1987-12-09

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 7, 1987 in Montreal, Mrs. Irene Joly was killed by her ex-husband, a Mr. Dupre, who was arrested and jailed several hours later. In January 1986, Mrs. Joly had been stabbed several times by her ex-husband but survived, thanks to the unexpected arrival of her daughter. Her ex-husband received a suspended sentence, although the Crown prosecutor demanded a prison sentence. Since that time, Mr. Dupre had been following and harassing his ex-wife and her children. The court ignored the prosecutor's request for an order preventing the ex-husband from getting closer than 1,000 feet to his victim. For six months, her son drove her to work because he was afraid his mother would get hurt. Last Monday, Mrs. Joly was attacked and killed by her ex-husband.
Mr. Speaker, the law must be changed to make a death threat a criminal offence. At the present time, the police cannot do more than they are already doing because threatening to kill someone, however serious the threat may be, is not recognized as a serious offence. I want to ask the Government to act quickly, because I may remind the House that this is the second woman killed by her ex-husband in the past six months. Perhaps it would help reduce violence in the family and make ex-husbands realize their wives are not their personal property and that even if they leave their husbands, that is no reason to kill them.


REFUGEES
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, four months ago the Government introduced legislation that will make our refugee determination system faster and fairer. For four months that legislation has been held up by both opposition Parties and now by the Senate. It is time for action.
Thirty thousand people are expected to come to Canada this year and file refugee claims. Even though 70 per cent of those claims will be groundless, each case could take months and years to decide. Our present refugee system is inefficient, inadequate and inappropriate.
Canadians want and deserve a refugee determination process that treats all claimants fairly and promptly. The measures introduced last August will do just that.
Are the opposition Parties waiting for another boatload of people to arrive on our shores before realizing the necessity of changing our system? Or will they join with us and the majority of Canadians who recognize that it is time to take action and put the policy introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) in place now? Canadians and needy refugees around the world can wait no longer.


TAX REFORM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians living in northern regions are very concerned over the plans of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for flowthrough shares.
New Democrats realize flow-through shares have done much to alleviate a key problem in the mining industry, namely, the difficulties small companies have in raising capital for mineral exploration. Clearly there has been a very significant increase in activity and this has had the effect of creating many new jobs in regions of high unemployment.
Speaking in Noranda-Rouyn on September 24, our Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), said:

December 9, 1987
This fiscal measure corresponds well to the objectives of my Party in terms of the creation of jobs and the development of resource-based regions.
We do have some concerns with the existing system. [Translation]
More specifically, we want to channel the benefits to small businesses which always have trouble raising investment capital.
Actually, the corporate tax system is supposed to help capitalize small businesses which are the foundation of economic renewal and job creation in our regions.

It is vital that flow-through shares be retained in order to ensure an active mining sector which is one of the key pillars of regional development throughout northern Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region is still breaking records for the number of residents employed and the number of unemployed in the area.
The unemployment rate is the lowest in the entire province of Quebec. It was 6.7 per cent in November 1987, which is 0.7 per cent less then it was in October.
That is a striking departure from the unemployment rates we had under the former Liberal Government in this country, when employment was as high as 27, 24 and 20 per cent from 1980 to 1984.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate continues to drop in Abitibi-Temiscamingue, thanks to the concerted efforts of our entrepreneurs and employees in the private sector and federal and provincial programs.
I want to thank the people of Abitibi for their participation and their faith in the economic renewal of our region.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the closure of the Route Canada terminal in Sydney and the subsequent lay-off of 17 employees will hurt not only the workers but the community at large. The hardships that
these employees will now face is one of extreme proportion. This workforce is a very senior one and its years of service range from 16 to 46 of dedicated and faithful work to the employer.
The severance package will be pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and not the special agreement which was consummated by the Canadian National Railway company, Transport Canada, Route Canada, and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. The special agreement provided many more benefits to the workers than what is being offered under the Canada Labour Code.
The activity by senior management of Route Canada in this matter is prejudicial to the workers involved. Where is the justice in this situation? Where is the obligation this company has to years of dedicated service by its employees? This situation is not acceptable. Route Canada managers and the corporation as a whole will just have to do better if they wish to operate in eastern Canada.
We are not in the stone age of labour relations, Mr. Speaker. In coming weeks I intend to point this out again and again to Route Canada management. It is time that it took its responsibilities seriously on behalf of the workers who have now been affected.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF TORONTO BOARD OF TRADE
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, free trade with the United States has the potential to reap great dividends for Canada and we in Alberta support it unequivocally. But just so that Canadians and particularly those from the great Province of Ontario are not confused into believing that Premier Peterson, in opposing the deal, speaks for everyone, I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the views of the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, an organization with over 15,000 members, the largest community Board of Trade or Chamber of Commerce in all of North America.
In a submission to the House Standing Committee, the board stated:
-rising U.S. protectionism has obliged the federal Government to secure
and enhance Canadian access to that export market upon which Canada is .. .
most dependent for its continued prosperity.
The board went on to say that failure to realize an agreement could pose a threat to national unity.
Is it not interesting how the Ontario Government can claim to have won its mandate by opposing the free trade agreement


i


December 9, 1987

when it does not have the support of so large a sector of its business community and all the workers who work within it?


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail reports that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) may make amendments to Bill C-84, amendments he absolutely refused during weeks of debate in Parliament and committee. If he is beginning to wake up, that's good. However, he'll need to go much further than reported.
His Bill will surely fail at the Supreme Court as long as it makes criminals of Canadians who help a refugee without a visa to come to an immigration office in Canada; allows immigration officers to break and enter, search, and seize documents at will; detains new arrivals on mere Minister's suspicion, without habeas corpus rights, and violates Canada's signature on the UN Convention for Refugees by turning refugee ships away at sea.
The Minister must back down still further.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the month of December gives me pause to reflect upon peace and what is happening in foreign countries where Christmas this year will be marred by violence, where people will suffer and cry.
Here is what we Canadians have achieved in 1987 after only three years under a Progressive Conservative Government: social peace throughout the country, joy of living, reconciliation of all Canadians from coast to coast, leadership highlighted by humanism and based on the individual's sense of responsibility and valorization.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are now proud of themselves and their Government because they feel useful and responsible. They have confidence in their Prime Minister, and justifiably so.
Over a number of years the Liberal Party drew inspiration from the NDP in its quest for socialist order in Canada. As a result, Canadians sank $200 billion deeper into debt, they lost their self-confidence, and they now live in a climate of mistrust
where aggressivity between individuals and cultural and economic interest groups prevails.
Mr. Speaker, it is my fervent wish that 1988 will enable countries torn by war and misery to establish institutions, policies and governments whose inspirational spirit will resemble that of the administration now headed by the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.


AEROSPACE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has earmarked $824 million for the space research program. This is not new money, but funds recycled from the appropriations of the National Research Council which, as we have seen this week, is seeking applicants for jobs with the famous space agency-yet we still have no idea as to where the agency is to be located.
Reading newspapers in recent days made me appreciate just why the Prime Minister simply cannot make up his own mind. On September 16 the Minister of State for Science and Technology stated that this essentially political decision rests with the Prime Minister.
Today's Le Droit reports that the same Minister is saying: "Decision not made yet". As we recall, the Minister of State for Science and Technology stated: "Within a few weeks".
We know that even the Minister of State told us: "No, no, never ever. The decision will not be made by tomorrow"!
Well, when will this Government have the nerve to tell us: The Space Agency-in Ottawa or in Montreal? Or half in Ottawa and half in Montreal? Where will it be located? Somewhere in limbo? Do something, you guys! This means jobs in my riding, in the national capital.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, December 10, has been declared International Human Rights Day by the United Nations. Man has made tremendous technological progress to the point where nature can be challenged or controlled. However, a dark cloud hangs over the greatness of civilization.

December 9, 1987
Oral Questions
Today in many nations, individuals are denied their basic human rights, rights which all Canadians take for granted. The Jews and Christians of Russia, the Baha'is of Iran, the Tibetans of China, and all the political dissidents held by the dictatorships of Africa, Asia, South and Central America and the Caribbean have only one hope, the hope that we parliamentarians in the free world must not let the world forget their plight.
Today, Mr. Knanh Le-Kim, President of the Vietnamese Buddhist Association of Toronto, is meeting with Ambassador Lewis in New York to bring him abreast of the religious persecution in Vietnam. We can never let our guard down even if there is only one individual left in the world who is being denied any right. Only when individuals in all societies enjoy all their basic human rights can man finally claim that he has advanced from prehistoric times.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as we contemplate events in Washington this week, I think it would be appropriate for all of us to remember the role various peace movements have played in coming to this particular point in human history.
The peace movement is often reviled, both in the East and the West, by the political leadership of those countries, and sometimes by Members opposite, but it is a fact that the peace movement has been that source of creative tension and criticism, that leaven within the loaf that is very important in keeping political leaders always rethinking their positions on these crucial issues that affect the future of planet Earth.
I think we should remember this with respect to the peace movement here in Canada, in Europe and in the United States of America, but we should also remember those within the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries who often have to work under even more difficult circumstances.
We know that here, CSIS and other organizations keep an eye on the peace movement and regard its activities not as essential but as disloyal. We also know that in the Soviet Union and East Germany, Christian peace activists are from time to time harassed and rounded up and life is made difficult for them. Let us keep them in mind, and let us keep in mind that the peace movement on both sides of the so-called divide is very, very important and not unconnected to what is happening in Washington today.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECTS ON NORTHERN MANITOBA
Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the report prepared for the Canada West Foundation on the effects of free trade on Manitoba clearly indicates substantial benefits for the province from free trade and severe economic disruption if protectionism in the United States continues unchecked. Of particular interest in the study is the section dealing with northern Manitoba. It points out that jobs are threatened in the North and says:
Northern Manitoba would be the most adversely affected region in Manitoba in the event of increased U.S. protectionism.
Due to the high concentration of employment in resource industries which are largely dependent on access to the U.S. market, communities such as Thompson, Flin Flon and Lynn Lake would be devastated by any U.S. actions which would restrict exports such as nickel, copper, zinc and gold.
The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement assures and enhances access to the U.S. market. Given these facts, it is astonishing to consider the position of the NDP Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who opposes the free trade agreement.
Even NDP MLAs from northern Manitoba are against the agreement. By following their anti-American ideology, they are selling out the best interests of northerners. Their constituents will not forget!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, seven times on Monday the Minister of National Health and Welfare accused the Opposition of making false allegations about the toxic mussels. On Tuesday the Minister accused the Opposition six times of making false allegations about the toxic mussels.
The truth is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has misled the House of Commons and has misled the people of Canada and must answer some serious questions on matters that have now put the lives of Canadians at risk.
What did the Minister say? He said that Dr. Todd received these samples from Prince Edward Island at 8.15 p.m. upon which testing began that evening, Saturday. Dr. Todd said on television:
We received the samples about noon on Friday and we got an answer late in
the afternoon that there was a reaction present in these animals.
Will the Minister explain that contradiction to the Canadian public and to Parliament? Will he admit his complete failure to protect Canadians from poisoned mussels?

December 9, 1987


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I say to the right hon. gentleman that I did not mislead either him or the House. I did not mislead Canadians.
If the right hon. gentleman is interested in the facts, I will give them again. I said to the House that testing had been done prior to the information I gave yesterday and we have had two sets of testing. I will give that information, if he has some time, and it is this-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am answering the question. First, we had information prior to the weekend on some mussels. The testing done by Dr. Todd on the first set of samples was for PSP, paralytic shellfish poisoning. That was injected into the mice. In that type of test mice die within twenty minutes. That is the normal test. The mice did not die in that way, they died two to three hours later. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Hamilton East said that mice were dying during that period of time. I have never denied that, but it was not under PSP.
We looked at the testing very carefully, that was the first test, and we then stepped up the investigation through the weekend. The information I gave the House yesterday was the second sample which ended in the health alert that I gave on the Tuesday.


NUMBER OF CANADIANS HOSPITALIZED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has yet to explain the discrepancy between his version and Dr. Todd's, and he is playing with words to cover up his incompetence.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot act immediately and with celerity to protect the public from food poisoning, who is going to do it?
Since the Minister claims he has all the facts, perhaps he could give us the following information: How many Canadians were hospitalized between the time the Minister ordered the shippers to stop shipping toxic mussels, and two and a half days later, when the Minister warned the Canadian public of the danger of eating these toxic mussels? How many?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between what I am saying today and what I have said on any other day in the House. My Deputy Minister, my Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Protection Branch, and the field operations people have all checked with Dr. Todd. I have not, and I will tell the right hon. gentleman why. I have said in this House time after time, and 1 insist on it, that 1 will not influence the scientists in my Department. I will take their advice on the basis of their scientific knowledge and experience.
Oral Questions
The right hon. gentleman asked how many people have been hospitalized. As of December 1 there have been no new cases. What we have done diligently at Health and Welfare is go to provincial hospitals, the MUC in Montreal, clinics, and doctors' offices to find out the exact number of cases. I stress that there are no new cases, because of the action we took, since December 1. The number of cases reported to us as of today is 75. The number of hospitalizations is 17.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we want to know how many Canadians were hospitalized from the moment the Ministry gave an order not to ship any further mussels. There are 1.2 million mussels shipped every week. We are talking about a possible 400,000 mussels being in circulation between the moment the Ministry stopped shipment and the moment the Minister warned the Canadian public.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister who sat listening to this conversation today and yesterday.
Does he not admit that his Minister acted in a manner which has not properly protected Canadians' health? For that reason, will he not ask his Minister to resign?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Will he not admit the Minister has not been forthcoming in giving the House of Commons the whole truth about a matter now affecting the lives of Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Hnatyshyn@: Whatever happened to free trade?


Mr. Beatty:: We expect better than that from you.


Mr. McKnight:: John has now joined the rat pack.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that I have given all the facts. I have not tried to hide any facts. I do not Operate on the basis of hiding the facts. I have not asked my Department to hide any facts. I did not contact the industry. I did not ask my Department for a second opinion. I did not ask my Department to hold back any information in any way.
What I said was, when we have got the scientific information on any case-mussels, English cucumbers, White Spot in Vancouver-and I can go on and on, in every case when I have had the scientific information I have acted.
I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that I think it is important for him as a national leader to stay with the facts and not try to destroy people in this House or in the Department when we acted responsibly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 9, 1987
Oral Questions


STATEMENTS MADE BY MINISTER AND BY SCIENTIST
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the halo is not shining for those families who have relatives in hospitals hovering on the verge of death.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare claims he has told the truth to the people. Why is it that today he has finally admitted that tests were done on the Friday, not only in Ottawa but also in New Brunswick, which showed mice were dying? Why has he admitted now that a link was established on Friday, when in fact when he was speaking to the press last week about this issue he said on Sunday: "There was, when we asked the companies to stop shipment there was a suspicion that there could be a link. Then we have to feed that material to laboratory rats". In fact, the laboratory animals were dying two days prior to the Minister's claim that the laboratory rats testing began.
How does the Minister explain the absolute contradiction between his statement in the House yesterday and the statement of the federal scientist who was responsible for carrying out the tests who said that a link was established on Friday, November 27?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, no matter how loudly people speak I will stay with the facts and here they are again. I have said consistently and I say again today that there was not a link established on the Friday. The Hon. Member keeps using those words. I said, and I will repeat it again, that the testing that was done up until the Friday was for paralytic shellfish poisoning. That was the experience of the Department along with DFO. The mice did not react relative to the symptoms and reactions of PSP.


An Hon. Member:: Big deal.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is a very big deal because it is important. Additionally, from that Friday, as well as the details I gave yesterday, we stepped up the investigation. The point that I make again is that those are the facts. We stepped up the investigation and the link between a toxin other than PSP was established on the Monday, the Tuesday. That detail I have given as well.
The Member talked about links. It is necessary to understand that the Department did not have the scientific basis at the times that she talks about which it had at the time which I have talked about which enabled me to give the health alert on Tuesday.


EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF ISSUE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of National Health and Welfare claimed that the injections were given on Monday, November
30 and Thuesday, December 1. From what the scientists said, it seems the first injections were given on the Friday before, and that the mice started dying in Ottawa and also in Blacks Harbour, New Brunswick, that Friday. Why didn't the Minister conclude there was enough scientific evidence to ask the companies to stop shipping mussels as of Sunday morning? He did not have the courage and he didn't even know the facts, because as late as Monday, he was not aware of what was happening. Why was he not sufficiently informed to be able to issue the same warning to Canadians? Up to Tuesday evening, consumers were still eating toxic mussels.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will go through it one more time and maybe most Members in the House will understand. On Friday, as I have already indicated, there was a test done and the mice did not react-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You did not indicate that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The questions are detailed and probably call for detailed answers. I ask Hon. Members to refrain from calling out too often unless they are recognized. The Hon. Minister will complete his answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: She is not even listening to the response.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As an investigative tool about which 1 asked my officials again today, on the Sunday we told the wholesaler, the supplier, and the shipper, that we had some indication that there could be problems with their product and to stop the shipment. That is what the Department did.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But you did not know about it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member could give me the same courtesy as I am trying to give her, just for once maybe.
What happened was very clear. The Department informed the shippers. As I have said in the House time after time, I was notified on Monday. On Tuesday we had the link and the health alert was issued.


Mr. Nunziata:: You are finished, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my information, my details, and my facts have been consistent. I do not think they have differed in any way today from the first day I was asked this question.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
December 9, 1987

The Government has now reached a final agreement with the United States on the final wording of the trade proposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to thank the Members opposite for their applause, Mr. Speaker. It is very thoughtful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Thirty-two per cent and falling.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister tell us when Members of the House will be able to see that report? When she answers that question will she, on behalf of the Government, guarantee that there will be adequate time to debate that report and resolution in the House? In addition, will she guarantee that there will be a vote taken before the Government of Canada signs this agreement with the United States?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, my officials advised me before Question Period that the officials on both sides are into the final details of the proofreading.


Mr. Riis:: We heard that three months ago.


Pat Carney: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition asks questions but does not have time to hear the answers. They are against this report. They have not even read it. They do not even want to know when it is available. That shows the consistency of the NDP policy.


John Edward Broadbent: Give it to us so we can read it.


Mr. Fulton:: Has she read it?


PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try with the Prime Minister. The chairman of the House committee has said that the committee will not be reporting to the House based on the final wording. He said it would be "absolutely silly" to make an attempt to do that and that it would "make a mockery" of the whole issue.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that unless there is adequate time to debate and understand all the details involved, and to take a vote in the House of Commons, the Government would be absolutely silly to proceed and would be making a mockery of the importance of this question for the people of Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee has already confirmed that the committee is free at any time to deal with any aspect of the report. Should it find that it is substantially different from the "Elements of the Agreement", which it is not, the committee is free at any time to pursue its own agenda on this issue.
Oral Questions
With regard to the timing of the report, as I started to say earlier, we are expecting the tabling of the report by the end of the week. With regard to the timing of the debate, the Prime Minister has already assured us that there will be a debate. In view of the Hon. Member's enthusiasm for a debate, I suggest that his House Leader co-operate with the Government House Leader on the timing of it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister that we will co-operate on the timing. However, the timing which is of interest to the people of Canada is that they have time to understand what this complex deal is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR DEBATE AND VOTE PRIOR TO SIGNATURE
John Edward Broadbent: I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Witnesses from Vancouver in the West to St. John's, Newfoundland, in the East, including many witnesses who gave support in principle for the idea, pointed out the need to have time to study the final text.
Therefore, will the Prime Minister make a serious commitment to the principles of democracy, to the need to understand this document, and ensure that there will be adequate time in the House of Commons for a full debate and a vote on this before it is signed and becomes an official agreement with the United States, rather than rushing it through before Christmas?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that there will be a debate on this issue.


John Edward Broadbent: A vote?


Pat Carney: The timing and the nature of the debate will depend on the co-operation of the opposition Parties.


John Edward Broadbent: A three-day debate, right.


TOXIC MUSSELS-TESTING DONE WITH MICE AND RATS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister asked us earlier to stick with the facts. I suggest that if the Minister had stuck with the facts in this whole debate and during Question Period in the last few days, he would not have the problems he has today. Also, he would not have had the contradiction that he had with Dr. Todd as shown on television last evening.

December 9, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister has mentioned that tests were made for PSP, paralytic shellfish poisoning. The fact remains that rats and mice died on Friday both in Ottawa and in Black's Harbour, New Brunswick. Those are the facts and I will stick with them if the Minister will stick with the facts.
If mice and rats were dying does the Minister not think that the product which was killing those mice and rats should not have been available to human beings?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will explain to the hon. gentleman. First, I said that we were testing for PSP. As a former Fisheries Minister, he would understand that.
Second, he would understand that most scientists will say that mice will die within a 20-minute period with the symptoms and development of PSP. The mice in question died between two and three hours, so that it was not indicative of PSP. I have said that all along. I am not giving any new facts. That has been common knowledge.
The Hon. Member should change his question somewhat because I am sure he did not phrase in that way purposely. The number of mice that were tested and the number that died additionally concern a second piece of scientific information. A small ratio of the mice in fact died, which again is different from any traditional type of PSP testing. Obviously, the investigation had to go from there.
We still do not have that toxin isolated. As a former Fisheries Minister he should look at what happened in Denmark, Sweden, and Japan. I refer him to what health experts clearly said in terms of the speed with which the Department acted.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about PSP. Obviously that was ruled out as a possibility. 1 am talking about a substance, regardless of what it is, that killed mice and rats and obviously was harmful for human consumption.


AVAILABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has ruined the mussel industry in Atlantic Canada by his inaction.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Roland Henderson: What new evidence was obtained by the Department between 10 a.m. on Sunday morning, when mussel exporters were stopped from exporting mussels off Prince Edward Island, and 6.45 on Tuesday evening, that would make the Minister decide that an all-out alert would be posted for consumers of mussels in Canada that would not have been the same evidence which produced the stop order on shipment of mussels at ten o'clock on Sunday? What new evidence?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that as well. I say to the Hon. Member that he cannot have it both ways. Like the action on the 2,600 cases that I mentioned to him, if I stopped the industry every time there was a first indication of any complaint he would be after me immediately, saying that I killed the industry. Now he wants to work it the other way, but he cannot have it both ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will return to the details for which he asked. The times that he gave are accurate and are exactly the times that I have given. It was during that period when additional samples were tested and those were the details I gave in the House yesterday. Clearly, once the medical link was established, without identifying the toxin, the decision was taken.


FREE TRADE-ELIMINATION OF MARINE TRANSPORT SECTOR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the Canadian people why the Government has agreed to eliminate maritime shipping from its trade agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is anticipating the final report. I would urge him to wait until he sees the final report before commenting on any details.


SITUATION OF SHIPPING INDUSTRY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. What can he tell the shipping industry and the shipbuilders of this country who have been expecting to achieve something against the discriminatory pressures of American law, particularly under the Jones Act provisions, which will force the import into Canada of Alaskan crude oil in Canadian tankers? What has he to say to the comfort of the maritime industries of Canada, given the failure in the face of the American shipping lobby?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would give them the same advice, which is to wait and read the final report.
December 9, 1987


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We have been raising questions about the suspicious circumstances involving the Crown corporation, Canada Lands Company at Mirabel, including the fact that the company broke the law by failing to file its annual financial return by last June.
The Minister explained that the company was having a difference with the Auditor General about the profiling of overhead. I learned, in examining the company's returns, that the Government fired all of the directors of that company and replaced them some time in late summer.
Were these directors fired because of the way they profiled the overhead, or was there some other reason? Why did the Government change the direction of that company in August?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the absence of the responsible Minister who is attending to departmental business, I think the Minister fully dealt with this question, and first of all with a number of false allegations which were made by the Hon. Member.
Second, the financial statements were submitted to the Auditor General, who noted certain discrepancies regarding specific expenditure items. The Department immediately set up an audit team which submitted a report. The report will be discussed tomorrow, and the Minister has promised to act on its findings, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT ANNUAL REPORT BE PRESENTED BY NEXT MONDAY AT LATEST
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the report was not tabled in the House as it should have been. The Minister said yesterday that there was a meeting on Friday, attended by the Auditor General and the Corporation. I now want to ask the Minister, if the difference of opinion is not resolved, whether he could confirm today that we will have the Corporation's annual report next Monday at the latest?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could comment here. I think the Auditor General's report mentioned this Government's excellent management performance. He even said he was very optimistic about the Government's future record, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that this is more than he could have said about the previous government.
Oral Questions


CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand that the Minister intends to introduce changes to the regulations under the Canada Health Act later this week. Will he assure Canadians that those changes will not reflect what a director of the Canadian Medical Association said before the last election about the need for user fees on services? He said: "When the Conservatives get in power they will fix it up and make it right for us".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have to wait for any tabling until it occurs in respect of the Government's position on health care. It has been stated very clearly by the Government and I, as the spokesman both on user-fees and extra billing, that through the Canada Health Act we supported the removal of them or the financial penalty which the clauses called for.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In the past he has expressed some sympathy for privatization of some health care services.
Will he assure Canadians that any changes in these regulations will not encourage the privatization of any health care services or hospital services, as was recommended to the Minister about two years ago in a report by Mr. Bud Sherman, the former Minister of Health in Manitoba?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should recognize-and I am sure he does-that the delivery of health care is in the hands of the provinces. There is a Canada Health Act which governs the federal financial portion of the payment of those costs, along with the health portion of the Established Programs Financing.
There has been no change of policy, and in respect of the tabling of any other changes he will have to wait.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister and concerns

December 9, 1987
Oral Questions
the administration of the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Ltd. According to a spokesperson for the Auditor General's office, the Canada Lands Corporation was late in filing its financial statements, and not just in 1986-87 but also in 198586 and 1984-85. This means that since the Conservative Government came to power- Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why this was the only Crown Corporation to be late in filing its financial statements in the current year, and could he inform the House about the technical reasons which the Minister of Public Works suggested yesterday were the cause of the delay?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, first of all, before talking about financial statements, what we started to do was to sell back land that had been unfairly expropriated.
Second, in implementing these policies and procedures, the Government made every effort to ensure that programs and policies were implemented satisfactorily, and we informed the Auditor General's office about this in great detail. It is also a fact that when financial statements are filed late, they appear in the subsequent year's Public Accounts.


M. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, the Government is hardly in a position to talk about unfair treatment.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. During the last few days we have learned of no less than two RCMP investigations and an internal audit by the Department of Public Works. We now know of a fired board of directors of the Canada Lands Company and the possibility of 50 additional land flips.
Just what does it take to make the Government move on the issue of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel? Why will the Prime Minister not learn anything from the Parker Commission of Inquiry and learn that it is time that he started to clean up his act?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, again, I believe the Minister already answered the question yesterday, and perhaps I may continue along those lines. Initially, the land redistribution decision was made and implemented by this Government, and as I said before, all the steps taken by the Government were aimed at ensuring these activities were justified and would be followed up. I repeat that in his report, the Auditor General commented on the excellent performance of this Government, and we are convinced, as I said before, that the Department and the Government have done everything to ensure the situation was dealt with satisfactorily.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I would like to preface it by saying how very pleased all Canadians are that a very historic treaty was reached in Washington yesterday between Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: In view of the fact that there is some concern, however, that the elimination of intermediate range nuclear missiles may in fact lead to an increase in nuclear missiles that are submarine-based or air-launched, and the recognition by President Reagan that this indeed could happen on both sides, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in the period of time leading up to the INF negotiations, he communicated with both Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan on the matter of the desirability of reducing submarine-launched and air-launched Cruise missiles and, if he did communicate, what was their reply?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my hon. friend in conveying our congratulations to both sides on achieving an historic agreement on the reduction of nuclear arms, and in a special way I know my hon. friend would want me, on behalf of the Government, to convey congratulations to President Reagan and to all members of NATO whose solidarity brought about in large measure such an accomplishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the fact that this kind of very important achievement, which escaped the leadership of both sides in the past, was brought about in large measure by the great solidarity of NATO and statesmanship on both sides should be underlined here in the House.
With regard to the communications, indeed I had the privilege of communicating with the General Secretary and the President in respect of the matters raised by my hon. friend prior to the signature some days ago.


AIR AND SUBMARINE-LAUNCHED MISSILES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not made clear whether he asked both of them to address the issue of massive reductions in strategic offensive weapons.
Did he ask both or did he tell both of them of Canada's particular concern about air-launched Cruise missiles and submarine-launched Cruise and ballistic missiles? Did he specifically ask? Finally, did he also press upon both the need now for a comprehensive test ban before there is further enlargement or enhancement of the nuclear arms race?
December 9, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, given the question of my hon. friend, I thought the answer was very clear. I regret that my hon. friend did not agree.
In the communications we have had on this very important subject, we have conveyed the views of the Government of Canada in regard to the steps which we believe ought to be taken to secure further reductions in the possible deployment of nuclear arms.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs set out very carefully the manner in which Canada has recommended that the alliance and that General Secretary Gorbachev pursue this. My recommendations and views expressed to both sides have been consistent with that policy as set out clearly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence.
The economic development of Senneterre in Abitibi is dependent on three major components: forestry, rail transport, and the Canadian Armed Forces Base.
Since it was announced in 1985 that the radar base would be dismantled in August 1988, the Senneterre economic recovery committee and I have been making concerted efforts to find a solution.
My question is this: Can the Minister confirm today that a private Montreal firm has made a study to estimate the cost of dismantling the base? If so, could the expenditures involved be transferred to the municipality by the municipal council of Senneterre which wants to keep the base because of the socioeconomic impact the dismantling would have on local residents who have no other facilities and would make use of those already on the base, including the swimming pool, the curling rink and the community centre?


Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a study conducted by a Montreal firm. We have an estimate on how much it would cost to demolish the base. We would have to be released by the Province of Quebec if we were not to undertake demolition, and have that assigned to another party in case they did not maintain the facility as it is.
Oral Questions
We are willing to look at any proposal put forward by any of the municipalities in the areas where the 17 bases that are being closed are concerned.


ELECTRICITY SALES TO UNITED STATES-PURCHASES BY SPECIFIED PROVINCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Minister of Energy wants to deregulate electricity sales to the United States. If the provinces dependent upon this electricity do not have the option to purchase at least a portion of this electricity at a reasonable price, they will be placed in a very devastating position, for example, a province such as Prince Edward Island which already has the highest electricity prices in Canada.
Why is the Government deregulating electricity sales to the United States, and thereby placing provinces such as Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland, in the difficult position of not knowing if they will be able to get electricity at a reasonable price, or even if they are going to be able to get electricity at all?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, why would the Member make such a preposterous suggestion when, in point of fact, at the First Ministers' Conference 10 days ago, Premier Bourassa announced that he had just concluded an arrangement to supply hydro-electricity to the Province of New Brunswick at very favourable terms? In other circumstances he has indicated that this would be the policy of his Government, and the policy of Governments across the country.
At that same First Ministers' Conference, and here in the House of Commons, I indicated the willingness of the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of the Province of Quebec, in respect of Churchill Falls and related developments, precisely to ensure further availability of electricity that could be made available in these circumstances to the benefit of Canadian provinces.


GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to study this question a little more. He will realize that, for one thing, the sale to New Brunswick is only for six years.
The Minister of Energy states that he will not duplicate any regulations placed by the provinces, even if those provinces

December 9, 1987
Privilege
pass regulations which conflict with what the federal Government is doing at the present time. This will negate the federal Government's responsibility.
Why is the federal Government once again abandoning its responsibility in this country, and giving these powers to the provinces?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend is opposed to the free trade agreement, and is trying to tie every possible objection that he can into it. But I ask him to go back and examine the words of Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island, at the First Ministers' Conference, when he acknowledged that one of the first actions taken by this new Government of Canada was action to reduce energy costs on Prince Edward Island. He expressed the gratitude of his Government for that.
Second, my hon. friend asks me about electricity prices and hydro prices in Prince Edward Island. They get their hydro from New Brunswick Power, which is why Premier Bourassa sold it to New Brunswick at a lower cost, in order that Prince Edward Island could benefit from this type of preferential treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that the time for oral questions has expired.
I have two rulings to give.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Wednesday November 25, 1987, the Hon. Member for Broadview Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) raised in the House the manner in which her Private Member's Bill C-204 is being dealt with in the legislative committee appointed to study the Bill.

The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) claimed that the Committee's proceedings were being systematically obstructed by Government Members sitting on the Committee and by the Committee's Chairman or Acting Chairman. She said that Government Members did not look favourably on the Bill and that the actions of the Acting Chairman on Thursday, November 24, 1987, reflected his prejudice against the Bill before the Committee.

I wish to thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) for their contribution to this important matter. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) must
also be mentioned, and I thank him for his helpful intervention.
I wish to remind all Hon. Members of my ruling of November 18, 1987, where I cited several excerpts from the rulings of my predecessors concerning the established custom and traditions of the House in not interfering in committee proceedings until such committees have reported to the House. This is an important rule that has clear underpinnings in logic, and I, of course, want to follow it.
Thus, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the Hon. Member's complaint ought properly to be dealt with in committee and, therefore, it is not a question of privilege and cannot be dealt with here unless the matter is reported to the House by the committee.
There are established practices which have been followed for a long time. One is that Members refrain from criticizing the actions of another Member without the making of a clear charge set out in a motion. The traditional and proper way of dealing with the type of conduct alleged by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood would be by appealing the conduct of the chairman to the committee, or by way of a motion proposed to the committee and, if it is adopted, reporting the same to the House.

I hope that in future, Hon. Members will be guided by what I said on November 18, 1987 and will formulate their complaints and grievances in the committees, which are entirely capable of dealing with these matters, instead of wasting the precious time of the House. The precedents are clear: These questions do not come under the jurisdiction of the Chair.


JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL-VISIT BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE TO MILLHAVEN INSTITUTION-MR. SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: On Wednesday, November 25, 1987, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) raised serious matters in the House which he believed were tantamount to contempt of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General during its recent visit to the various penal institutions in the Kingston area.

The Hon. Member maintained that witnesses from Correctional Service Canada who appeared before the Standing Committee had been subject to pressure on the part of their superiors about what they should or should not say before the Committee. The Chair has allowed the House to spend quite some time discussing this matter because any allegation of suborning witnesses should be a matter of concern to all Hon. Members.

1 wish to thank the Solicitor General, the Hon. Members for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), Ottawa West (Mr. December 9, 1987

Daubney), Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), and London East (Mr. Jepson), for their timely interventions in this important matter.

After hearing these Members, especially the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), and after due consideration, I must repeat what 1 said following comments by Hon. Members on November 26, namely that "the Chair is really not in a position to interfere with the affairs of the Committee ... I want to re-emphasize that, generally speaking, Members with a complaint should go back into the Committee and sort it out there."

For further clarity, I refer all Hon. Members to a previous ruling I made on November 18, 1987, which is found on page 10930 of House of Commons Debates, and I quote:
Previous rulings and parliamentary custom are quite clear. Committees are definitely in control of their own procedures. In this respect, I may refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's, Fifth Edition, Citation 569(3), which reads as follows:
The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it is not competent for him to exercise procedural control over the committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.
From these and other citations quoted in that ruling I thus feel that the precedents are clear and, with regret, I cannot find that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) made out a prima facie case of privilege.
This matter may or may not merit further consideration but it should be first raised in the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. It is in that forum that the Hon. Member should pursue the issue and ask the committee to report the matter to the House. In this respect I refer all Hon. Members to the debates of April 28, 1987 and May 5, 1987 when a situation involving a committee matter was reported to the House following which Members raised a question of privilege thereon.
The Chair has taken this opportunity to review several of the recent matters that have been raised in the House that relate to events in or around the committees of the House. I have told the House before that the Speaker has been somewhat tolerant because the new rules were made permanent just last June. It was, I think, predictable that the new committee system would experience some growing pains. In every case that I have reviewed since last June, every question of privilege on a committee matter probably should have been raised first in the committee.
The reason I mention this in this ruling is that I am increasingly concerned with the time consumed by the House on committee problems that now are fully within the Members' own reach and control. I regret that I must serve notice to all Hon. Members that unless there is something of extraordinary seriousness I will be less disposed to allowing
Tabling of Documents
debate on such matters unless a committee has first reported thereon.
The reform of the committees has conferred upon them larger mandates and greater powers. With that reform comes the responsibility and the challenge for committee members to deal with issues within the new parameters of the redefined committee system.
I would like to add, and this is only by way of a suggestion from the Chair which might prove to be helpful to all Hon. Members, that perhaps Members, when they are carrying out their duties in committees, could go that extra mile to ensure that the sensibilities of fellow committee members are taken into account. If that is kept in mind, then some of the matters that have come before the Chair might well be able to be resolved with perhaps much less dispute and much less time consuming debate.
I thank all Hon. Members for bringing these matters to the Chair. I hope that we can keep in mind the necessity that the Chair is bound by the rulings and the precedents and that Members will try to resolve these matters in committee. There is always a possibility of some extraordinary matter happening and, of course, under those circumstances I would want to look very carefully at that. I am not saying I would never take an application under those circumstances, but I would ask the cooperation of Hon. Members, the co-operation of the chairman and members of committees to resolve the matters there.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages a further comprehensive response by the Government to the initial report of the subcommittee on the disabled and the handicapped.
You will recall that the Government responded initially to the subcommittee's recommendations on June 30, 1986. At that time we undertook to respond with additional information. That information is contained in this document in considerable detail.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 9, 1987
Motions for Papers
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions, Nos. 332-3264, 332-3290 and 332-3291.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the report of the official visit to the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia in both official languages.



JUDGES ACT


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Government House Leader may have a proposal about a committee. Does he intend to make it today.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion dealing with the committee reference of Bill C-92.
I move:
That the order for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of
Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. standing on the
Order Paper, be changed to read second reading and reference to the Standing
Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, both particularly relevant in view of the summit.
The first one points out that, whereas the U.S. Strategic Defence Initiative is a dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race and has been condemned by over 15 Nobel Prize winning scientists as economically disastrous and strategically destabilizing, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to guarantee that there will be no testing, development, manufacture or deployment of SDI systems or components in Canada and that Canada actively support positive alternatives to SDI, including the strengthening of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, that we support the establishment of an international satellite monitoring agency and a ban on all nuclear weapons testing.


James Douglas Manly: The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, points out the great danger of accidents while nuclear armed or powered ships are in Canadian ports. The petition points out that such a procedure is a threat to the environment and to Canadian citizens. The petitioners call upon the Government not to purchase nuclear powered submarines for Canada.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 9, 1987


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved:: That Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act is important. The Canadian Wheat Board is of considerable significance to grain producers in western Canada. The Wheat Board has been in existence since 1935 and it has served western grain producers very well in that period of time. It is especially valuable now in an international market that is very depressed and very competitive. As testimony to the performance of the board, one need only look at what has happened to Canadian sales in the last three years.
At a time of very depressed international grain prices and very fierce competition for market shares, Canada's share of the international wheat market has increased every year for the last three years. It has gone from approximately 17 per cent two years ago to about 20 per cent. In this year, the International Wheat Council estimates that our share could be close to 24 per cent. That tells us something about the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board and how it has functioned and served Canadian producers in the last period of time.
The Government of Canada recognizes the very difficult situation in which grain oilseed producers find themselves. We have as part of an over-all approach to the problem taken an approach that has involved three things. First, we have been very aggressive in the international market. The evidence is there and I just mentioned what has happened with wheat sales. We have been able to increase our market share because of the very good reputation of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have also relied on the reputation of the Canada Grain Commission which is a government agency that looks after the grading and weighing of Canadian grain. Its reputation worldwide is one that serves Canada very well.
We also have a good reputation as a country. We have never embargoed the sale of food to anyone and that serves us well in dealing with our customers. Those things have all helped us in our selling.
Second, we have as a policy provided a large amount of direct financial support to farmers. We know that no matter
Canadian Wheat Board Act
how much Government provides, the need is such that Government cannot step in and cover the total loss of income resulting from very depressed international prices. Nevertheless, in the time we have been in office the Government has increased by over 350 per cent its spending on agriculture and most of it has been in the grain and oilseeds sector. Again, that is an indication of the Government's recognition of the very serious problem agriculture is facing and the willingness of the Government to deal with it.
The third thing we have done, and I think most farmers and people who follow the situation agree that this is of vital importance, is to pursue a solution to the depressed prices internationally. We know, for instance, that in Europe those who produce durum wheat, a product used to produce macaroni, spaghetti and lasagna, receive in some cases as much as four times the amount Canadian farmers receive, yet Canadian farmers produce a very high quality product. Because of the discrepancies and differences in the system of support, Canadian producers are put at a very great disadvantage.
The solution to those problems must be an international settlement of the issue. Here w6 give considerable credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has raised this issue at both of the last summits. He has also shown leadership in seeing that the Government raises those issues internationally whenever there is an opportunity to do so. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), for instance, raises these issues. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has also been very effective in having some of these items placed on agendas involving trade Ministers.
This brings me to the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the selling aspect of it. The Canadian Wheat Board is the sole agency responsible for the selling of wheat, oats and barley outside our country. It also has responsibility for selling wheat, oats and barley in the country when it is used for human consumption. Hon. Members can see that it has a very large role to play in the four western provinces in the marketing of wheat, oats and barley.
Additionally, the Wheat Board administers initial payments and operates a pooling system for sales of grain. The Wheat Board is also involved in the movement of grain in the sense that opportunities for producers to deliver are equalized over the crop year. The Wheat Board has a major function to fulfil.
The amendments before us are rather straightforward. Three of them bring the Act up to date and two of them make changes we think will allow the board to operate in a more effective manner. I will simply outline them.
The first amendment deals with the way the quota system operates. The Canadian Wheat Board uses a quota system which allocates a certain amount of delivery opportunity to each producer throughout the year, so that throughout the delivery or crop year each producer has an opportunity to deliver an equal amount of grain at certain times of the year. The reason for that is to give producers, whether large or

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act
small, close to an elevator or far away, an opportunity to deliver a certain percentage of grain throughout the whole delivery season as sales opportunities arise.
One of the amendments we propose will see that grain that is delivered through a producer car or a platform car must be entered in the quota book the same as grain that goes through the elevators. There is a technical concern that the Act may in fact give producers who deliver through the producer-car system the opportunity to delivery grain without having it shown as part of the over-all quota. In that sense, they are able to have an advantage other producers do not have because of these additional delivery opportunities. We are simply changing the Act to see that that will no longer be done. I am not sure that it is being done deliberately, but there is a concern that because of the way the Act is worded, grain delivered through producer cars may not in fact have to be entered in a permit book.
The second amendment we are proposing changes the definition in the Act for legal purposes of what is now Canola. Some Hon. Members may know that in 1960, Canada, through some very dedicated research and testing, developed a strain of rapeseed with very low erucic acid. It has become very much sought after internationally and it is a very high quality product. Canadians gave it the name Canola. One of the amendments simply change for legal purposes the definition in the Act from rapeseed to what is officially called Canola. Again, it is a rather technical amendment, but one that brings the Act up to date.
The Canadian Wheat Board usually operates with five commissioners. The Act calls for a minimum of three and a maximum of five. Associated with the Wheat Board is a producer advisory board whose members are elected by the producers. As such, they are allowed a per diem and expenses for their activities as part of the advisory board.
The advisory board meets on a regular basis, approximately once a month. There have been occasions in the past when the advisory board has set up special committees to deal with certain topics that need to be looked at by a smaller group and on a more concentrated basis. There is no provision in the Act to allow for advisory board members who are part of a special committee to receive any kind of expense allowance or per diem. The Bill will simply amend that to allow for per diem payments to members of the advisory board who sit on special committees of the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board. That is something we think is useful and something the board has recommended. The Government is very pleased to recommend it to the House.
Just by way of example, it might be of interest to know that right now, there is an ad hoc special committee of the advisory board looking at the over-all quota system and how it applies to producers in the Wheat Board area. That is an example of how this amendment could be used.
The other two amendments simply provide for changes that we think are useful and will allow the board to run its affairs
on a more equitable basis. I might say also that all of the proposals we have in front of us for amendments were recommended by the Canadian Wheat Board.
The fourth amendment we are proposing has to do with the financial operations of the board. To pick a figure, the board regularly markets 25 to 30 million tonnes of grain. If you take an average price, even at today's very low market, of $100 a tonne you can see that the board regularly deals with literally billions of dollars a year. It has a big responsibility for managing its cash flow.
The Act limited the board to borrowing from chartered banks. In the last 10 years things have changed. Markets have altered considerably. The banks are not the only place where people can raise funds. There are other institutions such as trust companies and credit unions where you can raise money for a Crown corporation the size of the Canadian Wheat Board. The amendments we are proposing will be very useful to the board in managing its fiscal affairs in a more effective way, thus saving producers money.
The board has a very significant financial section itself. It has a treasurer, internal auditors, several chartered accountants, and is subject to an external audit every year when it presents its report to the Government. We think these measures will allow the board to be more effective, not only in borrowing money but in investing its surplus cash from time to time.
The last amendment changes the provisions dealing with cost assessment when producer cars are loaded. Most grain on the Prairies is shipped through an elevator system. Certain interest and carrying charges are then deducted from the price the producer receives. There is a relatively small amount of grain which is not shipped through the primary elevator system. The grain is loaded by producers directly into producer cars. Grain shipped that way to export points, whether it be Thunder Bay, the West Coast or Churchill, even if it does not see the inside of an elevator, by regulation incurs certain charges as if it had been stored in an elevator.
When you talk to people that load producer cars they say they think that is not correct. They think because their grain does not see the inside of an elevator it is not fair to have to pay these charges. On the other hand, some people see the issue from a different point of view. They say we have an integrated system where costs are shared. Regardless of whether or not you use an elevator, you benefit from its existence. We all would have to admit that it would be impossible for Canada to move the amount of grain we do if it was all loaded individually into producer cars. They say that even though the grain does not go into an elevator it has benefited from that elevator because it makes the whole system operate more effectively and more grain is moved out, thereby providing a benefit to the person who delivers his grain through a producer car.
December 9, 1987

There are arguments to be made on both sides. I do not think it is necessarily a cut and dried situation. The amendment we are proposing will allow the board, at its discretion, to refund what it assesses as a reasonable part of the storage charges to a producer who loads his grain into a producer car. We think this will be useful in the over-all operation of the system and give some recognition to the fact that grain does not always go into an elevator.
In conclusion, I want to say that we are pleased to propose these amendments. I emphasize the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board requested them. We have had a chance to sit down and talk through the amendments with the board and this Bill is the result. It will improve the over-all effectiveness of the Board and hopefully reduce some of its operating costs, thereby saving producers money. We think the administrative procedures which will come about as a result of these amendments will also allow for a more equitable system with respect to costs and benefits for each producer.
Lastly, and I am not too sure we do enough of this, I want to give credit to the Canadian Wheat Board. It has served grain producers in western Canada very well. We think it is an extremely well run Crown corporation. The evidence of its effectiveness and ability to sell in a very difficult and depressed world market is in the figures. We have not only maintained but increased our market share during a time of extreme competitiveness and depressed prices.
1 look forward to having the Bill go through as quickly as possible and into committee. Some of its provisions can be put into effect as soon as the Bill is passed. That will provide benefits to the board and producers as well.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Caucus of the Official Opposition, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to take part in the debate on Bill C-92, a Bill tabled by the Government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

We in our Party do not intend to take up too much time of the House on this Bill. Not that it is not an important Bill, because obviously it is, but we do not think it is controversial to the extent that would preclude us from allowing speedy passage. Outside of the fact that the Opposition is usually cooperative, as you know, the reason we want to give our approval is because of the benefits to be derived by farmers from the legislation.
We know the Bill gives the Canadian Wheat Board the authority to borrow, with the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), from financial institutions other than Canadian chartered banks. I have a concern in this respect, not of great magnitude but one which I hope the Minister will be able to address, perhaps in committee. I cannot help but wonder why the Government is so interested in permitting the board not to borrow from other sources, because we agree with
Canadian Wheat Board Act
that, but on the world market. We know, of course, that the Wheat Board has indicated that it may want to do that in the future.
I have before me an article from the Star-Phoenix dated December 1. Mr. Joe Kyncha of the Star-Phoenix interviewed Mr. John Morriss, a spokesman of the Wheat Board in Winnipeg. The article reads:
Projections have been done on how much it might save by being able to take
advantage of competitive financing on world markets "but we'd rather not
make it public," Morriss said.
In other words, this is something which may be undertaken in the future but which they would prefer not to discuss.
1 have some concerns with that, particularly since on occasions in the past Canada has borrowed on international markets and subsequent currency fluctuations were not advantageous for us. That concern is quite apart from my general concern about addressing ourselves to the international market when we could be doing something domestically. It is quite true that on occasion there could be savings in doing this, but I am not convinced that those savings are always justified. I invite the Minister to address that concern at some time in the future.
I would also like to know whether the Minister is of the opinion that there will be other legislative changes necessary to make this Bill work. For instance, I am curious to know whether the issuance of bonds and debentures will require amendments to the Income Tax Act and whether there will be guarantees by the Government on these bonds, as I assume there will be.
In addition, who does the Minister think the investors will be, particularly if they are from outside the country? Has the Minister or the Department of Finance done a market study to determine who the investors in these bonds would be?
I do not ask these questions to demonstrate an unwillingness to co-operate with passage of the Bill. However, I think these questions should be addressed at some time in order that all Members of Parliament can have a fuller understanding of the implications of the amendments to this Act.
Perhaps while talking about this Bill we should take the opportunity to speak a little bit about the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States. The Minister said some moments ago that Canada has managed to hold its own in terms of quantities of exports. However, in terms of holding our own in revenues it would be wrong to think that we have fared well in the international subsidy wars which are taking place right now.
I have indicated to the House in previous speeches that I have had the opportunity to go to Washington and study the U.S. Farm Bill, that legislation in the United States which has caused such damage to the Canadian farming industry. When

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I participated in the symposium on the Farm Bill in Washington that Bill was to involve $70 billion U.S. of subsidies. That is over $100 billion Canadian. That is one pile of money to be spent, and a large portion of those funds have been spent and will continue to be spent with the specific purpose of displacing the markets of other countries, including Canada.
One cannot help but wonder, first, why the Prime Minister's trade deal did not address this issue and, second, how the Government could have signed that agreement knowing that as they were negotiating the trade agreement the U.S. had placed this enormous barrier, this wall of money around itself in order to displace our markets and totally destroy the prices we are getting for agricultural commodities.
As the Minister has said, there may have even been a small increase in the amount we were able to sell in the past. While that may be so, the price which we have been getting for our commodities makes holding our own in terms of quantity insufficient. I do not say this to fault the Wheat Board. It is not the Wheat Board's fault that the Government has failed to convince the United States not to go ahead with the United States Food Security Act, 1985, more commonly known as the U.S. Farm Bill.
The Minister's deputy addressed a group of Members of Parliament and gave us some excellent briefing material on the U.S. Farm Bill. Although the information was interesting, it was far from rosy and far from showing a prosperous immediate future for Canadian wheat producers and other Canadian farmers.
There are a few more issues 1 want to raise, but I will be brief. The Bill provides for Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee members to be paid an honorarium for the days they actually work advising the board as well as for travel days. We support that amendment for the people who give up their time to serve in this advisory capacity. However, we are concerned that the advisory committee members are not always consulted on issues, the one of obvious concern being this Bill.
Some people have suggested that the advisory committee was not consulted in depth with regard to the implications of this Bill having to do with foreign borrowing and so on. If the Minister tells us that that is not so, which I hope he will do, perhaps he could then provide us with whatever information was provided to the advisory committee.
The Minister indicated that producers delivering grain to the Canadian Wheat Board by way of producer cars currently share in the board's cost of carrying grain in the country elevator system with regard to storage and financing charges, even though they do not physically store grain in a country elevator. The Minister has indicated that there is an inherent benefit in having the facility there even if they do not use it. People have made arguments on both sides of that issue and 1 do not intend to repeat them all here today. I suppose it is somewhat like discussing the Crow's Nest Pass freight rate. There will always be two opinions on how the payment should
be made in the future. It is one of those issues that will be debated for some time to come.
Nevertheless, having made those brief remarks, I want to indicate to the Minister that we hope he will provide us with additional information at the committee level. Judging by the usual co-operation we get from the Minister, I have no doubt that we will get that information.
On behalf of my Party I want to indicate that we have no intention of delaying and hope that the legislation is adopted without any unnecessary delay so as to benefit the agricultural community in western Canada as soon as possible.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I have some concerns about the Bill, but first I want to congratulate the Wheat Board on its ability to sell wheat. While we may complain about the price, at least the wheat is being sold. I do not believe any farmers in the West who depend upon Wheat Board sales would suggest that it has not done a good job in selling grain and in fact increasing our markets in the last year, which has been particularly difficult. While the price may have been low, it is something we have to accept considering the structure in which the grain had to be sold.
During a particularly difficult period for the Wheat Board in the last two years, there have been only four commissioners. While the Act only requires three to five commissioners, there were five commissioners when it was facing much less difficulty. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he intends to fill that vacancy.
I also want to comment on what impact the so-called free trade agreement might have on the Wheat Board. Presently, the Wheat Board is responsible for licensing of grain imports to Canada. We understand that legislation will probably be presented in the next year to eliminate that.


Charles James Mayer: You are talking about permits, are you not?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is right. Permits to bring in grain. I am concerned, as I think are many people, that the ability of the Wheat Board to control imports, which is a basic underpinning of the marketing system, may be eliminated as part of the free trade agreement. In fact, that is a real concern about all marketing boards, whether or not they are in supply management. I think there is some danger of undermining the Wheat Board, making it weaker.
I recognize, as I believe do most producers, that things are not the same on the farm as they were even five years ago. They are definitely not the same as they were 20 years ago. While they believe the changes the Minister has made in the sale and movement of wheat are probably steps in the right direction, it would be unfortunate if, by the stroke of a pen, we
December 9, 1987

undermined an institution on which western farmers have learned to depend and trust.
The mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell grain for the farmers at the best possible price. The regulations and the sales process that have been in place since 1935 were established to allow the Board to fulfil that mandate. Most farmers would not want to see its ability to fulfil that mandate undermined.
The Wheat Board has expressed the hope that it will be able to sell more grains when the free trade agreement is signed and the markets are opened. I know that the Minister has suggested that the Canola market would be expanded. It may be a surprise to some to learn that we already sell a considerable amount of our high quality wheat to the United States, who very much appreciate the quality of our wheat and mix it with their own low grade wheats for the making of much of their pastry and bread.
I think they will buy much more wheat than has been sold to them, but I wonder whether the U.S. farmers will stand still for this kind of incursion into their market. How will they react? The Wheat Board, with its mandate to control imports and exports, has always limited the amount sold to the United States in view of the concern about any reaction by the United States to our exports. I am not sure that a free trade deal would give us that protection.
I want to thank the Deputy House Leader and the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who is in the House, for changing the reference of this Bill from a legislative committee to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I had some concern about this because the areas which are being changed by the Bill require some study on the part of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the entire agricultural community. Consequently, that would not likely happen if the matter were referred to a legislative committee that has been set up for a short period of time and dies immediately upon the Bill being reported to the House. There is a need for all members of the agriculture committee to have insight in respect of the Bill.
I understand that at some time in the future the Minister is likely to bring in some changes to the Canada Grains Act and that those changes will be affected by any study that takes place.
I recognize that generally the Bill is a housekeeping Bill. Most of its clauses are of value to the board and its operations. As I said, perhaps they are long overdue in some cases.
I am also concerned about the fact-and the previous speaker mentioned it-that there does not seem to have been a great deal of consultation in terms of the drafting of the Bill with the people who are to be affected by it. I called three advisory committee members and not one of them knew what was in the Bill. They had not been consulted in any way.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I was particularly concerned because one thing the Bill would do is pay them a little more for their work, and I think we all agree with that. However, in the precis which we received from the department it was suggested that there be an amendment to expand the number of activities of advisory committee members for which per diem payments could be made to facilitate their additional involvement in developing policy advice for the board. Representatives of the producers are elected to the advisory committee to make suggestions to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister said that these amendments were recommended by the board, but they were never tried out on the advisory committee. It is worth while for the Bill to go to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for advisory committee representatives to appear before to discuss how producers feel about these changes.
Coincidentally, the day before yesterday I had occasion to talk with the three presidents of the prairie pools which handle approximately 60 per cent of prairie grain. They were a little surprised by the Bill and some of its clauses. I think they should also be given an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their concerns. That may not change the Bill. In fact, it may not be the desire of any of the groups to change it.
I would like to refer to the transportation change. Both CN and CP are required to handle producer cars, for instance. I am not sure whether they have been contacted, but they may have some concerns about that suggestion. I should say that some people I contacted knew about some of the changes but not all of them. I was particularly surprised that the advisory committee had not been fully briefed and did not know what changes were to be made.
I do not intend to speak much longer, but I would like to go over some of the changes to the Act. I have no particular concern about the addition of Canola under the Act. It probably should have been there before.
I appreciate the probable need for changes in borrowing. In talking with people involved with the Canadian Wheat Board over the years, I can see the value of that, but I have a couple of questions which I would like to ask of Canadian Wheat Board officials.
Probably we have not been giving committee members the amount of remuneration they had the right to expect since they were elected members. For instance, the member from Alberta can spend a day getting to Winnipeg for a day's meeting and another day getting back. Under the old structure he was paid for only one day. This piece of legislation would allow the Canadian Wheat Board to pay them more than it has in the past. They can also be paid for attending subcommittee meetings, which in itself is valuable. If they are not being paid to attend subcommittee meetings, quite often the fellow who is closest attends. However, if one is from northern Alberta, for example, it is a little difficult to be part of a subcommittee meeting in Winnipeg over a longer period of time. In any event, many committee members who are now serving and

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act
have served in the past have attended subcommittee meetings as representatives of the farmers.
I have some concern about Clause 8 respecting additional payments for producer cars. As the Minister indicated, there are two sides to this question. This particular amendment to the Canada Wheat Board Act resulted from the reaction of one group. I recognize that it is permissive legislation, that the wheat board may not do it or does not have to pay any particular amount. However, it is an area which requires a little more study by members of the agriculture committee than it has received to date, so that anything they have learned in the process of passing the Bill will not disappear but will stay with them when they deal with other parts of the grain handling process.
Legislation respecting producer cars does not come under this Act; it comes under the Canada Grains Act. It would give the Wheat Board the ability to make additional payments to people using producer cars. The Minister outlined very well the controversy and the concerns on both sides, but I think it is a matter which needs to be dealt with a little more deeply before this piece of permissive legislation is passed. I suppose my concern about this type of legislation is that too often we see legislation passed which is permissive and then it becomes the fact. The level of payment is not indicated here, but it could be very detrimental to the whole system.
As the Minister indicated, in the process of producer cars there is a concern that they should not be paying for the storage charges. There is also a suggestion that they should not be paying for some of the handling charges. I would like to look at what areas they should be paying for. For instance, they do use the railway system, and they pay freight. They also use the sidings.
During the last year I attended some of the hearings on variable rates and at those hearings some of the elevator companies stated that the sidings cost them approximately $12,000 per car spot. Is that something that should be considered in the producer car operation? Anybody who uses a producer car knows that it is being used because the system is there. One could argue that it is being used at the expense of someone else. I have been involved in arguments between farmers at a delivery point where the elevator was plugged, there was no room for any grain, and one of the local farmers got a producer car. One can imagine the type of reaction that caused in that particular community. The producer cars are taken off the top, and that means fewer cars for the general public.


Charles James Mayer: That is not true.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Consequently, there are those types of reactions to the producer car structure.
We must look at what they are paying for now, what they should pay for, and what they should not pay for. It is a major
concern. I thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It is so much of a concern that a group of producers in western Canada have gone to the trouble of hiring someone to produce a study on the current and future role of producer cars in Canada, grain handling and transportation system. It includes a number of recommendations.
I noticed when reading the report that they have contacted the Canadian Wheat Board and other groups including the Grain Transportation Agency, the Canadian Grain Commission, CN Rail and CP Rail. They neglected to contact the people who handle the rest of the grain, the elevator companies. There is also concern as to who should pay for the paper work, and the effect of producer cars on the whole of the handling system.
I think I have raised most of the concerns that I have. Those concerns can be opened up in the committee and looked at a little more closely when the Bill comes before it. The concern about producer cars is probably the greatest concern in the Bill, and it is something that concerns the agriculture committee and those in the grain handling system.
There have been several studies. In 1978 there was a study on the use of producer cars. There is now another one before us. I am concerned that this legislation might be the first step to putting in place something with which perhaps all of the producers, all of the grain handlers, and the grain handling system would not agree.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I look forward to some in-depth discussions on factors contained in this Bill, and asking questions of the people who are much more expert at it than I am.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this Bill because in my years in Parliament, which are the same as yours, Sir, several times we have had amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and transportation legislation. My experience has been that every time there were amendments to the Railway Act, or the National Transportation Act, or the Canadian Wheat Board Act, usually the farmers lost. I am sure the Minister will forgive me if I am a little leery and suspicious about some parts, if not all, of this Bill.
A number of years ago we had trouble getting quotas and we had trouble getting railway cars. Finally enough farmers came up to my railway station and signed a car order book in order to get a car. Two or three of them went together and pooled their quotas in order to get a car, because the elevators were plugged. Out of 150 some permit book holders at the shipping point at which I was located, there were over 100 cars on order by one or more individual producers, so that they could load railway cars on their own. It had to be done over the loading platform with their grain augers. Some of them even used shovels.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened? Most of those 100 cars at our little shipping point were met over the course of the crop
December 9, 1987

year, or the remainder of the crop year. But the railroad said, "This shipping point has had so many cars, as many or more than other shipping points have had". The next thing we knew, a week or two before the end of the crop year, the elevators were plugged and the quota had been raised from five bushels to seven bushels per acre. One of the elevator agents of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the last two days of the crop year, July 30, went out and bought about 50 rolls of tar-paper. He spread it out on the ground down by the stockyards. He phoned all his wheat pool members and said, "Bring in your last two bushels per acre". We ended up with 57,000 bushels piled on the ground on top of the tar-paper. Then the railroads had to provide an additional 25 cars to pick that grain up off the ground.
1 mention that story from my experience only to illustrate what I think is a problem about whether there is a large volume of producer cars. A large volume of producer cars, particularly in light of the experience of this past late summer and fall with a shortage of railway cars, means that those cars get siphoned off to individual producers while our elevator system is clogged, and then there are not enough cars.
The Minister sat on the committee when we were dealing with legislation that ended up getting the Western Grain Transportation Act which got rid of the Crow rate. He will recall very vividly, because 1 remember him getting a little angry once in a while too in dealing with the then Liberal Government, that we were told as an article of faith, let alone a leap of faith, that there would be lots of railway cars. What was it? "You get rid of the Crow rate, establish the Western Grain Transportation Act and all will be well. Never again will there be a shortage of cars. The tracks will get fixed up. There will be no more abandonments". It was going to be heaven on earth for those grain producers and grain companies. But what have we gone through this past few months, Mr. Speaker? There have not been enough cars. The railroads want to abandon another 6,000 or 7,000 miles of track in western Canada. Whatever happened to this great heaven on earth by having the Western Grain Transportation Act? The western grain farmers have been had again.
The Government seems to think that by relaxing measures regarding producer cars that somehow or other that will solve the problem of adequate transportation and that somehow or other that will lower the costs for producers. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not. Who the dickens asked for these amendments on producer cars? I am not aware that the three wheat pools asked.


Charles James Mayer: The Wheat Board asked for them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not aware that the Wheat Board Advisory Committee asked for it.


Charles James Mayer: The Wheat Board itself asked, Les.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not aware that the National Farmers Union asked for it. The Minister tells me that the Canadian Wheat Board asked. It seems to me that that would have been the time for the Minister to say, "Look, you better listen to your advisory committee members and go back to the drawing board on this one." I do not care who is running the organization or who set it up, none run 100 per cent perfect. I do not understand, unless the Wheat Board is trying to remove pressure for itself, the grain transportation agency and the provision of rolling stock, that this is the way to go about it.
We were also told that with the benefits of the Western Grain Transportation Act the grain producers would get their grain moved because the railroads would be fully compensated for the cost of transporting grain. They have been, and they are being fully compensated. The grain producers are paying an extra $300 million a year in freight charges. The federal Government is paying a little over $600 million a year extra to the railroads but we still do not have the tracks all fixed up. We still do not have enough rolling stock, yet the railroads want to abandon thousands more miles of railway track.
I think the Minister and the Government are attacking the problem from the wrong end. At best, just to satisfy a very few thousand individual producer cars and likely only a few hundred, or one or two thousand grain producers, you put higher costs in the handling system on all the other producers. You leave the elevator companies stuck with costs that they will be paying, for and they did not handle the grain.


Charles James Mayer: They all get the money now anyway. What are you talking about?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The elevator companies pay the railroads. Is every producer car assessed a charge for the cost of that siding? I do not think they are. Is that built into the freight bill? Is that an additional charge in the freight bill? Whatever happened to the system whereby a grain producer going into an elevator, if he were not satisfied with the grade or the dockage being offered by the elevator agent, could put his grain into a car subject to grade, dockage and condition? Once it arrived at Thunder Bay or Vancouver he would accept whatever the findings were there. In a sense, it was a producer car. He chose not to accept what the elevator company said it would grade his grain at but shipped it subject to grades dockage and condition. In a sense until that car arrived at export position or at a flour mill in the interior of Canada, he was in effect using a kind of producer car.
I hope the agriculture committee will go into this matter in a great deal of detail. 1 hope the committee will ask to hear from grain producers and organizations from all over western Canada. I hope the committee will question the Canadian Wheat Board very closely as to the reasons and the logic for the changes regarding producer cars. I am a little suspicious. I suspect, and I hope I am wrong, that it is for the likes of the former Palliser Wheat Growers Association which now calls itself the Wheat Growers Association, a few hundred of them.

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Charles James Mayer: It is called the Western Wheat Growers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is the same difference. It is the same breed of cat. They are the ones who have always opposed orderly marketing, always opposed the Wheat Board, but I suspect it is the result of political pressure from the Conservative Party and outfits like the Western Wheat Growers the barley growers and the flax growers, all of which have 200, 300 or 400 members, while the wishes of the wheat pools with something like 140,000 members get overlooked. Any kind of a thing that will convenience the so-called free and open market forces of the friends of the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board seems to get an inordinate amount of attention, disproportionately, from what the overwhelming majority of grain producers want. I know the Minister always has maintained, and does not take a back seat to anybody today, his support of the Canadian Wheat Board and orderly marketing, et cetera, et cetera. When I look at some of the friends the Minister has in the agricultural movement, in the grain industry-


Pat Carney: He has lots of them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When I look at the friends the Minister has and some of the outfits that support his Party, I cannot help but be a little suspicious.


Charles James Mayer: Talk to my neighbours.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not think it is paranoia, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help but be suspicious.


Pat Carney: It is Christmas!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Hon. Minister, who is such a great protector of orderly marketing, the Canadian Wheat Board and grain producers, along with his colleagues, is telling us that grain producers will benefit a great deal under the free trade agreement. It will be nothing but another heaven on earth for the grain producers. It will be just like getting rid of the Crow rate. I believe you too, Mr. Speaker, were somewhat involved in that fracas. Anyone who tells the people that he is a true blue representative of western Canada will have to explain to me and to a lot of grain producers as well as the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and CSP Foods what is so beneficial about losing the benefits of the Western Grain Transportation Act on the movement of rapeseed meal, grain pellets and grain screenings to the United States and having to pay the full commercial freight rate. I would like the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board as well as the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to tell us how it will be better for western farmers if the freight rate for their grain screenings, Canola meal, alfalfa pellets or any products used for animal feeds in the United States is to be higher. I know that the farmers would be interested to hear that.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would like, with the indulgence of the House, to offer to go through it
and explain it to him. The Hon. Member has asked for an explanation. I would be more than happy to provide it for him if he is agreeable and if there is unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Belsher):: That is not a point of order, Sir.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When I am through, the Minister can rise to answer all these questions and I will be happy to listen. He has our consent to speak again.
I would also like to know how it will be better if American agricultural producers can send any of their grains into western Canada with or without a Wheat Board licence. I do not understand that. I am just an innocent, stubble-jumping prairie boy, and I do not understand it. Since we are up to here in all these grains, how would it be beneficial to western grain producers for Americans to move their grain, particularly cereals, into western Canada?
Considering the amount of subsidies for those American grains, I would like to know from the Minister, regardless of the free trade agreement, not if but when the Americans start moving those specialty crops into western Canada, will the Minister and the Government of the day, the present one with which we are stuck, be prepared to levy our own countervail or tariffs on any subsidized grain from the U.S. that moves into western Canada with or without the Canadian Wheat Board? The grain producers of western Canada would like an explanation. How is it better for western grain producers from an area of Canada that cannot get rid of all the grain it has for the Americans to sell grain in western Canada? I need an explanation for that as do about 150,000 grain producers.
We are told that the free trade agreement gets rid of the two-price system. There are two explanations we would like on this matter. On the one hand, Americans will countervail, slap on tariffs or duties or place embargoes if they feel that we are charging ourselves less than we are charging them. With international trading habits these days, that is the normal practice. One country thinks another is dumping and charging itself less than it is charging for exports, so it hits the other country with a tariff, a countervail, an embargo or an excise tax. There are lots of ways to do it.
On the other hand, when we charge ourselves more for the grain we consume in Canada than for the grain we have exported, the Americans do not like that either. If we charge ourselves less, that is a subsidy. If we charge ourselves more, that is no good either.
The Canadian Wheat Board will have to live with the results of these negotiations. Why then did it accept the elimination of the two-price grain system under which we charge ourselves more for grain used for human consumption in Canada than we charge for grain sold abroad? That is the exact opposite of the normal practices of exporting countries. That means $260 million to grain producers.
December 9, 1987

I would like the Minister to explain how it is better for western grain producers to lose the two-price wheat system. Does that mean that the Government will make up that $260 million? If so, does that not fly in the face of the so-called agreement? Will the Americans not accuse us of unfair subsidies and take the appropriate action?
I do not think we are getting the whole story. I have just cited three examples of this. The soft fruit industry and a whole slew of other industries in western Canada will, I submit, be victimized as well.
Let me return to the Canadian Wheat Board and its welfare and good order. If there were ever a time to be strengthening the Canadian Wheat Board, that time would be now.
I do not suppose that it makes a lot of difference whether the Wheat Board borrows money from a Canadian bank or from a bank in Switzerland, as long as the federal Government guarantees the loan. It is immaterial whether we get taken by domestic bankers or by international bankers. If the federal Government is guaranteeing it and we get taken again on the foreign exchange markets, at least Canadian grain producers will not get stuck for the losses. As far as I am concerned, as long as the Government guarantee is there, where it borrows money is immaterial. As far as I can tell from the Bill, at least the Minister is not weakening that protection for western grain producers.
I would like to ask the Minister or one of his colleagues to answer the points I have raised. My colleague from Prince Albert and I would like to have a full explanation as to how the costs are shared. One of the principles under which the Canadian Wheat Board functions, the principle that underlies the Wheat Board and other similar agencies, is orderly marketing. Farmers pool their products and resources and share in the benefits. They share in the costs and they share relatively equally. I know the system is not perfect, but whatever happened to that basic fundamental principle, the raison d'etre for the Canadian Wheat Board, orderly marketing?
If we are to allow a few producers to escape some of the costs by using producer cars, surely that is unfair to all the other producers. Surely it helps undermine for the umpteenth time something which was started by the present Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) when he threw feed grains on the open market. The price has never been good since.
I would like government Members to explain why they would want to resort to any kind of weakening or potential weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board through which farmers pool their products. The board is an agent which acts on their behalf in both domestic and export sales and the producers share the benefits and the costs. Whatever happened to that?
Let us not just pander to a minority of interests who think that somehow or other, they will be able to save some money
Canadian Wheat Board Act
or take advantage of a neighbour by getting a producer car. 1 hope that either in the House at second reading or in committee we will get full, complete and frank answers to the questions we have raised about why the amendments concerning producer cars had to be brought in.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let me make just a brief comment in response to some of the questions the Hon. Member raised in his speech.
If the Hon. Member lived on a farm in Saskatchewan and farmed, which he does not, he and his neighbours would be producing some of the highest if not the highest quality product in the world.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell me something I did not already know.


Charles James Mayer: His province produces probably the best quality durum, used for pasta, and milling wheat in the world. In that part of Canada we also produce some of the highest quality oil seeds in the world.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know that. What has that got to do with the questions I raised?


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member asked about the opportunity in the U.S. market. We have an opportunity to take advantage of that market. I do not understand the Hon. Member being against people in his province having a chance to show the rest of the world the high quality products they produce.
To make the point of how good we are in what we do in agriculture, and what this opportunity of selling across the line in the U.S. can do for us let me say that about a month ago the American Health Institute named a product called Puriton Oil the health food product of the year. For the Hon. Member's information, that product was made from 100 per cent Canadian Canola oil. That tells you something about the quality of the product we produce. It also indicates the type of marketing opportunity there is in the U.S.
The trade arrangement worked out between Canada and the U.S. allows us to take advantage of that market because of the high quality products we produce.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nothing new about that. We have always had that.


Charles James Mayer: You are asking me to explain some of the advantages and I am giving you that explanation. The Hon. Member might also remember, and the Member for Prince Alberta (Mr. Hovdebo) made reference to this, that the U.S. produces roughly four times as much wheat as Canada. We produce about 20 million tonnes, and the U.S. produces 80 million tonnes. They buy virtually no wheat from us. Given that fact and the fact that the U.S. exports twice as much wheat as we do, why would they buy any wheat from Canada at all? North Dakota is right across the border from both Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Montana is as well. Why would

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act
the U.S. buy any wheat from us? Yet in point of fact last year they were about our fifteenth largest customer for wheat, not because we are nice people but because we have a product in demand in that market. We would sell them more except for the fact that under present U.S. trade law they can close the border down literally on 24 hours' notice. The trade arrangement opens up that border.
The Hon. Member talked about explaining some of the benefits for Canadian agriculture in this trade arrangement. We have tremendous potential in the market because of the quality of the product we produce. We are not afraid of competition. What we are afraid of is competition without rules. We know, for instance, that we cannot ignore American and European farm subsidies because they are hurting us, wrecking our farms. Yet we also know that we cannot compete with them because they have much larger treasuries. The common sense thing to do is to sit down at a table, work out an arrangement with rules that make sense, and go. We have done that, and the agreement provides some very great opportunities for us to sell in that market.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks the Hon. Minister said: "If the Hon. Member lived on a farm". Earlier in the debate he yelled out that 1 do not have a Canadian Wheat Board permit. I have heard the Hon. Member make speeches about transportation in the House and in committee and, boy, he knew lots of things about railroads. When did he ever work on a railroad? The Hon. Minister should know better than to spout that kind of specious nonsense. He knows damn well that I spent 20 years here and the previous 20 years fighting for orderly marketing for grain producers in western Canada. When he was in diapers I was shovelling wheat and helping harvest grain.


Charles James Mayer: Come on, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister says we are going to have rules under the free trade agreement. I would like him to explain again. He is quite right, our products are of the best quality in the world. The only reason Americans buy durum from us and some other specialty crops and our No. 1 red spring wheat with a 16 per cent protein content is that it is better than their own. However, would the Minister explain how we keep that small, marginal market in the U.S. if our grain producers lose the Western Grain Transportation Act?


Charles James Mayer: They are not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I read it myself.


Mr. Siddon:: What did you read? You have not seen the agreement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I read it even in the transportation annex. You can read between the lines.


Charles James Mayer: That was not the whole thing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If this is such a good deal, why can the Americans sell up here with or without a Canadian Wheat Board licence when we have the best grains in the world?
The Minister still does not have an explanation of why our grain producers are better off without the two-price system.


Charles James Mayer: They are not going to be without it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, well, how are they going to get the $260 million?


Charles James Mayer: We said the benefits are going to stay.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That money automatically becomes a subsidy under U.S. trade law which the U.S. Senate is not about to change. That means nothing has changed under the agreement. The U.S. Senate will implement a countervailing duty just like that.
The Minister conveniently forgets that President Reagan wrote to Senator Packwood, in order to get them to agree to the fast track, that the constitutional authority of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate remain in place regardless of what trade agreement Canada arrives at with the U.S. Therefore, nothing would have changed. The U.S. Congress will continue, under their rules and their laws, to slap embargoes and countervailing duties on agricultural products of all kinds and fisheries products from coast to coast. Nothing has changed. The Minister may be willing to buy a pig in a poke, but I am not and I do not think the grain producers in western Canada are either.
He still has not answered the questions. He has run away from them completely and I hope that when he gets in front of the committee he is better prepared to answer them and explain his way out of it than he has been up until now.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, let us lay on the table what is in the deal. We have agreed not to subsidize the movement of product into the Pacific northwest through West Coast ports. We do not lose the whole Western Grain Transportation Act and the Hon. Member knows that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.


Charles James Mayer: He should not imply it either. Let me tell him what someone from the Canadian Canola Council said. Bob Broeska said:
The opportunity to compete freely in a market 10 times larger than Canada's far offsets the loss of Western Grain Transportation Act subsidies on shipments to the U.S. through western ports.
For Canola that represents about one-third of our total exports. He went on to say:
In recent years, land sown to canola on the prairies has averaged between 6 and 6.5 million acres.
But if we're successful in our U.S. marketing efforts in the next year or two, we will need an acreage base of at least eight million to meet demand.
December 9, 1987

We are already beginning to be successful. Broeska suggests the system should be gearing up now to cope with that increase. That is an opportunity for us.
The Hon. Member referred to two-price wheat. We said the benefits are going to remain. I had a chance to meet in Toronto yesterday with the whole industry to talk about how we are going to deal with the two-price wheat system.
The benefits are going to stay there. It has nothing to do with what goes on in the free trade agreement. There is nothing in there to say the U.S. will stop supporting its farmers or that we are going to stop supporting ours. The Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. He is raising absolute nonsense for the sake of making political brownie points. That should be an embarrassment to his Party which presently has a lot of support in an area which is suffering from very severe problems. We do not need more uncertainties raised for the sake of making political brownie points.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a quick response. The Minister still has not explained how our Canola growers, our crushers, and the people who ship grain screenings, are better off paying a freight rate three or four times as high as that under the Western Grain Transportation Act. He still has not answered that question. How are we better off paying higher freight charges for shipping the products he has talked about to the northwestern United States? All that means to me is that the feed, pellet, and meal producers' lobby in the U.S. has been a lot stronger than our Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. If the Hon. Member would like to talk to the Minister behind the curtains that would be very nice.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily. It is certainly our intention to have the Bill moved into committee before the day is out. We appreciate the generosity of the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) in arranging with the Minister and the spokespersons of the opposition Parties to have this Bill referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where it will be dealt with more expeditiously than in a legislative committee. That will also provide an opportunity for the learned members of that committee to examine a number of related issues. I believe that that is in the best interests of the legislation and the House with regard to the issues which have been raised.
The representatives of the Wheat Board will have an opportunity in committee to respond to a variety of inquiries. As well, grain producers will have an opportunity to make their views known, particularly with regard to producer cars. We have probably raised more questions in the debate today than we have heard answered on the reasons for the changes to producer cars in this legislation. Who made the requests for
Canadian Wheat Board Act
changes and for what reasons? That is a legitimate question which has so far not been responded to comprehensively.
The Canadian Wheat Board Act certainly required some updating. This legislation moves in that direction, particularly with regard to the upgrading of the definition of Canola. People from western Canada appreciate not only the decision to expand acreage into Canola but also the research which has been done in western Canada to upgrade the quality of rapeseed. The reduction of acids has resulted in one of the best products in the world for producing oils, that being, of course, western Canadian Canola. We are proud of that accomplishment.
In a number of other jurisdictions we have changed the name from rapeseed to Canola to reflect the improved product. The amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act evidences the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board now includes in its definition of grain-in addition to wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed-Canola. That represents one more of the astonishing accomplishments which western Canadians have made in the development of agricultural technology around the world.
This Bill recommends changes in terms of raising funds. Traditionally the Canadian Wheat Board has been limited to loans from financial institutions. The board anticipates that it could achieve significant savings by issuing commercial paper. Considering the substantial borrowings which the Canadian Wheat Board undertakes each year, the savings resulting from this amendment should improve returns to grain producers and open a whole set of options for raising funds which hitherto did not exist.
At first blush I believe that that is a major step forward. I am sure that we all want to do whatever we can to assist the Canadian Wheat Board to assist Canadian grain producers. The spirit of the debate today verifies that.
My uncle, who runs the family farm in central Saskatchewan, reminded me that in the 1930s farmers received about $2 for No.3 wheat. Today his son, my cousin, is getting about the same price for No.3 wheat. That tells the woeful tale of what western grain producers are up against. In some cases the price of wheat has remained unchanged since 1978. I do not think there are many commodities for which the price has not increased to reflect the cost of doing business, although that has certainly not been the case in the wheat-growing business.
Our farmers are up against some incredible odds. If the amendments in Bill C-22 can enable the Wheat Board to provide a greater service to grain producers, we will want to support them enthusiastically.
I am glad that the Government has decided to move beyond borrowing from traditional financial institutions. There has been some indication that the banks and other financial institutions have not always given the best deal, simply because the Wheat Board was restricted in where it could obtain funding. This amendment will enable the Wheat Board to

December 9, 1987
Canadian Wheat Board Act
issue commercial paper which, I suspect, must be in the board's best interests.
My colleagues from Prince Albert and Regina West have outlined the concerns of my Party on the producer cars issue. As I cannot add much to that, I will step down and look forward to having this legislation moved as expeditiously as possible to the appropriate standing committee for further examination.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to make a few observations on Bill C-92. At first blush, this Bill appears to be quite technical in that it provides for the addition of the word "Canola" rather than only rapeseed in the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It provides for greater flexibility in the honorarium paid to members of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee and in the payment of their travelling expenses. They make a tremendous contribution to Canadian agriculture, especially to the grain industry in western Canada. We want to provide that kind of flexibility in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
The legislation also enables the Canadian Wheat Board to borrow from a wider range of agencies rather than only from chartered banks, credit unions, and trust companies. The ability to borrow has even been extended to foreign Governments and provincial Governments. I hope the Minister will be able to explain why we want to borrow from foreign Governments. We recall that the Wheat Board lost $200 million a few years ago when dealing with China in the British currency rather than in our own currency. We certainly want to know what is the advantage of being able to borrow from foreign Governments.
We also want to know why the Government is planning to eliminate the investment committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. To my knowledge, that committee has been functioning well. The representative of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is always there in any event. Surely the Minister of Finance is not capable of being privy to all the activities of that investment committee, and it could become an administrative problem for the Wheat Board to have to turn to the Minister of Finance for each new borrowing arrangement, rather than to work with the investment committee of the Wheat Board itself.
Some agricultural groups in the West have expressed some concern about the Government's plan to move to the issuing of bonds and debentures. They wonder whether this is a further move toward privatization of the Wheat Board, as has been done in some other countries. There is concern whether the next legislative package with regard to the Wheat Board would be to move to the issuance of shares and so on.
This Bill appears to be simply a technical amendment to the Wheat Board Act to give greater efficiency to its operations and provide more flexibility in choosing financial instruments for greater efficiency and reduction of cost. It would be
interesting to know from the Minister exactly how much would have been saved last year if the Government had been able to borrow from a wider range of money markets other than that which is authorized under the present legislation.
Another cause for concern is that this legislation seems to come in tandem with the changes that will occur in the operation of the Wheat Board as a result of the free trade agreement with the United States. Clearly, a free trade agreement will put greater pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers living in border areas in the West who have to secure a Wheat Board permit for the sale of their grains to the United States will be limited to the quota provided under our quota system. At the same time, unlimited quantities of cheap grain flowing into Canada under a free trade agreement will put great pressure on the whole Wheat Board system. There will be even greater stress and demands on the producer groups than there is today when they are restricted to selling to the limit of their quota while American producers can deliver an unlimited amount, as economics allow.
What guarantees will be offered by the Wheat Board when the Government issues these bonds? Will amendments to the Income Tax Act be required with regard to the bonds which the Wheat Board proposes to sell under the provisions of this Act? Who will be the investors, and what market studies have been done by the Wheat Board? These are some questions being raised by farm groups with regard to this legislation.
There is a third element beyond the advisory committee and provisions for greater borrowing and investing powers by the Wheat Board. It is the question of producers delivering grain to the Canadian Wheat Board by way of producer cars. This is now available, but the individual producer must pay for the storage charge and the financing charges of the country elevator. This recommendation has been supported by a number of groups, including the western Canadian wheat producers. The standing committee reviewed this idea and suggested it to the Government in its input cost study last year. While I believe any efficiency we can build into the system is desirable, on the other hand we must ensure that the savings are not disproportionate to the advantages of having these delivery points throughout the West.
If everyone were to do this, the whole pooling arrangement and delivery point system would be destroyed. Those who view the Government's actions in the free trade agreement as a move toward the ultimate privatization or emasculation of the Wheat Board are extremely concerned about this arrangement. One only need look at many of the provisions in the free trade agreement to realize that there will be great disadvantages in many aspects of the whole grain handling industry.
The sale of Canola and Canola meal to the Pacific Northwest is an example. The Government has moved the Crow benefit which will result in a higher cost in some areas of Alberta, as high as $23 a tonne for Canola meal, and over $30 a tonne in areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That would
December 9, 1987

be removed January 1, 1989, whereas the tariff of approximately $35 or $40 a tonne for Canola oil to the Pacific Northwest that is being applied by the U.S. Government would be removed over a 10-year period. We had an advancing market in this area that was growing by leaps and bounds. There was a dramatic increase in the market, and consumers liked it. The Canola producers were going to have a great advantage in the long run because of the quality of that Canola oil. The margins for those producers will be dramatically cut because of the free trade agreement. I have seen the estimates for the market in the Pacific northwest, and they are tremendous. Of course, when the market was completely saturated, there was opportunity to go into the California market, which would have been many times larger.
The industry wonders why the Government removed that. It is an admission, not only to the Americans but to our competitors in the grain handling industry abroad, that the Government of the day has agreed that it is a transportation and export subsidy. It will give our competitors great fire-power in the battle at the GATT, not only to call the Crow benefit with regard to the Pacific northwest a transportation and export subsidy, but to call the entire Crow benefit a transportation and export subsidy.
The Government is committed to going to the GATT and to reducing export subsidies on farm commodities. It is committed to a "me too" policy. To whatever the Americans say at the GATT, it will say: "Aye, ready". That will be its support for the issue. I would be interested in knowing how the Government can say "Aye, ready" to the removal of the Crow benefit, which is an integral part of the transportation system of western Canada and extremely important to our producers. Yet it is being put in jeopardy by the free trade agreement and the admission that it is a transportation subsidy in terms of the Pacific northwest.
Many producer groups in the West wonder why the Government did not simply provide the Crow benefit for Canola, Canola meal, and all other shipments going to Vancouver so that it would be uniform assistance across the board. Likewise, in the free trade agreement the Government has agreed to support the United States in its undertakings at the GATT. We wonder why it is doing that since essentially we are competitors in international grain markets. We are not always purchasers of their commodities, and they are not always purchasers of ours.
These are some of my concerns about the legislation. At first blush it appears to be strictly a technical Bill which provides for a few technical amendments such as the inclusion of Canola in the legislation. It also provides for greater borrowing power by the Canadian Wheat Board, more agencies, and more lending institutions. We wonder why that provision would be extended to foreign Governments. Perhaps the details can be provided.
Customs Tariff
We want to see efficiency in terms of producer cars, but at the same time we do not want to see the entire pooling system or delivery point system destroyed in the grain handling mechanism of the Canadian West.
I understand that there has been agreement to refer the Bill to the Standing Committee on Agriculture rather than to a legislative one. I think that is a good idea, because those of us who serve on that standing committee would also be required to serve on the legislative committee. It will be much easier in terms of scheduling, and I think we can do as good a job in handling the details in the standing committee rather than in a legislative committee.
When the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) appears before the committee, I hope he will be able to answer some of these questions. I also hope that groups such as the prairie pools will have a chance to appear before the standing committee so that they can provide their input to this piece of legislation. We need to view it not only as technical legislation but in terms of the general challenge that will be before the Canadian Wheat Board after the free trade legislation has been pushed through the House, which we assume will be in the next week and a half.
Having made those few comments, let me say that I want to see the Bill go to committee for further discussion and consideration.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
1 1644
[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1987
Customs Tariff
The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: When Bill C-87 was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) had the floor.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue some of the remarks I made yesterday about Bill C-87 which, as I said, is a bit like a Trojan horse. It purports to be a routine Bill to harmonize the Canadian tariff system's nomenclature with that of other countries. In fact it is also a Bill which gives or continues powers given to Cabinet to cut tariffs to other countries in return for compensation, without defining what it should be and without any form of accountability to Parliament.
We are just about at the Christmas break. As the House began meeting in mid-August, I think Hon. Members are looking forward to a few weeks away. I am sure that that is true of most Canadians as well. If I may put it bluntly, we are not in a mood to consider a major and fundamental decision about tariffs, yet essentially that is what is being done with Bill C-87.
As I was saying yesterday, I speak with particular reference to the Canada-United States trade deal because it involves the reduction of tariffs worth some $2 billion a year, at current values, which Canada imposes on goods imported from the United States.
Therefore, the tariff cutting powers in Bill C-87 are not just theoretical matters nor powers which can be used in the event of some minor deal with Papua New Guinea or some other such country. In fact they are powers which the Government now has every reason to use if it intends, as seems likely, to avoid any more than a very modest kind of reference to Parliament of a text that none of us have yet seen.
I must say as well that as of today all we have to go on in terms of the tariff cuts that are about to take place and to be mandated by treaty between Canada and the United States are a series of announcements, some rumours, some back-stage briefings that have been given to certain journalists, and the elements of the agreement, which are extremely vague. We do not know which tariffs are to be removed immediately. We do not know which tariffs are to be removed over a period of five years. We do not know which tariffs are to be removed over a period of ten years. Yet the Bill, as it stands, allows the Government to make those decisions without any further reference to Parliament.
I would have to say that it is grossly inadequate that the text should be released perhaps tomorrow, perhaps the next day, perhaps Monday, who knows, and that the House will then be asked to debate it for a few days and then a motion of approval would be given at that time. On other important matters such as the Bill that we have just debated on grain handling, I think of the fact that a Bill has to go through a number of stages. If it is a financial Bill, it requires a Ways and Means motion. If it is a non-financial Bill, it requires first reading, second reading,
reference to committee, report stage, and then third reading. In the case of Bill C-87 those stages have been followed. Bill C-87 is the umbrella Bill which allows the Government to cut tariffs. But when it comes to the actual tariff cutting, there is no such requirement on the Government. Since this Bill refers to the compensation that may be given in return for tariff cuts, there is also no way by which Parliament has a chance to study whether or not the compensation being offered is adequate.
I notice that the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade indicated that his committee is not in a position to make a judgment about the final text. The committee has decided that it will issue an interim report towards the beginning of next week, but not a final report. So we have a situation where, using the powers given in Bill C-87, the Government is going ahead and signing a treaty with the United States, despite the fact that Parliament, through the relevant committee, has been put through a sham. The committee went from coast to coast in a couple of weeks. It was a joke of a parliamentary hearing process in which no witness, group, individual, company, or interested party who wanted to comment on this trade deal was able to comment on the specifics because details were not available. A few of the people who commented may have known some of the details, because certain details were released to the sectoral advisory groups which were made up of persons representative of different industries across the country, almost all of whom were spokespersons or representatives of different business concerns. However, in that particular case those persons had no ability to talk because they were bound to secrecy.
I know you wish me to talk about the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am talking about the Bill. I want you to understand that very clearly. I am talking about the Bill, because the Bill gives the authority to the Government to do what it is doing without adequate access or recourse to Parliament. You will know, Mr. Speaker, because you sat in this House for some time as we were looking at the Bill, that in a number of ways my Party tried to reinforce the concept of accountability with respect to major trade actions by the Government. Unfortunately, we were beaten back by the majority on the government side at every effort that we made. I have to say with regret that we lost on the simple concepts that we were putting forward, which is that it is not fair to make major tariff changes without reference to Parliament; that it is not just for Parliament to be ignored in those matters; that it is not right for a trade agreement to be signed with a major trading partner without a means by which Canadians in general, and not only this Parliament, can have access to what is being done and an ability to influence the result before the decision is made. It seems that the government side did not understand that at all, which I regret. I think that that fundamentally undermines this Parliament, and I believe that that is is wrong.
When I was first elected to this place in 1984, one of the promises made by the Government was that we would reform the parliamentary process. Back-benchers would be given more of a say. Parliamentary committees would be given more
December 9, 1987

standing. A number of reforms were put into force, and in fact they were pioneered by the former Eton. Member for St. John's East. Those matters were put into force, but it requires a commitment and a political will to ensure that that really happens.
We see an example in this particular Bill where the Government is putting into place a trade deal that hurts average Canadians without allowing average Canadians to have a say. That was what we were trying to say on Bill C-87 from the beginning of second reading, and through all the various hearings that the Bill has been subjected to.
If, under the powers in this Bill, Canada embarks upon a lopsided arrangement where tariffs are cut and we do not receive very much in return, and if as a consequence hundreds of thousands of average Canadians see that their jobs are put at risk, or they may lose their jobs, I think they are right to be concerned. If it goes beyond that, and rather than allowing the details to be out there in order that people can comment for some substantial period of time, the Government instead keeps the details secret-that is done in Mr. Gorbachev's Russia, but I would assume that that would not happen in a democratic country with the democratic values that all of us are elected to uphold in this particular place-I would have thought that a Government should understand that major decisions which appear to be lopsided should not go forward unless people have a chance to have their say.
With regard to the tariff changes now being contemplated, those tariff changes have not been communicated to the public. People have not had a chance to do anything about it. We have tried to do this through this particular Bill, and we have not succeeded. It is conceivable that many more workers fear for their position than may be actually affected. I cannot say, because I have not seen the details.
There are grave fears among women that their position may be seriously affected. They are not in a position to comment because they have not seen the details. When we tried to ensure that that would be done through the process of this particular Bill, we were not able to do that.
There have been grave questions raised with respect to the elimination of the tariffs which affect automobile production, Therefore, the tariffs are an essential part of the automobile free trade agreement, the managed trade agreement between Canada and the United States. It has not been possible for the automobile industry and the workers in that industry, or for Members of Parliament who represent those parts of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec which have an important stake in that industry, to comment in any detailed or knowledgeable way, because they too have not seen the details.
We are seeing changes in terms of compensation which are phoney compensation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have been assured that the health of regional economies in northern Quebec, Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, and places like that, are not being traded away. Our efforts to ensure that
Customs Tariff
there was an adequate opportunity to see what the compensation might be in this particular case were frustrated by the Government. 1 will come back to that particular point later, but it is a very important point.
I for one have real reservations when the Government uses its tariff cutting powers which are reaffirmed in this particular Bill in order to enter into agreements that seriously and profoundly affect many other aspects of Government in this country. That is the compensation, except that the compensation is one-sided. It seems to me that we have deliberately decided to give the Americans what they were looking for without getting anything in return. That is very serious. We have lost control of Canadian energy. We have lost control of Canadian agriculture. We are losing control of the way in which Canadian Governments have traditionally helped to direct and been involved in the economy.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the architect of a national policy that helped to create industry in this country back in the 1860s and 1870s would, as a good Conservative, be turning in his grave at seeing what is happening under those in his Party who purport to call themselves Conservative and who have put into place such a sell-out of Canada as has essentially taken place.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Rubbish.


Mr. Thacker:: You don't know your history.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Of course I know my history. The Hon. Member states that I do not know my history. One of the things I do know is that a Canadian Government under Sir John A. Macdonald went ahead and saw to it that we created a national east-west railroad which brought the country together. That railroad would be deemed to be an illegal subsidy, according to the Americans, and any goods that were carried along that railroad in future, according to American trade law in this free trade agreement, would in fact become countervailable. That is why I say that Sir John A. would be rolling in his grave. He was a man who had the foresight to bring the country together. He was a man who had the foresight to see that Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, and British Columbia could live together. He was a man who had the strength and foresight to see that Canada did not have to succumb to all the economic forces that were forcing trade, cultural, and other types of development in a north-south direction, but that we could have a country with separate traditions and with a separate way of proceeding.
Members opposite are disowning the spiritual father of their Party, I would suggest. The Hon. Member for Parkdale- High Park (Mr. Witer) seems to disagree. He is disowning the spiritual father of this Party in saying that what Sir John A. tried to create in Canada is no longer valid. It is a pretty day when you have Conservatives adopting the free trade line, which was always a Liberal hallmark. Free trade was tried in 1911, in the 1930s and in the 1940s. The Liberals had to back

December 9, 1987
Customs Tariff
away because they got defeated every time they tried it. Now the Conservatives are trying to do what the Liberals could never do.
It is essential to ask whether the Government passes the test of honesty, fairness and openness with this Bill.


Mr. St. Germain:: We have already.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) says that the Government has passed the test of openness. That is why the text has not been released on this particular arrangement for two and a half months. That is why the Premiers are being asked to endorse it with 24 hours' notice this Thursday and Friday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meets with them. That is why this Parliament is being asked to confirm a deal some 2,000 pages in length which will fundamentally change the way Governments work in this country. Yet the Member from Mission-Port Moody says this Government passes the test of openness, honesty and fairness. If you want to talk about honesty, Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Hon. Member who is now the Prime Minister spoke against this kind-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to hear the Hon. Member, but I think the Hon. Member should mention the Bill once in a while instead of going out on a tangent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Members are my constituents.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: They read my constituency reports religiously.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Unfortunately, they have not yet been persuaded to my way of thinking. I promised that I will continue always in hope, confident in the knowledge that if not converted they will return to their constituencies when the next federal election occurs.
I could remind you that Clause 62 of the Bill states specifically:
The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister of
Finance, by order,
(a) reduce or remove customs duties on goods imported from any country by way of compensation for concessions granted by that country or any other country, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order-
I recall that because when I first picked up this Bill I had been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that this was just a very minor affair. There was reference to an interdepartmental committee setting up a Customs Tariff which talked about the new harmonized commodity description and coding system, or the HS system, and it was seen to be absolutely and benignly routine and boring. Then I picked up the Bill and read it and discovered that, lurking beneath that benign, routine and boring exterior were powers which had existed before but which I believe now are seriously subject to
question. You know, Mr. Speaker, that we have been changing a number of the ways things are done around this place since 1984 because Canadians are more alert to the need for a democratization of the way government works in Canada.
It is interesting that the United States will not cut any tariffs until it has taken the trade treaty with Canada through the Senate and the Congress and through lengthy procedures of hearings which will last another six or eight months after Canada signs the deal on January 2. Here in Canada the Government can commit itself by means of a treaty because of the executive power which was given to the Prime Minister as a consequence of the 1984 election. That is our system right now and I believe it is profoundly wrong.
I think that it is wrong for the Prime Minister by the stroke of a pen to make decisions that cut tariffs and thereby imply some other cuts or increases in taxes by $2 billion that fundamentally change the way this country works. It is wrong for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make a quickie decision about whether or not the compensation or concessions granted by the U.S.A. as to whether they are adequate without any real means by which we and other Members of Parliament or Canadians in general could look at it. That is why I am continually referring to tariff cuts which can now be made if this Bill passes third reading without any further consent from Parliament. We would not even need a vote next week.
I do not know whether or not the Government will seek to bring matters to a vote next week, but does a resolution in this House really accord with your understanding about the way in which major measures should go forward, Mr. Speaker? That is not the way we handled things on tax reform. We had a White Paper which was out for a number of months. We had 570 briefs and almost 200 witnesses. The committee spent several weeks hearing witnesses both in Ottawa and elsewhere across the country. It finally produced a report after a great deal of lengthy and detailed consideration. That report was then referred back to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who will still have to come forward with a Ways and Means motion and with a series of measures which then must pass scrutiny by Parliament. It is quite clearly understood that if, for some reason, those measures are found wanting, even though they may be put into force on January 1, 1988-and I have questions about that-nonetheless those measures will be invalidated if Parliament rejects them, withdraws its consent or in some way amends the legislation put forward based on the Ways and Means motion which we will see next week.
Tax reform is important. It affects almost every Canadian. It has a profound influence on the economic lives of our country. This is a process which has gone on now for two and a half years. We have had White Papers. The Minister has announced his intentions. There has been a great deal of canvassing and consultation taking place. Then there was a formal declaration of government proposals in the White Paper, followed by the Ways and Means motion which we will see in another week. Is that happening with something more profound in its influence on our country? No, it is not. Not in
December 9, 1987

any way. In fact, if some Canadian who voted in 1984 and then left the country to go to Africa, who has not been in touch with the news over the course of the last two or three years, came back to Canada now, he or she would be scratching his or her head and saying, "1 don't understand this at all. Why is it that the Government is not only seeking renewed powers to cut tariffs without reference to Parliament"-which is what we have before us this afternoon-"but also intends to use those in the greatest tariff cuts Canada has ever seen in a precipitous fashion without any further reference to Parliament? Why is that taking place?" They will say, "I remember hearing the Prime Minister say that Canadians would never accept a free trade agreement. Therefore I assumed when I voted"-no matter how that individual voted in September, 1984-"that I was not voting for this and that the integrity of my country would stay intact while I was away. I certainly did not see this happening".
There is in a very profound way a problem in this legislation, namely, this legislation perpetuates a kind of elitism to which the Government is particularly prone. I have heard representatives of the Business Council on National Issues say it would be a great thing to reduce Canadian tariffs and American tariffs, presumably as part of the free trade deal. That council advocated that some time ago and is a major proponent of it. Nobody talks about the fact that those corporate presidents of the 150 largest companies in Canada are in large measure the heads, presidents or CEOs of companies that are controlled in the United States. Whether some of them as Canadians may have some misgivings about what is taking place is a possibility, but nonetheless for the most part the companies for which they work are indifferent as to whether they carry out business in Canada or in the United States. If they all emigrate to the United States because of changes in tariffs and if they find they can serve the Canadian market from Cleveland, Philadelphia, Milwaukee or Seattle, then it is no skin off their backs because their company will continue to make profits, pay dividends to the shareholders and be able to continue its amount of business. Therefore, as a company or an organization, it will not be profoundly affected. The Canadians in the company will of course be profoundly affected, and that is why the labour movement has raised such concerns over such measures as are contained in Bill C-87, measures which allow what sociologists call elite accommodation. I think it is significant of the fact-

1 think it is quite significant that at recent hearings before the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, witnesses representing the business world, big corporations and big companies mostly spoke out in favour of the Government's proposal to reduce tariffs in our trade with the Americans, while witnesses representing farmers, women, and coalitions of average Canadians spoke out against the free trade proposal, because they were defending the interests of ordinary Canadians, while the business people who appeared before the Comittee did not have a second thought about the average
Customs Tariff
Canadian. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, whether the elite should really run this country. Are we supposed to tolerate that from time to time, as an afterthought, Canadians are referred to in an election campaign? That advertising campaigns are used in an attempt to influence Canadians, campaigns paid by whom? By the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, to promote the tariff cuts that are being sought or have been made possible as a result of Bill C-87, an advertising campaign costing taxpayers about $12 million will be launched in the next few weeks. Vast amounts of very expensive leaflets have been printed to persuade Canadians that tariff cuts are a good thing and will benefit the average Canadian. Mr. Speaker, it is clear now that more and more Canadians are rejecting these arguments, but nevertheless, the process of accommodating the elite is an antidemocratic process now being implemented by the Government a very unfair process which involves accommodating the Americans, with the support of the business world but without referring at all to the average Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to see an election before we introduce measures that are as important as the Government's proposed tariff cuts in the agreement with the United States. This is not just my position, it is my Party's as well. We believe that Canadians have been deceived in terms of what they were promised during the previous election campaign, considering that the Government planned to go ahead with a measure that threatens not only our jobs but also the sovereignty of this country, its social programs, regional development, and so forth.
Unfortunately, it is not within my power to force the Government to call an election right away. However, Mr. Speaker, it is within my power to insist that a Bill that affects Canada's trade should become a piece of truly democratic legislation. Instead of the Government having the power to make tariff decisions without reference to Parliament which represents all Canadians, the Bill should either be rejected or amended to provide for truly democratic participation by the elected representatives of the Canadian people, the three Parties and 282 Members of the Parliament of Canada.
As I have said, I very much fear that business will say yes and the Government and its 210 Members will jump. Canadians as a whole will say no or will be unsure because many people really are unsure about these matters. They are technical, and of course it is hard to understand what is in a particular tariff-cutting exercise without having the details until the very last minute.
I am really uneasy about that. I think we ought to have a full national debate based on the over-all picture of our trade with the particular country with whom we choose to cut tariffs and a full national debate that touches on the compensation or the concessions that are made. My concern is that the concessions we are getting from the United States are in fact so inadequate.

December 9, 1987
Customs Tariff
Speaking of elite accommodation, I have a very real fear that we have something more than that here. The Government is unpopular. I regret that. While I respect you, Mr. Speaker, 1 know that even your seat might be threatened in the next election because of the unpopularity of the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole.
The Government is profoundly unpopular among Canadians and increasingly takes a right-wing view of the kind of agenda that should be imposed on Canada. It believes in privatization, deregulation, scrapping any effort to intervene in the energy sector, trying until just the other day to deregulate the transportation industry totally. This Government has been trying to change profoundly the way Canada is run.
How will it change the way Canada is run? It will put the control of Canada's future in the hands of large corporations, many of which are American owned, and take the control and power to influence away from the people of Canada who traditionally have exercised that power through Governments.
I spoke a few minutes ago about Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir John A. was a pragmatist, besides being a lover of good Scotch. He saw that we could not create the country of Canada if we did not have a substantial amount of participation in creating that country. He created a national railway without which we would not have had a country.
During the time of the Conservative Prime Minister, R. B. Bennett, a man whose memory is perhaps sometimes treated with a bit too much disdain, there was the creation of Air Canada, another means of binding the country together, a means which this Government wants to privatize. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was formed at that time, another national body that helps to knit the country together but which this Government would like to privatize if it had the opportunity to do so.
During the 1920s and the 1930s, the Canadian National Railway was developed as another way of bringing the country together. What is happening now? All of these are now being reviewed by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall). If the Government thinks it can get away with it, it will in fact get away with it.
The Government prefers to stand for the world of the rich and forget about the world of the longshoremen in Montreal who are facing a lock-out by their employers and the world of the Brinks guards with whom 1 was on the picket line today. They have been forced to strike because they have received pay increases of only 50 cents per hour in the course of the last five and a half years. These are average Canadians who are suffering because of the agenda which has been put into force by this Government.
What is happening to the trade agreement? What concessions are taking place? All the concessions appear to be from Canada, and I think Canada got nothing in return. In return, we got a limitation of our ability to use energy as an instrument of economic development. We got a limitation of our
ability to continue to use agriculture as a means of maintaining rural life in Canada. We got a limitation on our future ability to develop industry and create jobs in Atlantic Canada. We got a fundamental interference with the traditional role of the Government in having a cultural presence for Canadians here in Canada.
As many more commentators are saying, the nature of the concessions that were made by the United States is in fact very difficult to see. In the papers today, Mr. Cedric Ritchie, no New Democrat he, an eminent banker, has written to the president or the director of the Canadian Business Council on National Issues, breaking ranks with big business's stand in favour of the free trade agreement. I think that is very important because, if I can refer it back to this particular Bill, Mr. Ritchie is saying that the arrangement proposed right now is so lopsided that Canada is basically throwing away all of its bargaining chips without getting necessary concessions in return.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member says "nonsense". Yet it is true. I think those comments are extremely relevant. Based on the outline of the deal he believes that a reasonable case can be made that we have not made adequate progress towards our principal goal of secure access to the U.S. market. Yet that is the concession being used to justify Canada giving up $2 billion worth of tariffs and the U.S. giving up only $1 billion.
We left the question of subsidies undefined. We left it as a matter of discussion for the next five or seven years. Goodness knows what is going to happen after that. In the meantime, because it is very hard to put tariffs up after you have reduced them, we will be left with no means of fighting back if the Americans do not fight fair. I have to say that there is a lot of evidence that the Americans tend not to fight fair.
Another reason I think it is important that these matters come back to Parliament, and why we tried to do that in a number of different ways with respect to this Bill, and ensure that treaty-making powers would not be used to accomplish an end-run around Parliament, is because of the way it weakens our traditional reliance on and adherence to GATT.
As a long-time Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, you know the importance of that and how in the past we have respected our obligations in that respect. We have participated actively in GATT negotiations. Just a few months ago Canada provided very active leadership at the launching of the Uruguay round of tariff cuts. That has been a lengthy and public process, yet I have to say, in line with what I am saying here, that even there we had problems. The process was flawed because the cuts made in the Tokyo round, the Kennedy round, and others were made without direct reference to Parliament.
December 9, 1987

If we turn around and unilaterally cut tariffs for the U.S. which accounts for 78 per cent of our trade, and do it in such a way that 90 per cent of our trade within a few years will be with the U.S., then I think the other countries in GATT will quite rightly look on Canada as simply a puppet or pawn of whoever happens to be the President of the U.S. and whoever happens to be in the U.S. Congress at a particular time. In fact, it has even been suggested that there may be Canadians starting to say that this is crazy, why the devil do we not simply give up and become the fifty-first state?
As Canadian industries struggle, and they will, some unsuccessfully, will Canada then go and negotiate away further protections, or will we no longer be prepared to provide leadership on the issue of multilateral tariff reductions in GATT?
With respect to trading rules under which other countries can collectively put pressure on the U.S. for concessions in their unjust and unreasonable legislation which allows them to harass businessmen who import goods not just from Canada but from many other countries, Canada will have essentially given away its ability to deal with that in GATT. We have already said we are not going to play in that particular sandbox. We have already made our own deal. If we discover it is not a very good deal, it will be too late.
I repeat, we will have cut tariffs for inadequate compensation and the people of Canada will not have had an opportunity to participate in any meaningful way.
I read with some interest the directives given by the U.S. when it was talking about the compensation and concessions it would give to Canada with respect to tariff-cutting arrangements, which is what we are talking about in this Bill. It is very interesting that in his communication with Senator Bob Packwood of the Senate Finance Committee, President Reagan did not talk about concessions to Canada. It was all about concessions to the U.S. Since Canada has had a trade surplus with the U.S. of up to $20 billion, I suppose it is natural for the Americans to say they are not getting a good deal, so they will try to improve it. That is what they set out to do, and they succeeded.
I for one, as a Member of this Parliament, would have appreciated the opportunity to have talked to that issue in detail, not just in a hurried debate that will take place for a week next week when everyone is buying their Christmas presents and worrying about whether they can make adequate transportation arrangements to go back home for the Christmas break.
The President looked for comparable treatment for American and Canadian investment. He wanted increased access to government procurement opportunities. These are not concessions by the Americans, they are concessions to the Americans. There are no concessions by the Americans. We cut tariffs with no concessions by the Americans except for the fact that their very low levels of tariffs are being cut. They are
Customs Tariff
not a real obstacle to Canadian industries right now. They have agreed to talk with us for the next five or seven years.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are at third reading debate on the customs harmonization Bill. The Hon. Member is reading from an American document, I suspect because his Party turned down a chance for detailed briefings all the way along. Therefore he is not familiar with the Canadian position. In either case, he is not talking in a manner relevant to the Bill before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the Hon. Member is getting to the Bill now.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Maybe the Hon. Member is getting to the Government.


Mr. Witer:: Wishful thinking.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We had an option. We could have shared the information available to the average Canadian or we could have taken briefings from the Government on the condition that nothing we learned would be imparted to the public. When we had that option we stood with average Canadians and not with the small elite group which has been kept informed of what is actually happening behind the scenes in the tariff-cutting process.
I want to tell you about the concessions. Clause 62 says that Canada can reduce or remove customs duties on goods imported from any country by way of compensation for concessions granted by that country. The Hon. Member may have misunderstood that. It is not concessions to that country, it is concessions by that country. Yet the President wanted to ensure that the U.S. would get reduction of government subsidies and support to industry in Canada; that there would be non-discriminatory treatment of supplies and services in Canada; that there would be effective protection against transshipment problems in Canada. In other words, President Reagan was not looking to make concessions to Canada in return for our eliminating $2 billion worth of tariffs. He was looking to us to pay the Americans with a $2 billion tariff cut, which will come from God knows what increases in taxes in Canada, and then make further concessions in order to sit down at a table and talk with us for the next five or seven years. That is why we have been saying the Government is dishonest, unjust and unfair in the way it is handling our trade relations and in particular our tariff cutting.
If you would like me to call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so.

December 9, 1987
Customs Tariff


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is six o'clock and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will still have the floor when the debate resumes.

It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, December 10, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers