1988-05-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to twelve petitions numbered as follows: 332-4105, 332-4452 to 332-4456 inclusive, 332-4457, 332-4537, 3324538, 332-4585, 332-4614 and 332-4641.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings],



EMPLOYMENT


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take one more step towards genuine employment equity in Canada.
As you know, the Employment Equity Act was passed in 1986. Under this legislation, all federally-regulated businesses which have 100 or more employees are required to submit an annual report on employment equity. The first series of annual reports is to be submitted not later than tomorrow, June 1.
For the very first time we will have information on the occupational levels and remuneration of four groups designated under the Employment Equity Act: women, Native people, members of visible minorities and disabled persons.
Judging from the reaction of employers, it is clear they are spending quite a bit of time and money to comply with the provisions of the legislation. They are aware of the benefits of, and the need for, improved employment equity in this country.
Before I continue my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister of Communications
(Miss MacDonald), who played a key role in introducing and preparing the Employment Equity Act. Thanks to her efforts as Minister of Employment and Immigration, we can now enjoy the benefits of this legislation.
Under the legislation, all federally-regulated employers, Crown corporations as well as private sector businesses, are required to eliminate employment barriers, to adopt special measures and to make arrangements to accomodate certain differences. As a result, the designated groups will be able to meet the competitive challenge in the workplace. Until now, these groups have not been given a fair chance. Special measures are therefore necessary to help them close the gap.
Under the legislation, the employers concerned, mostly in the fields of banking, transportation and communications, must identify and remove barriers to the employment and promotion of women, Native people, members of visible minorities and disabled persons.
Employers must make an effort to achieve equitable representation in their work force. To that end, they must ensure that designated groups are represented in all occupations and at all levels of their organization. Their annual reports must indicate the rate of representation of designated groups according to occupational categories and salary ranges; they must also report on hirings, promotions and terminations of target group members.
Subsequently, we will verify, process and analyse these reports. They will be published and made available to the persons concerned across Canada. Later this year, I shall table in the House my first annual report on employment equity.
Mr. Speaker, our country was built on diversity. Nevertheless, the Abella Royal Commission showed us that there exists in Canadian workplaces a system that has always denied the very existence of such diversity.
As Rosalie Abella said in her report, "It is not that individuals in the designated groups are inherently unable to achieve equality on their own, it is that the obstacles in their way are so formidable and self-perpetuating that they cannot be overcome without intervention."
Systematic discrimination excludes members of certain groups through rules or employment customs that have nothing to do with the position or that are unnecessary for sound, effective management.
It is a fact that the unemployment rate for the groups covered by the Act tends to be higher than for other Canadians

May 31, 1988
Statements by Ministers
and many members of the target groups are underemployed. This situation well explains and justifies our action.
Employment equity programs do not restrain a company's growth, far from it. Making the most of the available skills and talents is a key to success.
The Employment Equity Act affects some 450 employers and more than 800,000 employees. The employers affected are required to develop and implement a complete employment equity program. In every region of the country, Employment and Immigration Canada has competent consultants who have helped them develop their programs and write the required reports.
We know that it has not been an easy task. Many employers experienced difficulties. But the worst is behind us. This first year will serve as a reference point. We are only beginning. I am sure that next June, employers will be better prepared. In the meantime, employment equity consultants from Employment and Immigration Canada can help them.
In 1986, to complement the Act, the Government created another employment equity program, for federal contracts, to encourage firms doing business with the federal Government to make their staff representative. Companies with at least 100 employees that wish to bid on government contracts for goods and services worth $200,000 or more must commit themselves to implementing employment equity. Furthermore, this commitment is part of the offer. So far, more than 1,000 firms have made this commitment.
The lack of contract compliance can result in the offer being rejected. In early 1987, as Minister of Supply and Services, I had to use this coercive power. Several companies had been asked to bid on a contract. They all sent their submission without the commitment to employment equity. Therefore, we refused to award this contract.
Employers who are awarded a contract can be audited on their premises by officials from Employment and Immigration Canada. Contractors who do not respect the signed commitment can be denied the opportunity to bid on other contracts. Employment and Immigration Canada consultants are also at their disposal to provide them with the necessary advice and assistance.
Government procurement is thus an important lever in implementing our employment equity policy. Through it, we can extend the principle of fairness defended by this program to areas of activity that it would have been quite impossible for us to reach.
Mr. Speaker, equity in the workplace will not be achieved overnight. It is a slow, sometimes painful process that takes patience and constant cooperation from all concerned. Nevertheless, I am convinced that thanks to the innovative employment equity programs launched by our Government, we will get there.
[DOT] (mo)


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that for the second time in two days the Government has come out with a wonderful flowery statement which has absolutely no validity in fact. I refer to the opening of Access Awareness Week yesterday. That from a Government which is building superboxes which are inaccessible to the handicapped. Access Awareness Week was launched by a speech from a municipal politician who told the disabled not to try to integrate their transit system because it would be too expensive and would never happen.
Now we have this wonderful statement on employment equity. Let us look at the reality of the so-called employment equity legislation which was passed by the Government. The legislation has all the power of a water gun. In fact, a water gun is perhaps more powerful than the legislation. It has all the power of an inflated balloon because there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism.
Let us look at what is happening with companies which claim they are responding to Bill C-62. The Maritime Employers' Association, in the name of employment equity, claims that it is following the provisions of Bill C-62. Some longshoremen who have been working in the business for 10, 15, or 20 years are losing their status. Some of them are being forced to take tests, supposedly in the name of employment equity. I do not see that many women working as longshoremen. The employers are actually using this Bill to compromise the employment status of current employees while not responding to the need to integrate women and minorities into the work force.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that it is a hard and rocky road. It is also true there have been a number of detours since this Government came to power, and I am referring specifically to the fact that in 1986, for the first time in Canada's history, the wage gap between men and women grew wider. Instead of narrowing because of the Government's efforts, it grew wider!

In 1986, for the first time since statistics were kept on this issue, the wage gap between men and women in this country became larger on a percentage basis.
The employment equity legislation could have had teeth and force if the Government had accepted the more than three dozen amendments proposed by the Liberal Party to try to give it some enforcement power. In fact, the Government brought in a shallow mechanism which has no substance. Even the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is not a partisan opposition body, believes that the only way employment equity can really be enforced is if the Canadian Human Rights Act is given the teeth to force employers to pay women the same as men for work of equal value, something which does not exist at the moment.
May 31, 1988

While we appreciate the fine words and rhetoric in the same way as we appreciated the lovely concert on Sunday night which was going to make all things accessible to all Canadians, the federal Government has not directed a single penny toward municipalities which want to improve their infrastructure in order to make their streets and municipal buildings accessible. Not one penny of federal money has been directed toward access awareness on the ground where it really counts.
In the same way, this legislation has absolutely no possibility for enforcement because there is no penalty provided and no mechanism in place to ensure that employers go ahead with employment equity. That is why you see employers-

. .. like the Maritime Employers Association which claims to comply with Bill C-62 but tells its employees who have been employed for 10, 12 or 15 years that they have to take tests, and at the same time they don't hire minorities, women or visible minorities.
So why is this situation being tolerated? Mr. Speaker, it is being tolerated because the Government introduced a Bill, said it would do something to provide for employment equity, but failed to provide an enforcement mechanism.

This is like setting up a Criminal Code amendment and telling a bank robber that he is not allowed to rob a bank but if he does there is no penalty, take the money and run. How can you have an employment equity bill which has no enforcement mechanism, no penalty against employers who do not comply, and absolutely no structure in place to make sure that employers are complying? The only compliance requirement is that they report. They can report that they are doing nothing and that is fine, that is totally within the ambit of this phoney piece of legislation.
I am not particularly happy about this statement, Mr. Speaker. I am not happy about a series of statements which have come from the Government which are nothing more than flowery rhetoric. We should hang our heads in shame to think that in 1986, for the first time since statistics were kept, under this Government the wage gap between men and women got wider rather than narrower. If we do not do something by way of amendment to improve legislation, in 10 or 20 years from now we will be giving the same speeches in the House of Commons.

Yes, the road is hard and rocky, and it is a long road. We are nearing the twenty-first century, and nothing has been done because although the Government was willing to make some nice, impressive speeches, it did not want to act and use legislation to require employers to set up employment equity programs.
Statements by Ministers

That being said, Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot endorse this statement.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has made a statement on advances in employment equity as she sees them. She has spoken about the good things that will happen under the employment equity Bill. This is another case of rhetoric being put forward as the next election draws near to try to suggest to Canadians that a great deal has been accomplished when the reality is so very far from that. When those Canadians who are in the target groups; aboriginal peoples, the disabled, visible minorities, and women-to put them in alphabetical order rather than in order of the numbers of their groups-consider their situation and learn what the reports will tell them, they will know that the Government failed profoundly in Bill C-62 a couple of years ago in refusing to recognize the necessity of doing far more than calling for reports.
[DOT] (U20)
According to a Canadian Press report today, 70 per cent of the disabled are unemployed. The federal Government will discover those realities with respect to Crown corporations and areas under federal regulation upon which this legislation focuses, but what good will only having information about the shortcomings of employment do for those people?
The sad realities of inequity in employment in the past required far more action than is taking place. Of course, the Government tries to make much more of it.

The Minister said, and I quote:
Under this legislation all federally-regulated employees, Crown corporations
as well as private sector businesses, are required to eliminate employment
barriers, to adopt special measures and to make arrangements to accommodate
certain differences.
Actually, the legislation only requires employers to submit these reports. It does not require them to prepare a longer term strategy.

The most profound failure in this employment equity Bill is the Government's failure to require an action plan by employers. It is not for lack of attempts by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Opposition to amend the Bill and strengthen it in ways that we see this end result.
The Minister praised her colleague, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), who introduced the Bill. She stubbornly stood by the draft that had been put forward. While there were some minor amendments, the major amendments required to make this a genuine employment equity Bill were refused. The Minister's colleagues stood by that Bill and refused to make the required changes. Therefore, there is no point in joining the Minister in any praise for her

May 31, 1988
Committee Reports
colleague or in any great recognition of what the Government has done.
There is a great desire to make much of the reporting aspect and it would be very hard to top the Minister's statement this morning as a celebration of what reporting might achieve. We will learn what are the actual shortcomings and inequities and that this information will be rapidly digested and made available.
The Minister will make a statement and the reports will be made available throughout the country for people to buy. I only ask in passing how much these reports will cost lobby groups and those who wish to maintain the pressure. I hope the price will be quite low and that the information will be made available as quickly as possible so there will be no long delays that will enable employers to say that reports on their lack of progress toward equality are out of date. If there is too long a delay it will be too easy for employers to say that their circumstances have changed dramatically. There must be speedy action and abundant publicity about these reports to realize the potential the Minister has expressed about them.
There must be stronger provisions in the way of requirements on employers to take action. The Minister asserts that employers will take this action, but I am tempted to say this statement is in the long-standing Liberal tradition that by revealing the shortcomings of people they are motivated to correct them. Liberals have believed in that practice for too long, and it is distressing to see Conservatives practising the same short-sighted, indeed blind policy. People very often do not want to make a change unless they are compelled to do so.
Action plans must be required of employers so that they can stipulate the goals and targets they wish to achieve. Employers should be required to present their action plans to the agency that would actively monitor them to ensure that employment equity is actually achieved, as the Act claims it will do. Only if those steps are taken will those in the target groups and Canadians generally be sure that we will have more fairness in employment.
Another important aspect to consider is that the Bill is limited in its focus on Crown corporations and private enterprise under federal regulation. The Government has managed to keep itself clear of obligations to report and that refusal to take this responsibility is particularly regrettable. I believe employers who are facing these demands ought to be able to look to the federal Government to provide an example by revealing the shortcomings in employment in the federal Government and its institutions and then indicating targets and deadlines by which the situation concerning employment equity will be corrected.
I have seen figures for various groups setting limited goals and the shortcomings in information are quite obvious for a number of them. The statistics for the current situation in federal institutions are simply not available. The Treasury Board carried out a voluntary census among the various federal institutions. We cannot be sure how close those
statistics came to revealing the true situation, but the need to be quite clear about the situation for various groups leads me to call on the Government this morning to practice the same principles internally.
Surely the Treasury Board can act on these matters and take to itself the obligation to work under the employment equity Bill and ensure that leadership is being given to employers in the federal institutions.
I suggested during third reading debate a couple of years ago that it would be five years after a report before a government would be ready to take action. The next election may change this because we New Democrats would love to have the opportunity to make real progress toward employment equity. However, there is the possibility that years may pass before there is stronger legislation to make the kind of real progress to achieve employment equity that the Minister is claiming this morning will be the result of the present rather weak Bill.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the Sixty-second Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, this petition is from residents of 759 Victoria Park Avenue in the constituency of Scarborough West who avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to them, in the certain assurance that this honourable House will provide a remedy.
The petitioners humbly sheweth that whereas the distinguished Justices of the Supreme Court have left Canadians without any law restricting abortions and nothing in the Supreme Court decision has established abortion as a right, and human life is a continuum from the moment of conception to the moment of death, these petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of those cases where an abortion is performed to save the life of the mother.
May 31, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the Honourable House of Commons. Whereas cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, and whereas secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year, and whereas Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers' Health Act.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents, mostly from my riding of Willowdale and some from the Town of Thornhill. Your petitioners deplore the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's abortion law leaving pre-born children without any legal protection. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to quickly enact effective laws to protect the lives of unborn children from the moment of conception.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition on behalf of a number of constituents from Willowdale, Newmarket, Markham, Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Unionville, Sutton, Uxbridge and Scarborough. Your petitioners realize that schizophrenia is a major illness and biochemical brain disorder costing Canadian society over $3 billion annually in direct health and support costs. They are also are certain that a cure can be found. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of the Toronto area, some from Ottawa, Markham, Woodbridge, Bramalea and Scarborough. The petitioners point out that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for the deaths of 35,000 Canadians each year. Secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. Whereas Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, wherefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.
Petitions


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions, one petition from the residents of Winnipeg and one petition from residents of Toronto. The petitioners say that whereas cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 deaths each year in Canada, and whereas secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year, and whereas Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians, therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have both the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 241 citizens, mainly of Calgary North but also from the ridings of Calgary West and Calgary South. The petitioners call upon the Government to enact a law on abortion. They say it is becoming increasingly common for abortion to be used as a method of birth control and abortion should not be tolerated by Canadian society. Wherefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act upon the problem of abortion and restore to the system legislation which protects the life of the human foetus. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House. The first petition is from people in Winnipeg who indicate that cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year. Secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year. Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers' Health Act, Bill C-204.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in my second petition the petitioners indicate that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but the trade agreement negotiated by the Conservative Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians and to equalize opportunities between the regions. Therefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the

May 31, 1988
Order Paper Questions
opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade	QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and, indeed, a privilege this morning to present two petitions. The first petition refers to the fact that Canada's major preventable health hazard is smoking and is responsible for 35,000 deaths each year in Canada. Another 500 people die from involuntary inhaling other smokers' smoke. Therefore the petitioners are calling on Bill C-204 to be passed by the Parliament of Canada as quickly as possible because Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition which has been certified as correct pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petitioners indicate that the present federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade deal with the United States. They believe that in the course of negotiations, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that our sovereignty in Canada would not be compromised and in fact they believe it has. They also feel that the agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine Canada's ability to develop a society distinct from that of the United States. Therefore the petitioners are asking that Parliament now dissolve to enable the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two petitions. The first petition is from a group of citizens of the community of Shellbrook, Saskatchewan, who call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election. The petitioners believe the said agreement does not give Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective of these negotiations, and threatens hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of citizens from Kelowna, British Columbia, to Ottawa, Ontario. The petitioners feel that whereas cigarette smoking is the major preventable health hazard in Canada and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, and that Bill C-204 seeks to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers, therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact the Non-Smokers" Health Act, Bill C-204, as quickly as possible.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 274 and 326.

GRANTS/LOANS TO ORGANIZATIONS IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of the Solicitor General make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Between September 4, 1984, and February 26, 1988, the Secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General gave the following grants in the Metropolitan Toronto area:
1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88
The Salvation Army
(after-care services)	$ -	$ 90,000 $ 88,200 $ 88,200
* Note: In fiscal years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Ministry Secretariat gave a grant of $3,750,000 to the Treasurer of Ontario for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. As the Treasurer of Ontario's offices are located within Metropolitan Toronto, the Ministry's accounting system shows the money as having been given "within Metropolitan Toronto". However, it is only the provincial government that could provide a breakdown of where the money was subsequently spent.


Mr. Harris: In 1986 and 1987, were refits or other repairs carried out on the HMCS Cormorant and the Fisheries Research Vessel Shamook and, if so (a) on what dates (b) at what dockyards (c) were tenders called and, if so, in each case (i) what amounts were bid in each submission (//) which facilities submitted bids (d) what were the final costs of each repair (i) in total (it) for labour (ill) for material (tv) for any cost overruns (v) for each other category that can be identified (e) were there any conditions or requirements for the submission of a tender bid by any interested yard expected by the department issuing those tenders?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: HMCS Cormorant, (a) From July 6, 1987 to February 9, 1988. (b) Pictou Industries Ltd., Pictou, N.S. (c) (i) and (ii) Request for proposals were sent to six companies in the Atlantic region. Four Firms responded as follows:
May 31, 1988

Tobacco Products



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Shipyard
Total evaluation price which includes projected Known Work work arisings
* Newfoundland Dockyard Pictou Industries Ltd. HDIL Dartmouth Ships Shelburne Marine

[Stage Direction]
(d)	(i) Final total cost for complete work package $4,178,199.26 which produced a known work/work arising rates of approximately 85:15. (ii) (iii) No break-out of material/labour costs can be furnished as contractors' price submissions for each refit item was all inclusive, (iv) No cost overruns, (v) Not applicable.
(e)	*Newfoundland Dockyard submitted the lowest bid but were found non-responsive as there was no management/union labour agreement which was a firm requirement of DND. Fisheries Research Vessel Shamook. (a) From April 13, 1987 to May 22, 1987. (b) Clarenville Drydock Ltd., Clarenville, Nfld.
(c)	(i) (ii) Yes.
Clarenville Drydock Ltd. $19,876.45
Newfoundland Dockyard Inc. $22,033.29
Marystown Shipyard Ltd. $22,084.49
(d)	(i) Final Cost $31,630.74. (ii) (iii) Unable to give labour and material breakdown. Contractors bid by job lots, (iv) No cost overuns. (v) Not applicable.
(e)	No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


TOBACCO PRODUCTS CONTROL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 19 motions in amendment on the Order Paper to amend Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products. After deliberation, I am now ready to make a ruling with respect to their acceptability. All of these motions I find are in order.
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all deal with advertising and will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows. If Motion No. 1 is carried, the question will not be put on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 2. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 2 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motions Nos. 3 and 4. Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 all deal with promotion and sponsorship. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 7 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motions Nos. 8 and 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 7 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 8. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 8 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 9. A negative vote on Motion No. 8 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 9. Motions Nos. 11 and 12 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is virtually the same as an amendment which was moved, debated and negatived in committee. Therefore in accordance with Standing Order 114(10), it will not be selected for debate in the House.
Motions Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 deal with reports, regulations, offences and punishments. They will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 dealing with the coming into force of the Bill, will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 17 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 18. A negative vote on Motion No. 17 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 18. Motion No. 19 will be voted on separately.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 to the House for debate.


Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 4

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
(a)	by striking out lines 37 to 40 at page 2 and lines 1 to 3 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"4.(1) No person shall advertise any tobacco product offered for sale in Canada.
(2)	No person shall, for consideration, publish, broadcast or otherwise disseminate, on behalf of another person, an advertisement for any tobacco product offered for sale in Canada.
(3)	For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the distribution for sale of publications imported into Canada or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts originating outside Canada.
(4)	No person in Canada shall advertise a";
(b)	by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada primarily for the purpose of promoting the sale in Canada of a tobacco product
(5)	Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the";
(c)	by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) a health warning is provided in accordance with the regulations on any sign put in place after the coming into force of'; and
(d)	by striking out lines 36 to 45 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) In subsection (5), "sign" does not include
(a)	a sign displayed at the place of business of a retailer; or
(b)	a representation described in paragraph 6(1 )(a) or (b)."


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 12 to 32 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"signs at any time before July 1, 1988, if a health warning as prescribed by the".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is not in the House, is there unanimous consent to have the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) move the motions which stand in her name?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 18 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"year does not exceed one-half of the".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 28 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceed one-quarter of the expenses of the ".


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out lines 12 to 15 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"name, otherwise than in association with a tobacco product, for the purpose
of advertising the retailer's business, except by means of a radio or television
transmission; and"; and
(b)	by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"a term allowing for the extension or renewal of the contract after that
day."


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 17 at page 4 and
substituting the following therefor:
"ness, at any time before January 1, 1989,".
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-51 with respect to the amendments. We have a number of amendments before us this morning. Some of them are housekeeping amendments, and some of them are more substantive. Let me get right to them.
The first motion is a very long and involved motion. Some aspects of it are merely housekeeping. I will not comment on those aspects of it. However, there is one part of Motion No. 1 which is not merely housekeeping. I am very concerned about it.
It is one that would change the wording: "No person shall advertise any tobacco product in Canada." to: "No person shall advertise any tobacco product offered for sale in Canada." This change in wording seems to indicate that one can advertise tobacco that is not for sale in Canada but which is for sale somewhere else. One might wonder why anyone would bother to do that if they cannot sell it in Canada. However, the result is that it is a promotion of tobacco and a promotion of smoking. It can have a generic effect of saying: "Tobacco is all right. It is even good for your health-nothing wrong with it".
This wording was much discussed in committee. The original wording was more along those lines, and we got rid of it. We changed the wording to close what would seem to be an inadvertent loophole which would permit advertising in Canada of products that are not for sale in Canada but nonetheless which would give the impression that tobacco products were just fine to buy. What we really need to get rid of is tobacco advertising, period.
We have to realize that in other countries loopholes have been used by tobacco companies. They have advertised lighters. They use the same logos and the same colours. By advertising lighters or matches, they are in effect advertising tobacco. Therefore, any loophole which is allowed in here can be a very serious one. I think we have to treat this as something that could weaken the impact of this much needed legislation.
My Motion No. 2 would restore to Bill C-51 the spirit that was approved at second reading. It changes the three year
May 31, 1988

phase-in of billboards to a date six months later than the second reading of Bill C-51. Bill C-51 was better in its original version in this respect. It was watered down to allow for this three year phase-in. I am suggesting that we go back to the original spirit of the law and bring it in much more quickly. When we consider that 35,000 Canadians are dying every year from tobacco related diseases and that the death toll from involuntary smoking is certainly in the hundreds, we should not be gingerly phasing in this ban on tobacco advertising but we should be working promptly to see that this encouragement of taking up a habit that kills people is ended as soon as possible.
With respect to Motion No. 3, if we must have a phase-in of billboard advertisements, this would reduce the amount of money that could be spent on advertising from two-thirds to one-half in the second year. That is relevant to current levels. This is a practical amendment. I would rather get rid of it completely and do so promptly. However, if we are going to have a phase-in let us at least reduce the amount, put limits on it so that it is clearly a phasing out and not an opportunity for advertising to continue at current levels.
Motion No. 4 is similar to Motion No. 3. It allows in the third year of the phase-in period a quarter of current billboard spending. Again, it is in the spirit of let us get rid of it and let us have clear caps on the amount of spending that would be permitted.
Motion No. 5 comes from the Government. It is a good amendment. It would tighten the loophole that is given to merchants to advertise tobacco names in their shop names, for example, "Lynn's Tobacco Shop". This type of advertising would not be permitted in radio and television ads, although it would be permitted in signs. The second part of the motion is merely housekeeping, and we would support that.
Finally, in the first set of amendments is Motion No. 6. This is one of my amendments and it would restore to the Bill the original date in the second reading version for the removal of in-store advertisements. Here again the original Bill was better. As a result of a lot of pressure put on by this very profitable industry that is killing people in the process of making money, unfortunately one result was that amendments were brought in at committee stage which weakened the provisions of this Bill.
The health community is looking at this Bill. It does not wish to see further amendments. That was said very clearly at committee stage. The health community considers this a minimal measure. At the municipal level there is legislation for the workplace, and here the Government has brought in no workplace legislation whatsoever. This is a very minimal action for advertising and for sponsorship. It is not complete. It is not thorough. It will go a long way, but we do not want it to be watered down any further.
Tobacco Products
The whole purpose of the amendments that I have brought in is to deal with some of these matters where there was too much watering down at committee, and get the Bill back on track to where it should be. The health community is saying: "Don't water it down any more. Let us take Bill C-51 as it is and let us get it into operation". Let us restore the spirit of the amendments that we agreed on earlier at second reading and get on with adopting this important piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? On debate, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to express my absolute disbelief that the Minister is not present to speak to the legislation. I thought the reason we went through that ridiculous-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member does not need to mention whether the Minister is in attendance. The Hon. Member has been here for quite a while, so I would hope that she would just get on with the motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We played political leap-frog yesterday because the Government in its wisdom saw fit to ignore a chance to finally put Bill C-204 into law. In that regard, I wish to congratulate the efforts of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), who has shown an incredible intestinal fortitude in pursuing her Bill in the face of constant thwarting, confusion, and disinformation on the part of the Government. The reason I am shocked that we played this political leap-frog yesterday was that I expected, of course, that the Government was going to move with the Minister today to expedite Bill C-51. Although I cannot comment on the presence or absence of Members, I am shocked. Parliamentary secretaries can be hard working and well-intentioned, but I would have liked to hear from the Minister.
If one reads Motion No. 1, Subclause (3) I believe that this amendment has been moved specifically because of the free trade agreement. That amendment reads:
(3) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the distribution for sale of publications imported into Canada or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts originating outside Canada.
What has changed between the original wording in Bill C-51 and this particular motion, which we cannot support, is the fact that the Government, in its wisdom, in the final wording on the free trade agreement decided that it would offer preferential tax treatment to American advertisers, in the same manner as is currently available to Canadian advertisers in magazines. One might say that that is totally unrelated to the Bill that is before us. What is being set up here by way of Bill C-51 is a limitation and a prohibition on advertising in Canadian magazines of Canadian tobacco products beyond a certain date.

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
Presumably, entrepreneurial American advertisers and tobacconists who may see the possibility of moving into the Canadian market in the near future as a result of the trade agreement could very easily receive preferential tax treatment to advertise American tobacco products in American magazines which are also available for sale in Canada. That particular issue was discussed in detail in committee. In fact, it was determined in committee that we did not wish to permit a situation where American tobacconists and American advertisers could bypass our law by attempting to target the Canadian market. The unanimous view of the committee was thwarted specifically by Subsection (3). Basically, that subsection is stating that it is carte blanche for Americans to come in with American magazines loaded up and targeted toward Canadians, for which they will get preferential tax treatment, and attempt to capture a larger share of the Canadian market.
If we are entering into a free trade agreement, and if we are saying to Americans that they can come in and trade in any number of commodities, the same legislation that will apply to Canadian advertisers should also apply to any American advertisers who may want to target the Canadian market. By virtue of Subsection (3) the Minister is prohibiting any action that might be taken by the Canadian Government to stop the bootleg advertising that could occur and, in fact, could be attractive to Americans who, as a result of the trade agreement, are getting preferential tax treatment, and who will also see the opportunity to come in and capture a market share which would be stabilized as a result of the Canadian decision to prohibit advertising.
This is a glaring loophole for American tobacco companies and American advertisers which should not be allowed to pass by way of this particular amendment. That is why we cannot support the totality of Motion No. 1. We see that particular amendment as an attempt to permit American tobacco companies and American advertisers to launch an assault on the Canadian market with preferential tax treatment in the manner that is currently being disallowed for Canadian advertisers and Canadian tobacco companies. That is not acceptable.
Therefore, in relation to Motion No. 1, we strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary, since the Minister has seen fit to be elsewhere, to prevail upon the Minister to pull this subsection which is an assault on the integrity of the Bill, and by way of specific amendments to ensure that American companies will not be able to exploit a situation which will flow from the adoption of this legislation, and that is specifically as it relates to the rights of Americans to advertise American products targeting Canadian markets.
The Hon. Member is shaking her head. Perhaps she did not have the opportunity to read the position paper put forward by the Law and Government Division representative, Mr. James R. Robertson. He prepared a paper for the committee. It was his view that if preferential tax treatment were offered under the free trade agreement, there would be the potential of a threat from American advertisers who, in an indirect way,
attempted to get their message across to the Canadian marketplace.
Many people in my home town of Hamilton watch CHCH television, but many people also flick the television to U.S. channels and are very subject to the onslaught of U.S. advertising. In the spirit of the so-called trade agreement, surely the Minister should make provisions to cut this off at the pass and ensure that entrepreneurial tobacco companies will not be using border crossings, border magazines, and border broadcasts as a way to indirectly target the Canadian market-place. That is why this amendment cannot go through. It specifically prohibits the Canadian Government from taking action against these advertisers.
I was one who fought in committee to specifically change the wording so that instead of just referring to advertising in Canada, it would say "no person", so that a company in New York could not be hired to direct an advertising campaign out of the United States into the very populous market-place of southwestern Ontario, a place which is very subject to the onslaught of American advertisers. Unfortunately, the concerns of the committee have been watered down and in fact nullifed by this particular motion. That motion obviously cannot pass.
With respect to Motion No. 2, given that the Minister has taken much longer than had been anticipated in bringing Bill C-51 forward for final reading, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood realized that to move an amendment which would affect health signs posted before July 1 at this point would be rather moot. By the time the Bill gets Royal Assent, July 1, 1988, will obviously have passed and the Minister may want to look at changing that date or in some way modifying that. I find that at this point, Motion No. 2 is almost redundant, given that the Minister was so long in bringing the Bill forward.
Motions Nos. 3 and 4 obviously deal with grandfathering. The Minister did make a compromise which was a response to sports organizations and other cultural organizations that were concerned about the possibility of getting alternate funding. The motions that have been moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) basically cut in half and then in quarter the time allowed for grandfathering of sponsorship items. This reflects the recognition that sponsoring groups will have to phase out tobacco funding. These motions accelerate the process.
The Minister's own motion calls for a grandfathering clause which would permit unto infinity current funding levels for sports and cultural events that already exist. The amendment suggests that that be pared down by first one-half and then one-quarter. We think that is a good compromise, based on the concerns many people have, concerns which were very validly expressed.
May 31, 1988

We heard from Dr. John Read who has much experience in this, both personally in his own family as well as through his interests with the Canadian Ski Association. We heard from those who were concerned about sponsorships the fact that sponsorships are often used not simply as a humanitarian, philanthropic gesture, but also as a means of indirectly promoting and advertising. Obviously, if we are to be cutting off promotion and advertising, we should also be moving to cut out sponsorships. I believe Motions Nos. 3 and 4 accelerate the process without eliminating it completely. This heightens the recognition that sponsorships should phase out funding from the tobacco industry.
Motion No. 5 seems, upon reflection and review, to be a housekeeping motion. In fact, the wording of the original clause was unclear and rather wordy. Therefore, that motion should be supported.


Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the allegations made by the Hon. Member with respect to Motion no. 1.
The amendments to paragraphs 4(1) and 4(2) are simply technical changes that reflect the government's intention to prohibit only advertisements for tobacco products sold in Canada.
Furthermore, amending paragraph 4(3) and creating a new paragraph 4(4) cannot be construed as major changes. The amendments only specify that publishers, broadcasters and billboard advertising businesses may be held responsible for accepting money in return for tobacco advertising, while magazine distributors and operators of cable TV networks cannot be accused of violating these provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is quite reasonable. We are talking about broadcasting, not publishing. As I see it, the Government is strictly specifying what it has said throughout the debate in committee.
As for paragraphs 4(5)(c) and 4(6), they are intended to clarify and simplify the wording of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, regarding motions 2, 3 and 4, these were extensively discussed in committee, and I believe that the position that was finally accepted was itself the subject of a lengthy debate. The purpose of these motions was to avoid undue penalties, and 1 think they are reasonable.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Tobacco Products


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 1 is carried on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 3 (Ms. Mitchell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 4 (Ms. Mitchell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is carried on division.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 6 (Ms. McDonald) negatived.


David Orlikow: May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 32 to 45 at page 4 and lines 1 to 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"6. No person shall employ the brand name or a trade mark of a tobacco product in any representation made to the public for the purpose of acknowledging financial or other support provided by a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for an activity, event, publication or broadcast."


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 32 to 45 at page 4 and lines I to 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"6.(1) Notwithstanding section 4 and subsection 8(1) but subject to subsection (2) of this section, the full name of a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and, where required by the terms of a contract entered into before January 25, 1988, the brand name of a tobacco product, may be used, otherwise than in association with a tobacco product, in a representation to the public
(a)	that promotes a cultural or sporting activity or event; or
(b)	that acknowledges financial or other contributions made by the manufacturer or importer of the tobacco product toward such an activity or event.
(2) Where, in any calendar year, a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products makes financial or other contributions toward cultural or sporting activities or events in respect of which brand names of those products are used, the value of such contributions, determined in accordance with the regulations, shall not exceed the value, so determined, of the contributions made by the manufacturer or importer toward cultural or sporting activities and events in 1987."


David Orlikow: Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 42 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"into before April 30, 1987."


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 19 to 23 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the distribution or sale before January 1, 1993 of an article manufactured before April 30, 1987, or ordered before that date from the manufacturer or supplier of the article otherwise than by the placing of a standing order that requires confirmation or is subject to cancellation after that date."
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 30 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"constituents of the product and, where applicable, of the"


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about the matter of the possibility that sponsorship of events, I think particularly here of sporting events, will be allowed to continue. This question is of very great importance to Canadians. Our desire to discourage the young from smoking should, surely, be our
goal. The Government has failed to follow through on this. The amendments proposed, particularly Motion No. 7 by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) dealt with that. While smoking is still being taken up by young people these days, and one could expand on that at some length, older Canadians recognize the dangers of it and are giving it up. Men especially are giving up smoking in recognition of its dangers. But teenagers and children at incredibly tender ages are getting addicted to tobacco and are suffering all of its consequences.
We should be concerned for their well-being and their good health. We should be concerned about the cost to society and the cost to employers resulting from this habit if continued over the years. We must be concerned about the consequences to our health care system in caring for smokers. We have been told that we will have to make brutal choices. Someone's addiction to tobacco will lead to discrimination against such a person obtaining medical treatment. What is the point, given what this person has done to himself or herself over many years, in providing medical care to such an individual. There in a few thoughts are some of the dangers. Surely we have a responsibility and the Government of Canada has a responsibility to limit the encouragement of smoking in society.
Soon after I was elected I became aware of the problem, serving as critic in the area of fitness and amateur sport. The Minister recognized the challenge. It was not an easy one with Macdonald Inc. having become involved in sponsorship of events, especially ski-jumping. It was not easy to tell the association and the athletes who were depending on the money about a ban. I attended a dinner in Thunder Bay. It was clear that very soon after the Minister imposed his ban, a prospective ban at some future date, the lobbying came from the association and local people. I remember a speech made by representatives of Macdonald Inc. left no doubt about their dislike of the ban, about their desire to continue sponsorship and to have the Macdonald name advertised.
The Government decided to cave in to that kind of pressure and allowed the Macdonald name to remain incorporated in one event or another. It may be one thing to have tobacco advertising for adults and one thing to have it for professional sports, if you will, but to see tobacco advertising for amateur sporting events involving young people surely should not be allowed. If the Government has caved in on this, we have just one more area of weakness in Bill C-51 that we are debating at report stage today.
Motion No. 7 moved by the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood will put back in the Bill:
"6. No person shall employ the brand name or a trade mark of a tobacco product in any representation made to the public for the purpose of acknowledging financial or other support provided by a manufacturer or
May 31, 1988

importer of tobacco products for an activity, event, publication or broadcast."
Surely the financial need can be met by reputable employers-and one can use that kind of a phrase when there are companies whose businesses lead to disease and death, but there must be companies whose business is conducive to a good life, long life, good health et cetera who have the means to come up with resources. One might say that some of the taxes raised from tobacco companies might be directed to fitness and amateur sport if one has to find resources through tax means, but let us get tobacco advertising removed and let us use this amendment and Motion No. 9 which would return to the Bill the second reading date as the cut-off point for sponsorship. These amendments go in the right direction.
I urge my colleagues, if they have any kind of concern at all, to have effective legislation for the good health of young people and if they have any kind of concern for employers who want to have healthy employees and if they have any kind of consent for themselves as taxpayers and the Canadian health care system, to pass these amendments, and not give them the kind of defeat I fear the Government will give.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, this is one time when I have to disagree with the position taken by the New Democratic Party. I am completely baffled as to the New Democrats' rationale. We just had a Member who moved a grandfathering clause in recognition of sporting events, not wholly grandfathering but partially grandfathering, namely, the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
Presumably the grandfathering amendment is recognizing that sports organizations will need some time to make transitional funding. But now we have another amendment that says that even though we have said in one amendment that will grandfather sponsorships, we want the sponsorships grandfathered with no brand name. We have already stated, and we have heard time and again in committee, that tobacco companies do not sponsor because they happen to be magnanimous and wonderful people, they sponsor because they want to advertise. If you endorse, which presumably you have in part by accepting an amendment which would grandfather sponsorships, you cannot realistically argue from both sides of your mouth, which is now being attempted. Either you ban grandfathering altogether or you allow grandfathering to continue in a limited or in a reduced way.
The motion moved on brand names is completely unworkable. If anyone has read the legislation, he or she will know that if du Maurier wants to run the du Maurier Special, instead of using the tobacco company name all it needs to do is incorporate a second company called du Maurier. The loophole to get around whatever legislation is brought forward is so wide, why not say: "We are grandfathering. We will continue with the current system for a prescribed period of time, in fact, reducing by half the amount of sponsorship dollars available". You cannot, Mr. Speaker, state on the one hand that you want
Tobacco Products
to grandfather, which is what the New Democrats have done with the amendment just moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, yet expect the grandfathering to occur with no brand name.
I know the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has received correspondence, as have all Members, from sporting and cultural organizations. Presumably that is why he said what he did about the issue of funding, that he was happy that some kind of compromise had been reached even though it was not exactly what he wanted. Well, if the Darts Federation, for example, is not allowed to have a sponsor which uses a brand name, obviously the companies are not going to sponsor them.
These contracts are not written in stone. You either grandfather fully or partially or not at all. You cannot say you are going to do it and send a letter out to all the sporting organizations to that effect and then move an amendment two minutes later saying you do not want people using their brand name. Obviously the grandfathering is phoney. If you grandfather, you have to say that for a given period of time we are going to permit continued sponsorship based on a cut-back of 50 per cent of the funding available to sports organizations. That is the intent of the amendment. We will not have grandfathering at 1987 financial levels, but we will have grandfathering which will cut in half the amount of money available in 1987.
If you do have grandfathering you cannot move an amendment saying that brand names shall not be used because, first, it is so easy for a company to get around that. All they have to do is incorporate under the name du Maurier Special. Second, if they are not allowed to put their brand name forward, presumably they are not going to sponsor. The reason we grandfathered the sponsorship was in recognition of the fact it will take time for these sports and cultural organizations to get other funding. However, if we then say no brand name can be used the companies will yank their sponsorship tomorrow, and you are not responding to the need that was supposedly the reason for the grandfathering. Motion No. 7 is a total contradiction of Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4. They are inconsistent, so we cannot support Motion No. 7.
Motion No. 8 and Motion No. 9 clarify the level of sponsorship and the cut-off point and also set out some guidelines with respect to grandfathering. They are supportable, but we cannot support Motion No. 7 which vitiates Motions. Nos. 3 and 4. I do not understand the NDP. If you do not want to grandfather at all, say so. That is legitimate. But if you do, do not say you are going to do it without the brand or trade name because it does not work.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to the comments of the Hon. Member regarding what appears to be a conflicting set of motions. Perhaps I could respond by simply saying this. Motion No. 7 is

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
one of the toughest of this set of amendments. The effort here is more than symbolic. The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is simply trying to say, to the young people particularly, let us not have a major cultural or sporting event supported up front by tobacco companies. I do not think there is anything mysterious about that.
Other Members are saying the reality is that grandfathering is required. Contracts have been signed and so on. That needs to be recognized, but we have to remember that the Hon. Member has a particularly strong view on this issue. It is perhaps one of the strongest in the House. She is simply saying: "Let us send a very clear signal to everyone that we find it abhorrent that young people participating in recreational or athletic activities are being continuously reminded that the reason it is being held is because of a tobacco company".
In one way we have always appreciated the financial endorsement, but I find it somewhat puzzling as a father with two young sons involved in a variety of sporting events because I suspect they are wondering whether or not they should smoke. They see their peers smoking. They see the big tobacco companies of the western world advocating that if you ski well or surf well or do whatever well and have a cigarette at the end, that makes perfect sense. Of course it is totally illogical that anyone at all interested in athletics or sporting events would be a regular smoker. That is absolute folly. Any suggestion that this would be good for my two sons I find abhorrent. Anyone trying to encourage my two sons to participate in smoking or chewing tobacco or whatever else, I find to be repugnant. I do not think we ought to be encouraging that at all. We should be doing the contrary and discouraging it. I suspect, as a very famous football player yourself, Mr. Speaker, you know that to play football, the way you did and the way we like to see our teams play football we do not want people smoking a package of cigarettes at the end of the game or chewing a wad of Copenhagen or whatever.
A clause that says no person shall employ the brand name or trade mark of a tobacco product in any representation made to the public for the purpose of acknowledging financial or other support provided by a manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for an activity, event, publication or broadcast to me makes perfect sense. It is a tough position to take. I suspect the tobacco companies and importers would not like this amendment. I appreciate why from the traditional and obvious business point of view. However, for the best interests of our society, particularly our young people who are susceptible to both direct and indirect forms of advertising, an enthusiastic endorsement of this amendment would be the most we could do as parliamentarians to say that we want to do whatever possible to encourage our young people particularly not to smoke.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to address this group of amendments and clear up an apparent misunderstanding on the part of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Motion No. 7 is the
motion we want. That says sponsorship cannot be used for advertising. No person shall employ the brand name or trade mark of a tobacco product in any representation made to the public for acknowledging financial or other support. We want to get rid of it because we know that so long as sponsorship is allowed, the opportunity will be taken by the cigarette companies to use that for advertising purposes. However, given all the pressure put on the Government and the fact it is caving in, we are not so sure Motion No. 7 will go through. If not, then we would like Motion No. 9. That would limit the sponsorship for contracts which have come in before April 30, 1987, at the time the Bill was introduced. We would at least have some limitation on these sponsorships. If we do not go the way I would like us to go, and that is get rid of them completely, let us at least limit them to the ones already in place and not encourage the tobacco companies to enter into new contracts for sponsorship and shift their advertising dollars into sponsorship and get their advertising that way. It is very important that we get that one passed.
Motion No. 8 would clarify the conditions under which tobacco sponsorship may continue. That is the Minister's motion and part of his weaker approach to say we are not going to get rid of it completely, we will allow some of it, and it simply clarifies the conditions. We would much prefer to get the stronger one.
Motion No. 10 would give the Government the right to prescribe the format and conditions of acknowledgement of sponsorship. Again, we would rather get rid of the sponsorship completely but if it is going to be there, let us have it clearly defined by regulation so that the companies cannot get around the law by having sponsorships and then having great massive kinds of acknowledgments. They are going to be allowed to acknowledge? How big is the sign going to be on which they can acknowledge their sponsorship? If the Government is going to capitulate and allow some sponsorship, let us at least define the terms of it very carefully.
Therefore, there is a logic to these, Mr. Speaker. They are not contradictory. We have an order of priorities and would like to get the best we can out of the Government.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the matter of sponsorship. It is a subject that was discussed at length in committee. We received many requests from various groups financed by tobacco companies, in the field of sports as well as culture. After hearing their submissions and discussing the matter at length, we reached the conclusion as members of the committee that there was a case for avoiding any abrupt changes. I feel that the change provided with respect to the level of financing is the only one that does not radically alter the way activities are financed and that also provides for withdrawing advertising, because that is going to be regulated as well.
May 31, 1988

In my view, Mr. Speaker, the additional amendments made in committee, which are purely technical, as well as those presented before the House today, are all necessary and legitimate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 7 (Ms. McDonald) negatived on division.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp, Provencher). 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.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp, Provencher). 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.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.
Tobacco Products


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next grouping is of Motion Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 10 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"under paragraph 17(h), every manufacturer".


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 28 to 36 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) prescribing, in respect of any tobacco product, the content, position, configuration, size and prominence of the health warnings referred to in paragraph 4(4)(c);
(d) respecting the determination of the value of contributions referred to in section 6;"


Monique Vézina: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 18
(a)	by striking out, in the French version, line 32 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"amende maximale de cent mille dollars et un";
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Every person who contravenes subsection 6(2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable"; and
(c)	by striking out lines 12 to 16 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Every person who contravenes section 14 or any regulations made under paragraph 17(i) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars."


Thomas Hockin: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out line 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"19. (1) A prosecution in respect of an offence under this Act, other than a prosecution under paragraph 18(1 )(b), may"; and
(b)	by adding, immediately after line 26 at page 13, the following:
"(3) No exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law is required to be set out or negatived, as the case may be, in an information or indictment for an offence under this Act or under section 421, 422 or 423 of the Criminal Code in respect of an offence under this Act.
(4) In any prosecution for an offence referred to in subsection (3), the burden of proving that an exception, exemption, excuse or qualification prescribed by law operates in favour of the accused is on the accused and the prosecutor is not required, except by way of rebuttal, to prove that the exception, exemption, excuse or qualification does not operate in favour of the accused, whether or not it is set out in the information or indictment."

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary with respect specifically to Motion No. 15. In my reading of the groupings that we have put together in relation to the offences and applications, a number of the motions deal with improving the wording. However, I am unclear as to the rationale behind Motion No. 15 in that I found that the wording which existed in the legislation was quite sufficient. I do not understand why lines 12 to 16 at page 13 have been amended and I would like an explanation as to why that amendment was made.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment proposed in Motion No. 15 is to provide for technical changes that will make the wording of the penal clauses consistent with that found in other federal statutes. The changes also include renumbering clauses and paragraphs consequential on other amendments. These are technical amendments and merely clarify the text of the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask for clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary on Motion No. 15(a) which indicates "by striking out, in the French version, line 32 at page 12 and substituting the following". I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary would do us the kindness of explaining what necessitated that. I recognize it as a housekeeping amendment but it is still not clear in my mind why it was required.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, in the French text the paragraph has been corrected to indicate amende maximale de cent mille dollars et un instead of mille dollars. So this is in fact a correction ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Member can only speak once on these motions, we are not in Committee of the Whole. Can I get the consent of the House to allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to answer this question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the French text of paragraph 18(1) is corrected in the subamendment to indicate a fine not exceeding $100,000, instead of $1,000. A mistake was made when the text was retyped.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is not Committee of the Whole-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member realizes, why is she getting up?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Because the wording of the amendment is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member a question and allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer if I can get consent.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Maybe we should move to start debating the clauses. The Member may have a point in terms of the exact wording of the amendment and it could be discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary. We could take it to a drafter. It is important to ensure that we have the wording correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has already spoken. We have already started debate on this and the Hon. Member did speak. We have to get unanimous consent every time either Hon. Member rises. Do I have unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to debate these motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's not to debate, I just want to get clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That's fine, let's get your clarification.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If you look at the change it refers to the French version, line 32 at page 12, amende maximale de. That is changing it from $1,000 to $100,000 to bring it in line with the English translation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of
May 31, 1988

National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 14 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 16 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out lines 27 to 30 at
page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
'20. This Act shall come into force on January 1, 1989.'


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 20 by striking out line 28 at page 13
and substituting the following therefor:
'July 1, 1988.'
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-51 be amended in Clause 20 by adding, immediately after line
30 at page 13, the following:
'(3) Clause 6 shall expire on January 1, 1993'.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate is on Motion No. 17.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I understand from your ruling that Motions Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are grouped for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is right.


Lynn McDonald: Therefore, I will address all three motions. I oppose the first motion and will speak in favour of the second two motions.
Motion No. 17, which is a Government motion, in effect would give greater grandfathering to the sale of facsimile products by extending the date which would permit these other products to be advertised for sale. We are opposed to this because it is simply another instance where provisions of Bill C-51 are watered down. I urge that Motion No. 17 not be accepted by the House.
Motion No. 18 would move the date forward by six months, to July 1, 1988. In light of Government delays, we obviously cannot get the Bill enforced as quickly as desirable. The proposed date is reasonable, and certainly people have had plenty of time to know that it is coming. It would put a
Tobacco Products
realistic date on it without having this long phase-out period. I believe Motion No. 18 is a meaningful amendment to strengthen the Bill and, of course, is entirely in the spirit of the Bill itself.
Motion No. 19 is more substantive. It would put an expiry date on sponsorships using brand names and logos for cultural and sporting events. Again, while it is desirable to get rid of this completely, given the pressure of the tobacco industry to water down the Bill to make it less strong, and to allow some amount of sponsorships, this at least would give an expiry date on the use of these logos. It is better than nothing.
While I would prefer the much stricter approach of Bill C-51, not watered down, or the better approach still of my Private Members' Bill, Bill C-204 which would deal with it through the hazardous products route and would bring in regulations accordingly, let us at least tighten up the regulations and keep the loopholes as modest as possible, given the concessions that have already been made.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 17 deals with the coming into force of the legislation. Given that the Government has already delayed extensively in bringing the legislation forward, I do not think Motion No. 18 is possible considering the Royal Assent process and so on that must take place. I am satisfied to live with Motion No. 17.
Motion No. 19 is a critical motion because it deals with the issue of grandfathering of sponsorships. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) did not specifically understand my concerns about the NDP position. I was not concerned about the amendments that would cut out the brand name, I was concerned that by moving amendments which would include partial grandfathering, it would, on the one hand, accept the Government's position that there should be some grandfathering while, on the other hand, suggest it should be done without brand names. I do not believe that is consistent.
Therefore, I believe Motion No. 19 deals with the problem of recognizing the existence of sponsorship. While we believe it should be reduced and the dependence on tobacco sponsorship should be reduced, we will give it some time. Motion No. 19 would require that by 1993 organizations would have to seek other sources of funding. I believe that is a realistic target.
I understand that if the Hon. Member were the sole drafter of the Bill from the perspective of her Party that she would ban sponsorship altogether immediately. However, that is not the motion put forward by the NDP. I think Motion No. 19 is more consistent with an approach that recognizes grandfathering but states that it must be terminated within a certain period in 1993.
The inconsistency refers specifically to Motions Nos. 4 and
3.

May 31, 1988


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 17 merely reflects the usual period of time allowed for obtaining royal assent and letting people get ready to comply with the legislation.
As for Motion No. 19, I would like to get back to what I said earlier about sponsorship. With the consent of committee members and even of the Opposition, the Government had agreed, in order to avoid any abrupt changes in the procedure followed by the various organizations, to freeze the level of financing. The result of this permanent freeze will be that over the years, these contributions will tend to decrease in value, so that if the organizations want to continue to be subsidized, they will gradually have to find other sources of financing. I think the formula chosen by the Government in this legislation is the only acceptable one.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 17 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) carried on division.
Motion No. 17 (Mr. Epp) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, according to your statement earlier today, if Motion No. 17 carried, Motion No. 18 would not be voted on. I think we can go directly to Motion No. 19.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, 1 did plan to do that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
The next question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to the appropriate Standing Order, the vote on Motion No. 19 will be deferred to three o'clock.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Given the time, and having had some consultation, I think there is general agreement to call it one o'clock, and we can come back to Question Period at two o'clock and then proceed with the rest of the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the CBC may not be broadcasting Hockey Night in Canada this coming season. Instead, reports indicate, the CTV network will take over this 55-year tradition which began with Foster Hewitt broadcasting on radio in 1933.
Foster is no longer with us, but fully two generations of Canadians-especially those in northern and remote parts of Canada-will remember how Hockey Night in Canada provided an opportunity for families, friends, and neighbours in many an isolated village or reserve to get together to enjoy watching a truly Canadian event.
If the CBC cancels Hockey Night in Canada, those same Canadians will also remember this Government. They will
May 31, 1988

remember that the Mulroney Conservatives promised to reach out to the regions of Canada when they sought office in 1984. Instead, the Government has cut back its support of the CBC financially, and more recently it has tried to scuttle the CBC all-news network.
It is unfair that Canadians who cannot afford the expensive cable services of northern Canada, or who do not even have access to cable, may no longer receive a most enjoyable sports program on the only network available in many communities.
I and my New Democratic colleagues call upon the Government to guarantee that the CBC will continue to broadcast Hockey Night in Canada. Foster Hewitt would, I am sure, echo those sentiments.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on April 13 the CBC's The Journal broadcast one of the most grossly biased programs ever seen on the subject of abortion. The entire program consisted of interviews only with those who favour abortion on demand.
The name of the people on the panel were Jeannie MacPher-son and Joan Wright, pro-abortion women counsellors; Phyllis Bowman, British pro-life activist; Vivianne Nathanson, proabortion member of the British Medical Association; Shiela Martin, pro-abortion Professor of Law, University of Calgary; and David Roy, pro-abortion member of the Centre for Bioethics in Montreal.
Each one of them made it clear that they do not support the rights of the unborn children from the moment of conception.
The CBC has no right at all to impose its own view of morality on the Canadian public. This program is a clear violation of its mandate to produce balanced programming.
I call upon the CRTC to censor the CBC by insisting that the CBC live up to its mandate for balanced programming, to include both sides of an issue, and not just the CBC's bias.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond);: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the efforts of the Hospice Palliative Care Society of eastern Nova Scotia. This group of dedicated volunteers work to help enrich the quality of life for the terminally ill in Cape Breton. They
have dedicated this week as the annual Hospice Palliative Care Week.
This service is valuable to the residents of eastern Nova Scotia. It is the first and only comprehensive program for terminally ill patients and their families. It is a non-profit group which operates in both the home and the hospitals to provide care and compassion to those who have no hope for a cure.
The Society has a medical component which strives to give patients a pain-free existence for their remaining days. The Society also acts as a support system for the families involved. It works with the families to promote a peaceful death of the patient in the home environment. Although the Society has no religious affiliation, pastoral care is provided.
I salute all those involved in this compassionate program and wish them success in this most difficult endeavour.



NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT WEEK


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is National Environment Week, a time when Canadians demonstrate that they care very deeply about our common environment and work to preserve it.
Taking care of the environment is a responsibility that we all share, federal, provincial, and municipal Governments, as well as business and private citizens of Canada. Individual Canadians can be particularly effective in protecting the environment when they join up with other like-minded people.
As Dr. Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." By getting involved in National Environment Week and by supporting environmental groups, we all have a chance to change the world for the better.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians I am my colleagues welcome the current superpower summit in Moscow between President Reagan and General-Secretary Gorbachev. In particular we welcome the growing understanding and co-operation this and previous summits encourage between the superpowers, particularly in the area of meaningful reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the two countries.

May 31, 1988
While we welcome these discussions we must also keep in mind that equally important discussions are currently taking place at the Third United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. Unfortunately, UNSSOD III has not received the attention it deserves, particularly on the part of the Canadian Government, which has not adequately outlined the positions it plans to take at the special session on such critical disarmament issues as the modernization of nuclear weapons in Europe, limits on Cruise missile development and deployment, reductions in strategic nuclear forces, and the creation of an international verification regime.
These and other disarmament issues are as critical to Canada's security as they are to the security of the superpowers. I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to tell the House and the Canadian people where his Government stands on these important issues. A ministerial statement prior to the Minister's address to the UN would be a welcome gesture.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the strength of the Government's commitment to recognize multiculturalism as a central feature of our identity.
Last December the Government tabled the historic new Multiculturalism Act, Bill C-93. Even before the Bill becomes law, the Government is reinforcing the policies and the ideals of the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
Over five years $192 million has been added to the annual multiculturalism budget, which means it will rise to $42.2 million by 1991-92. That is 80 per cent more than was spent in 1986-87.
This is not tokenism or half-hearted support. This is action. It is action that will extend this Government's priorities of social justice and national harmony into every segment of our society.
The new directions announced yesterday by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) will strengthen race relation initiatives, and improve understanding among our many different cultures. They will help preserve and enhance our multicultural heritage. They will ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
These new funds and the leadership provided by the Government will help make that ideal a deeply felt reality.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the end of the Industrial and Regional Development Program that has served the Province of Quebec so well in recent years. We know that the program ends tomorrow and that no other program to replace it has been announced by the Minister responsible. I feel that for the last six months, the Minister has been fooling around on a replacement program and Quebec industrialists and the various industrial commissioners are extremely concerned. We know that the Association of Industrial Commissioners made representations to the Member for Langelier (Mr. Cote) and when he was Minister, he did nothing because he was too busy with other matters and now the present Minister has not bothered with a replacement for IRDP either.
As a result, in view of the impact this program has in diversifying the industrial base of many regions, Quebec is being left behind as the poor relation in regional economic development and I trust that in the coming weeks, the Minister will finally bring forward a program that will meet the aspirations of Quebec companies and the needs of the Quebec economy as well as of some regions of Ontario.
We know that a byelection is to be held in Lac-Saint-Jean. I suppose that the Minister will try to buy his way and save the skin of the Secretary of State with a few million dollars from Regional Industrial Expansion. But I think now is the time to announce the program to replace IRDP which has served us so well and several regions will be neglected because of the Minister's negligence.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) came to Sainte-Foy to inaugurate the $15.7-million expansion of the Laurentides Forestry Centre. I wish to thank him sincerely for being present at this opening and for his constant support for this important project over the years.
This centre of higher learning carries out biological research to fight the enemies of our forests-insects, mushrooms, diseases-and concentrates on the genetics of trees to produce hardier species, on development and reforestation. This is very important for the Quebec City region and the province, because it contributes to preserving Quebecers' heritage: the forest.
May 31, 1988

The Minister took the opportunity to honour three individuals for their work: researchers Luc Jobin and Dr. Smirnoff and manager Normand Lafreniere, by awarding them plaques. The open house for the public was a great success.
I want to thank those responsible for their excellent initiative and to wish the researchers good luck also. This shows the interest our Government has in scientific research, in whatever field.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, poisoned Ontario lake water has helped to kill off thousands of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River estuary.
Last weekend a ship called the Beluga was sailed by Greenpeace to Toronto to remind us about the poisons in the same lake water that we drink.
Canadian and American corporations dump industrial wastes into our lake system that can cause cancer, damage our nervous systems, and damage our immune systems. For years the federal Government has known this and done nothing to stop it.
The federal Government is responsible, with the United States, for the Great Lakes water. Why is it neglecting its responsibility and allowing the fish, the whales, and us to be poisoned?
As well as taking action to stop the polluters and punish them if necessary, the federal Government must fund new water treatment systems. Our present water treatment systems were not built to remove poisons such as these.
The federal Government must employ Canadian men and women to design, make, install, and operate modern water treatment equipment that will give us clean, safe water to drink.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, what will we do next if the Parliament of Canada solves murder of the unborn by legalizing it? Making abortion easy during the first few weeks of pregnancy, even if we make it more difficult
during the balance of pregnancy, may be opening the door to more hideous crimes.
If the life of an unborn baby can be destroyed because its birth may cause some mental anguish to the mother, how about the life of a husband or a wife who contracts the terrible disease of Alzheimer's, or the child who is crippled and impaired through an accident, or a youth with AIDS? Are they to be murdered too to relieve mental anguish?
The Bible states: "The Lord gave her conception". From that moment on, life is God's responsibility and not Parliament's. The decision of the Supreme Court has given Parliament the opportunity to show that Canada fears and respects God.



TOURISM


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern for Canada's tourism industry in light of the ever widening gap between the price of gasoline in Canada and the price of gasoline in the United States as a result of the Government's taxation policies. Because of the sales tax and the excise tax increases put in place by this Conservative Government, the difference between the price of gas in Canada and in the United States has now reached alarming proportions.
I regret to say that the price of all grades of gasoline is now, on average, 60 per cent more expensive in Canada than in the U.S., and that is taking the exchange rate into account. In September of 1984, at the time of the last federal election, the difference in price was only 22.1 per cent.
The Conservative Government, as always, refuses to recognize the negative effect this price differential is having on the tourism industry in Canada. When we consider that 70 per cent of tourism travel coming from the U.S. to Canada is by automobile, the effect is surely great. The Conservative Government is threatening to make Canada's tourism industry uncompetitive. I therefore call upon the Government to review its taxation policy as it affects tourism.



THE LEADER OF THE NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, what is it that Vladimir Ilyich Lenin and the current Vice-President of the Socialist International, alias the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), have in common? The answer, Sir, is a love of chauffeur driven limousines.

May 31, 1988
Oral Questions
According to today's Globe and Mail, Lenin had a Rolls Royce, whereas our poor friend, the Leader of the NDP, only has a Buick. Never mind, Sir. Come the socialist revolution, Ed and Shirley will undoubtedly get their chauffeured Rolls while the rest of us ordinary Canadians will be reduced to a bicycle pedalling peasantry.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with fishers from Vancouver Island about confusion in the new one-dollar chinook tagging program. Costing the Government 63 cents a piece, flown in from Brazil, landed in Winnipeg instead of Vancouver, the tags are too small to fit around the tails of the chinook which are headed after being caught. Attaching the tags through the fish as suggested by fisheries officials will reduce the grade of the fish and lower the price given for the salmon.
When the plan was first introduced, officials indicated the tags would be supplied free of charge to commercial fishers who would have paid at the end of the season for the tags used. Now the Government requires payment up front. Many trollers are hard pressed to come up with the money to purchase these tags.
Fishers will face fines for any untagged chinook landed. However, the Government has no plans to help them if they find themselves without the adequate number of tags once out on the grounds. They will be forced to head into port to purchase additional tags. Unless a solution is found we will see the off-loading of untagged Chinooks before the catch is landed.
There is still time before the season opens to rectify these problems and to ensure fishers are not penalized due to the Department of Fisheries' inability to introduce an efficient, effective, and acceptable tagging program.



FINANCE


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me when the NDP goes to such great lengths to cover up its Party's policies and past statements. In fact, the leader of the socialists was up to rewriting the Party's text again just last week in Rouyn.
A little over a year ago the NDP Leader (Mr. Broadbent) was in the riding of Timiskaming denouncing flow-through shares as a tax loophole benefiting only the rich. This has been stated many times by his socialist colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). During the recent debates on flow-through shares both these Members saw the light and flip-flopped on the issue to gain some badly needed political points.
Now we hear another tune being sung by the Leader. Last week the Leader suggested in a neighbouring riding that the program announced by the Government was not a good one for the mining sector. He had returned to his original hymn sheet. It is not surprising at all, that given the many different positions of the NDP on this issue, that the NDP Leader's comments were greeted with laughter in Timiskaming and the mining community.
Canadians have started to recognize the NDP answers as No-named Day-dream Policies. With the New Democrats' performance on flow-through shares, is it any wonder?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is outrageous that this Government has already spent millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money on the Conservative Party's pre-electoral propaganda campaign on free trade. It is an absolute disgrace that the responsible Minister is now setting up a new propaganda team that will spend another $10 million dollars . . .


Mr. Boudria:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: . .. money that comes out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers-and it is disgraceful that this important contract should go to a political organizer. The Minister had no second thoughts about appointing John Laschinger, his campaign manager for the Tory leadership campaign.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he can justify the fact that Canadian taxpayers will again subsidize this electoral propaganda machine, this time to the tune of more than $10 million. How much of this money will organizer John Laschinger receive? How many other Conservatives will be involved in this contract?
May 31, 1988


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would pose the questions that he is asking today because just last week, on May 24, he complained in this very House given the importance of this deal, that important information had not been available to Canadians, professional groups, business groups, labour unions right across the country.
On August 18 last as reported at page 8163 of Hansard, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition again said:
-the Government has always refused to reveal any information contained
in departmental studies on the impact of free trade-
On September 30, 1987, as reported at page 9485 of Hansard, he accused the Government of not coming clean in telling Canadians what the trade deal was all about.
On August 27, 1987, he accused the Prime Minister of refusing to bring forth basic documentation.
We are really responding to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since the only thing the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition can offer is to tear up the deal, we are telling Canadians in a very clear and comprehensive way about the advantages of the trade initiative, about the positive benefits that will accrue to Canadians and Canadian industry, and he should be onside.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PROMOTION CAMPAIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows full well the failure of his Government to allow taxpayers and Canadians from coast to coast an opportunity to come before a committee of this House or to have committee hearings across the country on the basis of a firm text. The Government has deliberately kept the facts from the Canadian people and it now wants to convert that into a propaganda campaign with selective editions of what Canadians are to learn.
The Prime Minister promised to restore ethics to government. He promised to cut government propaganda. He promised to end partisan patronage. The Prime Minister has not only failed, he failed by choice.
Why is the Government trying to fool the Canadian people with another $10 million of propaganda money? What are John Laschinger's qualifications on trade? Do they consist of the fact that he was for five years the national director of the Progressive Conservative Party? Or that he ran Larry Grossman's leadership campaign in Ontario? Or that he ran Gary Filmon's campaign in Manitoba? Or that he was the
Oral Questions
campaign manager for the Minister for International Trade in the latest federal Conservative leadership campaign? Are those his qualifications, and which of them led the Minister to nominate him for a pre-electoral propaganda campaign which should be paid for by Conservative Party funds?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again I find it rather strange that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition complains about the inadequacy of information and inadequate public hearings. This House has been seized with this issue for the last two years. There have been hearings across the country. As the deal unfolded, the information was brought to the House immediately and debated.
We are talking about some very basic information. For example, basic documents released include the Synopsis of the Agreement, The Free Trade Agreement In Brief, the legal text of the agreement in English and French, the Canadian tariff schedule in English and French, the U.S. tariff schedule in English and French, Canada's Trade Statistics Handbook in English and French, The World our Market. There have been a number of consumer brochures, regional pamphlets for Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
There have been issue pamphlets dealing with the automotive industry, agriculture, consumer interest, culture, dispute settlement, energy, fisheries, forestry, investment, key benefits, tariffs and women. There have been impact assessment studies which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been calling for.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE CANCELLED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what that statement really indicates is that the Conservative Government is morally disintegrating and wallowing in patronage. The hon. gentleman knows that we have known each other for a long time and I have great respect for him, and I ask him why he is carrying the can for the Minister and the Prime Minister on this issue. I would not touch it if I were he. Even Bruce Phillips, the director of communications for the Prime Minister, said "I don't know what the hell they're doing". I doubt whether the rest of the country does either.
The Deputy Prime Minister has an opportunity to prevail upon the Prime Minister and his colleague to bring this obscene $10 million contract for pre-election Conservative propaganda to an end. It is being subsidized by Canadian taxpayers when it should be subsidized by the Conservative Party as part of an election campaign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman wants to show respect, he should first start by showing respect for this institution. Whenever he is on thin ice

May 31, 1988
Oral Questions
he resorts to patronage and cheap partisan politics. The Right Hon. Leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman, time and time again in this House, has asked for impact assessment studies. Well, impact assessment studies have been released and they form part of this on fisheries, the economy, agriculture, services, women, Canadian consumers, energy, metals and minerals, and forestry and industry.
The Member talks about the comments of Mr. Bruce Phillips. I want to have the attention of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition because he knows Mr. Bruce Phillips very well, probably better than I do. I suggest that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should give him a phone call to see exactly what he did say.
My understanding is that he did not convey the message which has been reported in The Toronto Sun. He indicated that he did not know all the details, that there was a new Minister. In response to the demand for more public information the Minister for International Trade has responded. He has, indeed, responded to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition who should be applauding us rather than criticizing us.


COST OF CAMPAIGN-FUNDING OF ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. At different times over the last several months we have asked questions in this House pointing out the fact that farmers in the Okanagan would be losing their farms now because of the free trade deal. The Government refused to respond. The grape growers in the Niagara Valley are losing their livelihood because of the Mulroney trade deal. The Government refused to respond to that. We asked about adjustment programs for workers and the Minister of Finance refused to respond.
How does the Government justify spending over $30 million of taxpayers' money to burnish the ego of the Minister for International Trade or to do a pre-sell for the election on the trade deal, and yet not be prepared to offer 5 cents, not 1 cent, for all the people in this country who are going to be damaged or destroyed by this trade deal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is factually incorrect. He knows that there have been a number of adjustment programs that are part and parcel of the Ministry of Employment and Immigration.


Some Hon. Members:: Name one.


Sheila Maureen Copps: False.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A separate commission has been put in place to assess any negative impact in any sector in the economy, if there is any. The Member knows very well that the Minister of Agriculture is in the process of developing a program for grape growers and wine producers in this country. He should know better than to pose that question in such a false manner.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the adjustment programs are a figment of the imagination of the Deputy Prime Minister because the people who need them are not receiving them. That is the truth.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE TABLED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has said that he expects to have the entire trade Bill completed in two months and intends to use the muscle of the Tory majority to get it through. Yet at the same he admits that he is going to be spending upwards of $10 million for Mr. Laschinger's contract.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House what Mr. Laschinger will be spending $5 million a month on? Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to table the work plan and contract of Mr. Laschinger to demonstrate what kind of service he is going to give the Canadian people for $5 million a month, when hundreds of people are being destroyed by the trade deal and do not get a red cent?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could ask the hon. gentleman what kind of adjustment program he and his Government gave to western Canadian energy people and workers when they brought in the devastating National Energy Program. They gave them the finger.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Where was he when Trudeau said "Sell your own wheat"?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is amazing to see the hypocrisy displayed by Members opposite when it comes to this sort of thing.
It is very clear that a number of initiatives are going to be taken with respect to the promotion of the trade initiative as a national objective. Initiatives which are being considered are seminars and conferences which will bring trade commissioners and other exporters together to examine the benefits of the trade initiative, particularly for the workers.
The Hon. Member should be applauding this initiative. We have a tremendous record in terms of reducing unemployment and we believe very firmly that the trade initiative will bring unemployment figures down further. The Member should be very responsive to that effort on behalf of all Canadians.
May 31, 1988


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Nelson A. Rlis@Kamloops-Shuswap: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who will likely recall that on May 3, 1982, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, who is now the Minister of National Defence, moved the following opposition day motion:
That this House condemns the government-
-which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, was a Liberal Government-
-for its increasing use of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for self-serving
advertising and-in particular, for spending millions of tax dollars for
unnecessary advertising-
That was 1982. Now we learn that the Government will spend up to $30 million of taxpayers' money for obviously Conservative propaganda on the trade deal. If this was sleazy for Liberals to do back in 1982, will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why it is okay for the Conservatives to do it in 1988?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House or the country when he suggests the Government will spend another $30 million. That is not correct.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Total.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some $14 million has been spent on the kinds of publications that I outlined for the Leader of the Opposition. There are a number of other initiatives that have to be taken in order to underscore the importance of the trade initiative and in order to ensure that all Canadians will realize and understand the benefits of this initiative, particularly from the standpoint of exporters and those people who will engage in new job opportunities.
I believe that a number of studies and initiatives being undertaken will not only serve the purpose of ensuring that all Canadians understand the trade initiative better, but, more important, will serve to underline to exporters, industry, and workers across the country the very many advantages that are contained in this deal.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during the debate in 1982, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) said: "We should scrap federal advocacy advertising. The time has come to draw the line and say this must stop". The former Member for Capilano said: "All this nonsense is being fed to the nation . . . Taxpayers have to stand there and see their money dribbled away on this garbage".
The Government decided to cut back on increases to family allowances. It said that it could not increase the amount of money set aside to help summer students obtain jobs for the
Oral Questions
last two years. Yet at the drop of a hat it can spend $30 million on this propaganda campaign.
If it was sleazy for the Liberals to do it in 1982, why is it okay to do it again today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is really the same question. It just gives me an opportunity to add further to what is involved in this effort.
As I indicated earlier, a series of seminars and conferences which will bring together trade commissioners and other exporters in the trade field will take place to ensure that Canadian investors and businessmen are in a position to take advantage of the benefits of the trade initiative.
The Minister for International Trade put forward a number of initiatives, including 10 to 20 trade conferences to be held across Canada. A program of public information conferences will be held, with advertising to ensure that all the regions of the country and all Canadians will have a better understanding of it.
Those Members opposite criticize and condemn the trade initiative but they have yet to come up with an alternative. What would you be doing?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What we would do is keep Canada as Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CALL GENERAL ELECTION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister is so interested in conveying to the people of Canada what the Government plans to do in terms of the trade deal, let me make this suggestion. Why not save the taxpayers of Canada $30 million and call an election? Get out and explain your side of the trade deal and we will explain ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, before the Member gets so bold, he better check with the former Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Pawley.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHOICE AND QUALIFICATIONS OF MR. LASCHINGER-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is further to the questions asked by previous speakers. The Deputy Prime Minister will admit it is outrageous to make out a blank cheque to the campaign manager for the Minister of International Trade, for the purpose of selling Government propaganda. I therefore want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why

May 31, 1988
Oral Questions
Mr. Laschinger was selected and what his qualifications are, and also, if the public is entitled to this information, how much Mr. Laschinger will get out of this privileged contract for the Minister of International Trade? How much is in it for Mr. Laschinger?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just repeated a question that was already asked by his Leader. We know there is considerable discord within the Liberal Party, but I don't think this means they have to repeat the same question. The answer is the same as the one given by the Deputy Prime Minister. Members on the other side of the House have repeatedly asked that Canadians be given a chance to know the contents of the free trade agreement. We are now making sure that Canadians will have a chance to know the contents and the benefits to Canada of this agreement.


QUERY CONCERNING AMOUNT OF MONEY JOHN LASCHINGER WILL RECEIVE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs didn't answer the question. For the third time, how much will Mr. Laschinger get out of this privileged contract with his former candidate for the Tory leadership? How much?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, Members opposite tend to exaggerate the Government's expenditures for promoting the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and ensuring that Canadians understand the contents of this agreement and its benefits for Canada.


An Hon. Member:: How much?


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone said: "How much?".
There are very real benefits, for Quebecers and for the rest of Canada, in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A year ago this month, this House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to preserve South Moresby. A year ago the Prime Minister responded positively to the House and the national will to preserve South Moresby and honourably signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Vander Zalm.
The Premier is now waffling on his part of the bargain and Canada is waffling on its duty to recognize and affirm the rights of the Haida people in South Moresby.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his good offices and those of the Prime Minister to get the Premier of British Columbia to honour the agreement he has already signed and to reach an agreement between Canada and the Haida people for their homeland?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's continuing support for this initiative. The answer is yes, I am sure the Office of the Prime Minister, indeed, my office, will be used in attempting to encourage the Government of British Columbia to comply with the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed and agreed to about a year ago. I hope to do that in the next day or so, perhaps even in the next few hours.


EFFORTS TO CONCLUDE CANADA-HAIDA AGREEMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Minister of Justice and other senior officials have been working overtime to try to reach suitable wording with the Council of the Haida Nation on a Canada-Haida agreement.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that those efforts will be expedited because tourists from around the world are already arriving on the Queen Charlottes? There is a need to get on with the job both in terms of the agreement with the Haida people and in terms of developing the area for people coming from around the world.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions, and other offices of the Government have had discussions with the Haida Nation. We have offered to put in place management structures that would allow participation by the Haida people.
1 have written to Miles Richardson and stated that those management structures, those park sub-agreements for the national park reserve, could be considered to be incorporated into a claims settlement when that takes place.
We have attempted to provide opportunities for participation of the Haida people in the national park reserve and will continue to do so.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
May 31, 1988

In recognition of the excellent work pioneered by the Fathers for Justice of Kitchener, in particular Ron Sauve, in lobbying for changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act in the John Mclnnis case, and in view of the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the "Equality for all Report", the Forget Commission, and the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration all recommended a two-tier system of maternity benefits, will the Minister amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to apportion the present 17-week benefit period to give: (1), an exclusive period of recovery for the mother; and (2), the parents the flexibility to divide the remainder as they so choose?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, before the changes were made to Bill C-l 16, no biological father was recognized and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Since these changes were made, if the mother dies or is unable to care for her child, we can recognize the biological father and he can receive unemployment insurance benefits. And I might add that a case was heard in Federal Court for the recognition of biological fathers in general. Once the decision is announced, we will consider it and take action.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. It concerns Terminal 3 being built by a private developer at Pearson International Airport. The Government has honoured its commitment part way to make information public. We now know that the developers of Terminal 3 project will make a profit on equity of 33 per cent per year for the next 60 years. Will the Minister undertake that the developer will pay the hydro levy when that levy is assessed? It will be in the order of S3 million or so. Will he undertake that will be paid because the developer is a private developer, and not hide behind federal immunity or federal non-responsibility to pay municipal and hydro levies?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite impossible to give a specific response to that question because it really involves a lot of legal implications. I think the Minister of Justice may well have to give an opinion on that point. So I am unable to give a specific response today.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS BE MADE PUBLIC
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is a question the Parliamentary Secretary can certainly answer. Yesterday, on the direction of officials of the Department of Transport, the developers would not make copies of pages from the development agreement so they could be taken back by the media to their offices to digest, and they were very complicated documents. Will the Parliamentary Secretary change that decision and allow copies of these documents to be made public, consistent with the commitment that was made by the former Minister of Transport, presently the Minister responsible for international trade? he said these documents would be made available, but they are not allowing us to copy them.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is true, though, that the Minister has released the documents that were within the purview of the federal Government to release. Documents that belong to a third party, under the Access to Information Act, of which my friend knows intimately well the details, we are simply not able to release without the consent of the third party. I notice in Mr. Stein's article that he pointed out that Huang and Danczky were more obliging and co-operative. It is just that they did not permit photocopies of parts of the documents to go. But the reporters were there for a number of hours and could make notes and comments on anything they wished.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the question of advocacy advertising and address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The record clearly shows that the Progressive Conservative Party appeared to object in principle to advocacy advertising in 1982. Given what it is now intending to do with respect to advertising of the free trade agreement, have the Government and the Progressive Conservative Party abandoned the principle they appeared to have in 1982? I wish the Deputy Prime Minister would answer that question instead of going on and on about what the money is being spent on. Would he address the question of the principle of whether the money should be spent in this way at all?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, Mr. Speaker, if providing information and ensuring that the Canadian people are well informed-


Mr. Benjamin:: Before the legislation is passed?

May 31, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -not disinformed by the Socialist Party of Canada, which would do anything to kill the free trade deal, surely, Canadians are entitled to know the details of the agreement.


Mr. Althouse:: Why don't you give them both sides, then?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As far as I am concerned, we live in an age of access to information and freedom of information-


Ms. Mitchell:: But to both sides.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why would any Government of the day-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You only keep them half the story.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -want to give important information like this secret? The Hon. Member would be the first person to complain if we did not come clean with all the information and all the ramifications of the trade initiative, and that is precisely what we are doing.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CAMPAIGN
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the irony is that there are some 210 Conservative Members of Parliament over there, and people all across the country who are trying to get Tory Members of Parliament to come and defend the free trade deal can hardly get anyone to come to these forums.


Miss MacDonald:: Are you kidding?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Now it is going to spend S30 million. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he has all kinds of Members over there. Why does he not use them, or are they ashamed of the deal? So I go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and I ask him if he personally, because he is someone who has been known in the past to have some respect for Parliament, abandoned the principle that the Government has no right to promote something which has not been passed in this House of Commons by the duly elected people of Canada? Has he abandoned that principle?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not ashamed of the trade deal that has been signed.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Your back-benchers are because they won't show up for anything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I find it appalling that the Hon. Member would take exception to the fact that here we are promoting international trade and attempting to secure a $200 billion trading relationship with the United States of America.


Mr. Rodriguez:: It has not passed Parliament.


Mr. Cassidy:: It has not passed Parliament.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Surely Canadians are entitled to know what the deal contains, its positive effects, what it is going to do for every region, what it is going to do for every sector, and we intend to follow up with that.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister will know that on April 13 there was a hostile takeover attempt by the Institut Merieux, a Government of France controlled enterprise of CDC Life Sciences Incorporated. The Minister will also know that CDC Life is the holding company which owns Connaught Laboratories, the leading Canadian biological manufacturer and a world leader in the development of a number of important medical products.
What is the Government of Canada doing to ensure that this highly regarded research and development company stays in Canadian hands?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the Director of Investigation and Research of the Competition Bureau was set to initiate an action before the Competition Tribunal when in fact the offer by Institut Merieux was withdrawn because of violations of provincial security Acts. But we were certainly prepared to take action to prevent the takeover under the terms that were made known to us at that point in time. It became unnecessary because of subsequent provincial action, but if anything else were to happen in this respect, my Department will certainly take action.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister and the House will realize that this particular company is a world leader in the development of a number of important medical products including polio vaccine, insulin, and penicillin production technology. In view of the Minister's previous comment, would he give an assurance and undertaking to this House that this particular company, a world leader, will remain in Canadian hands? Will he give a clear and unequivocal undertaking to all the Canadian people that it will remain in Canada for Canadians, doing research and development for world-wide interests?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I indicated that my Department was ready to act a few weeks ago when this first came up. I do not understand the Hon. Member's accusatory language. He is
May 31, 1988

two or three weeks out of date. Had he been paying attention he would have realized that we acted when in fact it looked liked this very reputable and important firm was to be taken over by Institut Merieux. I do not know why he should make this accusation now as if we have been negligent. He should wake up to the fact that we acted three weeks ago. He is three weeks late with his question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and concerns the proposed F-18 firing range in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. Given the strong and growing public opposition shown at recent hearings of the Bedard Commission and the position of the Secretary of State, Mr. Bouchard, who refuses to speak in favour of it, will the Minister finally announce that he will cancel this dangerous, costly project?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member mentioned in his question, there is a commission under way holding public hearings at the present time, sponsored by the Government of Quebec. This was requested by the Government of Quebec. The Department of National Defence is participating fully.
We know that the NDP is opposed to anything that will improve our capacity to defend Canada. This Government is not.


QUERY CONCERNING WHO SPEAKS FOR GOVERNMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister of National Defence is pushing ahead with the firing range project as he is pushing ahead with the folly of nuclear submarines, but his colleague, the Secretary of State, Mr. Bouchard, refuses to give his support to this project. My question for the Minister is very simple: Who speaks for the Government on this matter of the firing range, the Minister of National Defence or his colleague, the Secretary of State?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position is well known. The Government is continuing to participate in front of the public inquiry. What is much more confusing when one reads statements of the NDP is who speaks for the NDP on defence
Oral Questions
policy, is it the Hon. Member for Brant, or is it the Hon. Member who just posed the question?


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology announced that the universities of Canada were to receive another $440 million over the next five years-$240 million was for the Centres of Excellence program, and $200 million was for the granting councils. This is in addition to the $80 million scholarship program.
I think that the universities of Canada are interested in knowing the answer to my question. Will the Minister say with respect to the $103 million for NSERC, the $61 million for MRC, and the $36 million for SSHRC, if any of the funds are earmarked, or are the councils free to use them as they wish?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the question. It was with a degree of satisfaction that we announced last week an increase in funding to universities amounting to $520 million.
Indeed, $240 million, as my hon. friend has indicated, is earmarked for the Centres of Excellence program, moneys to be spent in pursuit of excellence comparable to international standards.
Some $200 million to the funding councils is to be allocated to universities in the normal fashion. I assume of course that a large part of this money will go into fundamental basic research, which is so important as we put additional demands on universities to keep us equipped with highly qualified people and the expansion of our knowledge base.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Antifur lobbyists in Britain seem to be winning in their attempts to have the British Government pass a regulation which would not only discourage the sale of Canadian fur in Britain but which would destroy tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, many of them in the Canadian aboriginal community and other rural communities in Canada.
During his visit to Britain did the Prime Minister succeed in persuading Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her

May 31, 1988
Oral Questions
Ministers to back down on this issue? Or did he come away from No. 10 Downing Street empty-handed?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's interest in this question, and trust that he and members of his Party will work with us and work with other Members of the House who have already indicated their determination to try to change the mind of the British Government.
The answer to the Hon. Member's question is that we have not yet changed its position. I raised the matter vigorously and at length in conversations 10 days ago with the British Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe. It has been raised by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and by a number of others.
We know how vitally important this is to the livelihood of more than 100,000 Canadians, but particularly to Canadians of Inuit and Indian origin, many of whom have no other means of livelihood.
What we have to do is make the British understand that what is at issue here is the livelihood of Canadians who have no alternatives, Canadians to whom we all owe a special obligation. I will welcome the company of the Hon. Member and his Party in making that case to the British Parliament and Government.


REQUEST FOR BOYCOTT OF BRITISH PRODUCTS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I will pose another question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Given the fact that Canada's fur exports which amount to about $350 million annually and which involve, as he says, the jobs of about 100,000 Canadians, and the fact that these furs are primarily sold in Britain and other European markets, will the Minister take the lead in planning a boycott of certain British products as a means of retaliation to fight the proposed fur labelling regulation, instead of leaving it to the resource Ministers at the provincial level to do that job for him? Will he take that lead?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has proposed a specific means which I think may well turn out to be counterproductive. What I think is important now is that we continue together to make the strongest possible case to the British Government about the effect that this will have upon Canadians generally, but upon Canadian native people in particular. I think that that is a case that Canada can win, if we make it consistently and effectively. I think were we to divert ourselves to become involved in threats at this stage that may not be as helpful as the course we are now following.
With regard to territorial and provincial Governments, we are working very closely with them. I have been in touch with them. My colleagues in the Government have been in touch
with them. We take this issue very seriously. I have appreciated the work of the Hon. Member for Yukon and others from other Parties who have joined their support to our efforts. I hope that we will continue to have that kind of consistent support from the Hon. Member and his colleagues.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West.


AIR CANADA
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning officers of Air Canada appeared before the Transport Committee with respect to their annual report. I want to say to my hon. colleague that I sorely missed him and the kind of questions he asked when he was transport critic for his Party.
I asked the officers of Air Canada whether or not the Government had requested them to give consideration in their negotiations for the purchase of new aircraft to the economic impact and technological benefits of offset programs. For example, the winning company could agree to subcontract work with companies in Canada for certain amounts over a defined period of time. I want to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that the answer was no, they had received no such representation: "We are not taking it into consideration".
Will the Government and the Minister at this late stage make such a request of Air Canada before a decision is made on what aircraft it will purchase?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member missed me. I must say that sometimes I miss those transport committee hearings as well.
In regard to the economic impact offset program to which the Hon. Member refers, I can say to him that the airline responded in the proper fashion. It is the duty of the airline to determine which aircraft is best suited to meet the mandate or the mission that is required. It does it strictly on the technical basis, price, and the fulfilling of a mission. That policy is consistent with past practices.
The role of the airline is to ensure that it procures the best airplane suitable and capable of fulfilling that particular mandate.


POSITION OF AIRLINE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in a further question by my colleague from Thunder Bay- Atikokan this morning the chief executive officer of Air
May 31, 1988

Canada was asked if Air Canada was taking that into consideration prior to making a decision on what aircraft it will purchase. Mr. Jeanniot said "Wardair doesn't have to. Canadian Airlines doesn't have to. Why should we have to?"
Before Air Canada is even privatized-it is still a Crown corporation owned by the people of Canada and paid for by them-can Air Canada now say like the private airlines: "To hell with Canada"?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a bit surprised at the Hon. Member's question and his interpretation. The current Air Canada legislation provides that Air Canada should be run as a commercial operation in anticipation of profit and with the least amount of political interference.
I am sure that the Hon. Member would be the first one to pounce upon us if we were to impose new conditions and guidelines and interfere with Air Canada's decision on which aircraft to buy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not ask that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the airline is quite capable of determining which aircraft is best suited to fulfil a certain mission or mandate, and we leave that up to it.


The Speaker:: One last question from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. The Minister will be aware that the National Capital Commission, in its quest for a pure and law-abiding society, has now extended the long arm of the law to stop a 14-year old boy, Eric Leclair, of Nepean, Ontario, from selling flowers in a semi-rural area on the grounds that the property in question is rented by the boy's father from the NCC.
Does the Minister of Public Works approve of this type of activity from the National Capital Commission?
If this is all that the NCC has to do, should it not find real work instead?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this Government encourages entrepreneurs, young and old. The National Capital Commission will ensure that this boy stays in business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Tobacco Products


ASSURANCE THAT BOY MAY CONTINUE BUSINESS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know that the NCC probably would not be bothering this kid if he was doing such things as stealing cars or selling drugs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Can the Minister of Public Works give his assurance here and now that this kid will be able to continue that operation on the same property where he is doing so now? Will the Minister give this authorization today?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member needs tomato plants this weekend, I recommend that he visit the premises of this boy.


Don Boudria: I was there last night.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is the following one. Ms. Mitchell moved:
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-52 be amended in Clause 20 by adding, immediately after line 30 at page 13 the following:
"(3) Clause 6 shall expire on January 1, 1993."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-51, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time?


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find there is unanimous consent in the House to move immediately to third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to give unanimous consent to move on this issue also recognizing that
immediately following, hopefully, a vote later on today on this important Bill will be another vote on the Private Member's Bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I missed the other vote but since there will not be another vote, my name will not appear as having been here. I am very reluctant to be absent. I vote for this one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, mine is a very pleasant task this afternoon. I will be brief because I believe most of the issues relating to Bill C-51 have been expressed in the House and in committee earlier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are conversations, I wish Members would go behind the curtains or in the lobby. Order, please, if there are any conversations to be held, I would ask Hon. Members to go behind the curtains. This is very important legislation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I will not be very long but there are two or three things I would like to say this afternoon.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide a legislative response to a national public health problem of substantial and present concern. It is intended to protect the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating tobacco use and the incidence of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases. It is also intended to protect all Canadians, especially young Canadians, from inducement to use tobacco products and consequent dependence on them. A further aim is to enhance public awareness of the health hazards of tobacco use by ensuring the effective communication of pertinent information to consumers of tobacco products.
The proposed ban on all tobacco advertising and most tobacco promotion is part of a wide-ranging anti-smoking policy that includes education measures, restrictions on public and workplace smoking, and financial assistance to tobacco farmers who wish to convert to alternative economic activity. This concerted government effort is aimed at promoting and eventually achieving a smoke-free society. These strong measures are an essential response to the pervasiveness of a man-made health problem which has reached epidemic proportions world-wide.
The most conspicuous triumphs of modern preventive medicine have concerned the control of infectious diseases, including smallpox, typhoid and polio. The most conspicuous failure has been in the area of tobacco-related illnesses, the leading public health concern of our time. Each year in Canada alone 35,000 middle-aged and older people die prematurely of tobacco-related illnesses, and thousands more suffer from tobaeCo-related chronic disabilities. These diseases,
May 31, 1988

which cause one out of every six deaths in Canada, can be prevented. However, a new vaccine is not the answer. The solution has to come from society as a whole and our collective willingness to strip tobacco of its falsely alluring image.
That really is the essence of the Bill, so I am not going into its various details again. However, I received one piece of additional information which will possibly make the argument one more time to those who might be skeptical or those who say the tobacco industry and its advertising arm are not interested in inducing young Canadians to smoke. I have in my hand Maclean's magazine of May 30, 1988, and I do not think I can get any more current than that. In that magazine there is an ad for pipe tobacco with a clip-out coupon. The ad in this national news magazine says:
New Amphora Cherry Cavendish. It's cool, smooth and easy-smoking. For a
free pouch of Amphora Cherry, send the label from your regular tobacco or
cigarette brand with this coupon to Delpro,-
It then gives the address. I had one of the young people who work with me call that company today at noon. They were asked what is required. They said, "Send a note with your name, address and phone number, and your name will go into a computer bank so we can send you our tobacco newsletter. Tell us which brand you smoke and we will send you your free pouch of pipe tobacco". There is no cost, there are no questions, and there was no reference to age. Anyone who can dial a number or fill out the coupon can do it.
You might say that most young Canadians might not want their first experience with tobacco to be pipe tobacco. However, the tobacco industry from day one has wanted to attract more people to their products so they could sell more of them. Anyone who denies that flies in the face of every piece of evidence. I say that in a country where we spend so much time protecting health, where we look for cancer cures and cures for heart disease, lung disease, and try to develop a better quality of life, it is time for this Parliament to speak.
It is a testimony to the tobacco industry that it is the only industry, with the exception of the 1908 law, with no restrictions on it by law. You tell me whether you can buy any consumer product on which there are not some restrictions. Tobacco has escaped.
People say, what about freedom of speech? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not a charter for companies, it is a charter for individual Canadians. Some people say there will be a challenge to this Bill with respect to the right to advertise. I say, "Challenge us. Challenge the Parliament of Canada. Challenge Canadians. At the same time, explain why you want to protect an industry responsible for more self-induced illness and death than any other in Canada today". Those are pretty strong words, but I mean them, not only as an individual but as Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The time has come where Ministers responsible for health cannot simply utter nice, comforting words about health. Action has to be taken. Therefore, I call on this Parliament to take that action. I also call on the other place to prove that it
Tobacco Products
understands that Canadians of all ages expect it to look to their interests first, not corporate interests.
The last task I have today is to thank a number of people. I want to begin by thanking my Parliamentary Secretary who I think has exemplified, both in the House and in committee, the very best of parliamentary expertise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to thank my government colleagues in this House who have from time to time had difficulty with the Bill, not in any negative sort of way but over the question of what is the legitimate role of Government in the area of health promotion and changes in lifestyle. I want to thank as well members of the Opposition. Although we might tangle here from time to time, the fact is that on this Bill both Liberal and NDP Members have not only been co-operative but have taken the national interest to heart, and I thank them for it.
Third, I want specifically to thank the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Without her personal tenacity on this issue this item may not have been brought to the point at which it is today. It is important, regardless of our partisan differences from time to time, to recognize the contributions of others on the other side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Finally, I want to thank health groups which, from time to time, are criticized for asking for greater fees or a high percentage of the health care funding. When I introduced Bill C-51 I said that the Bill would pass if health care groups really cared. I do not want to attempt to name all the groups and individuals because there were so many, but I would like to mention the Non-Smokers' Rights Association. I mention them because they have often used methods which were a little less than orthodox, and even got under some people's skin from time to time. However, it has been my experience that if you want to push health promotion you sometimes have to get under people's skin.


John Napier Turner: So you understand why we put questions to you.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, now I understand why the Opposition gets such fine answers from me to the questions which they ask me. Seriously, there have been a lot of people who have really pushed this legislation. I can say, and not because this is government legislation or because I had the opportunity to bring it in, that many people in the international scene see this as progressive legislation which I believe will again put Canada in the vanguard of health promotion. I thank everyone who has helped.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join in thanking the Member for Broadview-

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who brought this issue to the fore with a little political sleight of hand. Were it not for the Government's leap-frogging intention last night we would be here today debating and voting on Bill C-204. However, I am glad that the Government has finally had its bluff called and has come forward with Bill C-51. We are, of course, most happy to do everything we can to assist in its speedy passage.
The Minister has spent some time thanking health groups. The Canadian Cancer Society, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Dental Association, and the Canadian Nurses' Association have all contributed, and the list goes on and on. Frankly, many of us are breathing a sigh of relief because at one point in the discussion we thought that the perils and travails of Mr. William Neville and company were going to prevent this Bill from ever seeing the light of day.
The original Bill was certainly stronger. It has been watered down. In some cases there have been accommodations and in some cases unacceptable compromises in relation to the timing of certain parts of the legislation. However, I think the Minister came forward with what he considered to be achievable under the circumstances. I am hoping that he will move quickly to have Royal Assent were the Government to be in a position to call an election this fall, which frankly I doubt.
I have some concerns relating specifically to some of the Minister's amendments. He was not in the House this morning when I had a chance to speak to them. I would like to point out specifically my very serious concern in relation to Motion No. 1, subclause 4(3). In my mind that subclause draws an unfortunate link between the Free Trade Agreement, which has just been signed by the Government, and this legislation.
You will no doubt be aware of the comments of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) who stated that free trade could stop Bill C-51. The Minister of Agriculture said that C-51 may be unworkable in a climate of free trade with the United States. He said on Monday afternoon that the legislation is flawed as it would stop domestic manufacturers from promoting their products here but would be powerless to stop American publications entering Canada from advertising American tobacco products.
I was distressed to see a specific amendment which, in my mind, offers protection to the Americans, specifically, Clause 4(3). The Minister himself introduced this amendment in committee and stated:
For greater certainty, subsection (2)-
-which is the subsection relating to publication, broadcasting and dissemination-
-does not apply in respect of the distribution for sale of publications
imported into Canada or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts
originating outside Canada.
In the committee it was made very clear by myself, among others, that we should retain the right in this legislation to
limit material, including magazines and television transmission, which may be coming from the United States but is specifically targeted to the Canadian market-place.
Interestingly enough, in a study prepared for the committee by our legislative researcher, the concern about advertising coming in from the United States as a result of the trade Bill was highlighted because in the final agreement signed between Canada and the United States the Americans will be given preferential tax treatment in terms of advertising in the same way as when it was previously restricted to Canadian companies. The famous Reader's Digest legislation which led to preferential treatment being given to Canadian-based magazines is now also going to be accorded to magazines which are published in the United States.
Therefore, notwithstanding Bill C-51 and the good intentions to limit advertising in Canada, there is nothing that prohibits an American company, by way of American transmission by television or American transmission via American magazines, from targeting the Canadian market.
In committee we left the door open by saying "no person" so that we would limit the potential of an American tobacco company or an American advertising company being hired in the United States with the express purpose of targeting the Canadian section of American-based magazines. Now that the free trade agreement has re-introduced preferential tax treatment we may once again see Canadian editions of Time, Newsweek, and other American magazines, which disappeared when the previous Liberal Government in Canada said that if you want preferential tax treatment you must advertise only in Canadian magazines. Therefore, the free trade agreement is opening a loophole for American advertisers potentially to get tax deductions to advertise to the Canadian market. I believe that Clause 4(3) which is being proposed by the Minister-


An Hon. Member:: You're wrong.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member was obviously not in committee. He does not know the issue. I wish he would follow the issue.


Mr. Gormley:: I know more about C-58 than you ever will.


Sheila Maureen Copps: More about Bill C-51. I un<. rstand that the Member is extremely knowledgeable.


John Kenneth Gormley: Bill C-58.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This particular Bill was discussed at length in committee. It was determined that we wanted to have as wide-ranging a motion as possible. When we are bringing forward a Bill which says that Canadian advertisers no longer have the right to advertise, surely we do not want to leave the back door loophole open for American magazines and American television transmissions to come in here, get preferential tax treatment, and be able to sell American cigarettes, thus giving them a greater inroad into the Canadian market-place.
May 31, 1988

That was exactly the dilemma pointed out by the researcher who suggested that the introduction of the free trade agreement would, in the short term, increase consumption of cigarettes in Canada.
I certainly support the Minister's intention in introducing the Bill, but I am against the restriction he applies in the amendment which states:
For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the
distribution for sale of publications imported into Canada or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts originating outside Canada.
Many of us live in border towns where we are certainly subject to the onslaught of advertising from the United States. It should apply if the intention of the advertiser is to bypass Canadian law and utilize American publications to sell cigarettes in Canada. For greater certainty, the Minister should withdraw this particular clause.
In fact, the committee was rather general in the application of the publication ban in an effort to deal with the doors that are being opened as a result of the free trade agreement. That is not only the statement of the Liberal opposition Member. I refer specifically to the comments of the Minister of Agriculture when he gave a speech in Tillsonburg and told the community that Bill C-51 may be unworkable as as result of the trade agreement.
Surely we do not want Bill C-51 to be unworkable. We want it to work in Canada as it relates to Canadian advertisers, but we also want to prevent the kind of exploitation which may occur if the tobacco industry in the United States sees a chance to make inroads into the Canadian market-place and actually do so by getting preferential tax treatment.
When one looks at the final draft of the free trade agreement, one can see that American advertisers and American magazines will be extended the same kind of preferential tax treatment as is currently the exclusive purview of Canadian magazines. Rather than a hypothesis on our part, it is a real threat that American companies can decide to get into the Canadian market-place by way of American magazines, setting up Canadian sections, and be free to advertise in a way that violates the spirit of the free trade agreement.
I understand that from the perspective of other foreign magazines, such as Paris Match or Stern, that are imported into Canada, it would certainly be unworkable to prohibit the importation of all magazines that include cigarette advertising. Quite clearly, though, tobacco advertising in Stern is not targeted to the Canadian market-place. It is also quite clear that the decision to ban advertising here in Canada opens a potential market for American advertisers who can come in through the back-door and sell Canadian editions of American magazines in Canada, essentially avoiding the regulations that were established to try to prohibit that kind of advertising.
I do not believe that is the Minister's intention. That is why I believe he should eliminate clause (3).
Tobacco Products
An amendment originally moved in committee would have included in the clause not only anyone advertising in Canada, but anyone who directly or indirectly applies to the Canadian market. That might be a way to amend the clause and close the loophole being created as a result of the trade agreement.
I see the loophole as a potential for growth of the industry in the tobacco sector. Furthermore, if the Americans will be allowed to advertise while we are restricting our Canadian advertising at the same time, the price of the commodity from the perspective of Canadian farmers will be driven down while their American counterparts will essentially have carte blanche to advertise indirectly through various media in the United States that we all know have daily contact with Canadians.
I believe a stricter interpretation of this area will clarify that the Government's intention is not only to restrict Canadian advertisers in Canada but to restrict Americans who may see the introduction of the free trade agreement as a chance to make inroads into a market that is facing very valid and supportable restrictions in Canada.
There are some 30,000 people per year who have either quit smoking or who lose their lives as a result of tobacco-related illnesses. They are not being replaced on the Canadian marketplace. We assume that the Canadian industry will not grow, and that is why we supported this legislation. It is a long-term strategy to reduce and ultimately eliminate tobacco consumption.
However, if the Americans see that situation in the Canadian market on the one hand and, on the other, see an unfettered industry in the United States that will have access to the Canadian market-place by way of the free trade agreement, with the further preferential tax treatment which is now being accorded to American magazines that may choose to target the Canadian market-place, an entire new market will open up that they will be very anxious to enter. We should close that loophole before it has a chance to take hold.

Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of Bill C-51, since its purpose is to eliminate, once and for all, the most dangerous threat to health in this century.
Many deaths and many diseases are caused by smoking. I don't think there is a Member in this House who doesn't know someone who either died of cancer or had an operation or a mastectomy because of cancer, and I think we all know there is a well-established link between smoking and cancer.
I just want to point out to the Minister, because we are always being told that the free trade agreement has no connection with our standard of living, that in his own motion, Motion No. 1, which is about the rules for prohibiting tobacco advertising in Canada, he says specifically, and I quote:
(3) For greater certainty, subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the distribution for sale of publications imported into Canada or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts originating outside Canada.

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
We do not support this motion, Mr. Speaker, because we believe it opens a tremendous loophole for American tobacco companies, when they see a legal vacuum has been created by the statement that there will be no more advertising in Canada. If they see that loophole-and according to the free trade agreement, there will be preferential tax treatment, specifically directed to American magazines, in the same way that now exists for Canadian magazines-American companies will say: Okay, we are going to try and sell Marlboros in Canada. Since there is no Canadian market because of the lack of advertising, let's expand and use advertising in American magazines to reach the Canadian market, because a vacuum has been created there and we want to fill that vacuum. By leaving this exemption in the Bill, the Minister is leaving a big loophole which may be used by the big American tobacco companies to enter the Canadian market and also by advertising agencies to conduct campaigns.
Mr. Speaker, it might not be a problem in certain remote areas of our country but I doubt it, because once when I was in Moose Jaw, I was able to watch the news from Detroit on TV because through cable TV, networks are able to broadcast just about anywhere.
Right now, the Americans have a voluntary ban on the advertising of tobacco on television, but if they decide to change their minds, there is nothing to prevent American companies from directing advertising specifically to Canadians.
We see this happening near my home.

Near my home in Hamilton it is quite obvious that the Buffalo television stations advertise to attract the Canadian market. They are very specific. They direct their advertising toward Hamiltonians and Torontonians. While there is currently in the United States a voluntary ban on the advertising of tobacco on television, if that ban were lifted we should still, by way of this legislation, reserve the right to restrict not only advertising that is originating in Canada but also advertising which directly or indirectly is targeted to the Canadian market-place.
Specifically in relation to magazines, I think we are opening here a potential can of worms with the clause which states quite clearly that this does not apply to any magazines coming in. If we do have magazines such as Time which decide to reestablish a Canadian base, particularly in relation to tobacco revenues, which at the moment constitute about 20 per cent of revenues for magazines in Canada, and if Americans decide that they are going to-

... filling that vacuum by publishing a Canadian edition, according to the free trade agreement they are given preferential tax treatment and on top of that, the Minister says they will not be affected by Bill C-51.
So I would like to ask the Minister whether he would withdraw this new amendment, Motion No. 1 or at least the third part which says publications imported into Canada will not be affected. Otherwise, I think it will give American companies and American advertising agencies a chance to make inroads into the Canadian market when they see this vacuum created by an Act of Parliament.

I think that the Minister's intention is obviously to reduce tobacco consumption, not to freeze off the market to allow another country to come in to fill that market. I believe that by changing the specific exemption that he has allowed for in clause (3), perhaps he will send a clearer signal to the industry, whether it be the Canadian tobacco companies or their American counterparts, that there is no way they will be able to get around this lobby. The intention is to restrict and prohibit advertising and to limit gradually sponsorships, and not to open a market for Americans to come in as a result of the trade agreement. Given the difference in tax treatment that is now being accorded to American magazines as a result of the trade deal, it would be extremely important for the Minister to make that clarification so that people know that this is not only going to restrict advertising in Canada but that there is no way that a company can come in through the back door via Buffalo or a tax loophole with respect to an American magazine and advertise to a Canadian market.
If that is dealt with, I think it will close what I see as a potential danger and a potential loophole as a result of the trade agreement. Certainly, the intent of the legislation in general is very positive. It is certainly legislation that will be supported by my Party.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify briefly my heckling of the Hon. Member. I indicated that I knew more about Bill C-58 than she ever would. That of course is the Bill that deals with the tax treatment of crossborder advertising. I know that she had interpreted me as thinking that I was referring to Bill C-51. However, Bill C-58 does some good things for communications, and Bill C-51 does some great things for the health community.
I wanted to clarify that for the Hon. Member in case it were indicated that I meant something else.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day for the health of Canadians. We have in the House two important Bills which will be voted on, Bill C-51 at third reading debate now and my own Private Member's Bill, Bill C-204, which will be voted on this evening.
These Bills are complementary. I urge Hon. Members to support both of them. I thank Hon. Members in all Parties who are indeed supporting both of them and doing so very actively. I compliment the Minister for his work on Bill C-51.1 hope to see his support on Bill C-204 at the appropriate time.
He will know that my Party is facilitating passage of Bill C-51. Indeed, we were vigorous supporters of Bill C-51, perhaps

May 31, 1988
more vigorous than some members of his own Party. We are today facilitating moving directly through Bill C-51. The health of Canadians will be aided if both Bills achieve third reading today and move on to the Senate.
The two Bills deal with advertising. My Bill is a little bit more thorough than the Government's Bill C-51 in terms of not allowing any sponsorship of tobacco companies for sporting or cultural events. There is a limited amount allowed in the Government's Bill. I would like to have seen the Government more thorough in banning it. I would like to have seen the advertising ban come in more promptly. However, it is an important Bill. It is a step in the right direction. It will begin to turn the tide, I hope, for the young people who are starting to smoke, indeed, at the ages of 10 and 12.
We know we are not winning the battle. For those who take the view that we can sit back, that we do not need legislation or that one Bill will do it and we do not need anything more, I say that we are not winning the battle. Consumption continues to rise. Anyone who looks at the billboards will see a new wave of cigarette advertising using culture, sports, the outdoors, the environment, to give the impression that smoking is still good for us and that it is something that is part of the good life. This deception continues. Until this Bill is passed and is in force, or until my Bill is passed and is in force, there will be Canadians who will be deceived by the advertisers into thinking that smoking is all right.
Bill C-51 would begin to deal with this matter seriously. It would do something that my own Bill does not address, that is, the labelling issue. It would ensure that there is accurate labelling of the products of tobacco so that we would not just have the message go out. We would cancel the positive message going out that tobacco is good for one and, indeed, the negative message, the detailed message of the consequences, would be part of the information that would go to consumers. This is information that is terribly important for consumers, something which they have needed for all these decades.
We have the information as to the unfortunate consequences of smoking. We know what the statistics are-35,000 Canadians at least every year die directly from the effects of tobacco, from heart disease, cancers of various sorts and emphysema. We also know that the death toll is in the area of hundreds for those who die not from their own smoking but from having to breathe the cigarette smoke of other people in offices, homes or both. The number of deaths is in the hundreds in the case of people who are killed in fires caused by smoking. There are also perinatal deaths. We will begin to see this death toll diminish as consumption goes down.
We cannot directly control consumption. However, if we stop the advertising we can stop an inducement to take up smoking. We can aid the educators to put out their positive health message which gets cancelled if there are the billboards of the good life, if there are the magazine advertisements of the good life. Once we get rid of these the educational message
Tobacco Products
will be very much easier to get out. It is extremely important that that happen.
For those who think that if we pass Bill C-51 all will be well and that this is all that is needed, let me be very clear as to the complementary nature of the aspects of my Bill. If both Bills are passed, Bill C-51 as a government measure will take precedence. My own Bill has been amended in committee to ensure that it will be the Government's Bill, the Tobacco Products Control Act, which will take precedence, and so that the Hazardous Products Act will not be used in that case. The Government has the right to legislate. My Bill had to give way to that.
However, Bill C-51 does not have those aspects that my Bill has with respect to transportation and a smoke-free workplace. Right now employees who come under Treasury Board guidelines are getting some protection. We hear the good news of that. People appreciate it. I have had public servants say to me that they feel a lot better at their place of work. They are not getting the same number of headaches. Efficiency is improving because of having a decent working environment.
However, that measure only protects those who come under Treasury Board guidelines. The great majority of people under federal jurisdiction are not public servants under the Treasury Board. All the people who work for the RCMP, whether they are officers or civilian staff, people in the Armed Forces, people in all the Crown corporations, Air Canada, the CBC, the transportation companies, VIA Rail, CN, CP, the banks, do not get protection by Treasury Board guidelines. They have been asked to act; some of them have, and some of them have not. Some of them have responded very inadequately and are providing very little protection to their employees. Employees only have the option of taking a grievance, which is very timeconsuming and is not always successful. In the case of the RCMP, grievances have not been successful. The RCMP states: "Our policy is to allow smoking. If you don't like it, tough luck". Therefore, grievances have not worked. We would like to believe that under common law all people have a right to a safe working environment, but it has not been achieved. It seems to me unfortunate that a person has to go to a court of law to demand his or her rights.
Some improvements are needed on the Hill for employees. I spoke with a woman not too long ago who was pregnant on the job and was forced to work on the Hill in a smoking environment. That harmed not only her health, but the health of her foetus. We know that infants born underweight as a result of maternal smoking are at risk. More of them become ill. The rate of death of underweight infants is higher than for infants who are born of mothers who have not smoked and have not been subjected to other people's smoke.
For the protection of the health of our employees in all of those other agencies, apart from the federal Public Service, for people on the Hill or for people who travel, those aspects of my

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
Bill were watered down in committee. I would have liked to have seen much stronger support for people in transportation. However, we are moving in the right direction. In my Bill there is a clause, and the Government can bring in the regulations, to increase access to smoke-free transportation in the airlines, in trains, and in buses. At least the framework is there. Whether or not it is used will be up to the Government, but I would think that the health community would urge action to bring in regulations consistent with protecting the health of travellers. That framework is in my Bill. I think that Canadians will want to see that.
We know that both Bills have the support of the vast majority of Canadians. Public opinion polls show this, and many Canadians have written to us directly. Members of Parliament will have received post cards, letters, and petitions that ask Parliament to pass both of those Bills.
I wish to refer to a list of organizations that have supported my Bill. I believe that all of them are also supporters of Bill C-51, and indeed there may be further supporters of Bill C-51 who are not on this list. At the risk of boring people, I would like all Members to know the very large number of important health organizations and other organizations that have given their support. The list includes: the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Canadian Hospital Association, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation, Alcohol and Drug Concerns, National Cancer Institute of Canada, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, The College of Family Physicians of Canada, the National Federation of Nurses' Unions, the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, the Ontario Nurses Association, the Canadian Association of Hospital Auxiliaries, the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists, the Canadian Association of Pathologists, the Canadian Chiropractic Association, the Canadian Council of Cardiovascular Nurses, the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association, the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation of Nova Scotia, the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia, the University of Alberta Cross Cancer Institute, the Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, the Ontario Cancer Institute. These are major national organizations, universities, and regional bodies.
Let me mention some local bodies and provincial bodies: the Porcupine Health Unit, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Health Unit, Public Health Association of Nova Scotia, Manitoba Medical Association, Medical Society of Nova Scotia, Alberta Medical Association, British Columbia Medical Association, Ontario Public Health Association.
It is a very impressive list, and I am not yet finished. I think Hon. Members ought to know the quantity and quality of support of these major professional bodies that are supporting both Bills today. The list also includes: Allergy Information
Association, Fort McMurray and District Health Unit, East York Health Unit, Northwest Territories Hospital Association, Ontario Thoracic Society, Central Kootenay Health Centre, South Peace Health Unit, Alberta Public Health Association.
There are also a number of labour bodies because employees are affected by my Bill. Major unions under federal jurisdiction are also supporters, including Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Auto Workers, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Canadian Union of Public Employees, both the National Office and the Airline Division; and on the issue of a smoke-free workplace, ACTRA.
There are other citizens' organizations that represent millions of Canadians: National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canadian Teachers' Federation, Canadian Home and School Parent-Teacher Federation, Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations.
A number of churches and individual religious leaders have written with their support for this legislation, including: Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Salvation Army, the United Church, and the Presbyterian Church in Canada.
A number of Bishops have also written, including Reverend James MacDonald, Bishop of Charlottetown; Gilles Ouellet, Archbishop of Rimouski; Bishop Sotirios of the Greek Orthodox Church; and Cardinal Carter, Archbishop of Toronto.
Finally, a number of anti-smoking bodies, the National Program to Reduce Tobacco Use and Non-Smokers' Rights Association, have been organizations prominently involved in this struggle.
It is a long list, Mr. Speaker, but it is very important for people to understand the extent of support that there is for this Bill.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has just sent a letter by hand addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), urging that Bill C-204 achieve third reading. The letter states: "On behalf of the 180,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada ..." and, after all they are a major sector of people who will be affected by the legislation " . .
would urge you to support this Bill. .. ".
I can see that my time is running out. I would like to finish by reading a letter from Mrs. Betty Fox, mother of the late Terry Fox. The letter states:
I am sure you can remember my son Terry's personal dedication to better health for Canadians through medical research on cancer. Our son Terry really wanted to make the world a better place in which to live.
I am writing to you today to do your part to help carry out Terry's dream. I ask you to do all you can to support Bills C-51 and C-204 which are before Parliament. This will be a significant move to curb the curse of smoking-related cancer which the World Health Organization has pointed out is "fuelled mainly by intensive and ruthless promotional campaigns on the part of the trans-national tobacco companies".
May 31, 1988

Let's not waste precious medical research dollars on a problem that we can help prevent in the first place.
Let me say that both these Bills deserve our support today. 1 hope that all Hon. Members will achieve this historic day for Canada. The 35,000 Canadians who die every year, the hundreds of Canadians who are affected in many other ways by sickness and death in their families, count on Parliament to provide protection against this curse. Tobacco-related diseases are preventable. Today we have the opportunity with both Bills to take a step forward to protect the health of Canadians.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to rise today because I disagree with the philosophy of Bill C-51. My disagreement has been evidenced in committee, and many of the submissions that I have made have been in committee. Therefore, I am sure many people are aware of them, but it is important at third reading that the debate not conclude without stating a few of the matters on which 1 disagree with the Minister.
Let me say at the outset, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the sincerity with which the Minister holds his views, particularly with respect to smoking-related deaths. I do not disagree with respect to the medical evidence that is available. Smoking causes illness, heart attacks, and death. To me, that is not the issue in this particular Bill.
There are essentially two points on which I am at odds with the Minister with respect to the Bill. The first has to do with the question of freedom. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which the Minister alluded a few moments ago, states that "everyone has the fundamental freedoms of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media".
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), on November 20, 1987, received from the former President of the Canadian Bar Association a long letter with respect to the legality of this Bill and whether or not it was an unwarranted intrusion on freedom of expression. I would like to read one paragraph of that letter, which reads:
Section 2(b) of the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression." Three Provincial Courts of Appeal have recognized that this guarantee extends to advertising (Manitoba, Quebec, and Alberta) and a fourth has confirmed that the guarantee protects all forms of expression (Ontario). Two Courts of Appeal, Quebec and Alberta, have indicated that total advertising bans never can be justified under the Charter.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a blanket prohibition prohibiting the advertising of a legal product will be struck down. The challenge that was issued by the Minister when he spoke a few moments ago will certainly be taken up.
It is not only the former President of the Canadian Bar Association who has advised the committee with respect to this particular opinion. I am referring now to a cabinet document that was secured under freedom of information legislation. This was written by Martin Low, a scholar in the Department
Tobacco Products
of Justice, who gives advice to all Governments with respect to the legality of certain legislation. He said:
On the assumption that commercial speech is protected by the Charter,-
And there is absolutely no doubt that it is. It goes on to say:
-I am of the opinion that a complete ban on tobacco advertising raises significant Charter concerns.
He goes on to say:
Blanket prohibitions severely restrict the exchange of information. They hamper on both the individual consumer's and society's interest in the free flow of information, particularly where the advertisements are neither misleading nor related to an unlawful activity.
Smoking is a lawful activity. Smoking tends to kill and it causes disease, but it is a legal activity. Certainly the individual who wrote this memorandum which was secured by the Brantford Expositor represented to the Government the problems the Government would have when this matter was challenged before the courts. I do not think there is any doubt about his conclusion. He says:
In conclusion, I believe that if a prohibition on tobacco advertising cannot be shown to affect tobacco use, a total ban on such advertising seriously risks offending section 2(b) of the Charter.
I sat through every committee hearing on the question as to whether or not there was a nexus between advertising on the one hand and reducing smoking on the other. There is absolutely no evidence that I heard that suggested that this would in any way reduce smoking. If someone could demonstrate to me that banning advertising would lead to the reduction of smoking, I would think again about this issue, but people are quitting smoking today for one reason, and that is, because they know that it is a serious health risk.
Let us look at the eastern European countries and at what is happening in Scandinavia where there are advertising bans. Read the evidence of what was said before the committee. If Hon. Members do not believe me with respect to this, they should read what Mr. Low said. He was advised, as indicated in this cabinet document, that the point of this Bill was that the advertising ban was for a purpose that was purely symbolic.
When the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) asked a question in May of last year of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with respect to this, the Minister acknowledged at that time that it was only a symbolic gesture and that there was no real expectation that people would reduce smoking.
This Bill will have profound consequences on amateur sports and culture. The committee heard from cultural organizations such as the du Maurier Art Council which is against this Bill. The council told us what the effect would be on the cultural community. No one can deny that testimony. One can disagree with it and say that the Bill is far more important, but there will be some substantial effects.
We heard people from Tennis Canada, people from the Canadian Open golf tournaments and many advertisers. Let us

Tobacco Products
make no mistake about it. There will be jobs lost as a result of this Bill, and I think it is thoroughly flawed legislation, from my particular vantage point.
I believe that one of the hallmarks of democracy is that we are allowed to choose even things which are not good for us. I do not doubt for a moment that smoking is bad, but one of the freedoms I think I have is the freedom to make that choice. I believe that it is far more intellectually honest to ban smoking than it is to ban the advertising of smoking.
Again, it may be my particular philosophy, but I also find that Government is far, far too intrusive into our lives. I am a little surprised at a Conservative Government that would bring in legislation such as this for only symbolic purposes.
I believe that in many ways, Bill C-204 is more intellectually honest than Bill C-51. It is one thing to say that people who go out for $ 100-dinners do not want others to ruin those dinners by smoking, and I really understand that, but it is another thing to ban the advertising of a legal product unless we can convince people that there will be a reduction in smoking as a result.
The fact is that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) made a very valid point and it was this: is this socially useful legislation? Sixty-six per cent of all the magazine advertising that comes into Canada is American. We will tell Maclean's magazine and other Canadian magazines that they cannot advertise smoking, but we will allow Time magazine, Sports Illustrated and Golf Digest to do it. They form 66 per cent of the market.
Let us talk about the social utility of this Bill. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East was quite right. If we thought we could ban advertising, if anyone in the House is under the illusion that this Bill will ban the advertising of smoking, I say that it is nonsense. Sixty-six per cent of the magazines we read come from the United States.
Let us talk about what has happened in Canada previously. There is no advertising of smoking on television, and that is by way of agreement. There is none on radio and we do not see it in the newspapers. We see it on billboards and on signs in corner stores. Where we see it most often is in magazines, and that is what we are banning. It is socially useless to say that Canadian magazines are cut off while allowing American magazines to advertise smoking. Again, it comes down to a question of symbolism, but at what cost? The cost will be jobs, and, most important to me, a loss of freedom.
There is no doubt in my judgment that to advertise a legal product does not offend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have the freedom to say what we want to say about legal products. I believe the legislation is flawed. I am troubled, because this is my tenth year in Parliament and in 10 years I have never voted against my Party. I have no tobacco farmers, to my personal knowledge-perhaps there is one-in my riding. There are no manufacturers of tobacco in my riding. There is no pressure within my riding from a political point of
May 31, 1988
view to take up the cudgel with respect to this legislation, but I am annoyed by it because I think that it not only offends the Charter of Rights and the values I believe in, such as freedom of speech but, in addition, I think it is socially useless legislation.


Mr. MacLellan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) on the position he has taken. I have listened to his speech very carefully and although I am a non-smoker myself and opposed to smoking, I agree with him that it would be more intellectually honest to outlaw smoking than to prohibit the right to advertise.
I agree with him that the position the Government is taking is directly contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I realize it was not easy for the Hon. Member to make his speech. As one Member of Parliament, I appreciate the position he has taken and the trouble and courage he took to make his speech.
I have one question for the Hon. Member. Concerning statistics on whether advertising does encourage smoking, could he tell us what he has found in his research in that regard?


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, first, may I thank the Hon. Member for the very generous comments he has given me. I am most appreciative.
With respect to answering the Member's question, it seems to me that the pivotal point with respect to this legislation is whether or not it will in any way reduce smoking. We asked every witness about statistics in other countries on the effectiveness of advertising to reduce smoking. It was absolutely clear to me on the evidence that I heard that there is nothing to justify that. Not only am I buoyed in terms of the evidence I heard but I do not believe the Government believes it. Why would you have a cabinet document which said it was only being done for symbolic reasons? Symbolic reasons are not bad reasons, Mr. Speaker. It may be you want to show that there is some sense of moral opprobrium against smoking. Being symbolic is necessarily not legitimate, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the statistics to not warrant the conclusion that this legislation will reduce smoking by one cigarette.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He is opposed to this legislation because he feels and said that advertising meant to promote smoking is ineffective and does not have any impact on whether people smoke or not. Why does he think that tobacco companies spend all the money they do on advertising if it is not to encourage people to smoke?
Related to that, the Member indicated he is opposing this legislation because of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What about the right to health? What about the right of the young person who will be induced to take up the habit of
May 31, 1988

smoking as a result of advertising? What about that young person's right to health? What about the right of the public not to have commercial enterprises promoting a habit detrimental to health which costs the public purse because people develop diseases from smoking? What about the right of families to be free of suffering? What about the 35,000 people who die as a result of diseases caused by tobacco?


Chris Speyer: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker. It is a perfectly reasonable one. The essence of what my friend is saying goes to smoking itself.
I listened to him articulate with some degree of force all the problems of smoking with respect to health and emotional concerns. As a result of that, he arrived at the essence of the question which is whether we should ban smoking itself. On the one hand, how can one say we are going to allow smoking and yet, on the other hand, say we will not allow the advertising of a product which is legal? That concerns me. If we were talking about a product that is illegal such as cocaine, that is different.
I acknowledge there are limits on speech. For example, defamation, libel and slander are limits on speech. There have to be some limits on speech. When you take a broad blanket and say there will be no advertising whatever with respect to a product I believe that you are intruding on a person's right to make a decision. Why doesn't the Hon. Member have the courage to sponsor a Bill to prohibit smoking? That is the point. It is not the advertising but the smoking itself. In brief response-


Cyril Keeper: Why do the companies advertise?


Chris Speyer: May I be permitted to answer the Hon. Member's question?


Cyril Keeper: Why do the companies advertise?


Chris Speyer: I would like to address that. There is no doubt, tobacco companies want to sell cigarettes. That is why they advertise. The evidence that persuaded me is that of market share. If the Hon. Member took a look at the eastern European bloc countries where there is really no advertising, the incidence of smoking is higher than we have here. If you take a look at what has happened in some Scandinavian countries, the incidence of smoking has not in any way decreased. Those countries have done something symbolic, which is what the Minister and the Government are trying to do. I do not agree to that. If we want to be courageous we should pass a ban on smoking itself, not the advertising of it.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity today to address Bill C-51 and to speak in favour of albeit a very small step in the battle against tobacco addiction in this country. The short title of the Bill is the Tobacco Products Control Act, but I must say the short title is at variance with the long title. This is not really a tobacco products control Bill, it is a Bill of limited application.
Tobacco Products
I believe it is of somewhat limited usefulness in the continuing struggle against tobacco addiction.
Nevertheless, a small step though this Bill will be, it is one that I and my Party support and a step that I believe all Members in this House should support. Bill C-51 has received the almost unanimous endorsement of health organizations in this country from the great national federations down to local clinics. It is a Bill that has received considerable public support. It has been the subject of a very targeted campaign against its passage by the smoking and tobacco products lobby but I believe there is no doubt that it is supported.
However, this sort of legislation must be seen in the context of other legislation that will be brought in, something I will return to later. What we have after all in the case-

As they say in French: le tabagisme est un fleau. It is indeed a plague that annually takes the lives of 35,000 fellow citizens.

That means that with some 30,000 to 32,000 people dying from smoking-related cancers and some 3,000 people dying from the effects of passive or side-stream smoking we have a loss in terms of the lives of Canadians that we cannot permit to continue.
The passive smoking problem is well-documented, much discussed and I will not comment on it in depth. However, I do believe the attention given to its effect is a clear indication that the social acceptability of smoking is declining. I believe that of course it must continue to decline and that any measure this House takes, even though it be seen by some as symbolic, is worth taking. I believe we will see a further decline in the social acceptability of smoking over the next few years. I believe it will soon come to be acknowledged that smoking in the presence, for example, of a child is a form of child abuse. I believe that society will recognize that smoking in the presence of one who does not desire to have the air polluted is indeed a form of assault. I believe that when it comes to workplace considerations, it can already be proven to be a civil tort if such a case were launched.
The Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), who is perhaps now enjoying a coffee and cigarette, talked about free speech. He is a Member with enough experience and intellect, indeed he showed it in his speech, to recognize there are indeed limitations on the so-called freedom of speech in a free society. Any freedom exercised to the ultimate is mere libertinage. Any freedom pressed to its limits ends of course in the oppression of others. That is what happens on a daily, even hourly, basis, and even in these parliamentary precincts.
Let me talk about some of the limits on the concept of freedom of speech, limits which have come about in democratic societies as a response to the problems and antagonisms caused by licence instead of liberty in the exercise of free

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
speech. So it is we have laws against incitement to hatred. We have laws against sedition. As the Hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have laws against slander, libel, and defamation of character. We also have laws against conspiracy. We have laws against the publication of hate propaganda. We have laws against the promulgation of pornography, which so many of us see these days as being a little more than hate propaganda directed against women and children.
I have to say that the Hon. Member for Cambridge, in talking about tobacco as a legal product, is not conducting an adequate historical analysis before applying that judgment. I believe tobacco's legality today is nothing more than an accident. It is a result of the fact that tobacco smoking was widespread in this country before we realized and scientifically demonstrated the degree to which tobacco consumption affected health.
I see the legality of smoking as being nothing more than an historical accident. Yet I will concede that were we to talk of but a moment in time, the Hon. Member's arguments would have more credibility than in fact they do. In judging time by a moment we ignore the expanse of history. We ignore the actual process in society of which this Bill is but a part.
Another point that I must take up is the mention of choice in the consumption of tobacco. The fact is that talking of people choosing to smoke or choosing not to smoke ignores the very persuasive evidence that tobacco is an addictive narcotic. The fact that a person continues to smoke, and I think as a non-smoker this is something I have to remind myself of continually, does not necessarily reflect a choice. It reflects the fact that many people are addicted to the product. I think it is incumbent upon us as a society to be gentle with people but tough on behaviour. Therefore, as individuals we have to raise with those who offend, when they do so against the norms of those of us who wish to have breathable air, a defence not only of our civil liberty to breathable air but also our health.
As an asthmatic, I of course have a very strong personal stake in legislation, regulation, consensus or agreement which reduces the amount of smoke I am forced to inhale. Therefore, I have to support Bill C-51 on that ground.
In conclusion, I would like again to pick up the point I was making earlier about the place of this Bill in a continuum or ensemble of measures designed to reduce smoking. It cannot be seen as legislation that stands on its own. Indeed, I believe the Hon. Minister never intended this Bill should stand on its own but saw it as part of a sequence. In order to demonstrate that point I would like to quote from page 24:21 of the legislative committee hearing on Bill C-51 on January 25, 1988:
In an additional effort to improve Canada's health-oriented policy on tobacco, further amendments will be introduced in order to update the Tobacco Restraint Act, which has made it illegal since 1908 to sell tobacco products to persons under the age of 16. At the report stage-and we have checked this with our lawyers and I would like to do it today but I cannot do it because of the scope of the bill-the government will seek the consent of
Parliament to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act and incorporate such
provisions, updated so as to be relevant to the 1980s and 1990s, into Bill C-51.
It seems to me that that objective has fallen somewhat by the wayside, but I believe the intent of the Minister was very clear. While I, too, hold the value of intellectual honesty which the Hon. Member propounds, I have to ask: Does adherence to that value justify the sacrifice in lives and health which we as a society are allowing to continue? It is in that context that I believe Bill C-51 is worth-while, must be supported, and should pass.


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


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long but I wish to comment on what the Hon. Member had to say because in his last few words he put the issue extraordinarily well and clearly. I also want to pick up on some of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer).
As a reformed sinner, with respect to smoking at least, I support the main thrust of this Bill, namely to reduce smoking. Used smoke now bothers me as well as other people, and I support the Minister in his attempt to promote our health and welfare and cause all of us to think twice about smoking. He is taking a direction that he and other Members of this House believe is right and appropriate, and generally I admire his advice, his integrity and great ability so much that I would automatically vote with the Minister. At the moment, however, what I cannot support is a complete ban on advertising of what is in fact at the moment, by historic chance or not, a legal and freely available product.
We are, I think, taking chances with our important concept of freedom of expression, but we may not accomplish our objectives, which is exactly what the previous speaker said. That is the trade-off in this debate. I think there are other ways to accomplish those objectives without jeopardizing the concept which, to me, is fundamental-the freedom of expression.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his very kind words in relation to my speech. I believe that if we were all to approach this legislation with the measure of thought which the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) has obviously brought to it, it would make for a very good debate.
I think many of us would like to have much more time to debate the principle of this Bill. I am still convinced of the correctness of my point. I am sure that those who feel afflicted by this legislation will seek a judgment in the courts regarding the applicability of the free speech provisions of the Charter of Rights to the commercial communication which, of course, the advertisers of tobacco would like to carry on unimpaired and unimpeded.
May 31, 1988

However, as I say, I believe that in a society in which people are responsible to and for each other, in which our laws are intertwined and interwoven economically and socially, we cannot, as a responsible society, pass up any measure which has the possibility of saving the lives and health of our fellow citizens.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague a question with regard to this legislation. It is basically the same question which I asked my colleague on the other side of the House a few minutes ago. What is the impact of the advertising which tobacco companies finance? Does the Hon. Member agree with Members on the other side of the House who seem to say that tobacco companies spend all this money advertising cigarettes without this advertising having any impact on people's behaviour? Does he really think that tobacco companies are stupid enough to waste their money in that way?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I, too, cannot believe that these vast sums are spent without the idea of creating or persuading new smokers. Surely the fact is that they are spent in efforts to reinforce a climate of acceptability of smoking. Indeed, they are spent as well to get people to switch brands, but the overall message of the advertising campaigns of the industry is to try to ensure that smoking remains socially acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) on debate I will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you ask the House, you will find there is unanimous consent for allowing the debate on third reading of Bill C-51 to continue during the time normally set aside for Private Members' Business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is the Private Members' motion of the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) which is to be debated. Is there unanimous consent to carry on debate past five o'clock?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is not as though we have not thought about this debate at all. Private Members' hour does begin at five o'clock and I think we could conclude the debate and vote on this now. We are prepared to vote as quickly as possible. I say that we should get on with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It's not a question of a vote. A Member is rising to speak. If there is not agreement to allow the Hon. Member extra time, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Crowfoot on debate.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on what I think is an historic day, not only for Canada in terms of health measures and the improvement of the health of
Tobacco Products
Canadians, but an historic day for Parliament and its processes. There is an opportunity for private Members to vote in accordance with their own research and individual judgments and, equally important, for private Members to reflect on the health and well-being of all Canadians.
I have only a few moments to take on a couple of the arguments which I have heard in opposition to this legislation which I think need be addressed. First is the notion of freedom. There is the argument that I have the freedom to smoke, that it may be bad for me, but that somehow I have the fundamental right to smoke.
The only way smokers can claim that they have the right and freedom to smoke is if they never breathe out. People who breathe into other people's air are contaminators. Research for more than four decades in 50 countries has clearly demonstrated that smoking tobacco is a health hazard.
It is also curiously interesting that those persons who would argue on the other side of the issue do not take the position that smoking is harmful.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since it is my Private Members' motion which is to be debated at five o'clock, I want to extend a courtesy to my hon. friend from Crowfoot. I do not want to curtail his comments and if he wants a few moments after five to round out his remarks I would suggest that we do not see the clock in order to allow him to complete his remarks, although I not agree to having more speeches.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side would give unanimous consent to that, provided that it is understood that at the end of the remarks of the Hon. Member who had the floor we put this motion to a vote. Could someone on the government side, perhaps the Minister, react to this? I would like it to be well understood that this Party is not trying to hold up this piece of legislation and do not want a long drawn out debate on it. We would be willing to give consent, provided we take a vote when the hon. gentleman sits down.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is acceptable. I think we all want a vote on Bill C-51. There is also to be a deferred vote later in the day. The Member has been very supportive of Bill C-51. However, we do not want to eat into the time of private Members. I thank the Members opposite for the courtesy they have extended.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed that after the Hon. Member for Crowfoot completes his remarks we will have the vote on Bill C-51?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all Members of the House for the courtesy they have just

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products
extended. As soon as I have finished speaking every Member will want to vote on the Bill anyway.
There have been comments circulating with respect to the amount of tax dollars the Government of Canada receives from the tobacco industry. There has been a comment circulating throughout the duration of this debate trying to convince us that if we cut off or curtail tobacco advertising and, by implication, its sales, there would be a negative impact on the Treasury of the federal Government. The truth of the matter, Sir, which should be understood, is that if there were to be a cost recovery program for the use of tobacco the tax presently on tobacco would increase sevenfold.
If we take into account the clinic times, the hospital times, the deaths, the lost time from wages, all of which are related to sickness and illness from tobacco-


Mr. Halliday:: And fires.


Arnold John Malone: And fires, as the Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) reminds me, if we took into account these costs, we would include in that formula seven times as much tax today to recover that cost to society. Even with 35,000 deaths per year directly related to smoking, and over 3,000 deaths from sidestream smoke, and the fact that the Treasury loses the billions of dollars it collects, there are still some who would argue that this noxious weed ought to be allowed to be sold freely to Canadians, as if this product could command the right to be advertised and promoted.
I want to go through the history of the tobacco industry. At one time its sales were primarily to males, promoting it as a male macho image. After the election of President Kennedy in the United States, who promoted the notion of a healthy America, the consumption of tobacco among males began to decrease significantly. The new thrust of advertising by the tobacco industry was for products like Virginia Slims. The message to females was: "You have come a long way, Baby". The theme was to capture a new market of female smokers.
More recently, when that market began to decline, it turned to young people. Now that it is being threatened by the activities taking place in the House of Commons, there has been a focus on Third World countries.
I have it from a very outstanding authority that Marlboro Country has gone to an African nation where their cigarettes are being promoted by people wearing white cowboy hats and white western uniforms while riding a white stallion and playing a banjo. They are given out to innocent people, cigarettes that have much higher tar content.
The World Health Organization will document the fact that they are moving their market increasingly into the Third World.
I do not believe those who suggest that tobacco advertising only shifts market brand. If that is true, why do Bell Canada
or Alberta Government Telephones advertise their products? Why is there advertising in monopoly markets? The fact is that advertising does increase consumption.
It was most amazing to hear the advertisers try to convince the committee that their advertising is ineffective. I have never before heard any group or organization tell a committee that it is ineffective. Yet the theme of their submission was that they were only shifting the brand share from one to another. Even if one were to believe that, it does not give reason or logic as to why monopolies advertise their products.
There are those who believe that our freedoms are most important, regardless of the damage they do to society. They pretend that somehow freedom exists in isolation. There is no freedom except that freedom which is measured by an equal and corresponding set of responsibilities.
We have the freedom of speech, but that does not allow us to go into a theatre and shout "fire", just to watch people run. We have freedom of mobility, but that does not allow us to drive at any speed and on any side of the road.
The notion that freedom means we can smoke and blow it into the atmosphere knowing full well that some 35,000 people per year die from tobacco and another 3,000 die from sidestream smoke, does not make sense or provide an appropriate argument.
More than four decades of research and more than 50 countries has led to the conclusion over and over again that tobacco is harmful to our health. It has demonstrated that in some individuals the addiction to tobacco is as strong as the addiction to heroin.
Not only do those who deny the importance of that kind of research question the credibility of the medical and research profession, they place extreme doubt on the science itself. Science has compelling evidence to make us ask as a society to do what this Parliament has the opportunity to do. Let us move in the right direction to protect the well-being and health of our citizens.
We hear the argument that this is a legal product and cannot be banned. I suggest that if it were possible, this product might be made illegal. However, one-third of Canadians are addicted to it and they probably curse Sir Walter Raleigh for it. If it was an easy procedure, I suggest it might even be made illegal. Yet everyone knows that it cannot be done because one-third of Canadians are addicted to tobacco and we must gradually eliminate its use.
Let us consider the question of illegality. We cannot advertise prescription drugs, explosives or poisons. There are many products that may be legal but cannot be advertised. There is no justification to say that the product cannot be used on that basis.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for the time he has gracefully given to me to make
May 31, 1988

some points. I want to thank all Parties for this opportunity to speak because I believe this is an important Bill.
While I wanted to go into some detailed analysis about job loss, suffice it to say that that argument falls pretty short when
35,000	people per year are dying. We do not need to be talking about some jobs lost here and there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it. Call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.10 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like an explanation. I think I heard Your Honour say "Call in the Members". Then I heard no bells, then I heard that the Bill had passed. Could I get a clarification?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I made a mistake. I did not see anyone rise. Therefore I changed my ruling.


Jacques Guilbault: Changed a ruling?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not see five Members rising. Therefore I should not have called: "Call in the Members". I regret if that has disturbed the Hon. Member.
Tobacco Products


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it is not that it has disturbed the Hon. Member. It is just that when Your Honour said: "Call in the Members" some Members who would like a recorded vote do not see the need to stand up because they have heard: "Call in the Members". To realize then that the Members are not being called in and that there is no recorded vote-


Mr. Baker:: We want to know where those Members stand.


Jacques Guilbault: Some of us want to know where those Members stand on this Bill in this House.


George Baker: Especially the Tories.


Jacques Guilbault: The difference it makes when we hear: "Call in the Members" is that no one stands up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my view the yeas had it. Therefore it was just as I said. I did not see anyone rising, which is why I called it that way. I regret if it causes the Hon. Member a problem.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Are we now on Private Members' Business, M-143?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, we are.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is a motion that has been put forward-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Resuming debate on M-143 with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may be that the Standing Orders have been changed or not worth the paper on which they are written. However, according to the Standing Orders, if the Speaker says: "Call in the Members" there is to be a vote period. I would ask for a ruling on that point. That has been the time honoured tradition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The only time I should have said: "Call in the Members" was when five Members were rising. There were not five Members rising.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The point is that the Chair said: "Call in the Members". According to the Standing Orders, that is the statement to call in the Members for a vote.
I understand the position of the Chair vis-a-vis the five Members not standing. However, the Chair said: "Call in the Members".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member does not see the position that the Chair is in right at this time. The Chair apologized to the Hon. Member. He did not see five Members. That was it. Therefore, it went on division.


Sheila Maureen Copps: There should be a vote.

May 31, 1988
Tobacco Products


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the Chair could refer me to the Standing Order which permits a vote to be cancelled on the basis of an apology. I do not mean to be picky but it could be this issue or any other-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I would like to get a ruling from the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The vote can only be held if five Members rise. Five Members did not rise. Therefore, there was no vote. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has the floor. I have made that ruling. That is it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get a reference for the decision to nullify a statement made by the Chair vis-a-vis: "Call in the Members". I understand that five Members did not stand. Therefore-


An Hon. Member:: That is the same point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, it is not. I would like to get a reference, if perhaps the Chair can reserve on advice to Hon. Members. I would like to know what Standing Order provides for a statement: "Call in the Members" which leads to a vote and then a nullity of that statement is made. I understand that the Speaker feels that he should not have said: "Call in the Members". But once Members are called in, the process is set in motion and Hon. Members must be called in by the traditions of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think that I will repeat it any more. I am just going to say this. When I did say that, I did not see five Members rise. I should not have said: "Call in the Members" because I did not see five Members rising. Whether I did or not, I retracted it. Therefore, I have ruled that the Bill has gone through on division.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise on a point of order because I was in the lobby on the telephone.
I clearly stopped my conversation, looked at the monitor to see Your Honour clearly say: "Call in the Members". I therefore proceeded to continue my conversation. I thought that there would be an opportunity for Members to be called in and to be asked how they stand on this particular Bill. Therefore, I believe, with all due respect that I have for you and the chair, Mr. Speaker, that you needed to follow up on calling in the Members. Therefore I think it would be-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He could not, it was a slip of the tongue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is the final time that I will say this. Five Members did not rise. I said: "Call in the Members" by mistake. I called it off immediately so that
there was not a problem. Therefore, I will stick by that ruling. I will not hear any more points of order. I will ask the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to begin debate on Private Members' Business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Motion No. 143 which was brought forward by my hon. colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and which-


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on a question of privilege.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to your last intervention and to explain that the privilege of some Members on this side of the House have been affected by the fact that Your Honour was saying that he made a mistake and withdraws, having said: "Call in the Members". Your Honour has to realize that it has had an effect on what Members on this side of the House would have done. If "Call in the Members" had not been said, some Members would have stood up to request a recorded vote. However, once the Chair said "Call in the Members" it was already done.
I would like to remind the Chair that one way to request a recorded vote is for five Members to stand up. There are other circumstances in which a recorded vote is called without five Members standing up. Sometimes the Chair is able to perceive that the House is in a mood to take a recorded vote. We have seen this for years.
I humbly submit that Members have to be guided with what is happening in this House by what the Chair makes by way of decisions. When the Chair says "Call in the Members" Members who are listening sitting in the House expect the bell to start ringing. They do not expect to have to stand and to yoyo, and to request a second time that the bell be rung because there is already an order from the Chair.
The Chair may wish to withdraw that and to say: "I made a mistake". But the Chair has to realize that it changes what has happened in the House. It has an effect on what subsequently happened in the House.
I submit that if Your Honour is willing to recant and review what it has done, then certainly Your Honour is availing himself of the privilege to do it a second time. I am asking the Chair to put the question in the proper tradition and fashion.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre whose time I know we are using.
While it is the case that what we in Parliament refer to as the green book contains many rules and orders, there are rules and orders in that book that we presume take precedence one over the other. The one that I think would be very near the top
May 31, 1988

of the level of precedence, and which it ought to be considered the most offensive for any Member of this Chamber to doubt or dispute, is to argue or to debate the ruling of a Speaker. 1 simply want to go on record, Sir, to say that whatever point of order a Member may feel he or she has, to dispute the Speaker on a matter such as this threatens Parliament itself. It is in you, your Chair, and in the symbol of the Mace that this place operates and functions, Mr. Speaker.
I submit that it is highly important that we proceed to Private Members' Business, that your ruling stand, now that it has been made, that it has to and must continue to be, and that we proceed with the business of the day without arguing with the authority of the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank all Hon. Members. I would like to say one more time that I must have been a little fast on the draw, but I did not see five Members rise.
In Erskine May on page 236 it states, "He", the Speaker, "prevents a division which in his opinion is unnecessarily claimed". The Hon. Member, who was a Chair officer himself, can look at the "Precincts and Organisation of Parliament" on page 236 and lo6k at the ruling himself.
I regret that this has happened. It is unfortunate sometimes when we reach this time of the day that these things happen. We have had a great debate today, and I thought that everybody had agreed on the way these things were proceeding. I did not see five Members rise, and I claimed that the Bill went on division. That should be sufficient for the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) on debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I was fearing that my privileges would be jeopardized by being unable to speak to this particular motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Our privileges are jeopardized in reverse.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just because you were asleep over there.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISABILITY OF INFORMING DEPOSITORS WHEN DEPOSITS ARE UNINSURED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not
Financial Institutions
covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that
they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the
institution goes bankrupt.
Michael Morris Cassidy: Perhaps I can say, while I am on debate, that last week I was a little hasty in criticizing the Chair when perhaps we made a bit of a slip-up in terms of what was happening at about the same time. Perhaps the Liberals' interventions were related to the fact that they intended to have five people stand and did not do so at the appropriate time.
The motion in front of the House right now is a motion proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), asking that the Government, in conjunction with the provinces, establish a system whereby people who deposit money in financial institutions, and who are not covered by deposit insurance, be required to sign a waiver form to indicate that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured, in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
There have been a number of instances before the House where exactly that has happened. It happened in a number of cases where companies have played a bait and switch game with money that they have accepted from depositors. The depositors were led to believe that the money they were putting in was insured. They had been prudent in not putting more than 560,000 in a particular account with a particular institution. Yet, nonetheless, they found that they came up short, and in certain cases have lost all or a substantial amount of their life savings because of having put the money into an institution where it was not insured.
There is a very general problem that when there is insurance, people who put money on deposit, often some substantially in excess of $60,000, feel secure as a consequence of the insurance, and feel that as long as they spread their risk and do not put all the money into one institution, they do not have to worry and can go for absolutely the top rate of interest on their deposits without looking at the reputability or credibility of the institution.
Currently, steps are being taken to improve regulation of financial institutions. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions has received greater powers, new legislation, more staff, and has moved his locus of activities into the financial district in Toronto rather than being shut up here in Ottawa. Ottawa is the area that I represent and has many natural advantages, but perhaps it is a little distant from some of the things happening in financial markets.
The question of individual responsibility is a different question from that which I wish to deal with at the moment. I would not mind if a Government said that there should be a certain co-responsibility so that in the event of a financial failure the investor of over $10,000, bore a small proportion of the loss rather than being fully compensated, as is the case at the present time with insured deposits.
The present situation in which people put money into a trust company and believe that the money is an insured deposit, and

May 31, 1988
Financial Institutions
then find out that there was no such insurance, because through one device or another the money had been put into an uninsured form of investment, creates tragic results. The purpose of this motion is to attempt to ensure that that does not occur.
The background is as follows: between 1923 and the late 1970s there were few, if any, financial institutions in this country that failed. Therefore, people who put their money into deposits, particularly after the advent of mortgage insurance, felt relatively secure. The only exception was the Atlantic Acceptance affair in the 1960s. I recall looking at that situation when I was a financial journalist with the Financial Times. In the wake of that, there was the deposit insurance which provided great deal of security. At the beginning of the 1980s that financial insurance was substantially increased in value in the wake of the Seaway and Greymac affair in Ontario, in which I was also involved as an MPP.
An increasing number of financial institutions have got into trouble. That is a product of a number of causes. For example, globalization of finance, the advent of new financial institutions, the entry of Schedule B banks into Canada, the creation of small trust companies, the growth of the credit union movement, and at times some difficulties experienced by credit unions together with their rapid and important growth, the collapse of the Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank in western Canada, a collapse that the Government was prepared to bail out. It was an indication of the difficulties that financial institutions have, and also of the difficulties of regionally based banks. It will be some time before we again see the emergence of regionally based banks, except those that are supported by large foreign banks such as occurred with the Hongkong and Shanghai bank acquisition of the Bank of British Columbia.
Not only have there been collapses, but also near misses. In many cases, these are covered by deposit insurance. However, we must be aware of the fact that there are a substantial number of investment instruments which are not insured. At the same time, there is a broader proportion of Canadians who, for various reasons, have funds to insure. There is an increasing number of Canadians who put money into RRSPs because they are self-employed, or because they are moving from job to job and can take out their pension fund from one employer and put it into an RRSP without a tax penalty, self-administer it, or give it to the trust of a financial institution, in order that they can keep in touch with it. In fact, in many cases people are encouraged to do so by the employer whom they leave, or are forced to do so because the employer that they left was shut down and no longer in business.
There are many investors who may not be very sophisticated. There are people in the agricultural community who perhaps are selling off their family farm, or a portion of it, in order to get a pension fund and are putting money into various type of investments in order to provide themselves with a retirement income. Perhaps there are people who regrettably are forced out of a job because of economic adjustment, forced
by the trade agreement or other factors like that, who receive a sizeable amount of money and prudently put it into investments rather than spending it all. They find that they are looking at a combination of security and return, and one cannot always get both of those, yet people naively try to ensure that they get both.
The investment dealers hold about $3.5 billion in deposits from their clients and their customers, and the only insurance on that is what is called a national contingency fund. We know from the collapse of the Osier brokerage firm in Toronto that one such collapse can leave the fund empty. That contingency fund had about $20 million in credit and about $16 million in cash. The claims against it under the Osier bail-out exceeded, as I recall, the total amount it had on hand, and one particular client, in this case the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society, has been left holding the bag as a consequence of that.
There are in addition hundreds of companies across Canada that offer financial services and fund their operations by issuing debt instruments which are totally uninsured. I think we have to find some balance. For example, for a debt instrument in the form of a bond of a company in the market, it would perhaps be wrong to have to require a waiver. We do not want to have paperwork where it is not necessary, but for an institution which is accepting deposits or deposit-like investments from the public and putting them into short-term and medium-term investments of at least up to five years, the argument of my friend from Kamloops-Shuswap is that if that money is not going into an insured form, the investor should be required to sign a waiver.
If the investor signs a waiver and then later, if the company goes bankrupt and the deposit cannot be repaid, says the company should have told him or her, there is not much we can do except to say: "We are awfully sorry, but you were told". If a person were led to sign a waiver through fraudulent action on behalf of a company, then he or she may wind up in the courts or may take action like that. Nonetheless, this particular proposal would, it seems to me, at least avoid some of the most egregious and difficult problems we have had, particularly with companies that are just on the borderline and just outside the frontier of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or the provincial equivalent to provide deposit insurance to certain provincially-run institutions.
The resolution proposes that there should be co-operation with the provinces when dealing with those institutions that do not fall under federal jurisdiction directly. The federal Government should seek co-operation at the provincial level in order to make sure that shysters and fast-buck artists do not simply transfer their area of activities to the provincial level in order to avoid this measure being taken at the federal level.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, but the Hon. Member's time has expired. I have given him a couple of extra minutes. Perhaps he would like to close off his comments.
May 31, 1988


Michael Morris Cassidy: I beg your pardon. I thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I hope very much that Members of the Elouse will support this motion.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to say a few words in connection with this motion of the Elon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), which is a request for the Government to consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
This is a very laudable motion. It deals, of course, with the question of consumer protection. That is something that I believe every one of us in the House can fully support. We support measures which will protect consumers, and particularly measures which will protect consumers of products of financial institutions.
All Hon. Members and all Canadians are aware that we have had problems in the recent past with financial institutions. I suppose the ones that come to my mind most readily are the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Northland Bank and the Principal Group in the West. All of these have been high-profile items in Parliament and across Canada. Certainly they have had an enormous impact on Canadians, regardless of whether or not they had deposits in those institutions.
Hon. Members will recall the debates that ranged in this House with respect to the Government's efforts to assist depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank and in the Northland Bank. Those efforts were in fact the sorts of efforts that seem to be represented in the motion that is before us today. They were efforts to protect the consumers of the services of financial institutions.
I was disturbed, as I am sure you were, Mr. Speaker, by the attitude of members of the Opposition with respect to those efforts of the Government of Canada to protect consumers, and in particular, the attitude of members of the Opposition with respect to the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. Members of the Opposition, Members who are putting forward this motion and are supporting this motion and the concept of consumer protection for depositors in financial institutions, in effect took great umbrage at the Government's efforts to protect consumers in those cases, and in fact characterized those consumer protection efforts on the part of the Government as being efforts to bail out the big investors in the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. You and I, Mr. Speaker, know very well that that was not what was happening at all. In fact, the effort made on behalf of the Government, the successful effort, was an effort at consumer protection. It was an effort to protect the depositors in those banks.
Financial Institutions
While the depositors in those banks, to all intents and purposes, had huge deposits, those huge deposits represented the funds of a lot of little people. Those deposits included pension funds and deposits on behalf of credit unions. There were all sorts of large deposits which reflected the money of little people across Canada, the money of people who could not afford to lose their life savings if those banks went under. These people could not afford to lose their pension funds and the funds they had deposited in credit unions and institutions of that sort.
It was that effort on behalf of the Government to protect consumers in those cases that I personally believe was extremely laudable. I could not understand the attitude at that time of opposition Members in opposing those efforts and in trying to characterize them as some heinous crime rather than an effort to protect the average Canadian's savings through some sort of consumer protection for deposits in financial institutions.
In the case of the Principal Group failure, I also found it somewhat disconcerting to find that the argument of members of the Opposition had been reversed and flopped over. In that case, the Government clearly had a jurisdictional difficulty because the Principal Group was regulated provincially instead of federally, but now opposition Members were calling for exactly the opposite thing.
Instead of telling the Government that it should not help depositors, it was telling the Government that it should be rushing in to help with the Principal Group depositors, while in fact the Principal Group was a group of provincially-regulated institutions. It seemed inconsistent to me at that time. In fact, it seemed shocking to me that the Opposition would not want to protect consumers in the cases of the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank but would want to have the Government protect consumers in the case of a financial institution which fell under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. That seemed inconsistent to me.
It seems even more inconsistent and inconceivable that here we now have a motion presented by the Hon. Member, laudable as it is, to protect consumers in this sort of a situation. While the principle is an outstanding one, and I certainly would be the last one to quarrel with it because I supported the Government in all of its efforts to protect consumers, I find it somewhat inconsistent and perhaps a little hypocritical to put forward this kind of a motion now.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that Canadians are interested not in buck-passing, not in seeing one Government say it is somebody else's fault-"It is not our fault and we will not do anything"-Canadians are interested in seeing some action, making sure that whoever is in office as far as a Government is concerned, federally or provincially, that it acts in their best interests and does everything to protect them as best it can. That is what the Government has been

May 31, 1988
Financial Institutions
doing over the past four years or so since it took office in September, 1984.
The Government has introduced a number of measures to protect the consumer of the products of financial institutions, not only the ones to whom I have referred previously with respect to the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, but it also issued a Green Paper in the spring, 1985, setting out some principles with respect to the regulation of financial institutions and the reform of the financial sector. Those principles, as you may recall, were as follows. First and foremost, it was to improve consumer protection; second, the strict control of self-dealing; third, to guard against abuses of conflict of interest; fourth, to promote competition, innovation and efficiency; fifth, to enhance the convenience and options available to consumers in the market-place; sixth, to broaden the sources of credit available to individuals and business; seventh, to ensure the soundness of financial institutions and the stability of financial systems; eighth, to promote international competitiveness and domestic economic growth; and ninth, to promote the harmonization of federal-provincial regulatory policies.
Embodied in those principles, first, is consumer protection, protecting the consumers of the services of financial institutions. As well, embodied in there is the principle of promoting harmony between federal and provincial regulatory policies. That, in effect, is the essence of the motion we are debating this evening. It is exactly that, and those are the principles on which the Government has been proceeding.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are signalling me that my time is running out. I wanted to point out a number of specific problems which this motion raises, notwithstanding that the principle is a laudatory one and one that I support, but I guess you are telling me that I do not have time to do so on this occasion. Perhaps Members of the House would give me unanimous consent to continue but if that is not the case, I will bow to your authority as members of the Opposition should have done a few moments ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would love to hear the Hon. Member carry on but I must recognize the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley)


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Motion No. 143 presented by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I know I join Members on all sides of the House in applauding what I think is the general intent of the motion. The Hon. Member suggests in the motion that the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provinces, establish a system where, in his words, individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event the institution goes bankrupt.
In the context in which the Member introduced this motion, it is a motion for which he should be commended. Obviously, for those of us in western Canada who have seen some considerable difficulties develop over the past few years and the resulting difficulties that depositors have suffered, this motion is well intentioned. As well intentioned as it is, does this motion address clearly both the problem and the solution?
When a Member of Parliament talks with a person who has literally been bilked out of his or her entire life savings, it is obviously the type of situation which evinces from all of us not only compassion and sympathy but more than a little outrage. Obviously a Member of Parliament is very concerned that the Government serves to protect the depositors and serves to protect those involved in financial institutions. This motion as it is worded does not first identify the problem and clearly does not move toward the solution.
I would refer Hon. Members to a couple of recent Bills which the Government has passed, namely, Bill C-42 and C-56, both of which deal with the financial sector. One deals with the issue of deposits. We should look at the role of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is the cornerstone of the system for protecting depositors. No one other than a member institution of CDIC can represent itself as being insured by CDIC. This was the case even before Bill C-42. But the Government went further, and in that Bill we improved the supervisory powers of the CDIC and added three further elements to clarify and extend the scope of the supervisory powers of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I want to touch briefly on those three points, Mr. Speaker.
First, there was some question regarding the extent of the prohibition on people making an unauthorized representation that their institution was covered by CDIC. The reforms now clearly indicate that the existing ban applies both to an institution and to all persons acting as agents for an institution. There is some clarity now in terms of prohibiting unauthorized representations from being made. Second, the regulations in Bill C-42 now state that this, assuming an uninsured deposit, must be indicated in writing by the institution on the deposit contract. This is a new feature of the legislation. Third, Bill C-42 extended to all members of the CDIC the requirement that institutions which solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or other non-members of the CDIC must give notice to investors that such funds are not insured by CDIC.
Hon. Members will remember that during the debate on Bill C-42 we considered it in tandem with Bill C-56. Provisions of that legislation will help protect consumers who are not making conventional deposits but are, in effect, using depositlike instruments. This Bill lays the groundwork for the creation of protection plans in the insurance industry. The Government is working with representatives of the industry to develop annuity and policyholder protection plans that will extend the type of protection CDIC does with the chartered banks.
May 31, 1988

The Government has been actively pursuing other avenues as well. We are all aware that the future of the financial sector is going to be very different from its past. New associations of companies and functions have already started to appear, and I think we all expect, as time goes on, that there will be more in the way of services being offered to consumers and more flexibility as both technology and regulation progress. New instruments inevitably will be found, some of which will be very much like deposits which may not be protected under CDIC guidelines. There should exist the type of vehicle that other deposit instruments are protected by. For that reason, it is of paramount importance that we continue to work along with the provinces and along with the specific industries to ensure that protection exists.
I want to speak a little about the need for this type of motion and question whether it is required at this time. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, when he introduced the motion, and I quote from a Globe and Mail story dated March 1, 1988, said:
As financial deregulation proceeds and competition for consumer deposits
increases, the temptation to mislead consumers greatly increases-
I guess that goes to the fundamental view one has of not only the financial community but of life itself.
Members of the NDP say that as one begins to open up competition, particularly in the financial sector, this will somehow turn human beings into essentially law-breaking, evil people who will be compelled to take advantage of others. That grossly oversimplifies the financial community and human nature. I do not think that one can assume, as a result of the moving of the four traditional pillars, that financial institutions are going to be out bilking the aged and those who are less able to protect themselves. If you accepted that faulty premise, as the NDP has, would you then suggest that the alternative is signing a piece of paper, a waiver?
We all know about the so-called fine print. All of us, in getting something as simple as a car loan all the way up to more complicated contracts with banks and financial institutions, routinely sign certain pieces of paper. In fact, this is an argument we have all been following with respect to bank service charges where people are given notice of bank charges and they sign documents which indicate they are willing to accept the service charges. Yet there is controversy.
My point is that if there is great evil in the world and people will be encouraged to bilk widows out of their life savings, would they not do it even if you compelled them to sign a piece of paper? Clearly they would. The answer to the problem has to be a careful analysis of what we find in Bill C-42 and Bill C-56 through increased supervisory powers of the CDIC and increased opportunity to find methods to provide CDIC-like insurance for other types of investment instruments.
I want it to be clear that the kind of spirit with which all concerned Members of Parliament deal with aggrieved
Financial Institutions
constituents, people who have indeed been misrepresented, leads us to be concerned to the extent that we move towards more progressive legislation. The Government has done that through Bill C-42 and Bill C-56. It also might lead Members, as the NDP has, to move to this signing of waivers.
In closing, I believe the way to go is to ensure that we have greater compliance, greater supervision, and while there might be a role at some point for this kind of approach, I do not believe it is suitable at this point. I think other Members want to speak on this issue and I will therefore yield to those who have some views on the usefulness of this type of motion and its place in the financial community.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to comment on this motion today. It raises a number of very appropriate questions about consumer protection and other aspects of the financial system, so I am happy to have this chance to speak. Nonetheless, I am not happy with certain assumptions it makes, and so I feel the House ought not to accept it.
This is now the third occasion on which we have had this motion before us, and Members opposite have ably expressed their opinions and not just about the subject of the motion. Their comments earlier in this debate are an attempt to criticize the federal Government for not exercising responsibility it does not have. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) wants the federal Government to assume an authority it does not have and intervene where it has no right to go. He wants us to take over the responsibilities of the Government which is responsible.
The previous Speaker referred to the Principal Group and comments in a newspaper article attributed to the mover of the motion. However, let us be very clear about this question of responsibility. Of the 127 different companies in the Principal Group, not one was federally regulated. Only one company, Principal Savings and Trust, was even a member of the CDIC. That Corporation moved quickly to discharge its responsibilities. In just over three weeks it arranged to pay out the insured deposits of 47,000 depositors through an agency agreement with Metropolitan Trust. Total pay-outs on that account have reached $116 million.
I have no trouble with the motion's call for co-operation between the provinces and the federal Government on consumer protection. Our reforms have set an example. We are proud of the work we are doing in this sector because we know that a new regime is necessary to ensure protection of the interests of depositors, borrowers and shareholders. Yet we cannot take responsibility for what is outside our jurisdiction. The federal Government has no desire to intrude on provincial jurisdiction. However, as a Government we hope the provincial authorities will study our regime carefully and work with us to ensure thorough and capable measures for all consumers throughout Canada.

May 31, 1988
Non-smokers' Health Act
I now want to turn to the reforms we have carried out already in the financial sector, reforms which have already strengthened the consumer protection regime. Bill C-42 and Bill C-56 made major changes to the regulatory framework in response to the demands of the institutions and the needs of consumers. We instituted the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and made important changes to the CDIC. We will be proceeding as quickly as possible with changes to the Trust and Loans Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act, and other Acts to ensure that consumers are protected and the sector encouraged.
Even prior to these reforms, a non-member of CDIC was prohibited from representing itself as being insured by the CDIC. There has been a requirement for some time that uninsured instruments should be stamped as such. Bill C-42 added three important further elements to these measures.
First, it cleared up a question about the existing ban on unauthorized representations of insured status of member institutions or deposits received by them. This ban now clearly applies both to the institution and all persons acting as its agents.
Second, the Bill put into the Act a provision previously in the regulations. It is now a statutory requirement that when an institution takes a deposit which is not insured, this must be indicated in writing on the deposit contract.
Third, it instituted a new requirement that institutions, which solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or other non-members of the CDIC must give notice to investors that these companies are non-members and that such funds are not insured by the CDIC. The draft trust and loans legislation takes account of this by enabling the Governor in Council to make regulations imposing terms and conditions on the activities that companies undertake in the areas open to them. Similar provisions will be incorporated in the legislation governing banks and insurance companies.
I see that my time is running out. I was going to comment further on Bill C-56 but I will conclude with this. I believe that what is now in place, and those provisions now being implemented, will provide an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, that is depositors, borrowers and investors. I believe our approach to the question's federal-provincial dimension is also sound; we are not trying to impose our solution but are trying to work out a mutually agreeable solution. I am confident that our Government's approach is a good one.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 6 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of Bill C-204.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 30, consideration of Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the motions of Ms. McDonald:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) for an office building or other enclosed work space constructed prior to January 1, 1990 an enclosed space, and
(b) for an office building or other enclosed work space constructed on or". Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 33 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "other enclosed work space provided by an employer,".
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 4 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) a passenger ship registered under the Canada".
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 6 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) a passenger railway train operated by a company".
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to suggest that since we are now dealing with Private Members' Business, it is customary to proceed with a different kind of vote, a recorded vote since it is a free vote, and to have the Chair start as usual on the Chair's right, row by row.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to have the vote taken row by row?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 31, 1988

Non-smokers' Health Act


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, I would like to remind Hon. Members that the voting will begin with those Members who are in favour of the motion in the rows to my right by rising by row, and then with those Members in the rows to my left by rising by row.
Later, I will ask those Members who are opposed to the motion in the rows to my right to rise, and then those Members opposed to the motion in the rows to my left.
The first question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 2.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 carried.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 3. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion No. 4.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that there would be a disposition to apply the last vote to this vote as well as the subsequent vote.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis). 1 am afraid there is not such a disposition.
Althouse	Heap	ParryAngus	Hopkins	PennerBaker	Hovdebo	RedwayBenjamin	Isabelle	ReidBerger	Jardine	ReimerBlaikie	Jepson	RiisBlenkarn	Kaplan	RobinsonBosley	Keeper	RodriguezBoudria	Kilgour	RompkeyBoyer	Langdon	RossiBrisco	Lapierre	SchellenbergCaccia	Layton	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cardiff	Lopez	StackhouseCassidy	MacLellan	ThackerCollins	Malone	TobinCopps	Manly	TurnerDarling	Marchi	(Ottawa-Carleton)de Corneille	McCrossan	WaddellDingwall	McCurdy	WenmanEpp	McDonald	Wilson(Thunder Bay-	(Broadview-	(Swift CurrentNipigon)	Greenwood)	-Maple Creek)Friesen	Mitchell	WiterFulton	Murphy	Young-73Gagliano	Nicholson	Gauthier	(Niagara Falls)	Gottselig	Nickerson	Grondin	Nystrom	Halliday	Orlikow	NAYS	Members	Andre	Corbett	HamiltonBelsher	Domm	HardeyBernier	Dorin	HarveyBinns	Fennell	HawkesBlackburn	Ferland	Johnson(Jonquicrc)	Fontaine	(Bonavista-T rinity-Blouin	Forrestall	Conception)Bourgault	Gagnon	JourdenaisBrightwell	Gray	KelleherCarney	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	KemplingClinch	la-Madeleine)	LadouceurComeau	Grise	LandryCook	Guilbault	LanthierCooper	(Drummond)	Leblanc
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, there would be one exception. If I am on a passenger cruise liner and standing on the open deck and wanted to have a smoke, I presume that I could?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. I therefore declare Motion No. 4 carried.


Lynn McDonald: that the Bill as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Lynn McDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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

May 31, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is agreed to on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to advise the House that tomorrow, immediately after Routine Proceedings, we will resume the procedural debate on the admissibility of Bill C-130, the free trade Bill. We understand
Business of the House
that the Speaker may wish to reserve judgment and, therefore, we will not call the Bill. We will immediately move to resume debate on Bill C-129, the Air Canada privatization Bill.
Thursday, provided that the Air Canada privatization Bill, Bill C-129, is passed, we are trying to arrange progress on certain items of legislation under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.50 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 1, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers