament, a reliable
account of its stewardship of public moneys for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1987.
The report also states that the CBC has been rendered:
-an unqualified audit opinion on the 1987 financial statements.
The CBC was severely criticized last fiscal year for its audit problems, and I think we should be just as ready now to congratulate the chairman of the board, the president, and the staff for their work over the past year and to assure them that they have more than lived up to the confidence placed in them by Parliament and Canadians. Our public broadcast TV and radio networks are the lynchpin of Canada's culture and identity. They are a source of top quality news, drama and music, and all Canadians are very proud of the CBC.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the men and women serving sentences in our correctional institutions tend to be forgotten by the person on the street unless their presence is highlighted by a sensational incident. However, some, even from within the constraints of such an environment, manage to provide society with a helpful

October 29, 1987
hand at critical times. I would like to acknowledge some of them today.
Over the last few weeks about 40 federal inmates from the Ferndale Institution in Mission, British Columbia, have been putting in 12-hour days assisting the B.C. Forest Service in fighting fires in the Norrish Creek area. These inmates were trained by the B.C. Forest Service in firefighting techniques. This training program has not only provided a worth-while opportunity for inmates to acquire some new skills and use their time productively while incarcerated, but it has also demonstrated that they can continue to make a valuable contribution to the community while serving their sentences.
Such demonstrated personal commitment and community awareness on the part of staff of the Correctional Service of Canada and the inmates participating should be praised. They are setting a unique example for other institutions as well as for the general public.
Let us thank them and tell them to keep up the good work.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) told the House that his $5 million grant to Fantasyland created 15,000 jobs. Curious about this 15,000 jobs I called the personnel office at Fantasyland to inquire about the number of people employed by the Ghermezians. My request for information was flatly denied.
I am concerned about a Government that violates its own grant eligibility guidelines to open the public purse to friendly developers. I am concerned about a Minister who boldly asserts that 15,000 jobs were created by the application of this grant but shies away from the particulars. I am concerned about an employer who has clearly instructed his staff not to release employment figures. Surly if the Ghermezians did create 15,000 jobs, they would be proud to affirm this fact to the public. Perhaps their reluctance to reveal the size of their labour force is prompted by the knowledge that the 15,000 figure does not hold water unless, of course, the dolphins are on the payroll.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 29, Canadians of Slovenian heritage
celebrate their Independence Day. In 1918, under the leadership of Dr. Anton Korosec, the Slovenes withdrew from the Austro-Hungarian empire and proclaimed their independence. Later in that same year they joined as equal partners with Serbs and Croats to form the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Over the years, Slovenian immigrants to Canada have contributed greatly to the growth and development of this nation, one example being Reverend Frederick Baraga, a Slovenian missionary who, in 1830, came to Canada to work among the Indians and later became the first Bishop of Sault Ste. Marie and Marquette. Today, the Slovenian community is a vital and thriving community within the Canadian mosaic.
Canadians of Slovenian heritage invite all Canadians to join with them in commemorating Slovene independence and its underlying reminder of the continuing struggle to establish freedom and justice for people of all nations.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers may not know that last year almost 10,000 drugs which were not properly tested by Government authorities were sold to the public.

This point has been raised by the Auditor General who said that close to 10,000 drugs sold in Canada this year have not been properly tested, which is another way of saying that the Government is playing Russian roulette with the health of Canadians because it has made cutbacks in health promotion.

The Auditor General pointed out that these 10,000 emergency drugs which were released on to the market actually created a potential risk for people. This shows that the Government is prepared to play Russian roulette with the health of Canadians by putting drugs on the market-place that are not properly tested because of cut-backs in health protection and promotion.
The health of Canadians is too sacred to be put at risk. We urge the Government to reinstate the full budget for the Health Protection Branch to ensure that drugs put on the market are properly tested. We do not want to have another thalidomide situation, and that could be the result of this very disastrous government cut-back.
October 29, 1987



SMALL BUSINESS WEEK


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, October 25 to 31 is Small Business Week in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the nation's entrepreneurs.
We are all well aware that small businesses are the core of Canada's economy. They are the source of new ideas, the cradle of innovation. In addition, small businesses provide the greater portion of jobs and opportunities for the people of this country.
In my home province, the Province of Alberta, there are approximately 120,000 small businesses of which 97 per cent employ less than 100 people. I was pleased to find that in the first part of this year Alberta saw an increase of 10,169 small businesses. This is indeed good news.
Small Business Week is a time to look at the accomplishments of the people who own and operate the nation's small businesses. Not only did they provide 70 per cent of the new jobs in the last two years, but they have also shown that individual determination and hard work can have a significant impact on the outlook of the entire nation.
The Canada-U.S. trade agreement will present new opportunities. Canadians as free enterprisers can look forward to a bright future of increased employment and productivity. Small business is big business in Canada.



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) is again harassing some 700 farmers who used the investment tax credit when they traded in old machines for new ones. The point at issue is whether or not the machinery dealers were offering too much for used machines. Revenue Canada thinks it knows this market better than the dealers. In the final analysis, it is the farmers who pay the taxes levied.
Since 1986, several Ministers have personally assured farmers that the audits begun in late 1985 would stop. They did for a time, but since then they have been on again and off again several times. Audits last stopped last spring but now they are on again.
The investment tax credit program helps in many deals. Unfortunately, Revenue Canada has never made it clear how it wants things handled. Its interpretations are retroactive and changeable, its actions are of questionable legality. What law permits it to rewrite legal contracts years after the fact?



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP and the Liberals are trying to fool the people by saying over and over again that free trade will mean the loss of sovereignty, that we will lose our social programs and that the Americans will take our jobs. What nonsense!
Canada has had virtually free trade for a number of years in some red meats. We have not lost our sovereignty, none of our social programs have disappeared and no Americans have taken our jobs. On the contrary, this free trade with the United States has brought benefits in the way of more prosperous times for the ranchers, more jobs for the people and increased prosperity for the areas involved in both countries.
The NDP and the Liberals seem to think that if they tell a non-truth often enough, the people will believe it. Canadians are not naive. What free trade has done for the red meats can be repeated over and over again, bringing buoyancy to our economy, and prosperity and jobs to our people.
So keep right on, Mr. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Progressive Conservatives. There is victory at the end of the road for free trade and a greater united Canada.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, this is to advise the House that in November, 1985, the previous Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), signed a political Accord on Manitoba Indian child welfare. The Accord was signed with Indian representatives and the provincial Minister of Community Services. It outlined a negotiation process for a new child welfare arrangement in Manitoba to replace the existing tripartite agreement which was about to expire.
Although that Accord was signed two years ago, there has been no progress towards the new arrangement which it provided for. The political-ministerial negotiations stipulated in the Accord have not taken place.
The Manitoba Indian child welfare agencies are currently operating with funding levels below those of their provincial counterparts. They are, however, expected to provide services according to provincial standards. Yet they do not have the resources that will allow them to carry out those responsibilities.

October 29, 1987
Oral Questions
Therefore, Sir, I ask the Minister to fulfil his obligations under the Accord. Child welfare is a priority for Manitoba Indian people. Surely it ought to be a priority for the Minister and his Government as well.
* *
*



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, the socialist leader-spending the money he gets from the auto workers who have been enjoying free trade since 1965-came to tell Quebecers and Premier Robert Bourassa that free trade will do no good to the hydro power sector.
Contrary to the statement made by the socialist leader, the free trade agreement does not force Quebec to export its energy in times of shortages. Contrary to what he has been saying, Quebec Hydro and the Government of Quebec retain full control over their resources. Contrary to what he has been saying, hydro rates will be set by the law of supply and demand.
The socialist leader did not read the free trade agreement, he cannot see the difference between renewable and nonrenewable energy, and he could not care less about the management skills of Quebec Hydro and Premier Bourassa.
Mr. Speaker, should you care to seek further information about this interference of the socialist leader in the affairs of Quebec, I would refer you to Alain Dubuc's article published in La Presse of Wednesday, October 28, 1987.



FISHERIES


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, for years fishing groups, both sport and commercial, have joined with environmental groups, notably Greenpeace, demanding that the Canadian Government negotiate an end to the use of drift-nets in the international fishery. Canadian representatives have, in recent years, discussed this issue with their American and Japanese counterparts in the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission. Due to Canadian efforts the agenda at next month's meeting will include the topic of marine debris and the issue of drift-nets.
However, the Canadian Government has also sanctioned an experimental drift-net fishery which, in ,1986, claimed 49 marine mammals, including two killer whales and five pilot
whales. Even after this destruction the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) approved another drift-net experiment in 1987. The death count this year is 90 marine mammals and 512 sea-birds.
How can the Minister be taken seriously when he is pressuring the international community to end this drift-net fishery and at the same time attempting to introduce the use of drift-nets on the Pacific coast? This hypocrisy and the use of drift-nets have to stop.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last spring we repeatedly warned the Prime Minister of Canada not to negotiate with France about the sovereign rights of Atlantic fishermen. We warned him that any negotiations on this issue by Canada would be seen by France as an act of weakness, and that is exactly what has happened.
French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac has announced that French fishermen will now illegally take at least 36,000 tonnes of fish in our waters next year and that French fishermen will operate, to use his words: "under the best possible security conditions".


John Napier Turner: Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the weakness of the Prime Minister this spring led to this disgraceful situation? Will he tell us whether our Prime Minister has found out from Prime Minister Chirac of France just what the French Prime Minister meant when he said he would guarantee the security of the French fishing fleet in our waters?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first, in connection with the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Chirac said nothing about fishing in our waters, nor did his Minister of Fisheries. His statement was that they would fish for 36,000 tonnes of fish in the disputed zone of 3PS. The difficulty is that no one knows whose waters those disputed waters are, whether they are France's or Canada's.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Tobin:: What a sell-out!


John Carnell Crosbie: That question will only be known when an international tribunal adjudicates it.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was in the Government in 1972 when the infamous treaty of 1972 was entered into,
October 29, 1987

which gave the French the right to take thousands of tonnes of fish in Canadian waters. He now has the audacity to get up and question our firmness, when we have closed Canadian ports to French fishing vessels, we have closed the Burgeo Bank to French fishing vessels, and we have closed all areas of 3PS outside the disputed zone to French fishing vessels.
On October 9 we told the French there would be no quotas in Canadian waters under the 1972 treaty, given to France by the Leader of the Opposition and his Government in 1972. There will be no quotas next year unless they show that they are reasonable and reach an agreement with us.


John Napier Turner: The Minister responsible for Newfoundland has just inaccurately rewritten history. In his statement he just conceded to France Canadian sovereignty over the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER CONTACTED FRENCH PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to solve this problem with President Mitterand of France. He did not. The Prime Minister promised to solve the problem with Prime Minister Chirac of France. He did not. The Prime Minister of Canada promised to solve the problem at the Economic Summit, and then at the Francophone Summit. He did not.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister of Canada called Prime Minister Chirac within the last 24 hours to ask him exactly what he meant about this thinly veiled threat to Canada and what he means in refusing to stop the illegal French fishing, now to the limit of 36,000 tonnes, in our waters? Has our Prime Minister been in touch with the Prime Minister of France?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think we might ask the Leader of the Opposition if he has been in touch with the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland who said that Canada is offering unreasonably small amounts of codfish to the French in 2J3KL. Has he been in contact with Mr. Wells on that question? I do not think he has.
With respect to the question of France, we are negotiating with France because we want to settle the question of how much fish is to be caught in the disputed area of 3PS. In that negotiation we have had no help from the Hon. Members opposite who have continued their contrived hysteria.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to tear up the free trade agreement with the United States before it is written. Why does he not want to tear up the agreement he entered into with France in 1972? Is that his next tear-up? What does he suggest to settle this matter?


John Napier Turner: I think the people of Newfoundland will find the Minister's answers totally
Oral Questions
unacceptable this afternoon. We have been in touch with Clyde Wells, and he wonders why the Minister does not get off his butt and protect the fishermen in Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNACCEPTABLE THREAT AGAINST CANADA
John Napier Turner: Because I might, in the current circumstances, get a sensible answer, I want to return to the Deputy Prime Minister. The answers so far are simply not good enough. Cut it anyway you want, the Prime Minister of France has made an unacceptable threat against Canada. Our Prime Minister has not responded appropriately in the circumstances.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister will the Prime Minister tell Prime Minister Chirac that if he thinks or even dreams of carrying through his thinly veiled threat that the consequences, in diplomatic terms, will be unacceptable to him?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows all about butts. He has had his hands on more butts than there are Members in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: With reference to the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland, I will quote what he said on the CBC last night:
The EEC is giving up their share, some 9,500 tonnes,-
Which the Liberals gave the EEC in 1980.
-that quantity can be used to bargain reasonably with France and give
France a significant portion of that 9,500 tonnes and try and bargain
reasonably without in any way impacting on the inshore fisheries or the
Canadian Fisheries in the area.
That is what the Leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland said.
With respect to Prime Minister Chirac, there has been no threat from the Prime Minister of France. I will tell you what the Prime Minister said-and I know him personally-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He expressed his disappointment at the attitude of the Canadian authorities-we are too tough for them-which was delaying progress, he said, in the negotiations. He pledged that French boats would be able to carry on fishing in waters within French sovereignty "under the best possible security conditions".
It was the hon. gentleman's Government in June of 1984 which entered into an arrangement with France so that we would not interfere with its navy vessels when they went into disputed waters, the 3PS. Has he forgotten that now? He was in office for such a short period, I suppose he cannot remember these little incidentals.

October 29, 1987
10526______________________________
Oral Questions REQUEST THAT CANADA ARREST FRENCH VESSELS


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the record of this Government in dealing with the French over Canadian fish has been nothing short of humiliating. Mr. Chirac insulted Newfoundland's Lieutenant Governor, tricked this Government into supporting their nominee to the World Court; the chief French negotiator ordered the French negotiators to leave the table. Now he announces a new big French quota in Canadian waters and says he is going to protect it with the navy.
Canadian fishermen want to know when the Government is going to stand up to the French and arrest them if they violate their quotas, like we do everyone else. We are fed up with these Chirac attacks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been wondering since the middle of August where the Hon. Member was. It is like the return of Boris Karloff.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are going to follow the same practice as the Liberal Government that operated from 1974, when the hon. gentleman was elected, until it was removed in 1984, except for that brief terrific period of eight months when we were in power under my late, under my former Leader here.


Some Hon. Members:: oh, oh!


Mr. Foster:: And Joe isn't dead yet.


John Carnell Crosbie: When the French leave the disputed zone, if they go fishing one iota, one jot, one tittle outside the disputed zone, we will arrest their vessels just as we arrest the vessels of other countries. We block them from the western gullies and we block them from the Burgeo Bank, and if they come outside to fish, we will arrest their vessels. If they stay in the disputed zone we will observe the Liberal agreement of June, 1984. We will not interfere with their vessels as long as they do not interfere with ours. That is the Liberal agreement we are carrying on, because we think it is sensible between two friendly countries that we do that. Never mind the bellicose hysteria, the hyped-up hyperbole of the Opposition.


CANADIAN POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the only contribution that I can think of that this Minister of Transport could make to discourage the French from Canadian waters would be to put him on the deck of one of our fisheries patrol vessels, give him a loudspeaker and ask him to speak in French. Or maybe we could convince them to use him as ballast-that might sink the entire French fleet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister this. Is the Government of Canada going to arrest the French fleet if they do what Mr. Chirac said they were going to do, which was to catch 80 per cent of the entire total allowable catch out to 200 miles-six times their quota? Or are we just going to faint at the sight of the French flag?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I think it was a French woman, Mr. Speaker, Marie Antoinette who said: "Let them eat cake". That is the closest the hon. gentleman has ever gotten to the French. She was the one French woman who liked bakers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it was George Bernard Shaw who said this: "No man fully capable in his own language ever masters another". Never was that more true.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the French vessels, just to put this in the correct perspective, the French have threatened that they will set-something which they have been doing-their own quota in the disputed zone. We do not agree with it. We are going to protest it. We have barred their vessels from Canadian ports. They are suffering because of that. The mayor of St. Pierre and Miquelon is at odds with the French Government, putting the pressure on them to be reasonable.
Our course of action has been most appropriate. As long as the French do not come into our waters and attempt to fish, we are not going to arrest their vessels, as long as they stay in the disputed zone. What other steps we will take we will have to decide, if this happens, because 1988 has not yet arrived, although most Members opposite do not know that.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT APPLY ECONOMIC PRESSURE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. For Newfoundlanders and for Newfoundland fishermen in particular this is not a laughing matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister of Transport has said that the action of France in terms of announcing that they will drastically increase their overfishing in the waters off St. Pierre and Miquelon, in the disputed waters, is both irresponsible and provocative. In light of the fact that the Minister has already outlined certain measures which he intends to take, or which he has announced, we have on this side of the House no argument with that. We think they are correct.
I want to say this to the Minister now. Since it seems that the Government has decided that a major economic investment will be made in submarines, will it give some consideration, in light of its own thinking on this matter, to seeing what
October 29, 1987

economic pressures can be brought to bear on the French to get them back to the table so that we can get on with settling this contentious issue?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a question from the hon. lugubrious Member. It is a serious question. It is a serious issue.
With respect to the situation, it is a disputed zone. That is why we are negotiating. That is the pressure on us. We are responsible. We are going to observe proper conservation measures. The Minister of Fisheries will have to set the Canadian TAC for that zone in December, when he sets it for all the other zones that are in Canadian waters. We will observe the Canadian TAC.
The French who, in the past, took 15.6 per cent of the catch in the disputed zone historically, now claim that they can take 60 per cent. We cannot stop them because it is a disputed zone under international waters. But we are going to protest.
With respect to French nuclear submarines, there has been no decision to buy them. The Ministry of National Defence is looking at the French version and the English version to see which best suits Canada. If it concludes the French model best suits Canada, then we can make a decision, if we are still in dispute with France over the offshore area, the fishing area, whether or not to go ahead with such a purchase. But it works two ways.
We are trying to sell things to France. We are trying to sell France water-bombers. If the water-bombers were built in the Hon. Member's district, he would not be so bellicose about cutting off sales of x to France, if water-bombers from his district were going to be cut off by France which would refuse to buy them from Canada. These things work two ways.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Yes, if my district or my area were involved, I would be up shouting and screaming for some action to be taken, just as fishermen in Newfoundland are standing up and asking for some specific action to be taken by the Government.
In light of the fact that there is a trade surplus in favour of Canada I want to ask the Government, again through the Minister, is the Government contemplating some economic measures which can be taken to force France back to the bargaining table? Or is he prepared to stand up and personalize his attacks on the Opposition and allow the fishermen of Newfoundland to lose their fishing, to lose their stocks?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has a very remote knowledge of fishermen in Newfoundland. There is actually a Member in the House from the NDP from Newfoundland. This Hon. Member is from Sudbury.


Mr. Broadbent:: Come on!
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Personalize it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is he not from Sudbury? He is from Sudbury, Mr. Speaker. Let me get to my answer.


John R. Rodriguez: Regional racism again.


John Carnell Crosbie: The fishermen of Newfoundland are closely associated with these negotiations. Their representatives have been at the negotiations. They were there on October 9. They have supported the position we took. They are supporting our negotiator, Mr. Fortier. They agree with us that there should be no quotas to go to France for next year because of its present attitude. They agree that the 1972 treaty is unworkable, the treaty that the Liberal Government entered into, because of the attitudes of the French. They agree with us that the French must reduce their catch in 3PS.
We have exerted tremendous pressure on the French by cutting off French fishing vessels from our ports so that trawlers in St. Pierre and Miquelon cannot get repaired in Marystown.
So the thing now is for Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -to wait, to see whether this pressure works or not, not a lot of vaporous hot air from the Opposition in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY-MARKETING OF PRODUCTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am from Newfoundland. Let me say at the outset that Newfoundlanders appreciate any Member from any part of Canada from any political Party who helps bring relief from this terrible, insensitive Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: We do not believe in the creed, Mr. Speaker, of dividing region from region.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You cannot even unite your Party!

October 29, 1987
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: -the manipulative actions of the Minister of Energy and how those actions have directly resulted in the loss of 300 jobs at the Come-by-Chance oil refinery.
1 have today received a copy of a secret contract entered into between Newfoundland Energy, the operators of the Come-by-Chance oil refinery, and Petro-Canada. This contract contains restrictive provisions which prevent Come-by-Chance from marketing its product anywhere in Canada outside the Province of Newfoundland.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Why did the Government arrange a contract as part of establishing the Come-by-Chance oil refinery that makes that refinery located in Newfoundland, Canada's poorest province, the only refinery in Canada that is not able to market its products in the domestic Canadian market? Plow can we have free trade in energy with the United States when within Canada this refinery has been blackballed?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, I am acting on his behalf today.
The Hon. Member's facts are completely wrong. Some months ago, the Petro-Canada Crown corporation turned over lock, stock and barrel to the Newfoundland Government, to pass on to Newfoundland Energy Ltd., the Come-by-Chance oil refinery, and all the assets, for $1. Petro-Canada had invested more than $30 million in preserving that asset.
The new owners say that they plan to sell their product in the United States. There is a surplus of refining capacity in eastern Canada now. Three or four refineries had to close in Montreal.
As some condition of protection for the investment that it had in that plant, Petro-Canada made it a condition that, if the refinery wished to sell in mainland Canada outside the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, it would enter into an arrangement where it would have the right of first refusal to any products sold on the mainland at a special price. Newfoundland Energy can sell on the mainland, but first it must offer to Petro-Canada-which gave them $30 million worth of assets for nothing.
That is a simple, reasonable, commercial condition that was accepted by the Province of Newfoundland, that was accepted by Newfoundland Energy, and it ill behooves them now to come complaining and giving little documents to the Hon. Member, the gentleman opposite, who does not know what to do with them.


PURCHASE OF JET FUEL BY AIR CANADA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders can only come to the conclusion
that this Member is looking for a sinecure in the Senate, because he obviously does not intend and does not have the face to go back-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Air Canada has reported to the National Energy Board that this year it has already imported 1 million barrels of jet fuel worth $200 million from outside this country because the jet fuel is not available within the existing refining capacity in Canada. Air Canada has attempted to buy jet fuel which is available at Come-by-Chance, but has been rebuffed because of the terms and conditions contained within this agreement.
Air Canada, which reports to the Minister of Transport, is spending $200 million outside the country because the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy will not allow Come-by-Chance to supply that fuel, even although the fuel is not available elsewhere in Canada.
What type of arrangement is that for the province with the highest unemployment in Canada, when the ability to market in Canada would mean 300 more jobs, $9 million more additional payroll, and a boost to an economy that is sick and tired of the wimpish attitude of this failed Newfoundland representative in the federal Cabinet?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a continuing rising tide of hysteria among the opposition Members.
The Come-by-Chance oil refinery is in my district. 1 asked Petro-Canada to turn the refinery over to the people who now have it, who wish the refinery to produce gasoline products and other products for them to sell in their Cumberland Stores down in the United States. That is why it was established there. If there is a sale, or if Air Canada needs to purchase jet fuel and they buy it on the mainland of Canada-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Outside of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: They can purchase the jet fuel from whom they like outside Canada. There is no impediment. Petro-Canada has not interfered with them buying jet fuel. Let me say that this is a concoction. There is no impediment. If they wish to sell in the mainland of Canada, they do it through Petro-Canada, which should have some chance to get some return on the $30 million that this Crown corporation, created by the Hon. Members opposite, put into that operation, which went for nothing to the people who now operate it, and who should stick to their agreement, be man enough to stick to it, and stop whining about it.
October 29, 1987


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Two days ago the Auditor General produced a report in which he documented a very serious contention or judgment. He stated that the $5 million grant that had been made to Fantasyland in Edmonton was not justified in terms of the criteria established in general by the Department relevant for this grant. Second, and in particular, he stated that the project would have proceeded without the money.
Yesterday in the House the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology called those contentions into doubt. He stated that it was eligible, and that the project would not have proceeded had the money not been made available.
A few hours ago I spoke to the Auditor General and I asked him if he stood by his judgment. He said categorically yes. Specifically, I asked him if he had anything to say about whether or not the project would have been proceeded with. He stated that his officials checked again today, and these are his words, "That's not what the file says".
Second, I asked him if he stood by his claim that the project was ineligible for grants. Was there evidence to support the claim or the application? He said that there is no evidence to support the grant. In short, the Auditor General stands totally by what he said, after checking the facts today.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister have something to say about this?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to take issue with what the Auditor General has had to say.
For the record, it should interest all Members of the House to be aware of what DRIE officials had to say about this particular transaction. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from a response that DRIE officials made to the Auditor General. This was prepared last summer in response to the audit that was taken.
The following statement was written by DRIE:
-that the application for assistance for this project was received on December 7, 1983 and while tourism was dropped from IRDP on November 9, 1984, the application was protected under the grandfather provision. It is clear from file documentation that the necessary permits, construction contracts and actual construction on this project was/were not entered into prior to December 7, 1983 and therefore the project was not prior committed within the terms of Section 29(1) of the pre-November 9, 1984 Regulations to the IRDP.
DRIE's position remains that the project continued to be eligible for assistance consideration under IRDP, notwithstanding the fact that construction was well advanced in August, 1985 when the DRIE Minister made the actual decision to assist.
Oral Questions
It further states:
The IRDP contribution facilitated the company in arranging the additional financing and consequently ensured that the project was completed within the originally proposed scope and timing. If DRIE had not offered the assistance at that time, it is highly probable that construction would have been delayed and the significant contributions that have accrued to Canada's economy over the past two years from this tourism facility would have been substantially lessened.
That is the position of DRIE. Obviously, the Auditor General has the right to consider that or to reject it. But that is the position of DRIE.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will table the document. I would like to know the time that that official stated that yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, last summer.


John Edward Broadbent: The statement was made last summer, I understand.
But considering that the Auditor General checked as recently as this morning and said to me on the telephone that the files in the Department do not support the claim that the grant was eligible, and specifically the Auditor General reported to me that, in his judgment, after looking at the evidence, the project would have proceeded without a $5 million hand-out by the Government, I want the Minister to say in his words why an additional $5 million was necessary when the Auditor General of Canada says that it was not necessary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the indulgence that you gave me. I thought that the answer I gave was quite fulsome, and that represents the position of DRIE. I do not have access to the Auditor General's files. I hope that the Leader of the NDP appreciates that.
The Auditor General stated at his press conference that, "I am advised that it is within the Minister's prerogative to make a payment out of the IRDP and he did so, or Cabinet did so". The Auditor General goes on to state, "Ministers have that prerogative to make those kinds of decisions and they took it upon themselves to make the decision".
The decision was made in a normal, proper manner, Mr. Speaker, and this House, this Government, and 1 as a Minister stand by that position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MAKING OF DECISION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right. A Cabinet Minister made this decision. That

October 29, 1987
Oral Questions
is obvious. But according to the Auditor General, the decision was not in accordance with departmental procedure. My question is quite simple. Does the Government intend to make decision according to the rules, yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I thought the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion outlined the steps in a very clear and coherent manner. I have tried to follow that up today in the best manner possible. Yesterday he quoted the Alberta Regional Executive Director for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, and this goes back to November 26, 1986.
This is not a new story. It was released in December, 1986, when the annual report of the IRD Program was tabled in the House and there was some comment about it at that time. I am surprised that the Hon. Leader of-


John Edward Broadbent: We thought that it was consistent with the rules then.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course it was and it still is. That is the decision of DRIE officials. It was confirmed by the Regional Director in Edmonton and it was quoted yesterday.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The House has passed Bill C-84 and Bill C-55 which deal with immigration and an ever growing number of refugee claimants in Canada. Yet it is reported in today's newspaper that the Government has "every intention" of introducing an amnesty to clear the backlog of refugee claimants.
Will the Minister tell the House and the people of Canada if this report is true? If not, what is the Government's intention on this very important issue?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, every time I have been asked about an amnesty for people claiming refugee status, I have always said no.
The reason is a good one. Although they wanted to come to Canada and they were assured that there would be an amnesty anyway, one, two, or three years after, I considered that to be a very bad signal.
On the other hand, I believe that it would just legitimize queue-jumpers. All those who come here and have to wait a while to be accepted are not to be treated unfairly by that kind of rule. I repeat today that there is absolutely no question of giving amnesty to anybody.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CHAIRMAN-DESIGNATE OF REFUGEE BOARD
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Could the Minister give us an explanation of why the newly designated Chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board could have given out this erroneous information?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when I met with Mr. Fairweather it was very clear that he had the right to speak out on immigration. However, it is obvious that a Minister has the right to say what I said today, and I repeat that there is no amnesty for anybody.


COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY-IMPORTATION OF JET AIRCRAFT FUEL
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Already this year Air Canada has had to import a million barrels of refined jet fuel into Canada because it could not get it in Canada. Canadian Airlines International has had to import
200,000	barrels already this year because it could not get it in Canada.
This jet fuel could be refined by the Come-by-Chance refinery. It would create 300 jobs at an annual payroll of an additional $9 million.
Why, when this jet fuel cannot be purchased in Canada and has to be imported, will the Hon. Minister not lift the sanctions or the restrictions on the Come-by-Chance refinery and allow it to supply this refined jet fuel?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are no restrictions on the Come-by-Chance oil refinery except such as the owners of that refinery agreed to by way of a contract.
The hon. gentlemen opposite are experts at tearing up contracts. They want to tear up the free trade agreement. They want to tear up this and they want to tear up that. Now the hon. gentleman is saying that this contract should be torn up.
It was entered into between Newfoundland Energy Limited and Petro-Canada, and the Newfoundland Government participated. They entered into a contractual agreement. In return they got $30 million worth of assets for one dollar. If
October 29, 1987

they wish to sell any product on the mainland of Canada, all they have to do is make an offer first, give a chance of first refusal to Petro-Canada, and if Petro-Canada does not accept it, then they can offer it and sell it to anyone they like.
They have nothing to complain about. They were established at Come-by-Chance because they wanted to sell products in the United States. We already have an over-capacity in refining in eastern Canada, as they know, in Montreal.
I remember Hon. Members opposite making a fuss because a refinery was closing in Montreal. Surely they can have their partisanship diminish a bit and see that this is just a contractual arrangement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada has the right of first refusal, but it has 15 days in which to decide whether it is going to take it. Also, Come by Chance Newfoundland Energy would have to pay Petro-Canada 15 per cent of its gross profit if in fact it did sell.
It was not only one dollar. They also took over $26 million in liabilities and took over a first mortgage of between $35 million and $40 million-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty that the Chair is in is that certainly a certain amount of latitude has to be added but this is not an Examination for Discovery over a contract and what people said. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, since Newfoundland Energy was forced to sign that contract with a gun to its head, because either it signed or its refinery was to be torn down the next day, why is the Minister of Transport denying Newfoundlanders 300 extra jobs and $9 million extra a year in revenues to that province?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is typical exaggeration-


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is the fact, John. You have been caught with your pants down. Now, pull them up and tell the truth.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I can be allowed to answer, at the moment the refinery has suffered from a fire and it is not producing. When it does produce-and I have been down and inspected it and gone through it; it is in my district-it is going to employ several hundred people.
I induced Petro-Canada to turn over for nothing $30 million worth of assets at that refinery, and I had the Government of Canada turn over the wharf down there which cost something like $30 million, for one dollar.
I am the Member who represents the district. If there was such a nefarious arrangement that prevented these people from selling their oil products anywhere unfairly, I would personally intervene to stop it, but that is not the case. This is a bargain
Oral Questions
arrived at by two adult parties, and they have to live up to their obligations.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it pertains to the grant to Fantasyland. By virtue of the statement from DRIE which he read to the House today that did not refer to the fact that the project would not have gone ahead if the money had not been granted, but that the project might have been delayed if the money had not been granted, and given the fact that one of the criteria for whether or not money should go to such projects is whether or not the project would go ahead, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he has the nerve to get up and talk about delay as a reason for him giving that grant, when the criteria talk about whether or not the project will actually go ahead.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to criteria. He calls them criteria. They are talking about rules being broken. They are talking about regulations being broken. The fact of the matter is that none of the rules have been broken.
If he looks at Section 8 of the Act, the learned socialist over there, he will see that the Act talks about economic and social benefit, incrementality, and viability. When this was revised by the Department, it was found, in accordance with this, that the bottom line is that a Minister of the Crown has the legal power to exercise his discretion on these criteria. He exercised it in favour of Alberta, in favour of Edmonton, in favour of the chosen sector in those parts of the country. That is what happened.
The criterion in the decision to which he refers was one of viability. The circumstances changed from 1983 to 1985. We are proud of that decision because, when we look at tourism in Edmonton and Alberta today, we find that the West Edmonton Mall is drawing over two million tourists annually-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I just might remind Hon. Members-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill in a moment. A great many questions have been asked on this subject. The questions, although not exactly the same, really do search after the same mission. The consequence is that the responses are, of course, very much the same.

October 29, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
This procedure can go on for a quite a long time but I would point out that the usual tradition has been that when questions are asked over and over again, if they are taking up a great deal of time sooner or later the Chair is asked to intervene. I do not want to intervene on an important matter without good reason, but I am indicating to the House that when the same question or nearly the same question is asked continually, sooner or later the Chair has to take into account other Members and other matters in the House. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROJECTS NOT FUNDED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it was the Deputy Prime Minister himself who introduced this new line of argument. We are simply responding to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Deputy Prime Minister earlier said that he wanted to debate the issue with me in Edmonton or here. Now he will not even answer questions in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would put his question and we will see whether the Minister will answer.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this grant to Fantasyland took up 80 per cent of the money allocated for Alberta under this particular program, could the Deputy Prime Minister provide to the House and the people of Alberta a list of the projects that were not funded because he decided to give 80 per cent for Alberta to this one particular project? Would he be willing to provide that kind of information?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with your admonishment on this very important issue, 1 think the issue which the Hon. Member is raising was pretty appropriately described in an editorial in today's Edmonton Journal, which reads:
Flap over mall's DRIE grant is just political piffle.
John Ferguson of the The Citizen wrote:
MPs fiddle in Fantasyland while markets tumble.
I find it passing strange that the Hon. Member was around and in this House when the Government put together a deal that saved Versatile at a cost of $45 million of federal government taxpayers' money.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 never heard a whimper from him nor should I have, because it was a good deal for Winnipeg, a good deal for Canada, and a good deal for western Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, that is right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And this is exactly the same.


John Edward Broadbent: It was honest and it was different.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Put more questions then.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise that, given the time, that concludes Question Period.


John V. Nunziata: Hold it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Refer to the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister.


PRIVILEGE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Again we witnessed, as reported in Hansard yesterday, an occurrence which I believe constitutes unacceptable parliamentary conduct on the part of two New Democratic Members of Parliament as reported at page 10482 of Hansard. I know that there have been some very hot exchanges on the floor of the House of Commons and I know that Ministers and Members from time to time go a little far in terms of the words they use, which they sometimes regret.
At page 10482 of Hansard in the second column while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was responding, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is reported to have stated:
That's a lie.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) went on to
say-


Charles Joseph Clark: He laughs. Broadbent laughs. What a parliamentarian.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -"You're scum. You're lying scum." Then the Member from Skeena said:
Go ahead and pump out more lies.
I think that demonstrates not only an act of weakness but an act of desperation and, of course, it is totally unparliamentary. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party can laugh about it. He laughs and thinks it is a big joke. I do not. I have respect for this institution. I respect its traditions. I respect its decorum and dignity, and, Mr. Speaker, I think you have done an excellent job in trying to preserve that. In the interests of all Members of Parliament, particularly in the interests of preserving the dignity of this very important institution, I
October 29, 1987

would think that the two Hon. Members should do the honourable and appropriate thing and withdraw those words and apologize.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has put his finger on a very sensitive issue indeed and I want to respond. He has raised a question of privilege. I refer to the same page of Hansard. He has quoted what I have said, but I want to read with care and deliberation what was said just immediately prior to that. As a Canadian who has worked hard for the development and progress of Canadians in all regions of my country let me quote what was said immediately prior to that by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). He said this:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: And I said:
That's a lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The regional racist is up again. Sit down, racist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think that in the interests of some of the decorum and dignity of this place, of which it is often capable, without foreclosing the right of Hon. Members to rise in answer to the point of order, which is really what the Deputy Prime Minister has raised, without making any judgment on the issue at the moment, I will adjourn this matter for one hour and I will come back to it.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata).



John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate question of privilege. Several days ago the Auditor General, an independent officer of Parliament, tabled his report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987. At Clause 16.89 through to 16.97 the Auditor General of Canada, and I repeat, an independent officer of Parliament, made some statements with regard to a particular federal grant to the West Edmonton Mall.
Today, during Question Period, the Government through the Deputy Prime Minister, and yesterday, put into question the integrity of the Auditor General of Canada by indicating-if I may finish my question of privilege-or implying that the
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
Auditor General of Canada was either deliberately misleading Parliament or presented to Parliament an incomplete report.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret interrupting the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who has certainly in his intervention pointed out that there well may be a difference of opinion among different people as to certain matters that took place. However, I think that if one exams the debates carefully, one would find that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said that he did not have access to the files of the Auditor General and as a consequence was not in a position to know upon what basis the Auditor General may or may not have said something.
I must say to all Hon. Members that I did not take it from anything that was said by the Deputy Prime Minister that he was impugning in any way the integrity of the Auditor General of Canada. If the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) can go back over the Hansard report of today and tomorrow, or at a time when he can be here, depending on his other responsibilities, he can indicate to me that that is in fact what happened, then of course I would listen very carefully and consider it very carefully. However, given the fact that the memory of the Chair is such that I do not think that in fact happened, I would ask the Hon. Member to consider the "blues" and then perhaps he would like to return to the Chair.


John V. Nunziata: If I may complete my point, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in a moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member in a moment. Perhaps I can just tidy this matter up. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) may have something to briefly add that may help the Chair.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have raised the point of privilege. I would simply request, Sir, that you review the "blues" today and review Hansard of yesterday when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and other Ministers of the Crown accused opposition Members of being antiwestern Canadian because they criticized this particular grant. By implication, they are suggesting that the Auditor General is anti-western Canadian for criticizing the grant.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member's question of privilege is that in some way, the Government's response to questions may have impugned the integrity of the Auditor General who is a servant of this place which consequently affects the privilege of Hon. Members including the one who has raised the complaint. That is the issue the Chair will consider and I would ask the Hon. Member to look carefully at

October 29, 1987
Points of Order
Hansard. I will do the same and if it is appropriate, we can deal with the matter later.



Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) started discussing with the other side-as a matter of fact, the point was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) about the word "lie" used as recorded in Hansard-I was about to rise on a question of privilege because of the words that were pronounced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday when he said:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties
are opposed to the interests of western Canada. That becomes clearer every
day.
Your Honour said earlier that you wanted to state-I am not sure what Your Honour meant. Are you staying the decision? Are you delaying the decision? You will make a decision on this later, obviously, and if you do this, will you be hearing further representations on the case?


Mr. Speaker:: No, I am sorry-


Jacques Guilbault: This is why I would like to know what Your Honour meant, because we are highly interested-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would ask Hon. Members to extend the courtesy in this place that is appropriate. No Hon. Member needs to be told to sit down, except perhaps when the Chair has to do it. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) has asked a question. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has raised a point of privilege. It has been partly responded to by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I felt it was in the interests of this place that that matter be adjourned for an hour and that is what I am doing. I say "adjourned", not closed off, and in 45 minutes now, because that was 15 minutes ago, I will hear the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party further. But, I have adjourned that matter for 45 minutes for reasons which I think Hon. Members can well understand. It may be that the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques would wish to make an intervention at that time.


POINTS OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) did quote directly from documents from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and I would ask that he now table the full document pursuant to Standing Order 327.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is of course completely correct. I see the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is indicating that he will table the document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table this document.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's not the same one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member has not seen the document and she is already accusing me of not producing the same document. It is the same document. I read from one which is underlined and I must apologize, Mr. Speaker-


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I simply want to apologize to Hon. Members of the House in that it is in one language only and that is the way I received it.


ALLEGED USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when I was attempting to rise on a point of order, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was in the House. He has obviously had to slip out for other business but I simply want to give notice that the Hon. Member used an unparliamentary term in the House of Commons. It is very clear that referring to a Hon. Member by the term "idiot" is considered to be unparliamentary.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who was he referring to?


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 am not certain who he was referring to, but I think Hansard will make it clear. I was hoping he would be here to withdraw the use of the term that is declared in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition to be unparliamentary. I simply serve notice in anticipation that the Hon. Member would rise at the appropriate time and do it himself.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), and I think it would be appropriate that some inquiry be made as to what particular Member the Hon. Member may or may not have been referring to and on which side of the House that Hon. Member was sitting, but I will deal with the matter appropriately in due course.
October 29, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, despite all the excitement we have seen in the House of Commons in these past 10 or 15 minutes, someone has to cool down and remind everyone that the time has come to ask the usual business question. I would like to turn to the Government to ask what is on the agenda for the House of Commons concerning government business in the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the second reading of Bill C-87, the Customs Bill. If time permits, we will continue with third reading debate on Bill C-46, the Mint Bill. Friday, if not completed, we will continue consideration of the above business, and when completed we will call Bill C-54, the pornography Bill.
Monday we will commence second reading of Bill C-76, the emergency preparedness Bill, followed by Bill C-77, the emergencies Bill. We will confirm later that day the date of the next allotted Opposition day.


DISPOSITION OF BILL C-87-CUSTOMS TARIFF
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Additionally, there have been discussions and I think you will find agreement among the parties for adopting the following motion dealing with the committee consideration of Bill C-87:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee
on Bill C-87 an act respecting the imposition of duties and customs and other
charges standing on the Order Paper be changed to read second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have an opportunity to ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) a question. He has indicated the business of the House for the next number of days and the Hon. Minister will know that at the moment, Bill C-204 is before committee and the intention was that Bill C-51 was to be considered by that legislative committee at the same time since they both deal with issues surrounding the advertising and smoking of cigarettes. Does my hon. friend have any plans to introduce for second reading Bill C-51 at some early date?
Interparliamentary Delegations


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been discussions going on among House Leaders about the future business and I would hope that that might be a matter that we could resolve at the next House Leaders' meeting.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has a point of order which he may wish to raise at this time. I will hear him now.


Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today covering interparliamentary delegations. I request permission of the House to revert to Routine Proceedings in order to have the privilege of tabling those two reports.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have two reports to table today, but I first wish to thank the House for the courtesy extended to me.
Pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Parliamentary Association to the Thirty-Third Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held at Kuala Lumpur from August 28 to September 6, 1987.


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO PAKISTAN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Parliamentary Delegation which paid an official visit to Pakistan from September 7 to September 13, 1987. In view of the importance of this report, I wish to speak very briefly to it. There are some aspects that I would like to point out to the House.
Canada has a program of annual food aid to Pakistan to assist that country in feeding some 3.5 million refugees who have arrived there over the past three years. The commissioner

October 29, 1987
Customs Tariff
informed us when we were there that our food and other aid programs were very much appreciated. However, he suggested we consider some changes and I wish to mention this to the House because all of us from time to time address nongovernmental organizations who wish to help. There are two ways to help and sometimes we do the wrong thing. It was therefore suggested that we consider these changes.
The shipment of flour is not as helpful as we were led to believe. It was pointed out that we keep the wheat germ, the bran, the shorts and the middlings, and the refined flour becomes full of weevil and is hard to store. When I asked what they would like to have in place of bags of flour they said please send bags of wheat. They can grind it with grinders there and have a more palatable food for their people. They would also prefer that we send less milk powder. I asked why, because I saw their children starving. They said they do not have pure water with which to mix the milk powder. In its place they would appreciate cases of evaporated milk.
Here I was addressing perhaps 500 Afghan refugees in a refugee camp and I said if they were to come to Canada with a shopping list what would be the six or eight priority items for which they would ask. It is interesting, and this is what I want to outline especially for the House, that the first item they need is tents to house some of those people. If the tents do not have floors, they ask us to send rubber sheets to put in the tent. Third, they need quilts to go over the rubber sheets. It cools down to 90 degrees at night, but it is sometimes 110 degrees during the day and there is lots of condensation when those temperatures are in evidence.
The fourth item they asked for was more blankets. Fifth, they need boiling kettles, not enamel but aluminum, so they can stick two sticks in the ground, put a pole across, and use the kettle as a pot in which to boil water. The sixth item, naturally, was food. The seventh items was medicines, and the eighth was small children's books with large lettering-stories like we read to our own children, so they can teach their children the English language.
Those are the points that I wanted to highlight because all of us can help by using them when addressing NGOs, church groups or any other organization that wishes to send some help. They are doing a monumental job in Pakistan. They are fighting our war for us. They are appreciative of all we can do, but by rearranging our food aid program we can do a little better.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for this opportunity to present these very important facts.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent of the House to forward the remarks of the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to the president of CIDA. I think they are very well-founded.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has been asked for unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was just noting my appreciation, along with that of all Members of the House, for the new rules which allow the chairmen of parliamentary associations to come into the House and give us a brief summary of their trips and their experiences. I want to thank the Hon. Member for this report. It is the first time in my experience that we have had such a comprehensive report from the chairman of that group called the Commonwealth Association. I congratulate him and I hope he continues the practice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make just a few remarks with respect to this Bill because our critic in this area will be making more extensive comments later.
There are three points I wish to make in particular. The first is simply to mention that there are some considerable objections by the Automobile Industry Association of Canada to this Bill and its rapid passage through the House. My colleague from Regina will be dealing with that point in detail.
Second, I am particularly glad that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is in the House. I wish to draw to his attention a very important change which is taking place with respect to customs activities in the City of Windsor. A barge service is being established which will transport from the American side of the border to the Canadian side, to quote from a government document, "hazardous materials that must now go over the Blue Water bridge even though the shipment originates near or south of Detroit". Included in these hazardous materials are both toxic chemicals and gases which I fear, given the very congested waterway of the Detroit River at that point, is an invitation to an accident which would seriously threaten downstream water in the Detroit River and
October 29, 1987

therefore the water supplies of significant parts of my constituency.
I understand that this particular question is being looked at simply from a customs point of view, as to what customs facilities need to be built on the Canadian side in order to mesh with the customs facilities which have been built on the U.S. side. That is simply not good enough. We need a careful environmental inspection of what could be an extremely hazardous situation for people in the City of Windsor and people elsewhere in my constituency.
I would ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to check into this matter and see to it that there is an environmental review of what is being proposed in this case. I see him nodding his head.
This Bill, which deals with the Customs Tariff, also provides some of us who have not had a chance to speak about the free trade deal that has been initialled with the United States an opportunity to discuss the many inadequacies of that trade deal. I hope my colleagues and others will take the occasion to raise questions and express points which concern them and their constituents with respect to this very inequitable trade deal which has been signed with the United States.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-87 is a long and very complicated Bill dealing with 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. Notice of this was tabled in the House on October 2, 1987, in a Ways and Means motion.
Bill C-87 provides for the revision of the Customs Tariff. Despite the convoluted description, it is indeed largely a technical Bill. The revision has been to restructure the existing Customs Tariff according to the principles of the harmonized commodity description and coding system, an internationally based system for the standardization of Customs Tariff clarification and statistical trade data.
Canada intends, along with other GATT members, to implement this HS-based tariff legislation on January 1, 1988.
The date itself concerns our Party.
This legislation reflects the same scenario we see with the trade agreement the Government intends to sign with the United States. It has asked a committee of this Parliament to begin touring the country to receive representation from Canadians about the impact of the agreement. Yet we know that the fine print of this agreement has not yet been agreed to, let alone made public. The Government is asking Parliament to seek the opinion of Canadians on this very important and historic agreement that will affect the nature and future of this country for years to come, without actually seeing the fine
Customs Tariff
print. That is shameful in view of the Government's promise of a process of open consultation with the Canadian public.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government took great pride in its promise during the last election of an open government that would consult the people. Certainly, Canadians wanted an open government that consulted them, after years of Liberal Governments and a Prime Minister who took actions that were not based on consultation.
However, this Government is exactly the same, particularly in respect of the free trade deal and Bill C-87.
I want to read a letter that was sent to the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) on October 8, from the Automotive Industries Association of Canada. They ask the Government to postpone implementation of this legislation for six months because it has not been able to properly digest the contents of this very complicated Bill. Yet the Government is insisting on ramming it through and implementing it without proper consultation.
The letter states:
Dear Minister Hockin:
I am writing on behalf of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, the national trade association that represents more than 1,200 suppliers, distributors and wholesalers of automotive parts, accessories, tools and equipment. Our industry employs over 70,000 people and volume of sales annually at the wholesale level exceeds $7 billion. Our members also supply products for related industries, such as agriculture, forestry and industrial machinery and equipment.
We believe that the implementation date of January 1, 1988 for the new Harmonized Tariff System must be set back at least three months, to April 1.
Such action would parallel the three month set-back being provided in the U.S. for the comparable legislation. This document of some 3,000 pages will receive no more than cursory examination by the majority of members of the House of Commons. Furthermore, the tight schedule precludes detailed study by the industries that will need to comply with the new system.
Government has been labouring over this conversion for over seven years, yet only recently have Canadian companies had some hint of the final draft. The errors or omissions we have noted lead us to believe that companies in industry will be adversely affected by the tariff changes.
Importers need to know how to classify inventory well before the implementation date so they can classify goods on the implementation date and know which changes in duty will apply to their products. We believe that the automotive aftermarket, farm implement, manufacturing and other industries affected are far from being informed or prepared for changes in duty rates that will become effective on passage of this legislation. Indeed, importers may even have been misinformed of the status of importations by unannounced or unexplained changes in the original draft of the Harmonized System.
A significant portion of Canadian industry exists because of the end use made/not made in Canada provisions.
To completely abandon these concepts without a satisfactory conversion period could result in a shifting of manufacturing capability to plants outside Canada. While we favour a free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S., a minimum five year phase in is needed. That means continuing tariffs for those automotive products that are also produced in Canada.
The AIA made a presentation to the Tariff Board in May outlining a number of errors and omissions in the draft of the Annex to the Harmonized System (correspondence enclosed). Their report on proposed amendments, intended to be issued this November, has now been delayed we understand until April 1988. This would be after the January 1st implementation date. How can you implement legislation until the rules and regulations are finalized?

October 29, 1987
Customs Tariff
At stake is the viability of some Canadian companies. For example, Versatile Farm Equipment in Winnipeg will now be denied duty free entry of welding equipment for automation of their company, if the new system comes into effect without change.
There are many products where duty has been removed or added, without just reason. These anomalies must be corrected before implementation. I am enclosing another attachment that gives some more examples of the type of problems we know will occur.
Industry has not had seven years to gear up for the new HTS like government. We have had less than seven months to obtain and digest information and respond. We respectfully request that you delay implementation of the new HTS until both government and industry are ready-April 1 at the earliest.
Yours very truly.
Dean H. Wilson, P. Eng.
President.
I enter this letter into the record because it makes some extremely important points. First, the accusation states that the industry has not been able to study the full impact of the changes being proposed, that the changes themselves cover some 3,000 pages. It also notes that this Parliament and all Hon. Members will not have much of an opportunity to understand this piece of legislation. Indeed, I think the association understates the facts. How many times do we get a piece of legislation that covers some 3,000 pages which the Government expects just to pass through in a pleasant afternoon sitting?
Again, we have a similarity between what the Government is doing with Bill C-87 and what it is doing with free trade. I am certain the trade agreement our Prime Minister and President Reagan will sign will cover hundreds of pages of technical agreements which will affect the nooks, crannies and corners of this country, little industries here and there. It will have profound impact on various regions and their industries, no one will have an opportunity to really digest what it all means and what the impact will be in the long term.
The Government is asking the people of this country to agree to something without seeing the fine print. That is like the proverbial second-hand car salesman trying to sell a lemon, trying to get you to sign on the dotted line, without letting you read all the fine print.


James Douglas Manly: Would you buy a used car from that man?


Simon Leendert de Jong: No, I would not buy a used car from that man, Mr. Speaker. The letter from the Automotive Industries Association makes some other points as well. It points out, for example, that the Government has been working on this conversion for over seven years. Yet only recently have Canadian companies been given some hint of the final draft. It points out errors and omissions it has noted that leads it to believe that companies and industries will be adversely affected by the tariff changes. In other words, it is stating that the Government has not even done its work properly over these last seven years. There are errors and omissions in what we are asked to pass today. These errors and omissions, while they
have been pointed out to the Government, have not been acted upon.
The association also points out in its letter that several industries, the automotive aftermarket, farm implements, manufacturing and other industries are far from being informed or prepared for the changes in duty rates that will become effective on passage of this legislation. An industry that is important to this country is being asked to comply with changes that have been sprung on them, that it has not been able to digest properly and does not know what the effects will be. It also points out in its letter that because of some of the tariff changes, manufacturing could be driven to the United States. For example, and I quote again from the letter:
To completely abandon these concepts without a satisfactory conversion
period could result in a shifting of manufacturing capability to plants outside
Canada.
Again, the industry is warning us that the unforeseen effects of Bill C-87 might very well be that industry is driven out of this country. It is saying that the Government and the industry, which has not been properly consulted, have not really thought this through. I suspect and submit that it is also true of the trade agreement the Government is attempting to force on the Canadian people. That is something the Government has not totally thought through. The association brings up some very important points that are quite similar to the debate on the trade agreement on which this country is now embarking.
The other aspect of Bill C-87 which is also worth noting is that while the Tories on June 6, 1986, imposed a 10 per cent duty on books and periodicals in response to the U.S. 35 per cent tariff on Canadian shakes and shingles, the Government, after an outcry by the book industry in this country withdrew the 10 per cent duty on books and periodicals but did it through a remission order, in other words, an order from Cabinet. What Bill C-87 now does is to maintain the duty on books and periodicals in legislation and does not take it off as it should. In other words, while the remission order is still in place, the legislation is also in place which allows the Government to reintroduce the tariff on books and periodicals. Why has the Government left this out of its legislation? Is it really thinking of slapping a tariff on books and periodicals again? I do recognize that the Government has some trouble with books and things of intellectual quality. I recognize that some of the Hon. Members are not too familiar, perhaps, with books and periodicals and feel they are dispensable. After all, they are luxuries, and we might as well slap a 10 per cent tax on them.


Mr. McMillan:: Nonsense.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Of course, I recognize the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) as one who, I would tend to think, is quite familiar with books and periodicals. I am not suggesting that all members of the Conservative Party are strangers to books and periodicals, but listening to some of the remarks of members of the Government one can only come to the conclusion that it has been a long time since they read a
October 29, 1987

book or periodical. I do not include the Minister of the Environment, who I feel is a learned gentleman and, indeed, an honourable one. Ele knows a lot about acid rain and 1 think he reads a lot of books about acid rain. We just hope his next step is to stop reading and start doing something about it. That is the next step. We are all behind him to encourage him along the way.
So, when we deal with Bill C-87, which is quite a technical piece of legislation, we support the Automotive Industries Association of Canada in its request that the Government delay for three months the implementation of this Bill. In this way the industry can begin to comprehend and digest more fully what all the changes would mean to that particular industry and other industries. We urge the Government to be open to the suggestions from the industry to clean up the Bill so that it will not have the effect of driving some industries down to the United States and therefore lose Canadian jobs.
In debating Bill C-87 we must also talk about the larger question that is looming over this country, that is, the proposed trade agreement between the Prime Minister and President Reagan. We must surely ask the question whether this is something that will be of benefit to Canadians.
I see you have given me the two fingers, Mr. Speaker, and by that I understand that I have two minutes remaining. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has his whole hand in his mouth. That does not mean anything.
I wish to point out in closing my remarks that the Government proclaimed the great benefits of the slogan "Open for business", which its counterpart in Saskatchewan, Premier Devine, campaigned on so eloquently in 1982. The slogan in Saskatchewan now is not "Open for business" but "Hoping for business". We must point out that it is the foreign investors and foreign-owned companies in this country that have the worst record in terms of job creation.
According to a Stats Canada study, between 1978 and 1985 Canadian-controlled companies created some 876,000 new jobs while foreign companies eliminated 12,800 jobs. Meanwhile, the share of profits earned by foreign firms in Canada rose from 31 per cent to 43 per cent of total profits. These few statistics point out eloquently point out the effects of having an economy that is so greatly controlled by people foreign to us. Their interests are not the interests of creating jobs and real economic activity in Canada. Statistics show that they received almost 50 per cent of the profits made in this country, yet between 1978 and 1985, in a seven-year period, they actually eliminated over 12,000 jobs.
I hope that these statistics will give the Government some pause as it makes this headlong dash into the embrace of the American eagle. I hope that government Members will begin to recognize that it is not in the interests of Canada, which they have sworn to uphold, to continue with this madness of a trade deal with the United States.
Customs Tariff


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands,


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for a very helpful speech on the whole question of tariffs and pointing out how it relates to the whole question of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal with the United States. The thing that I would like to ask him about is this. The Prime Minister is very clearly on the record as having stated his opposition to free trade before he became the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Other leading members of the Conservative Party, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who is in the House today, also indicated their opposition to the folly of some kind of total agreement with the United States on trade. That was their position before the 1984 election. There was no commitment to negotiate an agreement with the United States during the 1984 election.
Since that election we have seen nothing but one concession after another to the United States. We have seen the abolition of FIRA by which we gutted our capacity to look into American takeovers of Canadian firms. We have seen the struggle to ram through Bill C-22 which will result in higher drug costs for Canada. We have seen the bungling and the supine attitude toward the softwood lumber issue. We have seen a whole range of issues on which the Government has buckled under pressure from the United States.
The question I would like to ask the Hon. Member is this. Why does the Hon. Member think that the Prime Minister changed his position on the question of free trade when he was so clearly opposed to it before he became the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party? He made no attempt to seek a mandate for it in the 1984 election campaign. Why would he have changed his position and now be entering into this agreement with the United States which is so clearly fraught with danger to the Canadian future?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I thank my colleague and friend, Mr. Speaker, for asking a very important question. I am not certain if I can give a complete answer to it. He is certainly correct in pointing out that the Prime Minister, including the front-bench Members of the Government, were all against the concept of free trade. Since coming to power they seem to have turned themselves around 180 degrees. What motivated them to do that I am not certain.
Certainly, one could say that before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister he was a branch plant manager. Perhaps he feels comfortable in that role. Certainly, under a free trade agreement he will again become more of a branch plant manager, except that the branch plant will now be Canada. I find that to be the driving force of Members opposite. They feel that the future of the country is to be tied totally to the future and the well-being of our cousins and friends south of us.

October 29, 1987
Customs Tariff
They do not have a vision of an independent country, of an independent Canada, that is able to make its own way in the world and that is able to stand up on its own economic feet. They do not see that Canada has enough of a vitality and imagination to be able to function as a free country, free not just politically but also culturally and economically. They feel that Canadians just do not have it in them to be able to do that. They feel that we must make all sorts of concessions to the United States in order to get some favoured position, some favourable consideration by the Americans, so that when the United States goes through, and surely it must go through, major internal economic reorganization, somehow Canadians will be spared the measures that the Americans are threatening to take.


James Douglas Manly: Fat chance.


Simon Leendert de Jong: As my colleague says, "Fat chance". I think the Americans are out there to protect themselves. I think one expects them to do that. There is not necessarily anything that is immoral about that. Nations have the responsibility of looking after their people and themselves. I wish this Government would take the same position as far as Canada is concerned and stand up and say: "Canada first". If it says that, then we would not be involved in these types of negotiations that we have been involved in with the United States.
The Government's ability and technique of negotiating leaves something to be desired. As my colleague pointed out, before the Government sat down at the bargaining table, it already gave away several major chips. What a manner in which to negotiate! These people are so anxious to tie our fortunes to the American fortunes that they are willing to give almost everything away.
In conclusion, in answer to my friend and colleague, I find the Government's handling of this most shameful, the fact that it stated one thing before and during the election, and since coming to power has totally changed its position. It is now going to force this through Parliament. It is calling upon a committee of Parliament to travel across the country and receive representations from Canadians and industry, without our seeing let alone digesting the hundreds of pages of technical documents that will be associated with this agreement. I find that a most shameful act. It is shameful to this Parliament and to the people of Canada.


Mr. McKenzie:: The NDP Members have been making repeated statements about former positions of Conservatives in regard to free trade. Many of us have had to change our positions on the free trade concept because of the protectionist attitude in the United States.
I wish to refer to the many various positions of the NDP, and read some of its trade resolutions from March, 1987. The NDP stated, "Increase activities to promote trade". We are increasing activity to promote trade. The NDP went on to say,
"Pursue mature state-to-state relationship and cease to deal with the U.S. on an issue-by-issue basis". That is what we are doing. We do not wish to deal on an issue-by-issue basis. The NDP is correct there, but it has obviously changed its position.
The NDP goes on to state, "Explore sectoral free trade with the U.S. and other countries with production safeguards similar to the Auto Pact". That is what we are doing. In regard to the free trade policies from the 1987 convention, the NDP states, "Expanded trade will benefit Canada. Tariffs are outdated". We realize that, that is why we are proceeding with these trade talks and the committee travelling across the country. The NDP also states, "Build up export markets for small firms". That is what we are doing.
The NDP and others have made repeated comments about the softwood lumber deal. The Leader of the NDP stated that the decisions made by the Mulroney Government would wreak havoc on our major export industry and could cost us thousands of jobs. We are accused of abandoning key aspects of sovereignty. The fact is that the industry is booming. In B.C. the forest products industry is well on its way to a recordbreaking profit year. The net losses for the United States are $140 million while Canada will make a $117.6 million gain. In August, several firms had already earned more than they did in all of 1986. Softwood lumber production throughout Canada has set new records so far in 1987, and exports to the United States remain near the record high levels of 1986. The NDP was all wrong on that. I would like to know when it has ever been right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election and find out.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The de Havilland deal was another example. The NDP predicted total disaster if de Havilland were sold to Boeing. The sale immediately generated $90 million for the federal Treasury, plus a further $65 million payable in successive instalments. The sale has resulted in orders for 42 Dash-8 aircraft, valued at over $400 million, and the company has orders and options on hand for another 132 aircraft. That was another false prediction of the NDP.
Another one where it was out a mile was where it predicted with the 1985 Budget that 200,000 Canadians would lose their jobs. It was dead wrong. Over 900,000 new jobs have been created. I would like to know when the NDP has ever been right about anything.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I ask the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to give a short answer, if possible, as the time for questions and comments is practically over.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in responding to the Member from the Conservative benches.
There is not very much to say. The quotes he gives are somewhat weak. The quotes he was giving do not show that in 1987 we would be in favour of what is proposed here. In fact, the very opposite is true. The fact is that the Member cannot see that, and it says volumes.
October 29, 1987

On the concern raised by the Hon. Member on the softwood lumber, I wish to quote from an article in The Globe and Mail on October 28 under the heading, "System of provincial levies to replace 15 per cent lumber tax". The article states, "The chances of rebuilding the Canadian share of the U.S. market on the basis of price competition are slim," the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) said. "Even with the free-trade agreement," he told the council, "the best the industry can expect is to hang on to the U.S. business it has".
Those were comments from the Minister. So much for free trade, so much for its handling of the softwood and shingles issues, the Minister stated that as far as lumber was concerned, we will not gain from this. The best we can hope for is that we can hang on.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read the whole statement. Tell the truth.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin)-Youth-Plight of unemployed and homeless-Government position / Expectations of youth-Government position; the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Trade-Free Trade-Position of socialist party in 1965; the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar)-Trade-Service industry-Effect of Canada-United States trade agreement / Provincial jurisdiction over service jobs.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was very interested to listen to the letter from the automobile parts manufacturers that was read into the record by my colleague from Regina. They urge the Government at least to postpone the implementation of this Bill, because they had not been able to discuss with the Government the tremendously adverse effects which these changes in duties will have on the industry in Canada, industry which they say employs 70,000 people.
I was interested because it is another example of the ideological blinkers and blindfolds worn by some people speaking for the Government, or its chief negotiator in the so-called trade talks-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member who, of course, will be allowed to continue his speech. But the House does have another matter to deal with at this time.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in taking his seat.
As a consequence of a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) shortly after 3 o'clock until approximately 3.10 p.m., at which point the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party had the floor, I adjourned the matter until now.
The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has the floor, and I will recognize the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege has been raised which touches for me a very important matter about Canadian politics. I want to speak briefly to it on the question of privilege.
As Leader of an opposition Party I had the occasion to oppose in public debate Mr. Trudeau as Prime Minister leading a Liberal Party, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark) leading a Conservative Government, for a brief time the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and more recently the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
During all this time, as a man who went into national politics, not local politics, I have believed deeply in the wellbeing of Canadians from coast to coast. I have believed deeply in the obligations of Leaders of Parties and of all MPs to enter into passionate, reasoned debate about different approaches to Canadian politics and about different solutions.
However, I have opposed with all my being any concept of politics that I would ever say about a political opponent of

October 29, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
mine, Prime Minister or otherwise, that he or she was opposed to Canadians in one part of my country. When I am confronted with politics of this kind, it moves me considerably.
I was faced with that yesterday, leading up to my comment. A Minister of the Crown said, in reply to a question from one of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for-


An Hon. Member:: Yorkton-Melville.


John Edward Broadbent: -Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-


Charles Joseph Clark: Saskatchewan, it is hard to remember.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member is at it again. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville asked a question of a Minister and he got as part of the reply: "What does he have against Alberta?" That is what one Minister said to my colleague.
In reply to a question to the Prime Minister that gave rise to my comment, which has been raised as a question of privilege, the Prime Minister of Canada said:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are you withdrawing, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: 1 found that disturbing at that time and I still do. Although I expect the Prime Minister to tear my arguments to shreds if he can so do-and he ought to do that-I find very offensive the suggestion that I am opposed to the interests of any part of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter which has been raised by the Deputy Prime Minister is a serious one and it gives the Chair concern.
I would ask Hon. Members to let the Chair handle the discussion. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has the floor, and he is entitled to be heard.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that I expect rigorous debate, but I would never hurl the accusation at my political opponents that they are opposed to the interests of any part of my country, and I expect the same of them.
I expect them to disagree with my arguments, if they want to, and to challenge alleged claims of fact, if they want to, but I expect them never to question my commitment to the wellbeing of Canadians in any part of my land.
When that was raised-and it has been raised a number of times in reply to questions-when the Prime Minister said, "I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are opposed to the interests of western Canada", I replied: "That's a lie".
1 happen to believe that it is totally untrue. I say that with the total commitment of my being about that assertion about me, and I say that about the other opposition Party. To suggest
that it is against the interests of one part of our country is unworthy of serious debate.
In my view that is a serious parliamentary breach, but I also respect the rules of the House and, therefore, I withdraw unequivocally the terminology I used to describe what I think is very unacceptable political behaviour in my country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Finally.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, for responding in the way he did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The nine-month Prime Minister, he is such a sleazebag.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that as a consequence of this exchange all Hon. Members will strive mightily-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He called you a sleazebag, Joe.


An Hon. Member:: No, he didn't.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I heard him.


Jack Wendele Shields: So did I.


Mr. Speaker:: -not to put the Chair in a difficult position.
There are several issues involved here-and I will recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) in a moment-but one of them is a matter which arises out of an exchange in Question Period. As the Hon. Member for Oshawa pointed out, there can be great divisions of opinion on what is good on the part of the policies of one Party for one part of the country or another. That is one debate. However, what I must deal with is the procedural issue. Hon. Members know that some things are just not parliamentary.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa has explained his own feelings in the matter but has supported the Chair completely, for which I thank him. However, that does not end the matter because the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has laid his complaint also in respect of words used by the Hon. Member for Skeena. Although there may be a great temptation for a lot of Members to get into this debate, I am going to try to contain it. 1 will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I think the remarks which were made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) need to be restated. The Prime Minister stated, and I quote:
-is the NDP so desperately concerned with raising matters that damage
western Canada?
In the next statement the Prime Minister of Canada said:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canada.
My father's family came to this country 300 years ago, my mother's family came here 200 years ago, and I am a third
October 29, 1987

generation western Canadian. My grandparents are from Edmonton. My mother and father were both born in Edmonton. I have lived my entire life in British Columbia and I have worked very hard in the last ten years, eight of those years in the House.
I have great respect for the Chair, as the Chair knows, and I have great respect for the traditions of the House. However, when the Prime Minister of Canada says what he said, knowing as I do the traditions of the Party which I represent- the CCF and the NDP over the last half century in western Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the rest of the country-and looking at what I consider to be the really mean spirit with which the Prime Minister said what he said, I simply cannot withdraw what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member takes the position, at least at the moment, that he cannot withdraw. Of course I know that Hon. Members will realize that the words the Hon. Member has used are unparliamentary. No matter what his position may be in respect of any other Hon. Member or other Party, or even the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the way that we maintain order and ultimately free speech in this place is that we have imposed certain rules on ourselves.
Of course there are various ways for a Chair to react to the position which the Hon. Member takes. So far as this aspect of the Deputy Prime Minister's application is concerned, I shall adjourn the matter. I would ask the Hon. Member to consider carefully his position. Perhaps he may want to discuss it in the next little while with some other Members of his own caucus.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a question of privilege-


Jacques Guilbault: On a question of privilege-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Several Hon. Members are rising and of course I would want to recognize them. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has a question of privilege. I just want to know on what the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is rising so that we can proceed in a tidy way.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point and on a personal question of privilege related thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre has a question of privilege. In respect of the point in so far as the application of the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned, the complaint in respect of the Hon. Member for Oshawa is finished and I am not entertaining any further comment on it.
The complaint with respect to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is still open and I am adjourning it to give the
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
Hon. Member time to give the entire matter further consideration. I am not prepared to hear any further debate on that particular aspect of the Deputy Prime Minister's application. The effect is that part of the application has been dealt with by the withdrawing of unparliamentary words by the Hon. Member for Oshawa. The second part of that application is adjourned. I will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena at some further time.
If there are other Hon. Members who have points of order or privilege, then, of course, the Chair will hear them. But I do not intend to have further argument on the adjourned part of the application. I think I have made it very clear that on the other part of the Deputy Prime Minister's point of order that is completed.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is rising on a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) will be rising, and I believe the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) is seeking the floor. I will in due course extend the appropriate courtesies to all Hon. Members and I will hear what they have to say.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do this seriously, Mr. Speaker. I very seldom rise on a question of privilege. I have not called anyone a liar and I do not intend to at this point at all-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -or further down the road. I am sorry if you misunderstood that.
I do think some motives were imputed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-and I speak as a Saskatchewanite. You are a British Columbian, Mr. Speaker. I grew up in Saskatchewan and I represent a Saskatchewan riding-when he said in this House:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: The interests of western Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to say very simply that I think you should take this matter under advisement, Mr. Speaker. We can have differences in this House but I never question the commitment of my friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), to western Canada or that of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to western Canada, but I think it makes my job of being a Member of Parliament from Yorkton-Melville a little more difficult when my commitment to western Canada is questioned. What is being said is that I oppose the interests of western Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: The interests.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think that imputes motives to me, and it is something which makes my job more difficult as a Member of Parliament. Beyond that, I think it is a very insensitive thing to say. It is the kind of regional racism which pits one region of

October 29, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
the country against other regions of the country, and it is a highly insensitive thing for someone to say in this Elouse.


Charles Joseph Clark: Such sanctimony.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would like you to take a look at this matter, Mr. Speaker. As I said before, we can disagree in this House but we do not have to question each other's commitments to our constituencies and our parts of the country, but this sort of thing is particularly bad when it comes from the Prime Minister of Canada, I repeat Canada, the Prime Minister who represents all of us.


Charles Joseph Clark: We know the New Democratic Party's piety in public. That is shameful.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has raised a point of order. I will, of course, consider it. 1 think I have his point and I do not think I need to hear anything further on that. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to make a similar point on my own behalf as a Liberal Member who would have been referred to by the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) statement at page 10482 of Hansard which reads:
I know that my hon. friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are
opposed to the interests of western Canada.
I want as well to draw attention to the imputation of motives to members of my Party and the New Democratic Party.
1 respect very much the difficulty in which the Chair is placed when questions of privilege are raised and when, as you have done, Mr. Speaker, a Member has been invited to consider language used in commenting on the remarks of the Prime Minister. I want to urge you also to invite the Prime Minister to consider the statement he made, which was so provocative in imputing motives to Members on the opposite side, and that while it does not justify the statements made and withdrawn, it certainly makes them understandable to the average Canadian. Having given the opportunity to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) to reflect on his own situation in relation to his words, I hope that the same opportunity will be given to the Prime Minister within the same time frame to reflect on the despicable politics and the unacceptable imputation of motives contained in his words.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre-I think, we will try to stay as procedurally exact as possible-has made a point. It was very much the same point made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. The Government may wish to respond at this point to what has been said in both of those cases. I think that I am probably obligated to hear at least from someone on the government side. I look to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) for guidance as to who will be recognized. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Nelson Andrew Riis: The nine month wonder is on his feet.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, exactly what point is being discussed in terms of strict procedure. There has not been a question of privilege raised according to the rules as I understand them.


Ms. Mitchell:: Do you agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


Charles Joseph Clark: Since there is a debate, let me make two points. One, the language complained of has to do with the Prime Minister's words with regard to the interests of western Canada. As a western Canadian, let me make it clear that the interests of western Canada are very positively and aggressively served by the free trade agreement, which is opposed by both Parties in this House. The interests of western Canada were badly affected by the National Energy Program which was introduced-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are lucky you lasted nine months.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very hesitant to interrupt the right hon. gentleman for reasons which are well known in this Chamber, but I have tried to draw the distinction between what may very well be a difference of opinion, which might very well be a part of something for debate with respect to what was said or not said or the exchange, and the strictly procedural responsibility that lies upon the shoulders of the Speaker in this case.
1 want to assure the right hon. gentleman that in considering the representation of both the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville and the Hon. Member for York Centre 1 will be looking very carefully at the exact words which the Right Hon. Prime Minister said. I would ask the co-operation of all Hon. Members in containing this particular discussion, at least as far as is appropriate, within procedural grounds. The difficulties in the questions and answers for the Chair is that they were, in some respects, debate in themselves and they lead on to further debate. I do not think it is in the interests of this particular not very easy series of applications to extend that debate beyond the procedural grounds.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly not only accept that ruling, as I naturally would, but I agree with it. The point I was trying to make was that no point of order or question of privilege has been adduced and none exists.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to assure the right hon. gentleman that I understand perfectly well the position of the Government on this. As I say, I will be looking very carefully at the exact words when I have to decide whether or not who and under what circumstances anybody was out of order or whether privileges had been abridged. However, I think the floor now belongs to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault).


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, while you are looking at the exact words pronounced in order to make a decision as to whether they breached privilege or whether they constitute a point of order, I submit that,
October 29, 1987

contrary to the point made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), there is a definite point of order. I want to quote from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 103. Beauchesne is very clear in Citation 316 "That a Member, while speaking, must not" and there follows a long enumeration of what is prohibited, I will skip sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), (c), (d) and come to sub-paragraph (e) which is clear and says that a Member, while speaking must not:
(e) impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged to a-Member.
I want to submit that when some Members on the opposition side were questioning the validity of a decision with regard to a grant that was made to Fantasyland in Edmonton, they were doing just that. They were just trying to establish, by questioning the Government, that the grant may have been made without the proper procedures being followed.
Now, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to say what he has said and what is recorded in Hansard on page 10482, which is that the Liberals and the New Democratic Parties are opposed to the interests of western Canada and that that becomes clearer every day, is certainly, I submit, to impute motives contrary to Citation 316 of Beauchesne's.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that on this side of the House, we are often less than satisfied with what the Government is doing. For instance, the Government has been remarkably slow to react to what is happening in Montreal East and to provide grants. We have asked questions, and I have just done so-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Jacques Guilbault: I will show you that what I have to say is quite in order. We asked some questions not long ago, and we will ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion some more, but we never at any time assumed that the Government was so slow to react because the Minister or the Government were hostile to the interests of the Montreal area. We never said that and we are not going to.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) wants to be thorough in his comments. That is understandable. I think the Hon. Member's comments are most interesting, but 1 think I may have resolved the point at issue. As I said for-

-Right Hon. Secretary of State, we do not want to extend this argument. 1 think we are getting into debate. I have the point of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and I am quite prepared to consider it. He may want to rise briefly to close off his remarks.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am the only one so far in
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
the debate who has quoted the rules of this House, and I do not think I should be cut off because I am trying to keep this at the level of procedure, whereas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It was not the intention of the Chair.

It was only that when we get into a debate about questions asked about Montreal or somewhere else, we are getting a little bit beyond the procedural point. I am much indebted to the Hon. Member because he has cited those. As I say, I have invited the Hon. Member to continue his remarks.


Jacques Guilbault: Which I will, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker. Citation 316 of Beauchesne's is there for a purpose and it has been used in the past in this House. The purpose obviously is that while some language is specifically prohibited on pages 104, 105 and others of Beauchesne's including the word "lying", for example, which was withdrawn a few minutes ago, there is other language which, while not being specifically prohibited, has an obvious tendency to create disorder in the House. The language that tends to impute motives is language of that kind.
This is the reason I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to take into account this specific citation in Beauchesne's when you make your decision, and if you come to the conclusion which, I suggest respectfully, the Chair might wish to come to, the words that were uttered by the Prime Minister should be withdrawn. Words that impute motives that are completely other than those that were meant by the one who has the floor should not be used.
I think, Mr. Speaker, you should make a decision that will send a clear message to all Hon. Members that this should not be done. This should serve as an example. If the Prime Minister of Canada is not able to respect the rules and traditions of this House, why should other Hon. Members do so?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), and I know he has done so with a great amount of sincerity. I would submit that the citation he quoted is not applicable in this particular case. The citation says that besides prohibitions contained in Standing Order 35, it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member while speaking must not impute to a Member bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged, and I think that is the most important element here.
There is no question of the Prime Minister imputing motives against a Member. It is really no different from a headline from the Windsor Star of November 10, 1984, which reads, "Broadbent says Tories covering up". One could say that that

October 29, 1987
Points of Order
headline imputes bad motives, but not a single Hon. Member-while we may not like that headline, we may not like what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has said-


Jacques Guilbault: Was that said in the House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Whether it was said-it has been said in the House on many occasions as well, but there was never reference to a particular Member, and I think there is a difference when singling out a Member or a group of Members who belong to a political Party.
I see the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is nodding his head in the affirmative, and that is a matter that should be taken into consideration.


Jacques Guilbault: You are imputing motives again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a good motive, I think the Hon. Member would agree.
The issue here is not the content of the debate. The issue here is the use of parliamentary language, and I am appreciative of the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) for having withdrawn his remarks. I know that he takes issue with certain statements the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made, but there is a way to counter that. Rather than saying it was a lie, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party could have said that it was untrue, and it would have been totally parliamentary to do so. That is why I appeal to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for whom I have a great deal of respect, and I know he may feel very deeply about this as well.
The fact is that we are trying to maintain some standard of parliamentary behavior and utilization of proper and appropriate parliamentary language. I have from time to time used words that are excessive and offensive, and I have withdrawn them. I regretted having used them. The Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Riis) and I had a bit of an exchange, and he as well, in a very gracious manner, withdrew. I think our respect for each other grows as a result of acknowledging that we made a mistake.
I would appeal to the Hon. Member for Skeena, who is a very good Member of Parliament and a vigorous debater. I have been to his constituency and I have tried to unseat him, and it has always been done with the most honourable of intentions. I think what we are doing here is something that is important, not only to Hon. Members of the House but indeed to those watching.
If any Hon. Member of Parliament takes issue with something that is said on either side of the House, there is a parliamentary way of dealing with that, and that is all we are asking for here. Once again, notwithstanding the very eloquent argument the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) put forth, I would humbly submit that in this particular case, it would not apply.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not often tend to agree with my hon. friend, but on this procedural matter, I want to say that he did, I think, make a very important point when he referred to Citation 316 of Beauchesne's which refers to the imputing of motives to a Member.
It is with a little reluctance, now that I agree with my hon. friend, that I refer to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who felt it inappropriate to raise the matter himself. On the same day, in the same exchange, as reported on page 10480 of Hansard, in the exchange with the Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) did refer to my hon. colleague from Yorkton- Melville when he asked what the Member had against western Canada and what he had against Alberta. While I appreciate my hon. friend's pointing out this aspect of the citation, the Minister was referring specifically to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville when he asked what that Member has against western Canada, and more specifically the Province of Alberta. As you reflect on this matter raised by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), I ask you to consider that as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I will carefully consider the representations. However, I am quite happy to be able to say to Hon. Members that in a difficult situation and after a brief adjournment I appreciate very much the co-operation and dignity with which all Hon. Members made their interventions.
With respect to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I would ask him to consider his position. He knows he can discuss the matter with his good and loyal colleagues. If he wishes, he can of course discuss it with the Chair.
*	*	4!


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the high-minded speech of his Leader, the House Leader of the NDP called me a sleazebag. I wonder if in the spirit of amity now pervading this House he might want to withdraw that remark.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think Crosbie said that was all right. Not about you, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: He said I was a former Leader, that is all right.


Mr. Speaker:: I am tempted to say I did not hear him. However, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor.
October 29, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during the time when my Leader was making his points, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), was yelling and hurling insults in an attempt to disrupt my Leader. I suspect that in a moment of weakness, albeit probably true, I indicated what I thought of the Right Hon. Member. I recognize his point, that the term-


Charles Joseph Clark: Sleazebag.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -sleazebag, thank you, Mr. Minister, is unparliamentary. As a parliamentarian, recognizing the inappropriate use of that term, I certainly withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Knowing the Hon. Member as I do, perhaps it was only a momentary lapse.
The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order?


ALLEGED ACCUSATION AGAINST ALL MEMBERS
Jack Wendele Shields: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to belabour this but 1 think something else that happened yesterday is also serious. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap was asked to withdraw his accusation of kickbacks concerning the Deputy Prime Minister, and he did so. Then it had to be brought up again. I would just repeat what the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
The record shows unequivocally that twice the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap accused someone on the government side of taking kickbacks. He says he did not mean the Deputy Prime Minister. He must then have been referring to another Minister from Alberta, to all Ministers on the government side or-


Mr. Speaker:: Again, I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but this matter has been completely settled.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, with respect, it has not.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps I can receive some guidance as to the extent to which there may be something new.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Get to the point, Jack.


Mr. Speaker:: I was certainly under the impression that the matter had been settled. If I am incorrect, I will hear Hon. Members further.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that it was made clear in the request by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the accusation against all Members of this House be withdrawn unequivocally. The Hon. Member rose and said:
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question. 1 certainly do that. I withdraw any accusation, any implication that that term might suggest for either the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Member of Cabinet.
He was asked to withdraw with respect to all Members of this House of Commons. I happen to be a Member of this
Points of Order
House of Commons. I was very active as chairman of the Alberta caucus in lobbying for and getting a grant for the West Edmonton Mall because all of us in the Alberta caucus felt it was necessary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not Kindy.


Jack Wendele Shields: At that point unemployment was ravaging Edmonton and it was the only construction job going. With that in mind I would ask that he withdraw the allegation against all Members of this House of Commons, particularly those on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to say to the Hon. Member that, on reflection, clearly I was incorrect and I apologize to Members for that. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap did withdraw, as the Hon. Member for Athabasca properly pointed out. It seems that the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was seeking a withdrawal of broader proportions than that. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap could clarify the situation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is getting to be rather repetitive. I appreciate the comments made by my friend from Athabasca praising himself. I was brought up to think it is better to receive praise from others. However, that is another matter.
I must admit that when the exchange occurred we were trying to determine why this particular firm or family received $5 million when our information was that everyone recommended against it. Then an Hon. Liberal Member indicated there had been substantial political contributions made by the firm to the Progressive Conservative Party. It was then the thought occurred to me, and in retrospect I wish it had not, that there might have been some kickbacks. I guess I hurled out the thought, which I probably should have kept to myself, that kickbacks seemed to be involved.
Knowing my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, I certainly had no hesitation in withdrawing the statement as it might have applied to him because I know that is certainly not the case. Then the Cabinet got edgy and I withdrew the accusation against the Cabinet. Now I suppose everyone is getting edgy and one begins to think we are protesting too much.
However, just to clear the air-


Charles Joseph Clark: Bring yourself to it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -I do not think the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead received a kickback in this matter. I do not assume any cabinet Minister received a kickback.


Charles Joseph Clark: This week.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I did not assume any back-bencher from the Province of Alberta or anywhere else received a kickback. I hope that makes it perfectly clear. Next time I am thinking along those lines I will keep it to myself. At this moment I

October 29, 1987
Customs Tariff
fully withdraw any implication that any Hon. Members in the Conservative Party received kickbacks in the matter of the Fantasyland grant of $5 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. Prud'homme:: Good.


Jack Wendele Shields: I wish you could hear what I am thinking right now after what you said. I would be out of this House for a week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Jack-in-the-box.


James Douglas Manly: He can every time you shake your head, Jack. Mr. Shields: You have no class, Nelson.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments I had before the House moved to spend an hour on the matter of privilege, I was saying that what we have had from the Government and the chief free trade negotiator and, unfortunately, a number of columnists who write in some of Canada's major newspapers, is a completely one-sided explanation of what is involved in this agreement.
We have been lectured repeatedly that if we want this free trade agreement that will bring so many benefits to our country we will have to change our ways and stop our system of regional development grants and other forms of assistance which have established industries and plants in various parts of the country. However, while we are being lectured that we must change our ways, nothing is said by cabinet Ministers, Mr. Reisman, or columnists about the fact that the American Government, states and cities are involved in precisely the same kind of practices that we are being told we must curtail.
Of course, there is no suggestion that if we stop those practices which the Americans say are improper, the Americans will do the same.
I want to put on record some of the views expressed by two of Canada's well known columnists. Deborah McGregor, wrote an article entitled "Dragging Subsidies out into the Open", which appeared in the Financial Times on October 5, 1987. She begins by saying:
It is appropriate that, in the final days of the free trade negotiations between Canada and the United States, the spotlight was brought to bear on subsidies.
She goes on to say:
Too often subsidies have been used to coddle and cajole Canadian companies into short-term strategies and perverse behaviour.
A case in point is the Canadian Government's willingness to play handmaiden to one of the world's largest corporations-General Motors Corp.-by participating in a $220 million interest-free loan earlier this year. Poor old GM had only $5.5 billion in profits in 1985.
Next she says:
It is likely that the GM case has returned to haunt the Canadian negotiators at the free trade table.
Are we to assume that we are following practices which the Americans do not follow themselves?
Let us consider an article by Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail on October 9, 1987. It is subtitled "Free Trade isn't risk-free but neither is battling U.S. protectionism". He said in part:
In the United States, the free market is surrounded by liturgy. And why not? The free market has been the driving force behind making the United States an enormously wealthy country, a military superpower, a magnet for tens of millions of immigrants who sought to share in its bounty.
He goes on to talk about how we in Canada have subsidized various projects. He states:
This has meant a substantially greater direct involvement in the operations of the free market in Canada than in the United States.
In another part of his article he lists some of the supposed subsidies with which we have been involved and which we would have to stop if this agreement goes through. He includes in this list Sydney Steel and Sydbec. I hope Members from Nova Scotia are listening because he believes such projects would not be allowed.
Others include Domtar's plant at Windsor, Cominco's smelter at Trail, the Faro mine in the Yukon, the General Motors plant at Ste. Therese, Quebec, and others. The inference is that the Americans are not involved in such procedures.
Let me deal with the automobile industry in the United States. The figures I will quote are from documents prepared by a senior official for the Canadian Government, J.G. Miller, planning and analysis division of the Automotive Marine and Rail Branch, in April, 1986.
Let me summarize briefly what has happened with five plants built recently in the United States. Assistance has been supplied to these plants by the state or municipal Government for infrastructure, pollution control, tax abatement, education, training and for the establishment of what they call foreign trade zone status.
October 29, 1987

The Mazda plant in Flat Rock received SI84 million. The Mitsubishi-Chrysler plant in Illinois received $175 million. The Honda plant in Ohio received $130 million. The Toyota plant in Kentucky received $269 million. The Chrysler plant in Detroit received $366 million.
According to the New York Times of September 18, Honda announced expansion of its operation in Ohio. According to this article, the expansion was encouraged by incentives from the state. Ohio granted Honda other incentives, including tax abatements and state money to train new employees. Why have Mr. Reisman, who negotiated the original Auto Pact agreement, and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), as well as columnists, not told this to Canadians? Surely we need this information if we are going to give intensive consideration to this free trade agreement.
The same ought to apply with respect to this tariff proposal we are discussing today. The letter to the Government from the auto parts manufacturers urged the Government to give very serious consideration to the implications of the tariff changes.
Let me give some details on the kind of assistance the American states and cities give to their automobile plants, which we are told is an improper practice for a province or city in Canada. The Honda motorcycle plant in Ohio received a state grant of $5.2 million and another grant of $11 million from the state to improve the transportation. It received a tax abatement from the municipality, valued at $1 million.
Another Honda plant in the same state received a tax abatement from Shelby County of $850,000.
Despite the time which has been taken by questions of privilege, I presume we will be proceeding with Private Members' hour at five o'clock. Before we get to that point, I want to move the following motion pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-87.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And more than fifteen Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 9(4), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion (Mr. Orilkow) deemed withdrawn.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Nuclear Armaments


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this matter because it is a very important issue which the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has brought before the House. I hope at some point the House can vote on this Bill so that Canadians can see where their elected representatives stand on one of the most important international issues in the world.
What is a nuclear weapons free zone? The concept is a simple one. A nuclear weapons free zone is a defined geographic area within which the possession, deployment, storage, transit, manufacture, testing and other support of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons systems is prohibited. An area can become a nuclear or weapon free zone as part of an international zone as well. These zones do exist in the world. This is not a new idea, something made up by the Hon. Member for Beaches in spite of the fact that he is a most creative and imaginative person. The fact is that nuclear weapon free zones exist by international treaty signed by most of the countries in the world, in four regions, the seabed, Antarctica, outer space-that is a giant stride-and Latin America. There are proposals for regional nuclear free zones in the Nordic countries, the Balkans, other parts of Europe, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, Southeast Asia and Africa. There are even countries which are nuclear free such as Japan, Austria, Sweden, and lately New Zealand, and a number of NATO countries with varying conditions.
What is the purpose of a nuclear free zone? It is not to stop the effects of a nuclear war. Once a nuclear war breaks out, no one is immune, whether one is in a nuclear free zone or not. We are not suggesting that anyone would be. All bets are off when that happens and, whether the country is nuclear free or not, it will be vulnerable to direct attack. Having a nuclear free zone is not an attempt to make one immune to the effects of war. Rather, it is an attempt to influence national and international behaviour before war breaks out. It is a preventive measure. It is a measure to try to reduce the likelihood of war.
What are the requirements for a nuclear free zone for Canada in the Canadian context? First, there should be no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. We have had that debate

October 29, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
before. In fact, that debate was won in Canada. Both former Prime Minister Diefenbaker and former Prime Minister Trudeau talked about Canada as nuclear free, not taking nuclear weapons, and no transit of nuclear weapons through Canadian territory, which is difficult when we have American warships with nuclear weapons in our waters. They referred to there being no production in Canada of components for nuclear weapons systems. That means that we have to be very careful about the uranium we produce, that it goes for peaceful purposes, not to be put into American nuclear reactors. Those are some of the requirements for a nuclear free zone in Canada. I will let other Members speak about what that would mean.
I would like to conclude by mentioning two special areas. I think the Canadian Government should be really pushing a nuclear free zone in the Arctic among the Nordic countries. I believe that is an area we should be working on. It is an area that is open. The Soviets have talked about it. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) rejected that notion very quickly. I do not think that is the way to go. We should have further talks about it. If you look at the Arctic from the top of a world globe, it looks much different from on a flat map. You can see the Soviet Union, Alaska, with the Americans and the Nordic countries and you can see just who our northern neighbours are. It is quite impressive, looking at a map of the northern zone.
I think we should be looking in that area in terms of some proposals from Canada to the Soviets, the Americans and the Nordic countries of a nuclear free zone in the Arctic. That is in Canada's national interest. We have a lot to gain if we did that. It would dramatically reduce tensions and defence costs. We would not need to send nuclear subs up there. If we had a nuclear free Arctic, there would not be any subs there. It may be a difficult treaty to negotiate, but at least we should be taking the first steps towards the negotiations.
There is a second area I would like to mention, and I note the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is in the House as well as the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands (Mr. Manly). We have a particular interest in this area because we are from the Pacific Coast, right on the water-my riding is not on the water but the other ridings are. We look out to the Pacific. There have been very interesting things going on in New Zealand, and there have been suggestions for a nuclear free Pacific zone. If we could get that, just think of all the problems that we might avoid, Mr. Speaker. As countries become independent and more outgoing in the Pacific, we do not want them to be brought into the cold war. I think New Zealand is to be complimented. I notice the voters of New Zealand re-elected the Government that had the courage to stand up to the Americans.
Yesterday the New Zealand Government protested the fact that our friend, France, and I hate to say it, has been bad, if I can put it that way-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Evil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would not say evil, but I would say France has been very disappointing and has caused great concern because it continues to conduct nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Yesterday it set off a 50 kiloton underground nuclear test. France should stop playing imperialist games in the Pacific. It should get out of there and give independence to its colonies. It should get out of nuclear testing. There should be world pressure on France to make the Pacific nuclear free. These tests are giving problems not only to the inhabitants in the South Pacific but to everyone in the world.
Let me conclude by saying that this Bill with respect to a nuclear free zone is an excellent one. I have spoken about how it can be applied. Looking to the future, let us look at the Arctic and the South Pacific. However, let us first get our own backyard in order and let us have a nuclear free zone in Canada.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have already spoken to the motion before us by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who is a very well respected Member of the House.
Members on both sides of the House are all well aware that Canada does not possess nuclear weapons or have any plan to do so. Furthermore, the deployment, testing or construction of such weapons within Canada, or their transportation through Canada, could not occur without the express consent of the Canadian Government. Canada's situation in this regard is very different from that of a number of NATO countries which accept the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory. As for Canadian exports, it is Canadian policy that all exports of nuclear material, equipment and technology shall be strictly for peaceful, non-explosive purposes. This policy is implemented through bilateral agreements and with the cooperation of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Canada is a strong supporter of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and endorses in principle the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones where they can make an effective contribution in this regard. Until such time as the nonproliferation treaty gains close to universal adherence, the establishment of such zones can make a contribution to the objective of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
However, to be effective, a nuclear weapons free zone must, in our judgment, fully meet the following criteria: apply to a well-defined region; have the support of the countries of the region; and, most important, promote regional and international stability. Canada's central concern is to ensure that in current and foreseeable circumstances our policies contribute both to national security and international stability.
Collective defence and arms control and disarmament constitute fundamental elements of Canada's national security policy. This Government's commitment to collective defence is exemplified in Canada's membership in NATO and NORAD.
October 29, 1987

The primary role of NATO is to safeguard the security of member nations by deterring aggression. This Government believes, as do other alliance Governments, that our collective nuclear deterrence strategy has been a critically important element in maintaining peace in the East-West context for over 40 years.
Canada has voluntarily shouldered the obligation to contribute to the capability of the alliance to implement its strategy of deterrence. As I have mentioned, this has involved a less onerous burden for us than for several other alliance members who have accepted the deployment of nuclear weapons on their territory. It would neither be consistent with our alliance membership, nor with our own security interests, for Canada as a matter of principle to attempt to dissociate itself from any or all aspects of the nuclear deterrence strategy.
Deterrence will remain an essential element of our collective defence until there is much greater progress in reducing levels of armaments, particularly strategic nuclear weapons, and in building a more secure world.
Arms control and disarmament is also an essential element of our national security. The Canadian Government, like other alliance members, recognizes the desirability of moving toward reduced reliance on nuclear weapons. Also important is the achievement of balanced reductions of conventional weapons. The fact that a U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. INF agreement, that will eliminate all intermediate-range nuclear weapons on a global basis, is virtually within reach is a significant milestone in the arms control process.
The U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. negotiations began as a result of an alliance initiative. The progress in the negotiations has, in no small measure, been due to the ability of the alliance to maintain a consistent, co-ordinated approach. The alliance is similarly providing strong support for the efforts of the two superpowers to negotiate major reductions in their strategic nuclear arsenals.
As we move toward a less nuclear world, the conventional balance of forces gains an importance. In this area, too, Canada and other NATO countries are co-ordinating their efforts to bring about negotiations with the objective of maintaining security through balanced reductions of armaments.
Canada has been able to make a serious and constructive input to these important arms control negotiating efforts, in which we have a direct interest, because of our presence at the table as an alliance member. Without that continuing direct opportunity to act and react, Canada's influence on such events would be dramatically reduced. Even in multilateral arms control forums much of Canada's credibility and capacity for influence is derived from our alliance membership, which signals to others our level of knowledge about and direct involvement in the activities of key deliberative forums. To the extent that we decline to assume our share of the
Nuclear Armaments
collective defence burden, Canada's ability to influence events as an alliance member would likewise be diminished.
The question therefore must be asked: What would really be achieved by declaring a nuclear weapons free zone? In many respects nothing would change. Canada would remain a country without nuclear weapons and with no direct involvement in the manufacture and maintenance of nuclear arsenals. However, by suggesting that we should dissociate ourselves from key aspects of the collective defence strategy of the alliance, Canada's credibility and influence with our traditional European partners, not to mention the United States, would be significantly diminished. Our own security would certainly not be enhanced and could, in fact, be compromised. Such a declaration, furthermore, simply turns a blind eye to the realities of today's interdependent world. This interdependence is just as real in the area of national security as in other areas.
Finally, I would like to make the Government's views on the question of a world referendum on nuclear disarmament perfectly clear. Although a global expression in favour of nuclear disarmament would be fine in itself, it would not be a substitute for the negotiation of effective international arms control agreements. The call for a referendum fails to recognize that meaningful progress in reducing levels of nuclear weapons must be the product of negotiations among Governments. There are no short cuts or substitutes for the negotiating process.
Even if such a referendum were to be held, it is not clear how the results should be interpreted in view of the global diversity of political systems and approaches to freedom of expression. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as the enormous expenses associated with such an undertaking at a time when the United Nations is attempting to avert financial crisis, would present a serious constraint. When the uncertain benefits are compared with the staggering costs, the utility of such a referendum is highly doubtful.
It is for all these reasons that I have cited that I would strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote against this motion.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, evidently, the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) had not much time to reflect upon the statement that she read a few minutes ago. If she had, I would be inclined to think she would not have made it. She would not have made it because she would have come to the conclusion that, in Canada, were it not for the Cruise missile testing we would be already a nuclear weapons free zone. That has been the policy of successive Canadian Governments, that is what we have been aiming at for decades except, as I said, for the fact that we did test Cruise missiles and are still testing them.
She would not, as she did in the conclusion of her speech, make this spurious argument about the cost of a referendum; this terrible, dangerous cost which, compared to the arms race

October 29, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
cost in the world today, would be a profound concern to the world community.
Evidently, we must bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville that while the cost of arms 20 years ago was in the range of $30 billion, it is now well over $300 billion, and it is estimated at even $500 billion. Would the Hon. Member like to compare the cost of the referendum about which she expressed concern with the yearly cost of arms?
Would the Hon. Member still believe that because of the cost of that type of mobilization of public opinion, which is what a referendum basically is, it should not be attempted in order to generate the pressure which is needed to be put upon the politicians who make those important decisions to be convinced and alerted to the fact that public opinion in Canada and elsewhere does wish to move in the direction of a global nuclear free zone? That is basically the sense of a referendum.
Of course, it would be well beyond the scope of holding it in only one nation. As it has been advanced by Project Ploughshares on a number of occasions over the past few years, it would not only take place in municipalities and provinces across the nation, but it would take place in every nation where a concept of declaring the world nuclear arms free is extremely desirable.
I would like to take the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville through the text of a book written 20 years go by former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, and in particular to the chapter entitled "The balance of fear", and his image of a meeting of an austere ostrich. It states:
'An austere ostrich of awesome authority was lecturing younger ostriches one day on the superiority of their species to all other species'.
These are the first words of one of James Thurber's Fables for our Time, about a conference of ostriches called to find out why they could not fly. One impatient young ostrich, Oliver by name, was complaining bitterly that while man, an animal, could fly sitting down, ostriches, birds, couldn't fly at all.
An old ostrich looked severely at Oliver, first with one eye and then with the other. 'Man is flying too fast for a world that is round,' he said. 'Soon he will catch up with himself in a great rear-end collision, and man will never know that what hit man from behind was man.'
In his book entitled Peace in the Family of Man, Lester Pearson concluded:
So far, we've avoided this rear-end collision, but we shouldn't be too complacent about our escape.
In particular, the ending of the speech of the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville was complacent in stating that we should not entertain such thoughts of a referendum because it is too expensive.
In addressing the motion and its merit, for which we should be grateful to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), one has to reflect that there is a lot of fear in the world community and in Canada about the potential of a nuclear war. The knowledge is that without changes in the international society, this fear will be with us for some time. This is what motivates
the public to express the notion that we should have and want to have areas or zones in the world that ought to be declared nuclear free. It is a legitimate understanding, and this is why politicians eventually put this type of motion on the Order Paper.
The question that one should ask is, how far would such a measure proposed by the Hon. Member for Beaches influence other nations in doing the same, particularly the most powerful ones that are engaged in this deadly race for weapons paralleled by attempts to control the arsenal of nuclear powers, and hopefully to reduce them?
There are a number of considerations that must be made in this respect. As Lester Pearson stated in Peace in the Family of Man, we must aim at the major objective of limiting armaments by progressive stages, beginning with a freeze on existing levels and categories of weapons, with a prohibition of the testing of new weapons, enforced by international control and inspection, and then a ban on the deployment of antiballistic missile systems.
Much could be said on those items in any debate, but let us not forget that in the end what will bring about any of those three steps that I outlined would be the re-establishment of a dialogue between East and West and putting on track again the good old word that has disappeared from the diplomatic dictionary in recent years, namely, the word "detente". In the end that is what will bring some type of mutual confidence that must be at the base of nuclear disarmament in the world. As Mr. Pearson observed 20 years ago:
There are people in the Kremlin, and no doubt in the Pentagon, who believe in military power as an agent of the wrong kind of persuasion: not as something from which you negotiate for accommodation, but as something to be used as a threat to bring bout the achievement of a political objective.
This influence shows itself in another way, which General Eisenhower went out of his way to refer to in his last broadcast as President of the United States: 'We have been compelled,' he said, 'to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.'
President Eisenhower was in a good position to know that a military-industrial complex of this kind can influence, and may increasingly seek to influence, national policy.
Mr. Pearson concluded:
Even if we believe that the Russian fear of a threat from outside its borders is basically a paranoiac fear, we ought to understand that from their point of view it is not baseless.
Somehow we have got to persuade the Russians and their friends that with common fears we also have common interests; that the greatest of all common interests is the avoidance of war, whether it is brought about by calculation or, as is more likely, by accident; war which could destroy us all. If that seems a policy for Utopia, I'd like to know a better one.
As we are debating here we know that we are part of a world community that is engaged in military expenses in the hundreds of billions of dollars. While that continues, the Hon.
October 29, 1987

Member for Leeds-Grenville makes a distressing statement on such an important matter.
We know that the world is attempting to combat poverty in Africa and in Asia in particular. It is trying to come to grips with environmental degradation caused by desertification, increased population pressures, urbanization, and poverty in some of the subcontinents like India and parts of Africa. Therefore, this matter is one which must be approached with an outlook that takes into account the enormous inability on the part of our society at the present time to understand what are our priorities.
Evidently our priorities are to find ways of shifting the expenses which go into the military complex to expenses which deal with rehabilitation and development of those parts of the world where the need is so great and the attention is so little. They do not command the attention that nations which have nuclear weapons can command at the present time.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I express appreciation to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) for having brought forward this very important motion. At the same time I express my disappointment with the position taken by the Hon. Member for Leeds- Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) in attempting to suggest that the proposal that Canada declare itself a nuclear weapons free zone would not change anything, and in attempting to suggest that we are already at the stage where we do not have nuclear weapons on our shore. I will be detailing instances where specific changes must be made if we are to become a nuclear weapons free zone. She also dismissed the possibility of a global referendum on nuclear disarmament. Of course she said quite rightly that there were no short cuts or substitutes for the negotiation process.
We are all fully aware of that fact and very much in favour of the negotiation process. We do not see the global referendum as a short cut to negotiation. We do not see a nuclear weapons free zone as a short cut to negotiation toward nuclear disarmament. We see them as small but important and significant steps which can lead to that kind of final step being taken.
We need to motivate public opinion so that there will be a mass movement of people in Canada and throughout the world demanding that their leaders and their Governments move toward a more stable international situation. The slogan "Where the people lead the Government will follow" is the sort of thing a global referendum would do.
I take issue with the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who suggested that Cruise missile testing is the one area where we are not a nuclear weapons free zone. There are other areas, and later in my remarks I will zero in on the presence of nuclear submarines in Canadian waters.
Nuclear Armaments
This morning I was talking to a young woman who was visiting my home. She has a little baby; Nicolita will be one year old tomorrow. I told her about this debate and she said: "Speak for Nicolita". In a sense that is what the debate is all about. We are speaking for our children and for generations who are yet unborn. The decision which this House and other Parliaments around the world makes will affect the future of our children and our grandchildren, countless generations. That is what is involved when we talk about nuclear weapons and their long-term effects upon civilization and genetics. We are speaking for Nicolita and for all children in the world.
Two weeks from now will be Remembrance Day. We will remember the contributions made by men and women in 1914, 1918, 1939 to 1945, and in the Korean War so that we could have a second chance to build a decent kind of world. Yesterday the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees) quoted the words "To you from failing hands we throw the torch". We must pick up that torch and work to ensure decent peace in our world. It cannot happen if we are constantly threatened by nuclear weapons.
Canada is in a very strategic place, and that is why the motion is so important. Canada has a unique contribution to make to the whole issue of nuclear confrontation, that is, the fact that we are placed between the two nuclear superpowers. We are uniquely placed either to make a contribution toward the stabilization of our world or toward the destabilization of our world. When we allow Cruise missile tests we are in fact encouraging further destabilization and the confrontation between the United States and the U.S.S.R., which they are attempting to defuse at the present time.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said: "We do not have a nuclear dimension to our policy. Canada does not have nuclear weapons on its territory, nor shall it during the life of this Government". It is not quite that simple. One policy in particular undercuts what the Prime Minister said. I refer to the presence of nuclear submarines from the United States which visit Canadian ports.
Because I come from Vancouver Island I am specifically concerned with the visit of nuclear submarines, submarines equipped with nuclear weapons, to Nanoose which is just north of my riding and to Esquimalt which is just south of my riding. Both those ridings are presently represented by Conservative Members. I wish they would speak out for the true interests of their constituents in this particular issue.
The United States has a policy of saying that it will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard those submarines. Instead of standing up and saying that we have a policy of no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil or in Canadian waters, the Canadian Government simply honours that policy of the Americans. It honours their policy of not telling us whether or not they are bringing nuclear weapons into Canadian waters, into Canadian harbours.
Next week Greenpeace will be releasing a major study about the possible effects of an accident aboard one of those vessels

October 29, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
in Esquimalt Harbour. What would happen to Esquimalt Harbour and to the whole area of greater Victoria if there were an accident aboard one of those visiting submarines? The study which Greenpeace will be releasing next week will detail the kind of devastation that would take place if that were the case. However, it is important to say that as devastating as that would be, perhaps the most significant factor is not the possibility of a local accident but the fact that by having those submarines in Canadian waters Canada is contributing to a very dangerous policy of the United States.
I should like to quote from the Ploughshares working paper on a nuclear weapons free zone. In part it reads:
Naval nuclear weapons represent a growing danger to world peace. Increasingly, these weapons are becoming warfighting weapons designed for use during a conventional or nuclear war. As such, they are widely recognized to be one of the most likely causes of a nuclear war. The provocative "Maritime Strategy" recently adopted by the U.S. Navy actually calls for attacks against Soviet nuclear submarines early in a conventional war. One purpose of this dangerous plan, according to Admiral James Watkins, former U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, is to "alter the nuclear equation" in favour of the United States prior to a major nuclear war. As Professor Barry Posen of Princeton University has commented, "of all the possible Navy strategies, this one is the most likely to cause the other side to reach for nuclear weapons".
What we are doing by having American nuclear submarines capable of having nuclear arms-the American Government will neither confirm nor deny there are nuclear arms but we can be sure that they do have nuclear arms-is that we are contributing to that very dangerous kind of policy. We have the CF-METR base, the Canadian Forces Marine Experimental Test Range at Nanoose where American submarines are involved in nuclear related anti-submarine warfare exercises. Just last year the agreement for the American use of that base was renewed despite the objection of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast. The request for a public investigation into the use of that base was denied by the Government. It went ahead and negotiated it. That very seriously compromises what the Prime Minister said about not having any nuclear weapons on Canadian soil.
I would urge Members opposite to think of future generations, think of Canadian responsibility, think of what Canada can contribute to the whole possibility of a nuclear free world. I urge them to support this motion made by the Hon. Member for Beaches.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as a Member for Vancouver East, I am particularly proud to be taking part in this debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). I would like to read the motion once again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the Government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
I am particularly proud because I come from the City of Vancouver which, under the past mayor, Mayor Mike Harcourt, was one of the original municipalities in Canada to declare itself a nuclear weapons free zone. My colleague, now the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), has been an outstanding Member in this same struggle. She has actively promoted this concept with municipalities throughout Canada. We are asking the Government to take specific action as outlined in the motion.
When I drive into Vancouver coming from the airport I must say I am always very moved by the highway signs which inform me that I am about to enter a nuclear weapons free zone. It is my fondest hope that some day this concept will be enforced not just on land but beyond the shoreline of the Port of Vancouver so that no ships bearing nuclear weapons will be permitted by the federal Government to enter Vancouver harbour. I know there are many other people, citizens of the Vancouver area, who share this desire, many of my constituents in particular.
In asking the Government to consider the desirability of declaring all of Canada a nuclear arms free zone, New Democrats are not embarking on a remote, academic, technical debate about an unimaginable future. We are concerned with the present. This debate is about an issue that affects the families and individuals of all constituencies across Canada. I am particularly concerned about my riding of Vancouver East. Even as Members of this House debate, the nightmare of a nuclear Armageddon is affecting the daily lives of many young children, youths and adult citizens who live, work, study and play in our communities. I know that these young people and their parents in my community of Vancouver join thousands of fellow citizens to march each year to show how strongly they are committed to peace and to the kinds of goals expressed in the motion.
For two generations the human race has lived under the shadow of the bomb and at the sufferance of the powers and principalities that control the bomb. This single inescapable fact has had drastic consequences for the ways in which we think about the present and plan and contemplate for the future. The psychological damage that nuclear armaments have already inflicted on ourselves and our children is not hypothetical. It does not depend on someone, somewhere, someday making a slight miscalculation. It is here. It is now and it is all around us as we talk.
1 want to speak as my colleagues did about schoolchildren, children who have not even reached their teens who already wonder out loud whether they will have the chance to grow into adulthood. I want to speak about youngsters I have seen playing in the schoolyards of Vancouver East, children whose watercolours on classroom walls offer bleak, sombre testimony to their vision of a nuclear winter. I want to speak about children who go peacefully to bed only to wake up screaming from nightmares of World War III. This happens to young children in all our communities. Most Members of this House are familiar with recent surveys conducted in this country, the
October 29, 1987

United States and western Europe of the responses by young people to the ever present threat posed by nuclear weapons. The pattern that emerges from these surveys is a chronicle of confused hopelessness, unrelieved anxiety and sometimes suicidal despair. On occasion that despair has resulted in people completely losing hope and choosing the path of suicide. Pathetic messages left behind by these young people are a searing indictment to those who would brusquely dismiss-as the Member across the House is doing-this phenomenon as irrelevant or perhaps even humourous to the issue we are debating today.
It is extremely difficult to join in this debate without becoming emotional. Surely it is a sign of some serious disorder for anyone to speak or even to be here today without becoming emotional. Members who have seen the film If You Love This Planet-and I hope everyone has-surely will recall the response of peace activist Helen Caldicott to charges that her crusade against the threat of nuclear weapons was, to quote, "overly emotional." I applaud Dr. Caldicott's response:
Anyone who can contemplate the prospect of the world-wide race to thermonuclear Armageddon without becoming emotional cannot be classified as a sane human being.
I hope that all Members who are here in this House today will consider this issue with considerable emotion.
All New Democrats support this motion. The people of Canada, I must say, know where New Democrats stand on the desirability of making Canada a nuclear weapons free zone. It is perhaps one of our most important policies. Over the years a number of my New Democrat colleagues have sponsored Bills and motions with the goal of prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada and the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms as reflected in this motion today.
To look back in history, on March 5, 1986, and again on October 8, 1986, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) introduced such Bills. I am sorry to say these Bills received only first reading. On December 13, 1984, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who I hope is listening to this debate from his hospital bed today, introduced a nuclear weapons free zone Bill. This Bill proceeded to second reading on March 18, 1985. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) has presented the House with another opportunity to demonstrate some real leadership to the people of Canada. I very much hope that Hon. Members from all Parties will lend their support to this motion.
Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said on behalf of the Liberals in 1984 that they may wish to make it absolutely clear at this time that they are neither for nor against the concept of a nuclear weapons free zone in Canada. That is a typical Liberal response. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) spoke positively in support of this motion today. I only hope
Message from the Senate
that he was speaking on behalf of his Party and not as an individual.
Hon. Members opposite have supported what I would call some nonsensical arguments about the international repercussions of Canada's becoming a nuclear weapons free zone. I would like to quote Project Ploughshares in this regard. In Making Canada a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, Project Ploughshares has said:
It is both technically and politically incorrect to argue that refusal to participate in or support the nuclear forces of other NATO members is incompatible with membership in the Alliance... Currently Denmark, Iceland and Norway are actively examining the prospects of creating a regional, Nordic Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone ... Greece is attempting to negotiate a similar, Balkan zone. These countries intend and expect to remain members of NATO even if they should become full nuclear weapon-free zones.
As well, we are concerned by the statements made, I presume reflecting the Government's position, by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt). I hope very sincerely that she will review this information and reconsider the statement she made today.
I know how keen supporters across the country are for us to pass this motion in the House. I would hope that there would be debate in the communities across Canada and that people will talk to their Members of Parliament, particularly those who are members of the Official Opposition and those in the government Party, about this matter.
Finally, 1 would like to end by quoting a poem by Tommy Douglas, who was a tireless fighter for peace. He wrote:
You say the little efforts that I make Will do no good; they never will prevail To tip the hovering scale
Where justice hangs in balance.
1 don't think
I ever thought they would.
But I am prejudiced beyond debate
In favour of my right to choose which side Shall feel the stubborn ounces of my weight.
I know all of us in this Party would urge all Hon. Members to take a very tangible step in support of this motion as a positive step toward peace, a world where our children can sleep at night with less fear of a nuclear holocaust.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: October 29, 1987
Nuclear Armaments
made by the House of Commons to its amendments 1(c) and 8; that the Senate does insist upon its amendment 4(b), and that the Senate has substituted eight amendments for its other amendments concerning Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, for which it seeks the concurrence of the Commons.
I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House about observations and amendments contained in Part II of the nineteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on the message from the House of Commons concerning certain amendments to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
For the benefit of Hon. Members, these messages will be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings, and copies will be available at the Table in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for the above messages.]


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE ZONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of declaring Canada a nuclear arms free zone by prohibiting the deployment, testing, construction and transportation of nuclear weapons and associated equipment through and within Canada, the export of goods and materials for use in the construction and deployment of nuclear arms and further, the government should encourage cities, provinces and states throughout the world to undertake similar action.
Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long. I know that this motion is to come to a vote, so I will end my remarks before six o'clock.
I did want to respond to some of the remarks made by Hon. members of the Opposition regarding the motion which is to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone. First, the motion calls for unilateral action. That really goes against the tradition of Canada and its security as a nation.
Since the late 1940s, Canada has very carefully cultivated a relationship with and co-operated with members of the NATO Alliance to ensure that we have a collective security, and it would be the joy of all joys of those in the Warsaw Pact if that kind of collective security began to fragment. We cannot allow the concept of collective security to be destroyed by any
fragmentation in the idea of unilateralism for which this motion calls by declaring Canada a nuclear weapons free zone.
Second, the motion seems to assume that the most important issue in the world is peace. No one would deny that that is an incredibly important issue. All of us cherish the privilege of living in peace. In fact, I would underscore the fact that it is because we have had a collective security concept that we have been able to live in peace in this land.
The most important issue is not peace, it is freedom. There are many nations which are in peace. I can tell of the days I spent in East Germany. There is peace there, but it is not the kind of peace that I would enjoy. I have been in Bulgaria and there is peace there. I saw no war, no conflict, but it is not the kind of peace that I would enjoy. The most important privilege we have in this land is not peace but freedom. Hon. Members of the opposition Parties ought to appreciate that the most.
Third, the motion seems to assume that those with weapons are militarists. That is totally fallacious. The country that is the most militarily equipped and prepared in Europe today is not West Germany, France or Britain, it is Switzerland. Switzerland holds military manoeuvres every weekend and has its recruits in reserve, allowing them to take their weapons home from training. They keep their rifles in their homes. Who would say that Switzerland or Sweden for that matter, which is also militarily prepared, are militaristic because they believe in being militarily prepared?
We cannot accept this kind of motion. I recognize that it must come to a vote and it ought to. The House ought to express itself on this motion, but I hope it is roundly defeated, and I believe it will be because it deserves to be. We need to preserve not only the tradition of peace in this country but the tradition of freedom.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
GOVERNMENT POSITION/EXPECTATIONS OF YOUTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 1987, I asked a question in the House to the Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest). It concerned the plight of unemployed and homeless youth. I asked the minister what he intended to do to try to alleviate the plight of thousands of young Canadians faced with that serious problem. Unfortunately, his answer or rather his lack of answer forces me to bring back the issue today.
October 29, 1987

In my question, I was referring to the pomp with which some programs for the youth have been launched, and particularly to an article on the official opening of Centre Entreprise-Jeunesse de Montreal that has been published with a photograph in a newspaper on June 10. This article refers specifically to the ostentation which accompanied the official program opening, which included a display of a great many balloons of various colours, catering services, wine at will, a video presentation, et ceatera, et ceatera. Mr. Speaker, that is what I wanted to talk about at the time and what I still want to talk about today, because the Government is behaving in such a way, in connection with the launching of some programs, as to mislead the public into thinking that many significant programs have been implemented for young Canadians, while unfortunately the real needy are in fact ignored.
I am afraid the Minister of State (Youth) has no idea of what this lack of shelter means for young Canadians. Because he has hardly any solution to propose, he asked me in his reply or comment, to offer him suggestions for improving the current situation. I am not surprised at all, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is not and has never been truly conscious of the actual problems and needs of young Canadians. He does not care and is still less determined to try and find final and concrete solutions to their problems. For that matter, if he had listened a little more carefully to my question, the Minister would have realized that I had made one suggestion, that is, to set up a permanent mechanism or organization for listening to the homeless. But, anyway, it is neither my responsibility nor that of my party as Official Opposition to find solutions.
I suggest it is incumbent on both the Government and the Minister of State (Youth) to find solutions together with the dozens of departmental officers who are there to develop concrete programs to help solve the problems of the homeless. It is not up to us to compensate for the Government's not doing its job. We will assume this responsibility as soon as we are again in government in a few months from now.
I agree with the Minister when he says there are no miracle solutions to solve the problem of the homeless. Still that is a very poor excuse to refrain from taking any action at all in this sector. Unfortunately we have precious few problems in this country to which miracle solutions do exist. But if we try hard enough we find out that intelligent, simple and concrete measures can indeed help us improve considerably most of the problematical situations we encounter. I will prove that in a few minutes.
Various interest groups dedicated to help the homeless and the jobless have told me and the Leader of the Opposition how disconcerted they are about the inaction of this Government with respect to this issue. The United Nations General Assembly declared 1987 the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. The primary objective is to make sure that this year there will be an appreciable and significant improvement in the living accommodation and environment of some of the most destitute people. It seems to me that as Canadians we
Adjournment Debate
have a role to play and a responsibility to assume in the quest for this objective. Most people concerned over the homeless agree on one point: they are ever more numerous and ever younger. What used to be the bastion of people aged 45 and over is now wide open to younger people.
So again I ask my question to the Minister, hoping that this time he will have the opportunity and courage to respond. Are homeless youths really one of the concerns of your Government? In the affirmative, would you be prepared to implement a measure or put into place a permanent structure to look after the needs expressed by their spokesmen and solve the problems they face?
As recently as yesterday, Mr Speaker, to face the urgent and dramatic situation of homeless youths, a task force of the Montreal diocese, in co-operation with the archbishop's palace, announced the November opening of a shelter-help centre for young people between 18 and 30 years old, in the basement of Montreal's Saint-Louis-de-France church. This temporary shelter for the winter months will provide beds for the 18-30 year-olds who have no place to stay.
His Eminence Robert Riendeau, director of the archbishopric charities, says the project is only temporary considering the urgent situation of youths and the fact winter is so near. But he believes the organization of a network of shelters is not a government responsibility. I agree with him on that point. However, in justice, it is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to ensure its citizens a subsistence and decent living conditions.
I am therefore asking the Governement, the Minister responsible, to take concrete measures before the end of the International Year of the Homeless, to allow those young people without a shelter to benefit as soon as possible from a decent program that will provide them with income and an opportunity to live a decent life in Canada.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, first I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) for raising this question. It is indeed an important social issue that is not easy to solve and for which there will be no immediate solution. It will take the help, co-operation and understanding of all sectors of Canada and Members of Parliament in order to solve the problem.
I want to compliment the diocese in Montreal for taking the initiative to provide a shelter for the homeless, as the Member has pointed out. I believe that is the beginning of the kind of work that must go on. I agree with the priest in that diocese that that is where it starts. While the Government must do its part, that is where the solution begins.
The Hon. Member seems to think that the Government has not been doing anything. He mentioned the jobless and the

October 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
homeless. The jobless rate for teenagers since August, 1984, has dropped 4.4 per cent. That did not happen by magic. It is as a result of planning, programming, and Government agencies and departments looking at needs and how they can be met. Because of such programs as the Canadian Jobs Strategy and the Youth Employment Program, led by the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), there has been an attack on unemployment among the youth.
The Member says that the Minister did this with fanfare. Would it help to initiate Government programs if people do not find out about them? It seems to me patently obvious that in order to design programs and reach youth we must find ways to publicize them. It may seem like fanfare to the Hon. Member, but we must broadcast that kind of news if we are to tackle this issue.
1 also point out that the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) just returned from Saskatoon where he has been meeting with a task force on post-secondary education, trying to tackle the whole matter of illiteracy or partial illiteracy in order that we can deal with this important issue.
The other side of the issue is the homeless. On any one day in the City of Ottawa one can find a thousand homeless. There are agencies in Ottawa that are trying to bring those homeless to a place of shelter, but more important, a place of meaning. It is not enough to say that we must provide shelter, we must also ask why they are homeless. Many of these young people are 17, 16, 15 or younger. Why are they not at home with their parents? Why are they runaways? That is the question with which agencies, like the diocesan priest, are wrestling. How do we get them back to the shelter of their home where they belong? What is the conflict that has arisen between them and their parents that they have run away?
Those are the social issues governments cannot solve but which this Government is trying to tackle by bringing an undergirding to the family structure so that families feel good about being families and become knit together. That is why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is taking his time with the child care program. We want to have a child care program which provides a sense of security about how those children are going to be cared for in day care centres. They will find, then, that they feel good about themselves and they will not feel the need to run away from home, which really is the problem, I think the Hon. Member would agree.
The problem is that young people want to run away from home. We have to deal with that so that we do not have to talk about homeless young people in our society.


TRADE-FREE TRADE-POSITION OF SOCIALIST PARTY IN 1965
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, on October 21, 1987, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to explain to us the position of the socialist party in 1965 when the Auto Pact was signed.
As you know, the socialist party then objected to the Auto Pact, just as it now objects to the free trade agreement.
It is important for the public to know what the socialist party had forecast in 1965 if free trade were implemented in the automobile industry. I now refer, Mr. Speaker, to Hansard for May 10, 1965, when Mr. Tommy Douglas, who was then Leader of the CCF, which was a socialist party, and it is the same party today, had this to say about the Auto Pact: "The other criticism we have of this Agreement is that it appears to make no provision at all for the employees in the automobile industry who will be displaced as a result of it."
This is what the leader of the socialist party said in 1965 and we are now hearing exactly the same negative speech from the heirs of Mr. Douglas. Yet, what has happened because of the Auto Pact since 1965? Canadian automobile exports to the United States now amount to $33 billion. In other words, more than a third of our total exports, thanks to the Auto Pact. Those $33 billion of exports account for 7 per cent of our Gross National Product and for 840,000 jobs, most of them centralized in southern Ontario, specifically in the socialist party leader's riding Oshawa. Those jobs are centralized in a community where, at present, unemployment is less than 3 per cent and where General Motors has decided to invest $2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand the position taken by the socialist party in 1965 when it was against to free trade in the automotive industry. It is still opposed to free trade today, anticipating the same disasters, such as jobs lost, etc., whereas it did not happen since 840,000 new jobs have resulted from that agreement. Today, it is opposed to the benefits that free trade has brought about in the automotive industry since 1965. Those benefits, incidentally, were implemented and negociated by the same negociator, Ambassador Reisman, who is in charge of present negociations. That party is opposed to the possible economic spin-off which will benefit other Canadian workers throughout Canada.
It was said in the House, Mr. Speaker, that members from the socialist party have a grudge against Western Canada. In fact, they have a grudge against the whole country because their leader is only interested in his own riding of Oshawa and its immediate surroundings. The socialists don't want the benefits of the Auto Pact to be extended to all Canadians, and to make their negative representations, they are using the money of workers in the automobile industry who earn good salaries and pay dues to big unions, to Bob White's union. They want to use that money. They are paying for advertising across the country and they are using the money of workers who enjoy the benefits of free trade in the automobile industry. They are using it to oppose the ratification of an agreement with United States, because they are living quite handsomely, those socialists Mr. Speaker, they are Bob White's soldiers. These people in the House are saying only what their financial
October 29, 1987

backers, Bob White and company, want them to say. And incidentally, Bob White is doing pretty good for himself, too, these days.
Canadians should realize the kind of position the socialist party is taking. They should realize that in 1965, they were against free trade in the auto industry. Today, we have the socialist party and Bob White who want to maintain all the advantages of free trade in a specific sector of our economy here in Canada. Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should seriously reflect on the position taken by the socialist party. In 1965, they were against free trade, and now that their workers enjoy the benefits of free trade, workers who are paying Bob White a handsome salary ... He gives the orders, he supports their campaigns and their political financing, and that is why these people cannot consider the well-being of all Canadians, because they are indebted to Bob White, who has been enjoying the benefits of free trade since 1965.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his timely question. I might just follow it up by stating that this is not the only time that the NDP has been wrong.
Members opposite have a record of negativism on free trade and other issues. I need go back only as far as this Government's economic statement of November, 1984, when the Leader of the NDP said in the House on November 9, 1984, that the Government would "destroy thousands of jobs . .. The effect of this program would be a net increase in unemployment".
As we all know, that simply is not the case. Since September, 1984, 959,000 new jobs have been created. Total unemployment is down by 336,000, and the rate of unemployment is down by 3.1 points.
This historic free trade agreement, which the Opposition is opposed to, will build upon that impressive record of job creation. It will secure access to our biggest export market and it will create jobs. That is what this deal is all about-jobs. If the NDP is truly concerned about unemployment in Canada, it will support this major initiative.
I would also like to briefly touch upon free trade and its benefits to the auto industry. We said when we went into these free trade negotiations that the Auto Pact was not on the table, and it was not. The Auto Pact, including the safeguards, remain in place.
That is what the Canadian Auto Workers wanted. That is what the auto parts industry wanted. That is what Ontario wanted. Although, as my colleague has just finished pointing out, that is not what the NDP wanted in the past. However, this Government felt that the Auto Pact was working well. Therefore, we did not raise it at the table.
Adjournment Debate
The free trade agreement preserves the benefits and the obligations of the Auto Pact for the original participants. It really has become the Auto Pact "plus" because it also recognizes that there are nine other vehicle assembly companies with projects under way in Canada and the United States which have been left out of the current arrangement.
What we have done is written a set of rules that will allow them to obtain the benefits of rationalized production within North America if they meet a tough new rule of origin that will require them to buy more domestic parts. This policy will create jobs much more effectively than the fortress Canada policies espoused by the NDP. Time will prove this Government's vision for Canada right, and the NDP's lack of vision wrong.
TRADE-SERVICE INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT/PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION OVER SERVICE JOBS


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised on October 14 and some of the discussion I have heard this afternoon are very similar. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) responded to my question by stating that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women said that a free trade agreement with the United States would improve the economic prospects of Canadian women. Some of the statements that I heard in the chamber this afternoon frightened me because I suddenly recognized how little research and depth of knowledge there is in the Government when it is going ahead and signing a free trade agreement, and it does not understand what "managed trade" is and what "free trade" is.
The Mulroney trade pact is something that is very dangerous to the economy of this country. When we looked at the Auto Pact, thank goodness our representative, Tommy Douglas, who was such a great Canadian, had his input at that time to make sure that there was Canadian content in every automobile manufactured. That was certainly what managed trade is all about.
My question was a question of the services. Those services have never been studied by the Economic Council of Canada. We do know that other countries have consciously excluded services from trade agreements, recognizing the potential threat to the economic and social programs, and that the development of indigenous service industries is critical to maintaining independent political and economic situations.
We also know that many of those services come under provincial jurisdiction. We have asked, and have not received an answer, as to what type of negotiations and agreements were made with the provinces to allow them to negotiate away many of the jobs of the women of this country.
An Ontario Government study of services under free trade concluded that there is no net benefit in a free trade agreement in five specific areas: banking, culture and broadcasting, investment dealing, telecommunications, and transportation,

October 29, 1987
Adjournment Debate
which will see increased foreign competition. The study advised the Ontario Government to oppose trading off losses in the service sector for gains elsewhere.
In the Elouse on October 14 my question was, what type of negotiations took place with the provinces that they were going to be able to bargain away areas that came under provincial jurisdiction? It is very clear in this agreement that services have been part of it. The Economic Council of Canada has not done any studies in the service area. It has stated that it will undertake a study in the future. It did not compile that when it was projecting a great gain in employment.
It is crucial that the Government looks at the implications to the women of this country, 80 per cent of whom are employed in the service industry. It is important that the Government look at that and recognize the implications. As soon as the Government receives those results, without any whys or wherefores, it should tell the United States that we will not be different to any other country in the world, and we will not include services in any of our trade agreements.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement will secure and enhance Canada's export opportunities in the United States, providing better economic opportunities for all Canadians. This is as true in the service industries as in the goods producing industries.
For the first time, there will be a binding agreement governing trade and investment in a large number of service sectors. Those sectors include, for example, computer services, professional and business services, and enhanced telecommunications services.
The agreement will ensure that in the future U.S. laws and regulations will not be changed so as to deny Canadian service suppliers in the United States equal treatment vis-a-vis their American competitors, or prevent them from establishing in the United States or maintaining a commercial presence there. Of course, as is only reasonable, Canada will accept the same disciplines in future with regard to our laws and regulations.
The agreement will also bring immediate help to business travellers crossing the Canada-U.S. border in the course of their business. Unnecessary prior approval procedures and other requirements will be eliminated, without affecting either country's control of its immigration policies. The result will be greater freedom for Canadian suppliers of a large number of services to pursue new business opportunities in the United States. The agreement will truly secure and enhance our access to United States markets in the sectors it covers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 30, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers