1988-06-01

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, today's events in Moscow lead me to raise again in this House the question of 35-year-old Czech dissident, Mr. Pavel Wonka, who died suddenly in a jail near Prague on April 26 last. The Governments of West Germany, Great Britain, the U.S., and France have requested the establishment of an independent group to examine the cause of his death.
Mr. Wonka was known as a supporter of human rights in Czechoslovakia. In 1986 he tried to run for public office, human rights groups report. He was arrested and charged with the offence of inciting a rebellion against the republic even though his election manifesto was said to be in harmony with the concepts of openness and reconstruction of the U.S.S.R. During his prison term Amnesty International adopted Mr. Wonka as a prisoner of conscience.
Glasnost is an encouraging concept but we have yet to see that it is truly practised. Let us hope that the events in Moscow this week will lead us to see concrete examples of improvements in human rights.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the events of the past week have shown again that unscrupulous individuals are prepared to take advantage of Canada's flawed refugee determination system. Bills C-55 and C-84 would correct this problem. Canadians should be aware that the Senate has continually refused to pass these Bills in the form
in which they were endorsed by this democratically elected Chamber. Twenty-one hundred of my constituents have condemned this action.
I am disappointed in the Senate. However, I am more disappointed with the media for not challenging the undemocratic behaviour of the Senate.
Before 1984, as a private citizen, I would have thought that our free press would have been the first to condemn the continued obstruction of initiatives from the House of Commons. That has not happened, and I think that reflects poorly on all of us and is a source of sadness to everyone who cherishes democratic ideals.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and his predecessor say that the free trade agreement will not hurt our food processing industry. They are wrong.
On March 25, I reported that the Vice-President of McCain's Foods predicted 100,000 jobs would be lost in the agri-food sector in the next 15 years under the free trade agreement.
His boss, Harrison McCain, was quoted in the current issue of Maclean's as saying: "Don't dupe us in the food industry". He went on to ask Peter Newman that, if the deal is so wonderful, why are the company presidents across Canada not standing up and talking about doubling or tripling capacity?
Mum's the word for these presidents of these processing companies because they know they will have difficulty competing with cheaper U.S. raw material and cheaper U.S. labour, and they know they will have to close plants in Canada and make their expansions in the United States. They know the Mulroney-Reagan deal is bad news for Canadian agriculture, for its farmers and for its food processing workers. The Government is wrong to push this deal forward.

June 1, 1988


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Charles Ng, an illegal immigrant from Hong Kong who is wanted in the United States for committing 12 murders, is still sitting in a Canadian jail awaiting extradition. The State of California applied to have Mr. Ng extradited on February 17, August 26, and November 3, 1987. Each time his lawyers were successful in delaying his extradition by using the Charter and the fact that the State of California has a death penalty for murder.
Mr. Ng is an illegal alien and I feel he should not be accorded the same protection as Canadians. Further, these legal manoeuvres, especially since any decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, will be very costly.
The Canadian taxpayers should not be footing the bill to defend, protect, and house an individual who is a cold blooded mass murderer and had no compassion for his victims. Canada cannot become a haven for death penalty fugitives.
I urge the Government to explore the possibility of having him extradited to a state that does not have the death penalty and let California obtain him through the American legal system. His victims deserve justice.


ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, when I went to the Sainte-Therese Seminary at the age of 13, I met Father Gregoire, who was then headmaster and father confessor. Later, when I studied law at the University of Montreal and became president of the law students association, our chaplain was someone who was affectionately referred to as Monsignor Greg. The students must have guessed that he was meant for great things.
The Pope has now appointed to the Sacred College this brilliant, humble and dedicated man, Paul Gregoire, Archbishop of Montreal. The appointment of His Eminence Cardinal Gregoire is an honour that reflects on Canada as a whole, an honour that is cause for rejoicing in Quebec and a source of great pride to the people of Montreal. We thank the Holy See and the Holy Father, and may Almighty God continue to guide, bless and protect my Archbishop and friend, His Eminence Cardinal Paul Gregoire.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, western cattlemen are encountering serious drought related problems. Owing to lack of stock water and feed, some ranchers are forced to sell off their cows.
The cattlemen are the last group in the economy to ask for direct government assistance. What they do request is to be allowed to defer income tax when they are forced to sell their breeding stock as a result of adverse weather conditions. The sale proceeds would be set aside to be used to buy back into the market when the drought conditions end.
In central Canadian terms, these cows are the factory or plant that manufacture beef. The deferral of tax would enable the replacement of the ranchers' factory at a later date when there is adequate water and feed to sustain it.
Feed and freight assistance programs often distort market decisions. The tax deferral proposal is market neutral and costs the government Treasury nothing in the long run. This proposal deserves serious consideration.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it came to my attention on the May long weekend that VIA Rail had assigned two people who worked for VIA as switchmen in Winnipeg to Melville, Saskatchewan, where they were to begin immediately their work as locomotive engineers running passenger trains.
One of these men, for instance, trained as an engineer for CN in 1983, a freight engineer, and since 1984 has not run any kind of train at all-not even a yard engine. He has never run a passenger train.
CN, when it puts such people into service, gives them a two-week refresher course at Gimli, and other retraining. These workers asked for a similar refresher, but it appears that VIA cares less for the safety of its passengers than CN does for its non-human cargo. Property before people triumphs again.
I asked the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. St. Germain) to look into this early last week, hoping not to have to raise it publicly. But VIA is still refusing the refresher course for these individuals. It is satisfied that one of these men made one trip with a supervisor and then, now being retrained according to VIA's standards, is being sent out with
June 1, 1988

another man with similar inexperience-exactly one less trip- so that the one can train the other.
Shameful! VIA should be hauled up into the Minister's office and made to account for this lack of safety practice and made to change the policy.


THE FAMILY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, this week various groups are gathered here in Ottawa to a conference sponsored by Focus on the Family. The purpose of this conference and the focus of all the attending groups are to reinforce the importance and value of the family in Canada- indeed, in North America.
Clearly, history has revealed the strength of a nation is the family. The quickest way to destroy a nation is to destroy the family. Radical feminists have stated that thanks to their feminist movement the nuclear traditional family is a goner. What a sad commentary. Strengthening the family should not be a threat to equality for women. Every reasonable Canadian wants equality for women. This Government has made considerable progress in this regard.
1 wish all those men and women attending the Focus on the Family conference a successful week.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, as the superpower summit draws to a close today in Moscow we are encouraged that human rights top the agenda.
Today, let Canada's voice of support for Soviet dissidents and refuseniks be heard along with that of United States President Reagan. We hope the Soviets soon deliver on their familiar commitment to increase religious freedom, and the right to immigration for Soviet Jews and others.
The Soviet leader this week called President Reagan's human rights interventions interfering in the domestic affairs of the Soviet Union. We hope Mr. Gorbachev will change his mind and respect the Soviets' signature on the Helsinki Accord through more concrete action.
As a sign of Canada's support, Canadian friends of these refuseniks and dissidents call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to direct our Canadian Embassy in Moscow to invite these people to cultural activities and celebrations inside the embassy on Canada Day. This action
will be an example to the world of the freedoms that we in Canada enjoy, respect, and support world-wide for all peoples.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in Environment Week let us be aware that a critical environmental problem is the way bodies of water like Lake Ontario are being polluted, very often by raw sewage. In many municipalities such as the city of Scarborough existing sewer systems are not enough to cope during heavy rains. As a result raw sewage is actually deposited in the lake.
To protect one of our most vital natural assets, upgrading sewage disposal facilities is imperative. Senior levels of government, along with municipal ones, should make this a priority.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians witnessed one of this Parliament's finest moments.
Most Members of Parliament work hard to make this place work, in the House of Commons, in its committees, and in those organizations associated with Parliament. However, there are special moments when Members rise to the occasion and demonstrate just how democratically and progressively our Canadian Parliament can perform.
One such occasion occurred on May 31, 1988, when Members of the House of Commons from all Parties from all sides of the House came together to support a Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), and a Bill standing in the name of the Minister for National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which together will dramatically reduce tobacco consumption in our country.
With the passage of these Bills Canada enters the family of progressive, caring, and thoughtful nations that have taken major steps to reduce tobacco consumption and thereby the deaths and the illnesses associated with smoking.
As a result of the actions taken by the Members of this House yesterday, Canadians will be healthier in the future and Canada will be a better place.

June 1, 1988
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 1988, the Chief Administrative Officer for the Town of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, wrote to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) with respect to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program for his municipality.
In his letter the Chief Administrative Officer said: "The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program has benefited many low and moderate income citizens in rehabilitating their homes. Many seniors would not be able to stay in their homes without this type of help. Our RRAP allocation for 1988 is $255,000. This means that of the approximately 1,000 applications on file possibly only 35 will be processed in 1988. On behalf of the Town Council of the Town of Glace Bay, I ask that you take the necessary action to increase RRAP funding so that such a worthwhile program will not be in jeopardy."
I urge the Minister to listen to the advice of the Town Council of Glace Bay, and increase the Rehabilitation Assistance Program to help and to benefit the many fine citizens of that municipality as well as of the many surrounding areas.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's leading role in developing an international protocol to deal with chemicals having an attenuating effect on stratospheric ozone is well known. Depletion of the ozone layer, especially over polar regions, is of considerable concern to us.
What might not be quite as well known is that it was scientists in the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service who developed the Brewer Spectrophotometer used to measure the amount of ozone or other gases in the atmospheric column, thereby making it an invaluable tool for atmospheric ozone research.
The receipt by those scientists of the "Excellence in Technology Transfer" award was extremely well deserved.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
The Minister of Supply and Services is responsible, on behalf of the Government of Canada and indeed, more important, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, for supervising the performance of contractors involved in the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is the following. Is the Minister aware of correspondence between Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd. and Paramax Electronics of Montreal indicating numerous defaults by Paramax in meeting its contractual obligations?
Has the Government instructed officials of Supply and Services to conduct regular audits to ensure that Paramax is and was fully in compliance with all government regulations as a major participant in the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services is aware of the allegations raised by the Hon. Member.
The audit for 1986 has been completed. We are half way through the audit for 1987, and to date no irregularities or dissatisfaction have been uncovered. We are monitoring the situation closely. We are happy with the progress of the contract.


E. SYSTEMS CONTRACT TO SUPPLY RADIO SYSTEMS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, less than one hour ago I spoke with Sergeant Elwick of the RCMP Special Federal Investigations Branch to arrange to turn over to Sergeant Elwick, tomorrow morning at ten o'clock, internal documents which came into my possession late last night.
My supplementary to the Acting Minister is the following. Is he aware, and I believe he was the Minister of Supply and Services at the time, of a dispute between Paramex Electronics of Montreal and a U.S. sub-contractor, E. Systems, in which E. Systems attempted to earn 100 per cent profit of taxpayers' dollars on radio systems supplied for the Canadian frigate program? The dollar amount in question is in the millions.
Can the Minister answer that question?


Stewart Donald McInnes: have been uncovered. The Hon. Member has brought a situation to our attention, and I will see it is pursued to ensure that we are on course.


AUDIT OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a multibillion dollar defence contract. In the case of Paramex we are talking about a $1.25 billion subcontract. We are talking about more than fiscal year 1986.
The Minister just indicated that an internal audit is nearly completed and no irregularities have been found up until this time. Can he tell us when that audit is going to be completed? Will he make the information it contains available to the House of Commons?
Also can he tell the House whether or not in fiscal years 1984-85 and 1985-86 such audits were undertaken and whether or not the Government became aware of irregularities, many of which are noted in internal company documents I will make available to the RCMP tomorrow? They raise many questions of irregular practices.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Why are you holding them?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, a number of allegations have been made with respect to this contract for the last couple of years. When these matters are brought to our attention we investigate them. This is a sizeable contract and the Government accepts responsibility to continue monitoring and we will do so. The Hon. Member brought a situation to our attention and I undertake on behalf of the Minister to respond very soon.


Mr. Forrestall:: Why is he hanging on to the documents?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The very serious drought in western Canada continues. Canadians all across the country are shocked by the images they see on television every night of dust storms, dry pastures, and cattle without feed.
The measures announced by the Minister yesterday for long-term well construction are appreciated and will be useful to the long-term supply of water. Can he say when he is going to announce a program for transportation of feed to the drought areas or movement of cattle out so as to stabilize a very uncertain situation for livestock herds in western Canada?
Oral Questions


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the tour of the drought area that my colleagues and I participated in Monday afternoon and evening was very useful. We saw it first-hand and of course there were no surprises whatsoever. My colleagues and I have been kept informed as well as our people in the field, primarily from PFRA. The meeting on Tuesday with farm leaders and our provincial counterparts was also very productive. The Hon. Member knows at that time we announced an additional $12 million to be used for the transportation of water supplies, the drilling of wells, purchase of pumps and pipes, as well as the hauling of water.
We have asked the drought committee to provide us with further recommendations within 10 days or two weeks to deal with what I like to term phase 3. That of course will be the response by both levels of government to deal with the livestock aspect of the drought.


PROPOSED CATTLE HERD STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1985 the Government made a commitment to establish a longterm disaster assistance program. It was very apparent to most people in western Canada that the drought was going to be very serious. Does the Minister really believe he can wait for another three weeks while more committee meetings take place before he announces a stabilization program for cattle herds? This might result in the dispersal of herds and a drop in prices, not to mention the uncertainty of livestock owners over whether or not they should disperse those herds because of the uncertainty over whether a program will be put in place and what the funding level will be.
I believe $50 per stock cow was provided in 1985 by the two levels of government. I hope the Minister could announce at least that much and perhaps a great deal more, because we are dealing with a drought in the spring of the year, not in the late summer.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Hon. Member that I did not say three weeks, I said a week, 10 days, or 2 weeks at the most. One thing we have to realize is that this is really at the request of the producers themselves. There is a good understanding between livestock producers and ourselves and a high level of confidence that they share with our Government because of the way in which we have responded to their problems in the past. We must recognize as well that decisions are already being made by producers based on their own particular situation.
Some producers in the Vulcan area have already decided to move liner loads of cattle from that area some 700 miles north to Peace River at a cost of about $1,500, many of which are cows. They will have to come back. If we have to get into phase 3, then everyone knows there will be retroactivity provisions anyhow.

June 1, 1988
Oral Questions
People making those decisions today, who will make them tomorrow, and who made them yesterday, have made and are making them with the understanding that if we move in that direction obviously assistance will be retroactive.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Why wait?


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since the U.S. implementing Bill on the trade agreement has now come from the two committees which had to handle it and since that Bill has, in fact, amended the agreement itself by references to moves against Canada in at least 12 economic sectors in the future, on everything from automobiles to oil and gas to zinc alloys, does the Minister himself consider it fair that the United States should, in effect, renegotiate this agreement while the Canadian Parliament is faced with a Bill which simply reflects the original signed agreement?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought by now even the hon. gentleman would recognize that there is a considerable difference between the two systems of government in the two countries. One is the congressional system where the President is independent of Congress, and a Congress is independent of the President. The Americans do not have party discipline like in the New Democratic Party where, if the Leader says "bray like a donkey", then New Democrats all bray like donkeys.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In the United States the Americans do not have that.
What we have now are two key congressional committees, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, which have resolved most of the differences between them. They have issued a press release with recommendations to the administration on what they feel should be in the implementing legislation.
The process has not stopped. The Energy Committee has to make its recommendations yet, but when they are all finished making their recommendations the administration will have to decide finally which legislation to introduce into Congress this month on behalf of the administration. Then everyone will have to vote straight up or down. But the Americans will vote, because in the United States they have not said that they will obstruct, try to hold up matters, or try to stop the majority from having their way. The Americans will do the democratic thing in the United States of America.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that Senator Max Baucus, who is a member of this joint deliberation process, on CBC on Sunday morning indicated very clearly that the administration had been part of the process which had formed these recommendations and it intended to support them.
[ Translation]


REDUCTION OF TARIFFS ON PLYWOOD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have the following supplementary. The Minister said that the Government protested against the decision to delay the reduction of tariffs on plywood, but the U.S. bill has maintained this decision. What is the Government doing now to protest this continuation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that we sent a note of protest with respect to the plywood matter to the U.S. administration. The process is not finished yet. No formal, completed piece of legislation has yet been put before the Congress. The process continues.
I have protested to Mr. Yeutter. We have protested to Secretary Baker. We will continue to take the position that in our view the suggested plywood provision is inconsistent with the free trade agreement, and if they proceed with it we will take action under the free trade agreement to challenge it, or we will take some other action of our own that will penalize the Americans just as we feel they are penalizing us.
I must say that the Americans do feel that they have a grievance in connection with plywood standards. We cannot be blinded to the fact that the other side may have an argument, and they think they have an argument, but I am putting forward with all of the strength and conviction that I can muster our objections to these suggested provisions.


Steven W. Langdon: God help us if there is that much strength and conviction being put forward that the Minister himself would suggest that the Americans actually do have an argument in this case.


LANDING RIGHTS FOR FISH CATCHES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since the Government has protested against these other areas, why has the Government not protested against the provision in these Bills that allows the President and indeed requires the President to take action against Canada if we impose, as we promise to do, requirements for landing rights for western fish caught in Canadian waters? Why has the Government not made such a protest?
June 1, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the hon. gentleman has made an assumption that is not correct. Naturally we are protesting and we disagree with that language, but perhaps the hon. gentleman will read the clauses of the free trade agreement. I recommend this to the House.
I am initiating a $ 10-million campaign shortly so that Canadians will know of every facet of the agreement and how best to take advantage of the agreement. If, rather than opposing and obstructing, the hon. gentleman would look at the provisions of the agreement, he would see a clause in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in which the Americans agree to the grandfathering of certain provisions with reference to the East Coast of Canada but reserve their rights to proceed under the GATT if they so wish in the future. That is a right that the Americans have that we cannot take from them, although we will strongly oppose any such action if they do commence any such action.


PROMOTION CAMPAIGN-CONTRACT WITH JOHN LASCHINGER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and it concerns the juicy contract that the Minister for International Trade gave to his former leadership campaign manager, John Laschinger. The cost of running the trade office is somewhere in the area of $30 million. The previous ad campaign cost no less than $12.7 million. Now this new campaign with Mr. Laschinger will cost $10 million, for a grand total of $52,700,000.
How much of this latest $ 10-million goody contract will be going to the Minister's friend, Mr. Laschinger? Isn't that relationship just a bit too incestuous?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one has come to expect this kind of low-life behaviour from the Hon. Member. It was Thomas Carlyle who once said about Algernon Swinburne, after someone said he would like to introduce him to Swinburne, that he did not want to meet someone who was sitting in a sewer and adding to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman is in the Swinburne category.
With respect to the question, we are planning a $ 10-million campaign so that Canadians will be better able to take advantage of the free trade agreement when it goes into effect. It will involve a series of seminars and conferences across the country. It will involve a series of studies of various industries to show them where opportunities lie for them in the United States market as the tariffs start to come off.
With respect to Mr. Laschinger's part in all of this, Mr. Laschinger is acting as a consultant. It is not a full-time job.


Don Boudria: Good justification there.
Oral Questions


Ms. Copps:: It's a part-time, $10-million job?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I might complete my answer, it is not like the contracts that used to be handed out by the former administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps we should move to the next question and the Minister may be able to respond.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, am I ever glad that this is not a full-time job, otherwise it would cost a lot of money.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE TABLED
Don Boudria: I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade whether he is prepared to table the contract in the House today, so that Canadians will know how much it costs to have Mr. Laschinger as the Minister's campaign organizer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Mr. Laschinger's contract will likely be for a period of three months. It could be extended and it might very well be extended. He is one of the ablest people in this business that one could find.
The contract is for an amount of $25,000 including expenses, not $5 million as was suggested by the Member from Winnipeg yesterday nor any of the other fantastic figures that were suggested. His qualifications include a Master's in Business Administration and four years as a senior official in the Government of Ontario where he was Director of Small Business Development and Director of International Trade Development, apart altogether from all his other skills, skills he has used to tackle the impossible. He assisted me in my campaign for the Party leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. According to media reports, the Government's child care strategy is delayed by funding problems. Would the Minister now recognize the real need for child care which he himself now admits will cost an extra $1.5 billion, money that he preferred before to put into tax measures? Will he reconsider his method of funding child care? Will he remove the cap from cost-shared funding so that the real cost of child care is shared more fairly with the provinces?

June 1, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the allegation that I have agreed to anything is absolutely wrong. Number one, I think the Hon. Member should know that.
Second, we said right from the beginning that we would show federal leadership with the program and that we would have certain objectives. Those objectives are being met. In fact, time after time the Hon. Member said that it would not work, the provinces would not co-operate and they would not agree. The very opposite is happening, and that is why we now have before us proposals that we are examining.
We will have final agreements with the provinces and the legislation will come forward. I hope that the Opposition for once will be more co-operative on legislation than it has been on this issue so far.


NATIONAL OBJECTIVES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that after four years of waiting there will be some federal leadership on this matter and some national objectives. I remind the Minister that the goal of 200,000 spaces over seven years will hardly respond to the needs of mothers, 60 per cent of whom are working mothers with children under 16. I would imagine most of them need child care.
The Minister referred to objectives. Will he establish, in the promised child care legislation, the national child care objectives as Meech Lake requires? Will these objectives cover funding for quality child care that is affordable and pays decent wages to care givers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member again used the word "imagine". It seems to me that that is how most of her policies are put forward.
The point of the matter is that the plans that the provinces are putting forward and the plans that we put forward are solid plans backed up by federal leadership and money. As part of that operation wages and working conditions are improving as well, and thank goodness that is happening. That is part of the plan as well.
I am glad that for once the Hon. Member, who is nodding her head, recognizes that federal leadership is bringing the kinds of results which we always said it could.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last September the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on behalf of the Education Group which includes 2,300 language teachers, agreed to a settlement. They agreed to ratify it and then they bargained in bad faith, as was recently ruled by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
This PSAC action is a disgrace and a betrayal of the collective bargaining process. I want to know what the Minister and the Government intend to do to resolve this outstanding matter on behalf of the language teachers who do not have a contract at this time.


Hon. Pat Carney (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Public Service Staff Relations Board is important because it does point out that the integrity of the entire bargaining process is at stake. It was very important that the PSSRB found bad faith bargaining on the part of the union in the case of this particular group.
With regard to what we are going to do, the Hon. Member knows that we are ready to listen to any constructive proposals put forward at this time. We are ready to resume negotiations at any time according to the provisions of the law governing labour relations.


DAY CARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He is no doubt aware that two days ago, the Province of Quebec submitted a request to his Department to create
60,000	day-care spaces in the Province of Quebec. He also knows perfectly that the Province of Ontario has already planned for 30,000 new spaces to expand its existing system. Could the Minister give the House the assurance today that these spaces will receive full federal funding?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the Hon. Member, as I have right along, that the federal plan, along with the co-operation we are getting from the provinces, and the 200,000 quality spaces that we have projected in our plan will be delivered.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in other words the federal Government has slammed the door on the needs of millions of
June 1, 1988

children who are not being represented in plans to expand child care spaces across the country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance why the Treasury of Canada and the Prime Minister are slamming the door on the promise to Canadians that we would launch a national child care program.
Why will the Government not at least, in the House today, commit that it will finance, as promised in federal-provincial discussions, the 30,000 spaces proposed in the Province of Ontario, the 60,000 spaces proposed in the Province of Quebec, and the thousands of other spaces across the country for the children who are in need, the millions of children who are in need?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is slamming no doors shut. Frankly, that kind of stupid comment that is made so often by that Member adds nothing to either child care or debate in this House.
The point of the matter is that we are negotiating with the provinces. We do have a plan with the provinces. Obviously I am not going to put forward-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're breaking your word.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am not breaking my word. Last Friday the Hon. Member said I was in Ottawa when I was in Alberta. She said I was doing things with regard to blood when I wasn't, I was on a drug strategy. That is how accurate the Member is, both here and everywhere else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is with regard to the question of British fur labelling. As the Minister knows, there has been a delay in the tabling of the fur labelling legislation in Britain but we do expect that it may come on very soon as an urgent matter.
We appreciate the efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the representations that he has made on this issue to high level members of the British Cabinet. I have recently returned from the United Kingdom where I met with a number of British Members of Parliaments and Lords.
What is the Government doing to let British Members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords know about
Oral Questions
the position of Canadian parliamentarians regarding this fur labelling?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the Hon. Member and her Party on the fur issue as it relates to Canadian hunters and trappers and their ability to maintain a way of life.
It is important to note that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has formally expressed the concerns of Canada. We have been able to participate in the British Museums Show to assist indigenous survival and to assist the aboriginal groups who are putting forward a very important message. I hope British parliamentarians and the British Government will take seriously the impact of this action on the ability of these groups to earn a living, to have an economic activity, and to maintain a recognized cultural pursuit.
The actions of the Commissioner, Mr. McMurtry, in delivering Canada's message, and continued pressure by the Member for the Yukon and other Members on both sides of the House to have Great Britain understand the importance of this industry to Canada's people are very important.


GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN IN BRITAIN
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the proposed British legislation is not only antitrapping legislation but anti-fur legislation. It is, therefore, very important to act very forcefully.
Can the Minister tell this House how much money the Canadian Government has spent in Britain on an education campaign specifically directed to politicians? Some of the other organizations are directing such programs toward the public at large but my information is that there is very little information going to British politicians in general.
Could the Minister tell us approximately how much money been spent in the United Kingdom to counteract the anti-fur legislation?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, External Affairs has spent some $8.1 million on a program. Those dollars are being used to assist aboriginal and trapping groups, including the Canadian fur industry, in putting forward very forcefully the point of view that the Government and Members in this House have expressed.
I am pleased to have the support of the Hon. Member and her Party in this very difficult time when not only trapping but the fur industry in Canada are being threatened. I hope that support will continue. I would appreciate if she would keep her contacts up with her counterparts in Great Britain and attempt to convince them, as we have tried to convince the British Government, to act on behalf of this Canadian industry.

June 1, 1988
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last Thursday, I had the pleasure of meeting hundreds of early retirees from the Trois-Rivieres area who object to Bill C-50, which will cut unemployment insurance benefits for older workers. Tomorrow, I will be in the beautiful riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, and I will meet the same people, hundreds of them, who feel it is totally unacceptable that this Bill should deprive them of their benefits. Could the Minister inform the House, considering the flexibility she has shown as the new Minister responsible for Immigration, whether she intends to withdraw Bill C-50 in order to eliminate this discrimination against older workers who, even if they lose their jobs and look for other work, are not entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits because they are drawing on their pension fund? Would she be prepared to amend the Bill to eliminate this discrimination?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to amend this legislation at this time. We are watching the situation very carefully.
As the Hon. Member knows, reasonable settlements were made with a great many of the people involved, so that we are really talking about a very few. We will continue to ensure that the legislation is fair for everyone.


DEMAND FOR EXPLANATIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would do her homework, because there are still 40,000 cases, and tomorrow I will meet older workers in the area of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and Mr. Clean, Mr. Bouchard is in trouble because of this Bill. How will the Minister explain to Canadians and to older workers that her Government wastes $30 million to sell its free trade propaganda, wastes huge sums of money on frigates, while workers who need help are denied benefits to which they are entitled and which they paid for out of their salaries? How will the Minister explain to these people that she cannot withdraw this Bill to give them a fair deal?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that some $137 million was paid as a result of the passage of Bill C-50. He also knows that the unemployment insurance account cannot be used as a form of supplementary income. Those funds belong to the people who paid into it from all across
Canada. We take their payments into this as essentially being their own money and we do not use it as a form of supplementary benefit.


FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the fur issue.
Historically the indigenous people of Canada have relied very heavily on the fur industry. Within the next couple of weeks we will be host to an economic summit, with some 5,000 media world-wide in attendance.
Can the Minister seize the opportunity as a means of conveying to the world, including leading nations of the world, our concerns about policy and attitudes that have been expressed by some countries with regard to the fur trade?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague puts forward a very interesting suggestion and one I would like to explore with him and other Members of the House. I am aware of the excellent report of a standing committee of the House chaired by the Member for Wetaskiwin, co-chaired by the Member for Timiskaming, and on which the Hon. Member also served.
I believe there is an opportunity to explain to the media of the world, indeed to Europe, how opportunities will be denied, how pride will be denied, how a standard of living and indeed a tradition and culture of the indigenous people of Canada will be denied if this continues.
Another important concern is the fur industry which is very important right across the nation. I appreciate the Hon. Member's suggestion and would like to explore it.


BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO-EFFECT OF THERMAL PLANT ON AIR QUALITY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is about to give permission to British Columbia Hydro to fire up its Burrard thermal plant in Port Moody, British Columbia. This is not for emergency power or load balancing, but for export of power to the United States.
Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware that the air quality and ozone layer in the Fraser Valley in British
June 1, 1988

Columbia are very fragile? Why is the Government about to give approval to this export of power? Why not put the interests of Canadians ahead of the interests of our American neighbours for once?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Government will, of course, consider both the interests of Canadians and the interests of B.C. Hydro. In 1980, the utility requested permission for all units to be able to export energy. At the time, the Government refused to allow exports from the area where the Burrard thermal plant is located, since the plant had failed to obtain existing pollution control permits. Since then, the province authorized and granted the pollution control permits, and B.C. Hydro is now making a new submission to the National Energy Board, which has yet to reach a decision, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT APPROVE APPLICATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be aware that British Columbia does not have the highest requirements in terms of the environment, to put it mildly. Why does the Minister not tell B.C. Hydro that the federal Government will not approve this application? Otherwise, we will have to tell the old people in Fraser Valley that they will have to stay indoors this summer because of the pollution levels that will be caused in order to run American air conditioners in California. Stop accommodating the interests of the Americans and stand up for Canadians.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, Parliament has adopted certain procedures, and I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to abide by them. The request is now before the National Energy Board, and it is up to the Board to deal with the matter and make recommendations to the Minister, and then, and only then, will I make a decision, bearing in mind the interests of all concerned.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Science Council of Canada once again brought to the attention of the
Oral Questions
public the Government's inability to deal with emerging water issues.
The Council says in the report released yesterday that Canadians must be made to realize that their supply of safe, clean water is seriously threatened and that governments have to recognize the threat and start spending more on water related issues.
Will the Minister recognize the error of his Government in cutting personnel and water related programs since 1984, and move immediately to reinstate such programs so as to deal with the emerging problems described in the Science Council report?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. We have every reason to be rather pleased with the report because it underscores and endorses the initiatives that have been taken by the Minister of the Environment and the Government. These initiatives are reflected in the federal water policy which was announced last fall.
The Minister is absent today because he is at McMaster University announcing a very exciting program which includes significant federal spending precisely in this area.


DEPARTMENTAL FUNDING AND STAFFING
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the initiatives to which the Minister is referring are not worth the paper they are written on unless there are people and programs and funds to implement them.
Does the Minister realize that in Environment Canada alone, over the last three or four years, some $70 million has been lost to inflation and over 300 scientists and technicians have been displaced because of the Government's fiscal policy?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, any objective observer comparing the record of the Minister of the Environment of the present Government with the Minister of the Environment of the former Government would obviously come to the conclusion that things are on track.
I told the Hon. Member that the Minister of the Environment is at McMaster University today to announce the establishment, together with the private sector and the university, of an industrial chair for industrial waste water treatment.
There are numerous initiatives like that, all of which are reflected in the Freshwater Act. If the Hon. Member would take the trouble to read it, I am sure he would be as excited as the rest of us with the prospects for the future.

June 1, 1988
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of a concern expressed to me by the Chief of Sandy Lake, the largest of the 51 reserves in my riding.
The Government is presently compelling Indian bands which have taken over their membership codes to maintain two lists, one for the Department and one for those who are band members under their code. I would like to ask the Minister this. Since apparently the Department has no provisions to ensure that transfers are actually registered, how is it that a Department which is always crying poor and says that it cannot provide extra lands-nor can it provide enough money under C-31, the reinstatement law-can avoid double-funding situations if there is no mechanism to remove somebody from the list of the band from which they are being transferred?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the system of maintaining the memberships that have been transferred to band Governments, the proposition which the Hon. Member puts forward. I will check into it.
However, it is the responsibility of the bands now to maintain their memberships when they request that responsibility. The Member asks a question for which I do not have an answer at this time with respect to duplicate maintenance of membership. I will check into it and report back to him.


SELF-GOVERNMENT DISCUSSIONS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister who must be aware from press reports today of the frustration expressed by national Chief George Erasmus as regards the lack of progress on self-government.
Can the Minister tell us when the Government will be reopening talks on self-government? Particularly in view of such concerns as double membership lists, can he assure this House that those talks will be about genuine self-government and not simply about the delegation of administrative powers?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matter of self-government, we have had discussions with representatives of the aboriginal groups with a view to reinstituting serious discussions. Unfortunately, the AFN was the only aboriginal group that did not agree to proceed with a plan which would have involved us going together to canvass with the provinces the prospects of a legitimate and serious reinstitution of these talks.
If the Hon. Member has any influence on Mr. Erasmus, now that his election is over, will he ask him to please get on board with the other aboriginal groups? Let us get on with this task.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the hour this will be the last question. The Hon. Member for London East, a single question.


PORNOGRAPHY
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The Minister well knows that he has had overwhelming support for his pornography Bill, Bill C-54. Yet it seems stuck at first reading.
Can the Minister tell the House when he might expect Bill C-54 to come forward for second reading and be allowed to go to committee so that Canadians can have an opportunity to make some input to the Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the Hon. Member's great interest in this very important topic. Unfortunately, in some ways the Opposition must not want this matter to get to committee but insists on filibustering the situation.
When we are trying to bring in legislation which in effect gives protection against exploitation of children, and which gives protection against the degradation of women, I think the people of Canada agree with the Hon. Member and will say to themselves: "Thank heavens we have Members like the Hon. Member for London East who have pressed this matter forward".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances I will take a single question from the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, after that answer I was tempted to ask the Deputy Government House Leader when was the last time he called Bill C-54. We cannot filibuster a Bill that the Government does not want even to try to bring before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 1, 1988

Petitions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do want to ask the Deputy Government Elouse Leader this question. If, as stated in the Order in Council issued March 31, 1988, the former Secretary of State and Hon. Member for Rosedale was to start today as a commissioner to inquire into and make recommendations regarding the future of the Toronto Waterfront, I would like to know when that Member resigned his seat as the Hon. Member for Rosedale. If he resigned his seat either yesterday or today, why has the Government not called immediately a by-election to fill the vacancy as was done when Lucien Bouchard was named Secretary of State and the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean resigned his seat forthwith and a by-election was called forthwith?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly inquire as to the whereabouts of the exact letter of resignation in order that I can satisfy my friend's curiosity. We would want to give my hon. friend the same opportunity to find a candidate as he had in the last by-election.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We have had one nominated for a year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I know there was a great deal of difficulty in finding one.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, in both official languages.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1987 MEASURE TO AMEND
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think Your Honour would find that there would be unanimous consent to bring forward at this time and introduce the Bill which is on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. St. Germain) entitled an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Minister of State (Transport)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-131, an Act to amend the National Transportation Act, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from western Canada who are concerned that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade deal with the United States. They believe that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of our political and economic sovereignty since it removes the power of the Canadian Government to control effectively foreign ownership. It removes the power of the Canadian Government to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canadians. It certainly eliminates our ability to equalize opportunities between the regions of Canada.
They believe that this agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future, and it undermines our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve now to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a lengthy petition signed by 4,712 Canadians from Victoria to Quebec; 24 towns and villages in Alberta, eight in British Columbia, three in

June 1, 1988
Petitions
Saskatchewan, two in Manitoba, 15 in Ontario, Cap de la Madeleine and Trois Rivieres in Quebec, and Whitehorse in the Yukon.
This petition was designed and brought forward by Kids First, a 1,200 member organization. It was started by two Calgarians, Teresa Del Frari, who has a Bachelor of Commerce degree and is a chartered accountant, and Brenda Ringdahl, who has a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, and is a registered nurse.
This petition states: "It is becoming increasingly common to learn of accounts of government encroachment upon the parental responsibility of child care decision-making; and government child care incentives do not consider the validity of parental care as a viable alternative to out-of-home child care; and parents are in the best position to determine what is the most appropriate and beneficial form of child rearing; and a considerable number of Canadians believe that the state, and their tax dollars, have no place in the area of child care which is a parental responsibility, except in cases of demonstrated financial need."
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act upon the problem of this limitation in choice for child care, and restore to the system fairness and justice, by opposing any form of national child care policy that does not provide equality of choice, thereby leaving the child care decisionmaking process with the parents where it belongs. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to the House two petitions. One petition is from members of the communities of Shellbrook and Holbein in my constituency who call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the free trade agreement during a national general election. The petitioners state that the Government did not have a mandate to proceed with the agreement, and it compromises the sovereignty of Canada.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of residents in my constituency who call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will, in the future, be commensurate with the seriousness of the illness in Canada.
The petitioners point out that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, affects a large number of people, and that only minimal support is given to it.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of Canadians who indicate that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the
Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
The trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney 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 interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition signed by more than 100 Canadians from Airdrie, Crossfield, Calgary; and Ottawa, Limoges, and Gloucester in Ontario, which call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the constituency of Spadina and adjacent constituencies. The petition covers two points, one of which has already been addressed by the Minister. It is the matter of the inclusion of unmarried children of any age in the family class.
The other point that these petitioners have asked for has not yet been addressed. Two years ago, the then Justice Minister promised to eliminate the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have been here for three years or longer in order that people of either group would have equal right to sponsor parents of any age. This promise has not yet been addressed during the past two years. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to ensure that the Government fulfils its promise now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by a number of residents of Spadina. The petitioners are concerned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has undertaken to negotiate with the President of the United States a so-called free trade agreement for which he has no mandate from the people of Canada. They point out that this will interfere with Canadian decisions by Parliament or others to develop our energy resources and to equalize the
June 1, 1988

development opportunities between different regions. They also point out that the goal of the agreement stated by the Prime Minister was to secure guaranteed access to the United States market, and that that goal has failed. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject this proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise and present petitions from the people of Chatham and Kent County. Approximately 600 people have attached signatures to these petitions, which have been properly certified for presentation.
The petitioners humbly pray that food irradiation not become part of food processing in this country, and that unbiased agencies and scientists complete studies of the safety of consuming food that has been irradiated. In the event that any food irradiation is permitted, it should be clearly labelled "treated with ionizing radiation".


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 35 constituents from a number of communities in the southwest Miramichi area of my riding.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Government that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) instruct the National Film Board to take action to have the National Film Board production of The Kid Who Couldn't Miss removed from distribution because it defames, without proof whatsoever, Billy Bishop, V.C., Canada's most highly decorated serviceman. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from my constituency of Mackenzie. The petition is from farmers and fishermen who are worried about the change in their income, and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on Tax Reform stage one.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to rise and present a petition which contains more than 1,300 names from residents of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake, gathered in the parishes of Saint Antoine, St. Thomas More, St. Vincent de Paul, and Our Lady of the Scapular.
The petitioners state that because the Supreme Court of Canada has stripped all legal protection from unborn children,
Petitions
and believing as they do in the sanctity of all human life, they call upon Parliament to immediately enact a new law to protect human life in all its stages, and with those sentiments I completely agree.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two identical petitions on behalf of residents of Newmarket, Aurora, Stouffville, Richmond Hill, and surrounding areas. The petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada ensure that research efforts related to the illness schizophrenia will be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to table a petition signed by nearly 150 residents of the electoral district of Laval-des-Rapides who call upon Parliament to reject Canada Post's corporate plan and urge the Corporation to deliver priority post, registered mail, certified mail and parcels to 550 Henri-Bourassa Boulevard.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this petition is to prevent the closing of the local post office.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions to the House on behalf of constituents of mine. The first petition concerns students in Honduras who were recently arrested by Honduran security forces. Because Canada provides aid to Honduras, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the Government to denounce the use of torture during the interrogation of suspects. They demand that the physical integrity of the person being interrogated be respected, that internationally recognized legal procedures be used to determine innocence or guilt, and that human and civil rights be respected in that country.


Peter James Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the other two petitions are from constituents of mine who would like to point out to the House the seriousness of an illness called schizophrenia. They would like the Government to increase research efforts to the point where it is commensurate with the seriousness of the illness in Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by residents of Toronto, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and the Northwest Territories, concerning the agreement between the United States and

June 1, 1988
Orders for Returns
Japan on the transportation by air of plutonium over Canada. The petitioners are concerned that should this take place it will represent a severe environmental threat and, should the plutonium fall into terrorist's hands, the threat of nuclear proliferation. The petitioners are extremely concerned about this issue and call upon the Parliament of Canada to recognize and speak out strongly against the dangers of such flights and say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege pursuant to Standing Order 106 to present a petition signed by some 90 residents of the communities of Kenora, Keewatin, Longbow Lake, and Redditt. The petitioners call upon Parliament to designate all communities in tier 3 ridings as eligible for the Northern Residents Tax Allowance.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present on behalf of quite a number of my constituents who live in the downtown area of Vancouver their concerns about the high incidence of crimes, including murder, robbery and sexual assault, committed with knives. It has been established that this is on the increase in all major cities across Canada. They call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places with the exception of those who use a knife for legitimate work or who carry it for religious reasons such as the Sikhs.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 259 and 311 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 259 and 311 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. McDonald: Has the government responded to any of the recommendations made in the Report of the Committee on Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth (the Badgley Report) and, if so (a) which ones (b) in what manner?
Return tabled.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): For (a) 1982 (b) 1983 (c) 1984 (d) 1985 (e) 1986 (/) 1987 did the government spend money on ethnocultural events and organizations and, if so, (i) on which dates (ii) in what amounts (iii) on which events and organizations?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 315?
Because of the length of this starred question I ask that it be printed in Hansard as if it were read.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dorin: 1.	Are the staff of Canada Post Corporation divided into occupational levels and, if so (a) what are they (b) for each level (i) how many employees are there (ii) what is the average salary (iii) what is the average salary for the comparable industrial level?
2.	What would be the cost of extending door-to-door delivery to all Canadian households?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
1.	(a), (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) See below.
2.	Canada Post Corporation conducted a study to determine the cost effectiveness of providing nationwide private door-to-door mail delivery service. It has been estimated that it would cost the Corporation approximately $1.3 billion, over a five-year period, to convert 3.6 million points of call and extend door-to-door delivery across the country.
1.	A - B	(i)	(ii)	(ii)	(iii)	(iii)FT	PRB	TPF&CBarg/	Job	Popula-	Hourly	Annual	1987	1987Unit	Class	tion	Rate	Rate	Rates	RatesCUPW	PO-02	1535	SI 3.28	27,716	1986	PO-04	15685	$13.43	$28,029	$25,712	26,401PO-05	1223	$13.55	$28,279	(labourer	rate)	
June 1, 1988

LCUC	POEXT-OI	16367	$13.83	$28,864	$26,2341987	POEXT-02	2601	$14.29	$29,824	$25,712POEXT-03	1223	$14.68	$30,638	(labourer rate)APOC	POSUP-01	808	$15.52	$32,390	$32,3491986	POSUP-02	1675	$16.05	$33,488	POSUP-03	540	$16.60	$34,638	POSUP-04	332	$17.23	$35,953	POS UP-05	134	$17.86	$37,282	POS UP-06	32	$18.53	$38,681	1BEW	EPSS-01	3	$18.68	$36,558	$35,8051987	EPSS-02	76	$20.61	$40,326	$41,455 $40,032EPSS-03	21	$22.66	$44,337	$44,918EPSS-04	1	$24.65	$48,226	$51,437CPA A	Semi-Staff	5898	$13.93	$29,072	$25,7121986	Revenue	3070	$10.03	$20,933	(labourer rate)PSAC	AS-01	107	$15.35	$30,031	1986	AS-02	173	$16.45	$32,178	AS-03	146	$17.43	$34,097	AS-04	40	$18.72	$36,623	AS-05	9	$21.76	$42,567	CR-02	84	$9.21	$18,017	$18,925	CR-03	730	$10.92	$21,366	$21,297	CR-04	958	$12.05	$23,577	$24,779	$23,284CR-05	135	$13.58	$26,575	$27,531	CR-06	1	$14.58	$28,524	DACON-01	10	$9.93	$19,424	$17,408	DACON-02	30	$10.76	$21,059	$20,563	DACON-03	2	$11.71	$22,915	$22,452	DACON-04	I	$12.76	$24,972	DAPRO-02	20	$11.90	$23,274	$21,586	DAPRO-03	44	$13.20	$25,829	$25,205	$24,281DA PRO-04	27	$14.59	$28,553	$27,971	DAPRO-05	2	$16.13	$31,562	$34,243	DD-02	2	$13.05	$25,543	$25,517	DD-03	6	$14.38	$28,130	$29,742	DD-04	11	$15.73	$30,776	$33,968	DD-05	7	$17.18	$33,615	$38,327	EG ESS-02	1	$12.10	$23,666	EG ESS-05	1	$15.06	$29,507	EG ESS-06	1	$16.34	$31,968	EG ESS-07	44	$17.58	$34,398	EG ESS-08	43	$19.89	$38,926	EG ESS-09	10	$21.80	$42,660	FI-01	53	$15.51	$30,355	$30,308FI-02	26	$17.31	$33,862	$33,721	FI-03	10	$19.14	$37,459	$40,852	FI-04	1	$22.41	$43,848	$49,494	GLE1M-10	42	$16.15	$31,599	GLELE-02	7	$10.40	$20,349	GLELE-03	107	$10.85	$21,229	GLELE-04	5	$10.85	$21,229	GLELE-05	2	$10.85	$21,229	GLMAN-05	1	$12.75	$24,947	GLMAN-06	8	$12.75	$24,947	GLMAN-07	3	$13.40	$26,218	GLMAN-08	211	$13.85	$29,349	GLMAN-10	338	$15.00	$29,349	GLMAN-11	337	$15.60	$30,523	GLMAN-12	11	$16.15	$31,599	
Starred Questions
GLMAN-13	1	$10.40	$20,349	GLMAN-03	21	$11.95	$23,381	GLMAN-04	10	$11.95	$23,381	GLMAN-05	9	$12.75	$24,947	GLMDO-04	3	$10.85	$21,229	GLM DO-05	8	$10.85	$21,229	GLMST-09	1	$13.40	$26,218	GLMST-10	12	$13.85	$27,099	GLPRW-06	3	$13.40	$26,218	GLSMW-08	11	$15.60	$30,523	GL WOW-09	5	$15.00	$29,349	GSPRC-04	46	$10.85	$21,229	GSPRC-05	2	$13.40	$26,218	GSSTS-02	I	$10.40	$20,349	GSSTS-03	12	$11.95	$23,381	GSSTS-04	114	$12.75	$24,947	$24,027GSSTS-05	15	$13.40	$26,218	GT-01	1	$13.02	$25,471	GT-03	1	$16.54	$32,354	GT-04	1	$18.05	$35,311	GT-05	1	$20.71	$40,528	IS-01	2	$14.22	$27,826	$24,424	IS-02	8	$16.57	$32,429	$35,555	IS-03	21	$19.07	$37,318	$38,374	1S-04	22	$22.03	$43,100	$45,750	LS-01	1	$14.34	$28,057	LS-02	1	$16.11	$31,518	LS-03	1	$18.01	$35,236	OEDEO-02	1	$10.11	$19,786	OEMEO-02	2	$10.11	$19,786	OEMEO-03	9	$10.90	$21,329	OEMSE-02	2	$10.11	$19,786	PG-01	14	$14.88	$29,110	$28,946	PG-02	4	$16.81	$32,887	$34,947	PG-03	15	$18.61	$36,405	$40,763	PM-01	76	$14.95	$29,260	PM-02	66	$16.50	$32,281	PM-03	197	$17.75	$34,733	$32,088PM-04	50	$19.40	$37,966	PM-05	6	$23.07	$45,129	PORMC	1	$13.43	$28,029	$25,712	SI-01	2	$14.77	$28,899	(labourer	rate)	STOCE-02	4	$10.30	$20,159	STOCE-03	72	$11.53	$22,553	$22,012STSCY-01	1	$10.22	$19,999	STSCY-02	12	$11.27	$22,055	$22,802	STSCY-03	13	$12.75	$24,952	$25,728	STSCY-04	2	$14.29	$27,963	STTYP-02	1	$8.64	$16,907	$19,073	PIPS	CS-01	38	$17.85	$34,934	$33,147	1987	CS-02	101	$20.58	$40,273	$40,032	$36,980CS-03	93	$24.41	$47,765	$47,999	CS-04	37	$28.94	$56,630	$56,490	1987	EN ENG-02	3	$18.16	$35,538	$36,112	ENENG-03	24	$22.79	$44,584	$43,818	$42,086EN ENG-04	13	$26.50	$51,841	$53,224	EN ENG-05	14	$30.45	$59,588	$62,562	1987	NUCHN-02	3	$16.34	$31,978	
Source: Population by Job Classification and Level-PDB (Jan/88) PRB rates-Compensation in Canadian Industry 1987 (Pay Research Bureau) TPF&C Rates-Comparison of CPC negotiated wage rates to market, as carried out by consulting firm of Towers, Perrin, Forster and Crosby.

June 1, 1988
Motions
Note: Regular hourly rates are converted to FT annual salaries by multiplying the rate per hour by regular annual hours for each job classification.
Current information with respect to CPAA population distribution by job classification is not available, therefore consolidated average wage rates are specified.
A tentative agreement with IBEW will result in a 3 per cent wage increase effective September 16, 1987, and a further 3 per cent increase effective September 14, 1988.
PRB average wage rates for labourers are used for comparison with CUPW, LCUC, and CPAA job classifications.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Government is ready to move on Motion for the Production of Papers No. P9 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I do not know if he has yet appointed an agent and I do not see him in the Chamber. If no one is prepared to move on his behalf then I ask that all Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that I have received two applications for an emergency debate under Standing Order 29(1) with respect to the action of anti-fur lobbyists in Europe and the intentions of the British Government. The first application is made by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) and I shall hear him, and then hear the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McDougall) on the second application on the same point.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today under Standing Order 29 to ask for an emergency debate on a subject which affects all parts of our country. The Canadian fur industry is being jeopardized by recent happenings in Europe and Britain. The anti-fur campaign has
mounted an aggressive assault on our industry. European boycotts, called for by animal rights groups, seriously threaten Canadian trappers across our land, particularly our native people who harvest fur-bearing animals for their livelihood. Currently the British Government is considering harmful legislation requiring fur products to be tagged with labels in an effort to stop retailers from selling furs and the public from purchasing them.
As you know, in December, 1986, The Fur Issue report called for the Government to play an active role, along with the industry and its representatives, in supporting and promoting the industry, its trappers, and the aboriginal harvest activities. The Government was called upon to promote the industry in overseas posts and assist it in countering the threat posed by the animal rights campaign.
In writing that report a lot of hard work was done by Members on both sides of the House. Clearly this is a nonpartisan issue, one that we as representatives must work on together to maintain the fur industry for not only the economic implications, but more important for the cultural continuity of our native and northern communities.
The economic importance of trapping and the fur trade to Canadians cannot be doubted. The fur industry is worth approximately $600 million annually, with a spin-off of $200 million to allied industries. For the last two to three years Canadian fur exports contributed approximately $350 million annually to Canada's balance of payments. It is estimated that
105,000	Canadians earn all or part of their income through the fur industry. Approximately 100,000 are trappers, half of those being aboriginal people. There are approximately 3,000 Canadians in the manufacturing end, and more than 80 per cent of retail fur sales in Canada are made through privately owned, family run, one store businesses.
Trapping and the fur industry are vital not only to Canadians whose livelihood depends upon them, but the country as well. To native people trapping involves more than simply trying to earn cash income. It implies a unique social, spiritual and cultural relationship with the land and its resources.
In closing, Canadians have been busy trying to resolve this problem, but I raise this issue today because I feel it is extremely important at this time to send a strong message to the British and European Parliaments and public. In this time of need we as Canadian parliamentarians must be active. We must remain steadfast in our support for the fur industry, our support for trappers across the country, our northern communities, and in support of our native communities and peoples for whom the fur trade is an integral part of their lives.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29 to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing the impending disaster facing the Canadian fur industry.
June 1, 1988

The proposed fur labelling in garments which is being proposed by the British legislature which will say, in effect, that furs may have been caught by leg-hold traps will have devastating effects on the Canadian industry. There is an urgent and pressing need to discuss this issue now because the Order which was postponed on May 20 will certainly be coming forward within the next week or two.
Further to that, Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the British Trade Minister about this issue he clearly sees it as what he calls a minimal measure in response to the lobby. Those people who followed the seal issue and other Members who were here at that time will know exactly what the effects of such "minimal response" can be on an entire industry.
I feel there is a good case for this matter to be an urgent issue not just for northerners because this issue affects people from all provinces as well as the northern territories and it affects those in the industry, those who trap and farm furs. No one is under any illusion that this is not anti-trapping legislation being discussed here, but anti-fur legislation. I can assure you that in my conversations with British Members of Parliament they are clear on this. It is absolutely essential we now send a very strong message to British parliamentarians about the views of Canadian parliamentarians.
Over the past weekend I had the opportunity to speak to many trappers, aboriginal trappers and others, who are out now that spring is here cutting sections for their trap lines. They are devastated by this proposal and it is causing panic among trappers and those in the industry. They feel that their life-style and economic development will simply be wiped away. This is a particularly important issue to those people in Canada who do not have a number of economic opportunities available to them, especially people in rural areas for whom this is an extremely important activity. It is the harvesting of a renewable resource which should be supported by this House.
Therefore, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this request so that we may send a strong message to British parliamentarians.
Mir. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Opposition I want to indicate the support of my Party for these two applications for an emergency debate.
The entire fur industry is threatened. Threats are centred in our markets abroad, Europe and the United Kingdom, and are based mainly on misinformation which is reinforced by misdirected emotions propagated by those who espouse animal rights, that is, equating the rights of animals with the rights of human beings. Some people believe that animals should be protected by a Charter or a Bill of Rights. These people should clearly be differentiated from those who support Humane Societies working to protect animals from cruelty. But humane trapping has been developed and is used more and more in Canada.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
When threats such as those which mostly affect the indigenous or aboriginal peoples of Canada, their livelihood, their well-being, the small degree of economic independence they presently possess and when a part of these threats come from Westminster, the Mother of Parliament which, when our Constitution was being patriated expressed deep and abiding concern for Canadian native people, I believe it is time for this Parliament to express clearly and unequivocally its support of the legitimacy of Canada's fur industry.
Therefore, I and the Liberal Opposition support the application presented to you, Sir, by my two hon. friends and colleagues from Timiskaming and Yukon.


Mr. Speaker:: The disposition of the House is, I think, quite clear. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 29(8) this matter will be considered this evening at eight o'clock p.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Second reading and Reference:
May 24, 1988-Mr. Crosbie-Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free
Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was understood when we completed the procedural arguments on the point of order on Monday that if there are other points of order about the acceptability of Bill C-130, to implement the trade agreement with the United States, that these points of order could be raised today. Therefore, I am rising to raise the first of two separate points that I want to bring to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member could excuse me, I want to be sure that the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) is here. Could we have the Minister of State back in the Chamber for just a moment?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of State. I just want to be absolutely sure for the record that the Hon. Minister of State expects this discussion to take place at this time and is in accord with it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there was no intended discourtesy to my friend. I was called to the lobby. It is our intention, as my hon. friend said, to complete the debate on the procedural admissibility of Bill C-130. I will naturally be listening to my hon. friend and will be replying.

June 1, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Minister of State. I now recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on continued discussion with respect to the admissibility of the trade Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-130 has a transitional section. It purports to amend not only statutes or Acts that have been adopted in the present session, which is quite normal, but also it purports to amend Bills which are currently before the House, which have not yet been adopted and which have not yet become statutes or Acts.
If you look at Bill C-130 you will note that Clause 149 seeks to amend Bill C-60 dealing with copyright and Clause 150 seeks to amend Bill C-110 on trade tribunals. I submit that this procedure, that is, to use the transitional section of Bill C-130 to amend Bills which are still under consideration by this House is something which is not in order. I submit the proper thing for the Government to do would have been to amend the Bills in question directly. There are opportunities for that through the committee stage of consideration and the report stage. It could be, although it is more difficult I admit, that under certain circumstances amendments would be possible on second and third reading.
To the extent that the Bills in question have not yet received Royal Assent and become statutes, it would be more proper to amend them directly rather than through the transitional section of Bill C-130.
Therefore, I challenge the acceptability of Bill C-130 because I submit that its Clause 149 attempting to amend Bill C-60 and its Clause 150 attempting to amend Bill C-110 are improper and taint the entire Bill. This is the point of order I wish to raise on the matter of the improper use of Bill C-130 to amend Bills which are still under consideration and have not yet themselves become statutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I think I have the point. It is a succinct one. I of course will consider it, but I would like to hear from the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) and it may well be that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) or others may want to comment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with specific reference to my friend's point, he suggested that certain parts of Bill C-130, through the transitional section, are not in order because they amend Bills presently before the House. I would draw the Chair's attention to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on April 20, 1970, recorded in Hansard of that day at page 6047 and 6048. The Speaker said that while the argument is not without merit, it is somewhat premature. If the Bill receives second reading and is referred to committee, it would then be considered by a committee of the House along with the other two Bills and it would be at the third reading stage that
the argument could be presented with much more force and at that point should be considered very seriously.
Another ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux appears at page 3712 of Hansard for February 24, 1971. The ruling dealt with the same question, can the House proceed with the second reading of a Bill that contains provisions related to another Bill not yet adopted. The decision was yes, the Bill was properly before the House and the question for second reading could be put. The Speaker said that the House should not be put in a position where contrary decisions could be taken in respect of similar Bills in the same session. In that case, as no final decision had been taken on any particular clause of either Bill, there was nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related Bills which might be in contradiction with one another, either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to proposed amendments.
I submit that these cases are on point and that the House is able to proceed with debate at second reading stage of Bill C-130.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to address first the point raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). He mentioned that Bill C-130 involves legislation that is presently before the House.
Bill C-60 and Bill C-110 are complex Bills, and there is a good reason to question whether or not these Bills in their present form will be completed within this Parliament. It makes it very difficult for us to proceed with Bill C-130 because of the incredible complexity of that Bill and the fact that, as we said earlier in the week, when dealing with the various clauses of this omnibus Bill, we will also have to consider legislation that is presently before the House that is not moving particularly expeditiously. That simply makes it that much more difficult. If it does make a case, it would only make the case that once again, we should consider breaking up this legislation.
I would like to take a moment, while I am on my feet, to revisit two or three of the arguments put forward by the government House Leader on Monday in defence of the Bill and argue why I believe you should not be persuaded by the arguments he put forward in a most articulate fashion.
At page 15887 of Hansard, the Minister referred to the case that I cited during my argument in which a Speaker did in fact cause a motion that was before the House to be divided. The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) said:
I would distinguish that particular incident by pointing out to the Chair that the flag debate was on the question of a resolution which contained two propositions, and the Chair in that case, Mr. Speaker McNaughton, found that he had the authority and perhaps the duty to divide them.
I would submit that here we are dealing with a Bill and the same precedent does not apply.
The issue that was finally decided by Mr. Speaker McNaughton on that day in 1964 was whether or not the
June 1, 1988

Chair had the authority to divide questions that were before the House. If I may, I will turn to the Speaker's ruling of that day. He said, according to Journals for Monday, June 15, 1964, the following:
I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the House contains two propositions and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them ...
Bill C-130, as I have argued, contains more than one proposition just as the flag debate resolution did in 1964. In that sense, there is absolutely no difference and it is not correct for the Minister of State to argue that this precedent cannot be referred to in this case. It is a precedent and it buttresses Beauchesne's Citation 415(1) which states:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately. The Speaker has a discretionary power to decide whether he should divide a motion.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you read carefully the Minister's intervention, you will find that it is implied that there is almost no circumstances at all in which one could conceivably envision the Speaker being in a position to be able to intervene and order a piece of legislation to be split into its constituent parts. If that is the case, then Citation 415 of Beauchesne's should be struck out as being no longer applicable. I would suggest that quite the contrary is true. Although this power should be used with some degree of prudence, Citation 415 is still operative and can be invoked by the Speaker to restrain a Government's procedural excesses, and in this case, we have seen government excesses par excellence.
I would also like to respond to the argument of the Minister of State which was first made in Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling of May 11, 1977, that the ability of Members of Parliament to bring forward report stage motions to delete certain clauses of an omnibus Bill allows those Members to effectively isolate those separate propositions or principles in a Bill and force a vote on them separately. There is no question that this may indeed be possible at report stage, but as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made clear in his intervention on this point the other day, we are now about to commence second reading, not report stage.
Beauchesne and Erskine May describe second reading stage as the most important stage through which a Bill must pass. It is approval in principle of the whole Bill, not a clause-by-clause consideration but approval of the whole Bill. How can we give approval in principle to a Bill that contains more than one principle? We cannot isolate these principles at this stage. It is at this stage first and foremost that the Bill must be split into its constituent parts so that we can cast judgment on these individual principles. That is a fundamental right of Members of Parliament and it is rooted in history. It is fundamental to the operation of this place and cannot so easily be tossed aside.
Last, the Minister argued that unlike the Energy Security Bill of 1982, Bill C-130 has no elements which could stand apart independently of the entire Bill. With all due respect to my hon. friend and colleague, that appears to be untrue. The
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
four principles I enunciated in my previous intervention could surely stand alone in separate Bills.
I do not want to unnecessarily prolong this debate. It is my belief that the 1964 precedent in combination with Citation 415 of Beauchesne's and buttressed by the four separate principles in the Bill presently before us can all lead to only one conclusion: in the interests of parliamentary democracy and the traditions and customs of the House of Commons, the Chair must exercise its clear and undisputed authority to divide the Bill so that we as Members of the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada are not faced with having to vote on several propositions at one time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to intervene.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has a short intervention.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was not here when the argument was made previously. Briefly,
I had the experience of being involved in the bell ringing episode in a unique way. When the National Energy Program was introduced in one Bill, the bells were rung by the Official Opposition. Members of the Official Opposition did not show up for the vote and there was a parliamentary crisis.
I was involved in the negotiations for the settlement of that crisis along with Ian Deans, the then House Leader for the NDP, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), the now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), Mr. Erik Nielsen and for the Government, Marc Lalonde and Yvon Pinard, the then Government House Leader.
We were faced with the problem of what to do with a huge Bill. It was proposed that it be broken into, as I recall, 15 or 16 parts. We finally resolved to break it into eight Bills, I believe. The principle we applied was that of what parliamentarians would digest. You may call it digestibility. Could we digest the whole thing or did we have to break it into parts?
The energy committee considered all eight Bills. We did not have legislative committees then so the situation was a bit different. The solution we came to was to break the Bill into eight parts, to debate the eight parts together, and to refer them to one committee.
I do not think that is a legal precedent, but I thought I should bring my experiences forward to you, Sir, because your decision is obviously a very important one for the history of this House and the history of this country.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have a chance to make a short intervention today although I have not usually taken part in these debates on points of order except when they touch me directly because I have high confidence in our House Leader, others of our caucus, and

June 1, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
yourself to resolve these matters. However, this one strikes me as of extraordinary importance.
I am concerned on the basis of the principle that has been referred to, Citation 415 of Beauchesne's, which reads:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided
so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately.
I am concerned that what we have here is not only many separate propositions but, worse than that, propositions of two or three significantly different kinds. There are obviously propositions amending a couple of dozen existing Acts or Acts which are under consideration. They are as different as, for example, as referred to in Section 48, the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act and, the Bank Act as referred to in Sections 50 to 52-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but, in fairness to all other Hon. Members in this place, it was my understanding that we would continue this discussion this afternoon in order to raise some matters that had not been debated previously. Hon. Members and the public will know that the entire day on Monday was set aside for argument. The important matter which the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) is addressing was addressed very fully and very capably at that time. Those interventions were of great assistance to the Chair.
My difficulty now is that in recognizing a number of Members who may very well like to say something, and were not here or were not recognized on Monday, I may be slipping into an error whereby I will be allowing something to take place which was not in the contemplation of the House Leaders when they had discussions with me and we arrived at a working arrangement. I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Minister of State on my concern.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, on reflection I do have to say that your point is well taken. I certainly do not want to impede other Hon. Members who want to contribute to the very important issue that you are being called upon to consider. However, I do have to be fair and say that it is my understanding, as a result of our consultations, that today was to be used for arguing points of order other than the one that was raised last Monday.
Of course, I am not saying this in any way intending to cut off other people who want to bring things to your attention, but I do have to be fair and state what my honest recollection is as to the understandings of the purpose of the discussions today on the acceptability of Bill C-130.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to obtain a disruption of what was agreed to on Monday. I was about to come immediately to my second category of points. I do not know whether this was fully addressed on Monday or not and I stand to be corrected.
There is a difference of kind between the changes to a couple dozen of the Acts, to which I made a brief reference, and the transfer of powers as in Section 8 from Parliament to Cabinet in a generic way. As I understand it, Parliament would no longer have the right to debate all the matters referred to there. They would all be matters exclusively for Cabinet consideration by way of regulation.
This seems to me quite different from amending the Canada Agricultural Standards Act, the Bank Act, or whatever. It was this point upon which I wished to rise. I mentioned the others by example in order to set the contrast between, as I said, the amendment of a particular Act and a general principle of removing from Parliament the right to consider, debate, and vote on certain matters which is what seems to me would be enacted by Section 8 and perhaps also by Section 9.
As a sort of a third class, in addition to the Acts specified for amendment, with all future action relating to those apparently reserved to Cabinet only, the wording of Section 8 seems to me wide open in the sense that Acts which are not mentioned here for amendment may be, in effect, amended simply by Cabinet regulation without any opportunity of parliamentary consideration.
That seems to me an extraordinary departure from normal peacetime practice. It is almost like the War Measures Act. During war, and especially under conditions of secrecy, this sort of thing would be accepted. We discussed that in Bill C-77.
However, it says here: "Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between" this Act and any other provisions the other provision "is inoperative and of no force".
We have very limited opportunity at this point to consider what Acts that might be considered to affect. It might be something quite unthought of even by the Cabinet or the American legislature but would come up two or three years from now, raised in the United States, brought to our Government, and dealt with by our Government simply by regulation with discussion behind closed doors, as is normal within Cabinet. Members of Parliament would be deprived of any opportunity to debate that, let alone to discuss it with interested members of the public, either by personal meetings, correspondence, or our committee process.
Therefore, I believe that at the very least Part I, Implementation of Agreement Generally, should be separated from the other parts because it is of a much more far-reaching and undefined nature.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and I thank other Members for their patience. Keeping in mind the understanding upon which we came back to the House today, I must ask Hon. Members for their co-operation, not only with the Speaker but with the arrangements that were made in the House. I want to assure the Hon. Member for
June 1, 1988

Spadina that the point he raised is not one which has completely escaped the Chair but I will consider very carefully the remarks he has just made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could address to you some brief remarks with respect to the alleged precedent brought to the attention of this House by the Deputy Government House Leader. After he raised the precedent it struck me as being so interesting that I got the book and read it myself. I want to point out that the book in question, entitled Selected Decisions of Speaker Lamoureux, is really a series of precis of the actual rulings in question.
The precis with respect to the ruling cited by the Deputy Government House Leader under the heading "Background" says:
On February 19, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-224, an Act relating to ambient air quality and to the control air pollution, Mr. McGrath (St. John's East) raised a point of order to claim that the bill was not properly before the House because certain provisions were consequential upon Parliament passing Bill C-207, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada, presently being considered in the Committee of the Whole. Bill C-224 defined "the minister" as the Minister of the Environment while Bill C-207 contained a clause proposing the creation of the Department of the Environment.
I have not had time to look at the actual decision as transcribed in Hansard but assuming that this precis under the heading "Background" is accurate, I respectfully submit that the ruling of Speaker Lamoureux dated February 24, 1971, is not relevant to the current situation which I have raised. It would appear that the point of order on which Speaker Lamoureux ruled in February, 1971, dealt simply with the matter of one Bill referring to something which had no meaning unless one took into account another Bill which was before the House at the same time.
There is no suggestion in this precis that one of the two Bills had a clause in it which attempted to amend a clause of the other Bill before the House. If that is the case, then the precedent in question is clearly distinguishable and in my opinion is not in any way relevant to the case we are considering.
I have argued that what is wrong with the trade Bill, C-130, is that it attempts to formally amend another Bill which is still under consideration before the House. Therefore, my point is that in order to amend another Bill before the House, that latter Bill itself has to be amended and it cannot be done in another Bill. My point is not that one Bill cannot be passed because it refers to something in another Bill which has not yet been dealt with by the House. That is the point dealt with by Speaker Lamoureux, but that is not the point I raised earlier this afternoon in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there is a short intervention by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the point raised specifically by the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) with respect to Bill C-110. I have been a member of the legislative committee that has now completed its work. The Bill itself has been amended in the process of that legislative committee in such a way that it is not consistent with the various amendments which are suggested here within this part of the Bill dealing with it. For instance, there is a suggestion on page 120 that Bill C-110 be amended to make reference to "Subject to Section 59". However, the legislative committee made a decision to strike out Clause 59 from the Bill itself.
I suggest this adds force to the fact that we are dealing with a situation that is becoming far too complicated by trying to draw in Bills which not only have not been passed but are in the process of amendment and may, in fact probably will come back to the House before such time as the trade Bill itself is discussed. At that point the reference will not make sense according to the changes which have been agreed upon by the legislative committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I now want to raise a separate point of order. It is for that purpose that I want to draw your attention to Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130. Clause 6 of Bill C-130 states:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act, by specific mention or omission, limits in any manner the right of Parliament to enact legislation to implement any provision of the Agreement or fulfill any of the obligations of the Government of Canada under the Agreement.
Clause 9(1) states:
The Governor in Council may, where the Governor in Council is of the opinion that, for the purpose of giving effect in a province to Chapter Eight of the Agreement, regulations are necessary in relation to any matter dealt with by that Chapter, make regulations for that purpose including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, regulations requiring or prohibiting the doing of anything in relation to which a regulation may be made under this subsection and prescribing penalties for the contravention of or noncompliance with any such regulation.
Clause 9(5) states:
A regulation made under subsection (1) in respect of a province is binding on Her Majesty in right of that province.
Clause 6 implicitly, and Clause 9 explicitly, propose amendments to the authority of the federal Parliament and Government with regard to the jurisdiction of the provinces under the Constitution Act. The Constitution clearly provides that amendments to the federal-provincial division of powers require a special procedure, that is to say, not an ordinary Bill but parallel resolutions of both Houses of Parliament and of a specified number of the provincial legislatures.
While the citations are many and clear that the Speaker cannot be called to rule upon questions of law, including constitutional law, there are procedural aspects of the Constitution that Speakers can and do rule upon.
An example of this relates to the financial initiative of the Crown. This relates to the principle that no measure to create

June 1, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
an expenditure or to impose or alter the instance of a tax may be initiated by any Member other than a Minister.
While certain Standing Orders exist with regard to royal recommendations and to Ways and Means notices in order to assist the Chair with these matters, the fact remains that the financial initiative of the Crown is a constitutional principle. The Speaker is frequently called upon to rule on this constitutional principle and his rulings require a considerable degree of discretion and interpretation on his part.
The Standing Orders that flow from the Constitution, Standing Order 82, Standing Order 84 and Standing Order 86, provide only the bare bones for procedural rulings. Successive Speakers have been called upon and have answered the call to interpret these essentially constitutional points by defining and applying definitions as to what kind of proposals constitute expenditure for taxation.
As the House will recall, Standing Order 82 deals with the matter of Supply motions, Standing Order 84 deals with the matter of Ways and Means motions, and Standing Order 86 deals with the matter of the requirement that there be what is called a royal recommendation in order for the House to consider and adopt any matter that would call for expenditure. I submit that Standing Order 86 is basically a restatement of something which is set out very explicitly in our current Constitution, that is, that there cannot be any measure considered and adopted by this House unless it is preceded by the royal recommendation.
I have said that these Standing Orders provide only the bare bones for procedural rulings. 1 pointed out that successive Speakers have been called upon and have answered the call to interpret these essentially constitutional points. I repeat this because I think it is important.
I also want to say that these rulings often dwell upon extremely fine constitutional points, and the Chair's involvement in such matters clearly qualifies the general precept that the Chair does not involve itself in interpreting constitutional law.
Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130 present similar cases in that here in the point of order that I am making with regard to Clauses 6 and 9, the Speaker is not being asked by me to rule on the constitutional legality of the clauses but, rather, on the procedural propriety of the Government in attempting to amend the Constitution by this method with another distinct procedure. I submit the more appropriate and correct procedure is set out in the Constitution Act.
In asking the Chair to rule that Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130 make it impossible for the House to proceed with Bill C-
130,1	am not asking the Speaker to rule on the constitutionality or legality of these clauses. Instead, I am asking the Chair to determine that these clauses do in fact attempt to amend the
federal-provincial division of powers set out in the Constitution, and as such require the special procedure for such amendments set out in the Constitution Act.
In this regard I want to stress that there is an alternate means of accomplishing what the Government wants to accomplish through Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130. However, that alternate means is through the procedure set out in the Constitution Act. That is to say the adoption of resolutions by this House and the other place, and the adoption of resolutions by the appropriate number of provincial legislatures. I submit that the Government in not adopting that course of action is doing something which is procedurally wrong and which makes impossible the acceptability of Bill C-130 for second reading debate and its subsequent stages.
1 repeat that in asking Your Honour to rule along the lines that I have just argued I am not asking Your Honour to delve into the matter of constitutional law which Speakers have hesitated to get into in the past. Rather, I am asking Your Honour to rule in the kind of area Speakers have made rulings upon on many occasions in the past, areas arising out of our Standing Orders 82, 84 and 86, all of which deal with the financial initiatives of the Crown, a definite constitutional principle. In fact, when it comes to Standing Order 86, that Standing Order reflects and is based on a specific clause of the Constitution Act. The other Standing Orders 82 and 84 arise out of a well-established constitutional principle with respect to orders for Ways and Means and orders for Supply.
Speakers have not hesitated to rule on issues arising out of those Standing Orders simply because in some way they deal with constitutional matters. Thus I am saying by analogy, or in like case, that you, Mr. Speaker, have the authority to rule, and I think that you must rule, along the lines I am submitting. Because Clauses 6 and 9 deal with the division of powers between the federal Government and the provinces, this Bill is not acceptable and instead must deal with what the Government intends to accomplish in Clauses 6 and 9 through the procedure for constitutional amendment set out in the Constitution Act.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a generally accepted principle followed in our courts that when they rule on the law they do not look behind the law at the procedure followed by Parliament in enacting it. They are not inclined nor do they accept arguments that a law should be struck down because there was some flaw in the procedure in adopting it in Parliament or a legislature. Therefore, Sir, I submit it is very much the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that all the procedural proprieties are followed. It is definitely incumbent upon the Chair to take up the point I am making at this time and to consider it on its merits.
In order to save the time of the House I want to raise a concern in the form of a point of order with respect to Clause 8 since I think that in relation to that clause there is something that I would say is a constitutional point of a procedural
June 1, 1988

nature in that Clause 8 gives Bill C-130 pre-eminence over all other federal legislation. Clause 8 states:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, in the event of any inconsistency or conflict between
(a)	this Act, or any regulation made under this Act, or the Agreement, and
(b)	a provision of any other Act of Parliament or of any regulation within the meaning of section 2 of the Interpretation Act, other than a provision as enacted or amended by Part III or IV of this Act or any regulation made under a provision as so enacted or amended, the provision is inoperative and of no force or effect to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict.
Then there is a rather strange subclause (2) which states:
No person shall, in the purported performance of duties or functions under any law of Canada, do any act, exercise any power or carry on any practice that is inconsistent with or contravenes this Act or any regulation made under this Act, or the Agreement.
I would argue that Clause 8 gives what might be called a constitution-like cast to the Bill, and has some grave implications for other legislation which I would say might be described as being of a quasi-constitutional nature, including such matters as the Official Languages Act, the Canada Elections Act, for example, dealing with election advertising, and many, many more statutes that are of a fundamental and organic nature and have what I might describe as a quasiconstitutional cast to them.
Also, there is a very serious problem with respect to Clause 8 in that it purports to give the Cabinet the power to amend other legislation. There is nothing in this clause giving Parliament any role in debating or passing upon the amendments that could be carried out under Clause 8. There is no way of defining or stating the extent to which under the exercise of this power the federal Cabinet would render a provision of another statute to be inoperative and of no force or effect.
Furthermore, if we look at subclause (2) we see that a person is forbidden, in the purported performance of his or her duties or functions under any law of Canada, to do any act, exercise any power, and so on, that is inconsistent with or contravenes this Act or any regulation made under this Act, or the agreement. People are put at risk not only of discipline within the Public Service, including the losing of their jobs, but also of possible criminal prosecution without being able to know exactly what it is they are not being allowed to do.
I can see a situation-and I hope it never arises-if this Act is passed of a public servant acting in good faith being deemed by his employer to be operating contrary to this subclause (2) and facing not only discipline up to dismissal but a possible criminal charge. It may be argued that there is nothing in this Act as such imposing criminal penalties for its breach. But if I am not mistaken there is a section in the Criminal Code imposing penalties for the breach of that section which creates a general offence of acting contrary to a federal statute.
Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that what is stated in subclause (2) of Clause 8 may well be contrary to the Charter
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think it is appropriate for the House to put hundreds of thousands of people in jeopardy through the vague wording which creates vast, unspecified, and undefined powers given to the federal Government.
With respect to the duties and responsibilities of the elected representatives of the Canadian people, it is not proper to have Clause 8(1) in effect which would take away from Parliament and give to the Cabinet the vast powers it would appear to do to amend and change any present or future Act of Parliament without the public being aware of what will be done, and without giving the House of Commons and the Senate, on behalf of the Canadian people, the authority to debate these changes and say yes or no to them.
There are grave problems of what I call a constitutional procedural aspect with Clause 8, subclauses (1) and (2). I make my comments with respect to Clause 8 at this time in order to save the time of the House. I ask you to consider what I have said with respect to Clause 8, subclauses (1) and (2), quite apart from the distinct arguments I have made with respect to the clause in the Bill arising out of what is purported by the Government to be carried out by Clauses 6 and 9.
There is always a problem with respect to our parliamentary system created, on the one hand, by the desire of the government of the day to exercise all the powers that it feels it needs to carry out its mandate, and on the other hand the desire, not only of the Opposition, but of Members generally to ensure there is some appropriate system of checks and balances upon the full and possible arbitrary exercise of that power. The problem is very much highlighted by the language of Clause 8, and also Clauses 6 and 9.
Speaking generally, Clauses 6 and 9, and Clause 8, perhaps as much as the omnibus nature of the Bill itself which was argued on Monday, create grave concerns about the proper operation of our parliamentary system and the ability of elected Members of Parliament, especially those who are not on the government side, to carry out their duties, to properly scrutinize legislation, to attempt to amend it, and see it is adopted, if it is adopted, in the best interests of the Canadian people, and generally of the rights of Members of Parliament, especially those in opposition to the Government of the day, to act in a manner that provides some appropriate system of checks and balances and enables them to hold to account the Government of the day.
The balance between the normal and understandable desires of the Government and the normal and understandable role of Members of Parliament, particularly those in Opposition to the Government of the day, has been tilted in a questionable and improper manner by the way this Bill has been drafted and presented to the House. That should be taken into account not only by you, Sir, but by the House and the people of the country in passing judgment on this Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in brief reply to my hon. friend's interesting argument, with respect to Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill

June 1, 1988
Air Canada
C-130, I appreciate that my friend was attempting to argue that when the Constitution is amended, it should be amended through the formal procedure that exists under the British North America Act or the Constitution Act. With respect, Mr. Speaker, that was another way of attempting to argue the constitutionality question. I refer to Beauchesne's on page 38 in Article 117 (6) which states:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor
decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or
privilege.
I submit that my hon. friend called for a formal constitutional amendment. Although it is not part of a procedural argument, I would submit that there is sufficient support among the provinces to indicate tacit support for the free trade agreement. I submit that we are not changing the Constitution through Clauses 6 and 9.
With respect to the argument on Clause 8, I would submit that it is often the case that clauses in Bills are challenged as to acceptability. If there is to be a challenge, it should be a formal court challenge at some later date on some specific question of law. Our position as legislators is to debate the law in its substance and to decide. We believe that this law has one principle, that is, to implement the free trade agreement. I am satisfied that the drafting of the Bill has been done in such a manner that it does not offend the constitutionality, although I submit it is not your position to rule on same, and that Section 8 will be found to be in order.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to debate this procedurally. It has been a very useful exercise in which we have been pleased to participate. I appreciate that you will wish to reserve judgment, Mr. Speaker. We are anxious to proceed with the debate on the substance of the issue and look forward to the results of your deliberations at your earliest convenience.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I see the Elouse Leader for the NDP entering the House. He may have some comments to make. While the Hon. Member is taking his seat, I wonder if I could bring one point to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Government House Leader has stated if I am correct in stating that the action contemplated by the Government in Clauses 6 and 9 of Bill C-130 must be undertaken by way of constitutional amendment, that is already taken care of by the fact that there is tacit support by most of the provinces. I respectfully submit that even if that is correct, and I question it, that cannot be the same as a formal action required of provinces as set out in the Constitution Act, if there is to be a constitutional amendment.
The Deputy Government House Leader in expressing his opinion of the views of the provinces on the subject matter of Bill C-130, even if these views are in the form of tacit support, cannot be considered to be the formal action that is required in order to amend the Constitution as set out in the Constitution Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have no further comments to add to the procedural debate. I do wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, as you made clear earlier, we do reserve the right to intervene on procedural matters as the Bill is proceeding through the various stages, but at this point I have no further words to add.


Mr. Speaker:: I do wish to close off debate, but I wish to reply to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He may well be referring to events that may or may not take place. I do not wish anyone to presume what course the debate may or may not take on a Bill when the acceptability of that Bill is the very issue in front of us.


Mr. Axworthy:: I wish to provide a citation in considering the point raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor-West (Mr. Gray). It is contained in a document that would be useful for Your Honour to consult. It is the impact of the Canada-U.S. Tree Trade Agreement, a legal analysis that was tabled in the Ontario Legislature by the Attorney General for Ontario. I will not take the time of the House to go through all the argumentation, Sir, but it would be very important to deal with the conclusion where it states that the impact of the Bill tabled in the House has a severe limitation on the capacity of the provincial governments to govern, according to the present constitutional arrangements, and that this is a form of unilateral assertion of constitutional change.
I suggest to the Chair that this legal analysis of the Bill is an important substantiation of the argument put forward by my colleague that if we are going to change the Constitution, and certainly the federal Government has the right to do so, then it must be done under the laws prescribed in the Constitution and not by way of a Bill such as Bill C-130.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. Orders of the Day.


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Lriday, May 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. McDermid (p. 15859).
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my contribution to the debate. I understand I have only about four minutes left.


Mr. Nowlan:: Too long.
June 1, 1988


Iain Francis Angus: The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport says that this is too long. Perhaps he would be interested in hearing the results of the discussion we had this week with officials from Air Canada. We talked not about privatization per se but about replacement of some of Air Canada's aircraft.
One of the questions my colleague from Regina West asked was whether the Government gave instructions to Air Canada that when it selects a supplier for new aircraft there be Canadian content or Canadian job requirements. Air Canada has said no, there had been no such request. I then asked whether Air Canada, in its search for new equipment, required the successful bidder to ensure that jobs were created in Canada, parts were purchased in Canada, and that other benefits be included which would assist Canadian workers and the Canadian aerospace industry in particular. Air Canada replied no. Wardair does not have to do it, Canadian International does not have to do it, therefore Air Canada does not have to do it. Yesterday in this House the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked a series of similar questions, indicated that the Government always wanted Air Canada to operate as if it were in the private sector.
That is why we on this side oppose the sale of Air Canada in any form. Since deregulation of air transport in particular, we have removed the principle of public convenience and necessity and replaced it with a market-place philosophy that the greater the volume, the greater the service, or, conversely the lesser the volume, the lesser the service. That was the first step. Now, by taking Air Canada out of the control of the Parliament and taxpayers of Canada, we have lost that additional advantage where the duly elected Government can issue instructions to a national airline to provide service or ensure that when contracts are placed, whether it is for new equipment or goods and services for ongoing operations, benefits have to come to Canadians.
We believe Air Canada should remain owned by Canadian taxpayers. They already own it, in fact. Therefore, we will continue to present our case to ensure that at the very least the public is aware of the ramifications of this particular piece of legislation. They will understand they are not getting a bargain. They are losing control, even under partial privatization, of an airline they built over the last 50 years.
Let me also remind you that under the provisions of the Bill before us, which the business community says is not going to work, we are allowing people out there to purchase 45 per cent of the shares of Air Canada. Yet at the same time the Government is going to instruct its representatives on the board of Air Canada to take their instructions from that 45 per cent ownership group.
I realize my time has expired. I look forward to the opportunity to participate along with my colleagues in continuing to point out the error of this approach by the Conservative Government when the Bill goes into committee. I really do
Air Canada
hope that either an election will be called that will prevent this Bill from passing or that the Government will reconsider.


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


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, first I have a comment, and 1 will conclude with a question for the Hon. Member.
He is of course aware that yesterday morning I had the privilege of chairing the Committee on Transport, and that Mr. Jeanniot of Air Canada appeared before the Committee. Mr. Speaker, I think it was all very clear. The Government and the Opposition Parties may have their differences in this respect, but Mr. Jeanniot made it quite clear before the Committee that ever since the seventies, 1975 and 1980, and especially considering the new regulatory reform in the transportation industry, commonly referred to as deregulation, that it was important to them that Air Canada be able to compete with the other airlines.

June 1, 1988
Air Canada
New Democrats do not want any Crown corporations or any big business or anyone to work-who in the heck will pay? We do not know. It has been proven and stated publicly by the administration of Air Canada, by the employees, with one exception-perhaps union leaders-that they are in favour of privatization of Air Canada.
I conclude my remarks and thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) that with everything Air Canada has said in the past and what Mr. Jeanniot said yesterday regarding 727s and DC-9s and with the implication of the workers who want to buy shares, the same airline will exist as Air Canada and it will continue to be the great carrier it has always been. So why would the Hon. Member ever be against 45 per cent privatization?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his questions. Let me ask rhetorically how many shares he expects the Air Canada employee who makes $6.79 an hour to buy. The current valuation of the shares which the Government of Canada holds is $1,000 a share. Not many, I would suggest.
The Member spoke about competitiveness, flexibility and arm's length. Mr. Jeanniot in his remarks to us yesterday, indicated Canada has the flexibility. When Canadian Airlines offers a seat sale, within 24 hours Air Canada offers that seat sale. Where he indicated that there was less flexibility was in terms of capital. He indicated to us that even though the share values in the name of the Government of Canada were something in the neighbourhood of $750 million, the amount the Canadian Government has provided is somewhere around $330 million-which is a major shortfall. Mr. Jeanniot said that he has asked and asked and asked this Government and the former one to advance the full value Parliament approves but has been refused.
We have an airline company that has made in excess of $300 million profit in the last nine years. In fact, every year but two were profitable years. There is no question that Air Canada is an excellent company. It is owned by the people of Canada. Canadians should have the right to receive the profits and a return on their investment as shareholders. There are 25 million shareholders in the company right now. I do not think that that should be sold out from under them.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, not only do the people of Canada have a right to the airline but they have a right to expect service. One of the strengths of Air Canada historically has been to serve remote areas where no other company would go.
What happens to that mandate or policy decision under privatization? If the bottom line is profit, then surely there is not the same compulsion on the part of Air Canada to continue that policy in the past of serving remote areas. I know of routes in my own province, for example, where only Air Canada flew and the flights were never full. Canadians deserve air travel. They needed it and they got it from Air Canada. Under
privatization my fear is that this will change. If the bottom line is profit and you fly only where you have load factors, where there is a lot of traffic and lots of people, that precludes those who live in small communities and remote areas from travelling and from service. It precludes business in those areas from doing the kind of business that would be done in other parts of the country.
There is a fear that the mandate of Air Canada, the mandate it has historically had and has followed, will change under privatization. That is the question I pose.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Air travellers in Canada are getting hit with a double whammy-deregulation and privatization of Air Canada. The Hon. Member is right about the quality of service. Briefly I will give one example. My community is served by both Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. Two flights leave in the morning from Thunder Bay to Toronto. The one at seven o'clock is Canadian and the one at 7.40 is Air Canada. At 10 minutes to seven o'clock the Air Canada counter is already staffed, even though its plane does not leave for an hour. Canadian Airlines staff is assigned to show up about 6.30 a.m. for a seven o'clock flight. There are long line-ups at the Canadian Airline counter, whereas Air Canada easily clears all its customers. It provides adequate service and staff to ensure customers are treated properly. Canadian Airlines dealing with the bottom line as its prime motive does not provide the staff or service. This ultimately results in delayed flights and poor quality treatment, an excellent example of the lower level of service provided when priority is profit as opposed to service. Air Canada's tradition has been service over the years. Unfortunately, under this Bill that will change.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Papros-ki), who is in the Chair, for recognizing me.
The issue before us today is not as much an issue of theology as it is an issue of maturity of the Canadian economy and the Canadian transportation system. It is quite clear that the original mandate of Air Canada, which was put in place some 50 years ago, has altered somewhat due to the circumstances of our country. Fifty years ago our country had virtually no air links save charter links which were ad hoc and usually done for mercy purposes. There has, however, been a remarkable evolution with the birth of what is now Canada's third airline which originally was a bush pilot operation. I am very pleased to say the founder of that airline is a distinguished resident of my own constituency, namely, Mr. Max Ward. We have had over the last two or three years a tremendous growth in service not only of the three trans-Canada airlines, if I may use that expression, but also of the affiliate airlines, the so-called feeders which go into the North, into the lower traffic areas and into areas where there are short runways. Indeed, I had the opportunity the other evening to visit here in Ottawa with two employees of Air Canada, both of whom have distinguished records of service, and both of whom are interested in
June 1, 1988

this very debate which is going on today. Unfortunately, due to the sometimes unpredictable course of House business, they were not able to stay today to follow this debate. However, they had in fact journeyed to Ottawa for that express purpose.
We carried on a debate of our own over dinner and we examined the issues that are now before us. I was asked a number of questions by these two women employees of Air Canada. They had quite a well-thought-out line of interrogation, and it went something like this: "Why would the Government of Canada want to sell shares in a Crown corporation when we already own it?" So I asked them: "What is the test of ownership, is it not the test of the alienability of the property itself?"
In other words, if one says one owns Air Canada or a portion thereof, is one able of one's own volition to dispose of it as a citizen of Canada? The answer, of course, is no. However, with this partial privatization measure, those 45 per cent of the shares which will in fact go into the hands of individual Canadians, among them employees of Air Canada and other citizens of Canada, will become alienable and will be capable of being traded on the market. They truly then will become the property of those people of Canada.
The next question which was posed to me was the question of the elongation of Air Canada's operation; that is to say, would Air Canada, with privatization simply go for the long routes and avoid the shorter routes? Would Air Canada neglect service to smaller communities? My response was that I think not, and I think not because there are a number of shorter routes which are economical. For example, the Rapidair routes between Ottawa and Toronto, between Ottawa and Montreal and the triangle back to Toronto from Montreal are very satisfactory routes for Air Canada to serve, and they are not elongated routes.
However, these employees pressed the question further, and quite properly. They asked about routes in western Canada, for example, service from, say, Regina to Edmonton. 1 suggested to them that those routes would probably not be dropped, and I cited the example of Canadian Airlines International, which is truly a private corporation and which has chosen not to drop many of those smaller routes.
Indeed, in many ways, Canadian Airlines does a remarkable job of serving northern and northwestern Canada and indeed Atlantic Canada with short-hop service and service to low-traffic areas. It has managed its operation in such a way with its equipment, and in some cases with downscaled equipment, so that that service continues. Indeed, with the addition of some other feeder operations, there is the possibility of serving communities that have not up to now had regular airline service. If one consults the timetable of either of Canada's two major airlines, one will find destinations such as Nanisivik, Kuujjuak, Iqaluit and many others which would not normally,
Air Canada
one would think, be revenue destinations. However, that service exists and it is provided by privately owned airlines.
The next question had to do with the treatment of the employees. These were two Air Canada employees who were interrogating me, one of them a long-serving and distinguished union official. I drew their attention to the record of the Government of Canada in the field of privatization, our record over the past almost four years of the privatization of the dozen or so Crown corporations that have gone to the market with considerable success. I drew their consideration to the de Havilland example in Downsview, Ontario. Now, with the world-wide mandate through the connection with Boeing Corporation, de Havilland has a window on the world. What is the employment record at Downsview? I believe that staff members have been added. Certainly there has been no adverse impact on employee relations, employee benefits, job security or things of that nature.
Then they said: "What about British Airways? They went ahead and privatized and they laid off tens of thousands of employees". Well, the fact is that that occurred before the privatization of British Airways. The airline was badly in need of some rationalization and that rationalization took place before shares in British Airways were offered to the market.
According to the President of Air Canada, Mr. Jeanniot, and the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Taylor, who incidentally is immensely well respected within the ranks of Air Canada employees as one who has worked his way up and has proved his worth, Air Canada has shown its mettle. It has shown that it is a world-class airline because of the commitment of its employees. Therein, in a service industry, lies much of the strength of any airline, the quality and commitment of its employees. That will not be changed.
One might say, as my friends did say to me, why then bother, why change things now, isn't this just some kind of Tory knee-jerk, ideological reaction? My response is, of course not, of course not.


Mr. Nunziata:: Who are you calling a jerk?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Careful, it might happen. An opportunity is being presented to the people of Canada and to the passengers of Canada. Most important, an opportunity is being presented to Air Canada to expand and become competitive and to be truly a continuing force within the airline domain of Canada and indeed across the world as one of our Canadian flag carriers.
The next concern put forward to me was an interesting one coming from a couple of Albertans. They said: "We believe that in many ways, Air Canada is an instrument of national policy in terms of being a vehicle for continuing the bilingual objectives of the people and the Government of Canada, and wouldn't that undergo some erosion?" I think not, and I think not because there is a demonstrated record among major Canadian corporations doing business from coast to coast to

June 1, 1988
Air Canada
the 49th parallel and beyond that shows that those corporations, which are truly Canadian in their commitment, do maintain those objectives and maintain them rather well.
I appreciate this opportunity to address a few words in debate on this particular Bill. As one who, like yourself, Mr. Speaker, from time to time has the occasion to use Air Canada, I have nothing but admiration for the quality of the people, for the safety standards and for all the wonderful service that this airline has delivered to Canada over the past 51 years. I am sure it will do so well into the next century, with the assistance of this Bill and the bringing up of capital so that the investment will be there for Air Canada to expand its fleet and to be a truly distinguished airline.


Mr. Minaker:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question with the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) in regard to services to the northern part of Alberta provided by different airlines, either now or in the past. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and, I believe, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) seemed to imply, when they made their comments, that Air Canada was servicing all the remote areas and that when the company was privatized this service would fall off.
In my Province of Manitoba the airline that was covering the remote areas like Thompson, The Pas, and Gillam many years ago was TransAir which became Pacific Western Airlines and which we now know is an integral part of Canadian Airlines. I believe that that company is servicing the remote areas. In fact, Air Canada was primarily servicing the main areas like Thunder Bay, Toronto, Montreal and so on.
I would like to ask the Member for Edmonton South, who serves the remote areas of northern Alberta at the present time? Is it Air Canada or other airlines?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to advise my friend that it is indeed largely the investor-owned airlines which serve northern Alberta. That is partly due to historic circumstance. Others who remember the bush pilot era would say that it is partly due to historical circumstance.
However, the fact of the matter is that Canadian Airlines International, as the heir of Pacific Western Airlines, has regular Airbus service to Fort McMurray out of Edmonton. Canadian Airlines International flies as well into certain parts of northwestern Alberta to such destinations as Grand Prairie and into the Peace River block of northeastern British Columbia to Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, and Fort Nelson. In fact, Fort St. John has become something of a mini air hub, with the routes from Edmonton northwest and Vancouver northeast intersecting there with flights from both cities continuing on into White Horse.
It is true as well that Edmonton, being historically and presently the gateway to the North in an aviation and a shipping context, still maintains that claim with regular flights
by such airlines as Canadian out of Edmonton International and Edmonton Municipal, in some cases, to the North, notably to Yellowknife, Cambridge Bay, Resolute, and other northern destinations.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct several questions to the Hon. Member. The suggestion by Conservative Members of Parliament who are supporting this Bill is that the opposition which comes from New Democratic Members is based on our ideological belief in the value of public ownership as opposed to private ownership.
Certain people in the industry are very critical of this particular Bill. For example, in The Globe and Mail of May 27 there is a news story quoting Sir Colin Marshall, chief executive of British Airways which, as the Member knows, was privatized by Mrs. Thatcher. The article says:
In reference to the federal Government's decision to partly privatize Air Canada, Sir Colin indicated he doesn't like Ottawa's method very much.
British Airways would never have achieved the outstanding financial results of the past year if the British Government had continued as the majority shareholder, he said.
"It obviously depends on the local situation, but as a general philosophy I believe you can't be both (government and privately owned), he said-
I would like the Member to comment on that and also on the financial analyst in Toronto specializing in airlines who, the day after the Minister tabled this Bill, criticized this proposal. He said that if the privatized company has to follow the provisions in the Bill, if the headquarters must remain in Montreal, if it must continue to be bilingual, and must maintain its maintenance bases in Toronto, Winnipeg, and Montreal, it would take away from the ability of the partially privatized company to make decisions based on efficiency and profitability.
This analyst, whose name I do not have in front of me now, made the same point as the head of British Airways. Even though they believe in the privatization of Air Canada, they say that what the Government is proposing to do is bad in a business way. I would like the Member to comment on those points.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as always the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, with his immense fund of general knowledge, is able to ask some very pertinent questions. He has never let us down.
On the question of ideology, I was not suggesting that the New Democratic Party had a particular ideology and that his opposition to this particular move was based on ideology. I was saying that the Government's move in this regard is not based on ideology.


David Orlikow: It's not based on good, sound business sense.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: It's based on good, sound business sense. I thank the Hon. Member for that phrase.
In response to Sir Colin Marshall's comments which I, too, read, the Hon. Member was honest enough to quote Sir Colin
June 1, 1988

when he said "It obviously depends on the local situation". The British situation is not the Canadian situation.
Thatcherism and Thatcher's objectives are not necessarily the objectives of the Government of Canada. The objectives of Mrs. Thatcher, as I understand them, were to conduct a total revolution of British society and the British economy. Such is not the objective of the Government of Canada.
The objective of the Government of Canada in this case is to deal with a Crown corporation which has, as 1 have already indicated, a marvellous record of service and splendid employees but which history has bypassed in a sense in the context of its having a national policy objective of the Government of Canada for which it was put in place initially in 1937.
As to whether there should or should not be a hybrid with some state ownership or some investor ownership, I think we have had some remarkable examples of success in that regard in the recent past. I point to some examples carried out by the current Government of Alberta. I point with some knowledge-and I am sure the Hon. Member has far deeper knowledge than I-to the hybrid corporations which exist in that marvellous democratic socialist state of Sweden.
However, I do not think it is necessarily the intent of the Government of Canada always to maintain a 55 per cent stake in Air Canada. We do not know what the future holds. The purpose of the Bill before us today is to enable the people of Canada to acquire 45 per cent of the shares.
Finally, with regard to the comments of the financial analyst, I read those as well. I am aware that there were proposals made by many financial houses in Toronto, and perhaps elsewhere, as to the best method of the privatization of Air Canada. I do not wish to suggest that these comments were made by a disappointed consultant, but that indeed is the possibility. I believe there were 10 or 11 houses which were offering proposals. If only one proposal was embraced, naturally nine or ten would have been embarrassed and disappointed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate although I wish we did not have to. I want to begin by citing a little bit of history, for the benefit of my colleagues who may not be aware of it, about the development of a national airline in Canada. It was called Trans-Canada Air Lines when it started. Between 1935 and 1937, C.D. Howe, the then Minister, approached Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway to join in a tripartite partnership in the formation of a national airline. There was much negotiation and discussion but Canadian Pacific said it would not do it.
The offer was for the federal Government eventually to get out of the three-way ownership so that the airline would be owned by both railways. However, CPR said no, and the Government of the day went ahead to form Trans-Canada Air
Air Canada
Lines with capital investment by both the Government of Canada and Canadian National Railways.
Trans-Canada Air Lines began flying in 1937, and obviously in the late 1930s and early 1940s it lost a bundle. The free enterprisers pointed their finger at how a Crown corporation did not work and that the free market forces should prevail.
In the late 1940s, Canadian Pacific began an airline with scheduled routes. To its credit, it flew to remote places as well as the larger centres.
When Trans-Canada Air Lines began making a profit, the hue and cry became louder. When it was losing money, Trans-Canada Air Lines was evidence of how public ownership did not work. However, when it began to make money, the private enterprise, free market forces people, reversed their stance and said that a Crown corporation should not make a profit, because that should belong to private enterprise.
Where were these free enterprisers and free market forces boys when the country needed them? If they could not make a bundle, to hell with Canada, they would not do it. The bottom line syndrome takes priority over everything else. They would run over their own mothers if they got in the way.
The taxpayers of this country made the investment. Trans-Canada Air Lines built the routes and the market. As soon it began to make money and taxpayers began getting a return on their investment, those who support free enterprise began asking for a piece of the action. They said: "We want some gravy off the top".
I can only call the private enterprisers and free market forces types a bunch of freeloaders. They are not prepared to take the bad with the good.
How many times have the advocates of free enterprise and free market forces asked to be left alone? How many times have we had to bail out free enterprise in the last 10 years? Who came running to the Government for a hand-out and bail-outs? It was not the poor people of Canada or the unemployed; it was the banks, Chrysler Canada and Massey Ferguson. Taxpayers are as much entitled to a return on their investment as any individual private investor.
I have yet to hear someone give me a rational explanation of why someone should buy shares in something they already own. If this chance for Canadians to buy shares in Air Canada is such a good deal, why does the Government not take up the balance of the authorized shareholdings, $750 million, as it is authorized to do by legislation of this House? It would make sense because Air Canada is a profitable corporation and ranks in the top 10 airlines in the world. Currently, the Government of Canada has $329 million in authorized shareholdings on behalf of the taxpayers. Air Canada says that it needs some $300 million to $400 million in initial funding for the purpose of purchasing new aircraft.
No one disputes that Air Canada is a good and profitable company. Why should the taxpayers of Canada not finally

June 1, 1988
Air Canada
receive a return on the tens of millions of dollars they have put into that airline since 1937?
Air Canada had a net profit of $47 million last year. Yet it did not pay a dividend. According to my limited understanding of private enterprise, a board of directors of a private corporation that would not pay out a dividend on $47 million would soon be replaced. One must wonder about the competence of the board of directors of Air Canada.
A $10 dividend on a $1,000 share would represent a dividend of some $4 million on 329,000 shares.
Canadian National Railways has paid almost $150 million in dividends to the Government of Canada in the last several years, which is only proper when it makes a profit.
We can correct the fact that the board of directors of Air Canada did not give a dividend in 1987. It still makes economic and social sense for the Government of Canada to take up the remaining $421 million of authorized capital stock remaining on the books of Air Canada. The Government and Air Canada tell us that they need the money to purchase new aircraft. Under Air Canada's corporate plan for 1987-1991, and the amended 1987 capital budget, the only place in which there is a mention of privatization is where it states that "this plan assumes no change in the ownership status of the corporation and no equity infusion or debt conversion by the shareholder", the shareholder being the Government of Canada. The corporate plan assumes no change.
Further on in the corporate plan it is stated that profitability will improve throughout the plan, as does the debt equity ratio because existing debt is retired and additional debt is not required. By 1990 the return on equity will achieve the corporate objective.
In a press statement of April 12 Air Canada stated: "with respect to its annual report that it will proceed with fleet renewal to take advantage of operating efficiencies available through new aircraft. The funds required for this multibillion dollar investment will come largely from internally generated funds". That means that they will come from operating revenues and from borrowing. There is no mention about equity investment in shares from the sale of shares. That tells me that the real reason for the Government wishing to sell 45 per cent ownership of Air Canada is to provide a better debt equity ratio, to retire more debt, in order to make its share more attractive on the stock market.
Something else that bothers me about this measure is that we continually hear statements inside and outside this House, and we continually read reports in the financial pages, about Air Canada's subsidy, or Air Canada being provided with money from the Government, by the taxpayer out of the taxpayers' pocket, the bottomless taxpayers' pocket. That is mythology. That has been mythology for the last 26 years.
There has not been a nickle of subsidy paid to Air Canada since 1962-not a nickle.
Some 11 years ago, in 1977, was the last time Parliament and the Government provided equity capital for Air Canada. They did not put up anything. All they did was to take a portion of Air Canada's debt and convert it to equity shares. Air Canada got no cash out of it. It just made its balance sheet look better, and it reduced its debt.
The airline has been able to operate and operate profitably as one of the 10 best airlines in the whole world without government funding. When we hear Wardair, Canadian Airlines and others crying and complaining about the great advantage Air Canada has over the rest of them, that is just more perpetuation of the mythology. Air Canada has been functioning under the same rules and the same conditions. It cannot operate any differently than can Canadian Airlines or Wardair.
I am not saying that Air Canada is perfect. I am not saying that it does everything exactly the way we would all like to see it done. There is not any outfit in the world that is run by of human beings that is perfect. There never has been and there never will be. It has done some things about which I am very distressed. For example, it paid not a nickle into the employees' pension plan in 1986. It used surplus earnings in the pension plan to make up the money that it should have been contributing under that year's operations. In my opinion while it was not illegal it was certainly highly immoral. Every dollar in a pension plan belongs to the pensioners and to the current employees and to no one else. Our stupid laws in this country allow corporations, public or private, to raid a pension plan and to take money that does not belong to them.
Sir, even Mrs. Thatcher and her Government in Britain in their privatization of British Airways were smarter than this Government. One thing we found out on the Transport Committee's trip to Europe last fall was that the British, the West Germans, the Dutch and the French look on privatization in a different way than we do. Those countries carry it out in a different way than we do. However, in the case of British Airways, during the course of the privatization the British Government kept what is called the golden share. Even if British Airways is 100 per cent owned by private shareholders the golden share has priority. That one golden share has priority over all the other shareholders.
The Government of Great Britain can intervene at any time it wants on any matter it wants having to do with the operations of British Airways. It kept full and final authority over British Airways. What does this dumb Government do? It did something that I am sure if it were done in a corporation on the Toronto Stock Exchange one would be under investigation so fast that one's head would swim.


Mr. Redway:: Don't give Toronto a hard time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I could not believe my ears listening to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in the House when he said
June 1, 1988

that the Government will instruct the members of the board of directors who represent the majority shareholders, who represent the 55 per cent, to vote with those who represent the minority shareholders. I have never heard of such a thing in any private corporation. I am sure that that would be grounds for an investigation by the Securities Commission of Ontario. If we had one that was any damn good operating out of Ottawa then it would be subject to an investigation. The RCMP would be seizing the books and everything else.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how you would like it if you were a majority shareholder and your representative on the board of directors in a company in which you had the majority of shares-


Alan Redway: Non-voting shares.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no. These are voting shares.


Alan Redway: They cannot be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -was instructed to vote for anything that the minority shareholders decided that they wanted to do. There is supposed to be a theory about people's capitalism-


Alan Redway: Oh, come on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why don't you get up and make a speech instead of sitting there.
There is a sick calf here. I wonder if Your Honour would arrange to have it taken out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the Hon. Member would speak to the Chair rather than speaking to anyone else in the House. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has one minute left.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a dumb move by the Government. It is not deserving of the confidence of the people of Canada, or of the employees of Air Canada. While the Government wants the employees to buy shares in Air Canada, and some of them are willing to do so, I wish to remind them of what the Government and Air Canada did to their pension plan in 1986. Air Canada raided their pension plan and did not put a nickel into it. It used surplus funds in the pension plan to cover the money that Air Canada was supposed to pay into it. Now it has the unmitigated gall to ask the employees to buy shares in an operation like that. I hope that Air Canada employees will not be fooled by that type of corporate chicanery.
I hope that the House and the people of Canada will make every effort to see to it that Air Canada is not privatized wholly or partially, because it is neither necessary nor desirable, and certainly public opinion states that the people of Canada prefer it as it is. All we need to continue a good, sound investment with good sound business practice is to increase the equity shares that the people of Canada have in Air Canada
Air Canada
through the Government of Canada, and we will still have a good deal and one of the first-rate airlines of the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker).


Clement George Minaker: I would like to ask the Hon. Member a couple of questions. In his comments he stated that when a private company makes a profit the board would be fired by the shareholders if it did not distribute some of that profit to the shareholders, and for that reason this was a bad idea.
Is the Hon. Member opposed to the idea of Air Canada employees buying shares? Many employees want to buy shares. The largest percentage of the employees at Air Canada want to have the opportunity to buy shares in the company, and rightly so in my opinion, because it is an excellent company, one of the best airlines in the world. If the employees buy the shares and the company makes a profit, is the Hon. Member opposed to the employees being paid a profit on their shares? In other words, each year receiving an equity cheque from the profit made by the company? Is the Hon. Member opposed to that? If the Hon. Member is opposed to that, I would then presume he is opposed to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. It makes a profit every year, and to my understanding it has done so for many years. It pays a cheque to the farmers who have control.
If the Hon. Member is opposed to Air Canada employees being paid a profit on their shares, then he must be opposed to the concept of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. It makes a profit and pays it back to its shareholders. The Hon. Member implies that if someone owns a share in the company it is wrong for them to get a profit paid on it. Therefore, it is wrong for Air Canada to be privatized.
Does the Hon. Member not realize that Air Canada employees can transfer their proxies? I would presume that they will have many members on that board because they can do it individually. It is stated that an individual or an association cannot own, but there is nothing stopping an Air Canada employee, if he or she can get enough support from his or her colleagues, receive their shares and their proxies, that they will be on the board. The employees will have a major part of the control of that board.
I would like to hear the Hon. Member's answers to those questions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friend was not listening so I will run it by him again and hope that it sinks in. What I said serves as a caution to Air Canada employees. With a $47 million net profit last year Air Canada paid no dividend to the present shareholders. Therefore, I caution Air Canada employees. If they are going to buy shares, that is their business and their own private decision, it is not mine.
Second, the experience of employees who bought shares in airlines in the United States, for example, Eastern Airlines,

June 1, 1988
Air Canada
Texas Air, and all those pirates down there, ended up having to give wage concessions. For the shares the employees bought, they lost anywhere from $1 to $4 an hour in pay. They were loyal employees, helped the company survive, invested money in it, took less pay, and what happened? Eastern Airlines is still on the verge of bankruptcy, Texas Air took over Peoples' Express, where the employees invested millions. Again, I caution the airline employees of Air Canada.
If one turns a good airline like Air Canada over to those so-called free market forces and private enterprise operators, I would not call that too safe an investment.
For my hon. friend to compare a private enterprise corporation with a co-operative tells one that he knows nothing about a co-operative. Having been a member of a co-operative and a credit union for the last 37 years, including serving on boards of directors, I think that I know a little about it. The membership has control and it decides whether there will be dividends. It is not a board of directors in a boardroom in Toronto or in Chicago that make the decisions; it is the members who decide. A co-operative is the most democratic form of enterprise in existence, and I remind my hon. friend of that.
What say did the taxpayers of Canada get as to whether or not there is a dividend on Air Canada's profits last year? We had no say, and the Government puts dummies on the board of directors who did not allow a dividend to be paid.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) would like to ask the Hon. Member a question.


Cyril Keeper: I would like to ask my colleague a question. It has to do with Air Canada's workers in Winnipeg. My colleague has been a critic in the area of transport for many years, and he knows that a number of decades ago Winnipeg lost a good part of its aerospace industry to Montreal when Trans-Canada Air Lines was in existence. Now with Air Canada, what I hear from workers in Winnipeg is concern about whether this privatization will endanger the work that Air Canada does in Winnipeg, and therefore their jobs. They feel there is a threat to the aerospace industry in Winnipeg. Is my colleague informed on this matter, and can he comment on it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West has two minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate the concern of my colleague. The employees should be concerned at all three maintenance bases in Toronto, Montreal, and most particularly in Winnipeg, because while Air Canada assures us there will be a maintenance and repair centre kept in Winnipeg, that centre is suitable for maintaining present generation aircraft, for example, DC-9s, 727s, DC-8s, and 747s. If Air Canada decides to buy an aircraft of a completely new generation from a different manufacturer of aircraft than what it presently owns, then the people in Winnipeg should be worried. Unless
and until we receive a guarantee that no matter which aircraft Air Canada purchases, a guarantee that a proper apportionment of repair, maintenance, and overhaul will be carried on in Winnipeg, then I would suggest that the people in Winnipeg continue to worry and continue to fight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation that will lead to the privatization of Air Canada. We have to ask ourselves how we reached the point where this Government wants to get rid of a Crown corporation, a corporation that has played a major role in the development of this country, from east to west and from north to south. We can be proud of Air Canada. Air Canada is a corporation that has played a major role in bringing communities closer together from coast to coast. Thanks to Air Canada, we can travel quite easily from place to place, because Air Canada has a network that connects a considerable number of communities. Air Canada provides these communities with a competitive service and ensures them a place in the regional development of this country, because when we talk about regional development, we automatically talk about transportation, and of course air transportation. And in this respect, we can say that Air Canada has played its role admirably.
The corporation was created in 1937, fifty-one years ago, as Trans-Canada Air Lines, and throughout that time, it has provided Canadians with reasonable services at reasonable rates. From the outset, we have had a service that is truly Canadian. In Air Canada's annual report for 1987, we read that it is truly a national carrier. On the first page we read the following:
Air Canada is the largest Canadian air carrier providing scheduled and charter air transportation for passengers and cargo. Air Canada's route network offers scheduled services to 35 North American cities. Through its domestic connector partners, another 66 Canadian communities and 13 cities in the United States are linked to the Air Canada system.
But that is not all. Air Canada is also recognized internationally. Air Canada provides services to many parts of the world, and again, we read in the annual report:
Internationally, the Corporation added new routes, increased services and achieved strong growth within established markets. The inauguration of service to Vienna along with Express Air Canada Cargo's growing international presence, emphasized the airline's expanding global operation.
A little further, it says:
Air Canada is now the preeminent Canadian carrier to much of Europe and the Caribbean countries. The airline also acquired Canadian rights to the Middle East, and much of Asia including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Burma. And, for the first time in its fifty year history, the Corporation will be able to operate transpacific flights to Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, and Singapore.
Within the next two years, Air Canada will inaugurate service to Nice, France; Madrid, Spain; Lisbon, Portugal; Athens, Greece; and Cairo, Egypt.
June 1, 1988

Charter operations to Venezuela and Ireland will be converted to scheduled
services.
We can truly say that in its short fifty-year history, Air Canada has offered Canadians quality service, not just nationally but also internationally. Air Canada also provides employment for more than 22,000 people. We really have reason to be proud of it.
And, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) himself said on April 12, 1988, "As one who has had the honour of serving as Canada's Minister of Transport, I have had the responsibility of being accountable to the House for Air Canada. I am thus particularly aware of the pride and expertise required of Air Canada's more than 22,000 employees necessary to achieve yet another successful year in providing safe and efficient air services to Canadians. Air Canada's accomplishments are all the more impressive when the strong and competitive nature of the Canadian airline industry is considered. Air Canada has not operated under the protection of government regulation for several years. Indeed, the entire industry responded admirably to the inevitability of a freer market environment long before the National Transportation Act was passed."
So I come back to my question: Why are we privatizing Air Canada when we realize how successful it is? One can also wonder, in light of what the Prime Minister himself, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said:

Air Canada is not for sale. Canada needs a national airline. There is a
possibility that shares in Air Canada will be sold to the public but the
Government would certainly retain a majority interest.

Why privatize, why sell Air Canada? Well, maybe the Government was caught short; in the past three or four years, our obligations to this company have really been neglected. But now we are told that Air Canada must modernize its fleet. Air Canada must buy new aircraft. We need some $300 million in the short term to buy airplanes. We heard that they would almost certainly be Airbuses, but it seems that the decision has not yet been finalized. So one must wonder.
To get these $300 million needed to make the first payment for renewing the fleet, it was decided to sell to Canadians what already belongs to them. To begin with, 45 per cent of the shares will be sold to them and it is expected that these 45 per cent will bring in enough for the corporation to start modernizing its fleet.
But one must also wonder what will happen to Air Canada once it is privatized. Air Canada will then have to act like any private corporation or any business. Of course, all private companies want to make money. Making a profit means maximizing profits, because one is answerable to one's shareholders, and the more dividends shareholders get, the better they like it and the better they like the board of directors. The people at Air Canada will have to act like all the other companies.
Air Canada
I am afraid that in this push for bigger and better profits, Air Canada will have to make certain decisions. I am afraid that Air Canada will abandon certain routes, especially the less profitable ones, because from now on, the Goverment will no longer be there to oblige the corporation to provide services to the communities on those routes. Certain facilities will also be abandoned, Mr. Speaker, if they are found to be less profitable. Operations will certainly be centralized.
In this connection, I think we could look at the example of CN and I have made this reference many times before. Instructed by this Government to make its operations profitable, CN embarked on a rationalization program. This meant scrutinizing all operations with an eye for profit, as opposed to the public interest or the interests of the communities concerned.
In New Brunswick, rationalization has meant the loss of more than 1,000 jobs, in not just one but several communities, and this is continuing. It is continuing for the simple reason the Government has decided not to intervene. In fact, it would be difficult for the Government to intervene at this point because it was the Government that gave the instructions in the first place.
So what will happen to Air Canada if at some point a decision is made to rationalize operations? II would be entirely up to the administrators, and they would then have carte blanche to take any action they feel would be appropriate. I am afraid that as a result of this push for bigger profits and for rationalization, workers will be laid off and shops will be closed. It is inevitable.
If only this Bill had taken a leaf from the privatization of British Airways, which seems to be a model of its kind. In England, when the Government got into privatization, it was careful not to let everything go.
It kept a so-called golden share which gives the Government the right to intervene if it feels the public interest is at stake and the company is not acting in the national interest. Here, we are told it's not worth it, and the Government prefers to privatize Air Canada altogether.
What is going to happen to services in outlying areas? We have been given the assurance these services will be maintained. We have also been told that the regions are getting better service than before because there are more carriers. There are regional carriers, but I think Hon. Members should realize, Mr. Speaker, that in some cases, national carriers have pulled out and been replaced by regional services.
What will happen if this experiment is not successful, and I am referring to the policy of serving the regions with regional airlines? National carriers will pull out. In fact, they have already done so and have been replaced. If this approach doesn't work, we in the regions will lose everything and have to strart from scratch.
One must also wonder, Mr. Speaker, what will happen to service in both official languages in regions of Canada that

June 1, 1988
Vacancy
lose the services of the national carrier. We well know that clause 10 of this Bill requires Air Canada to maintain services in both official languages. Clause 10 states, "The Official Languages Act applies to the Corporation." Once the Corporation has given up the regional service lines, what will happen to bilingual services? I asked the President of Air Canada this very question yesterday and he told us that there was little danger of that happening. But I must point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that no law requires these carriers to respect this obligation of Air Canada. Here too, the regions will be the losers. We will lose these services that are essential for us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this privatization of Air Canada means a considerable loss for Canadians. It is the loss of an essential tool that has enabled us to serve all regions of Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, as you may have understood, I am opposed to the privatization and want Air Canada to continue to serve all Canadians as a Crown corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m., at which time the House will proceed to the question of the action of anti-fur lobbyists in Europe and the interest of the British Government.
At 6.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me of the following vacancy in the representation: the Hon. David Crombie, Member for the electoral district of Rosedale, because he has accepted another position. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29   FUR TRAPPING INDUSTRY CAMPAIGN ON SALE OF CANADIAN FURS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has granted leave to the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) to move for the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the action of anti-fur lobbyists in Europe and the intention of the British Government.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in starting this debate tonight, may I first say how much I appreciate the support of all Hon. Members in what I believe is one of the most important issues facing rural Canada.
We are here this evening because the Canadian fur industry is being seriously threatened by recent happenings in Britain and Europe. Anti-fur campaigns have mounted an aggressive assault on our fur industry. European boycotts, called for by animal rights groups, directly harm Canadian trappers across our land, particularly native people who harvest fur-bearing animals for their livelihoods. These lobbying groups have proven very successful at getting their message across to their elected representatives. As a result, the British Government is currently considering legislation which would require fur products to be labelled, clearly in an effort to restrain and check retailers from selling furs and the public from purchasing them.
This week, on the front page of the financial section of a major newspaper, Canadians read an article bearing the heading "Fur industry jeopardized by activists," which reads as follows:
European fur buyers are becoming nervous and hesitant, contributing to a weaker market for Canada's fur products in recent months, industry spokesmen say.
The article goes on:
Fur prices in Canada this year are down about one-third from last year, said Ken McKay, manager of the Manitoba Registered Trappers Association.
"The European situation has affected the market," Mr. McKay said. "European buyers are hesitant."
It continues:
Robert Carmichael, chief of commercial wildlife management in Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, said the anti-fur activists are aware the actions of the British Government will carry "a terrific amount of weight" when other European countries decide whether to restrict the sale of fur.
"It's exactly the same route that the seal industry took. There is absolutely no doubt that this is not just a local trade measure. This is part of a carefully calculated plan. This is the big push."
June 1, 1988

Let me deal briefly with the economic aspects of the fur trade for Canadians. The fur industry is worth approximately $600 million annually. There is a spin-off of, roughly speaking, $200 million in allied industries like transportation. For the last two to three years, Canadian fur exports totalled approximately $350 million annually, much of that going to the European market.
To put those figures into perspective, are we talking about six companies earning $100 million per year? Are we talking about 12 companies earning $50 million per year? No, we are talking about 105,000 Canadians who earn all or part of their incomes from the fur industry. We are talking about individuals who may earn $1,000, $5,000 or $10,000 per year, people who may have the opportunity to purchase a skidoo or a canoe. More important, we are talking about individuals who may be able to afford to put bread on their tables.
We are talking about aboriginal people. Fifty thousand of the 105,000 Canadians involved in trapping are aboriginal people. More than that, 80 per cent of the retail fur sales in Canada are made through privately owned family run one store businesses. We are talking about 105,000 Canadians who collectively do not want to be part of the welfare system.
Above and beyond the economics of this issue, and much more important, are the social and cultural factors involved with native people and northern communities. As Hon. Members know, in December of 1986, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development presented the House with a report entitled The Fur Issue. The committee heard from many Canadians who depend directly upon the fur trade. At the time that report was prepared we had received 43 written reports and heard 33 witnesses. Among those who appeared were representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Department of External Affairs, the Assembly of First Nations, the Department of the Environment, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Aboriginal Trappers Federation of Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Government of the Yukon Territory, the Ross River Indian Band, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.
To native people trapping involves more than simply trying to earn cash income. It implies a unique social, spiritual, and cultural relationship with the land and its resources. In northern communities trapping and trade are the encompassing activities which hold the people together, creating a bond of belonging and providing all of the inhabitants with a purpose. These comments were echoed time and again in our committee hearings.
Page 10 of our report, under Social and Cultural Importance of Trapping, reads:
Hunting and trapping are not "jobs" for Inuit-
We in the North live the life of subsistence hunters and trappers. Our families contribute to all phases of getting ready for hunting and preparing of skins. Our wives, our children, and our relatives share in the work and the rewards .... We as Inuit have always harvested animals as a way of life. In the North the animals, man and nature lived in a harmony that was both cruel and fair to all. At times men and animals starved, and at other times there was plenty. Nature ensured the balance; and the Inuit were an integral part of his life. We have survived for centuries in this area of the country.
We heard from the manager of the Old Crow Indian Band. He said:
Oh, it would deprive us of our identity, for sure. We still have not had the chance to adapt to any other society or any other way of living. That is where we are now at. We are slowly adapting so that we can create our economy, or create a structure if we have a strong economy. Trapping is a way of life for a lot of people in our community-
May I remind my colleagues in the House that this is not the first time we have been charged with defending our fur industry. Both in 1979 and in 1982 we considered the serious threat and implications of the anti-fur campaign with respect to the seal hunt. At that time the European community banned imports of seal pup pelts as a reaction to a lobbying campaign that was based on an emotional appeal, one which was very shallow in facts. Through an effective use of the media and through sheer sensationalism the animal rights movement was successful. The devastation that was felt by the collapse of our industry, especially in the Maritimes, is well recorded.
Sealing added $19.4 million to the economy of the Northwest Territories in 1981 but this fell to $9.9 million in 1983-84. After the European Economic Community ban on "whitecoat" imports was instituted in February, 1983, the market for pelts of mature seals collapsed as well. In 18 of 20 Inuit communities in the Northwest Territories the annual revenue from the sale of sealskin pelts dropped by approximately 60 per cent. The community of Broughton Island saw its collective income fall from a total of $92,099 in 1981-82 to $13,504 in 1983-84.
Towns have been economically ruined, families have had to move or have been torn apart, and an entire way of life was altered because we were unable to put an effective case forward for our seal hunt. The loss of the seal hunt and what it meant for thousands of Canadians can still be seen today; family break-ups, bankruptcies, needless suicides, alcoholism, the loss of an individual's self-worth, dignity, and sense of belonging. These tragedies we cannot allow to recur.
The impact of the animal rights campaigns and the anti-fur campaigns, particularly those in Europe, have been felt by many Canadians. Our Government, in partnership with the Canadian Fur Institute and other representatives of the industry, has taken steps to address their concerns.
In the past decade we have become increasingly active in the conservation and management of our wildlife, the development of the humane trap testing and design, trapper education, and the education of the public on the trapping advancements which have been made in Canada.
However, it is evident from the ever-increasing and constant pressure being applied by the animal rights groups and anti-fur

June 1, 1988
lobbyists in Europe on their elected Members that our efforts here are not being fully recognized or appreciated.
The grand chief of the First Nations, Mr. Erasmus, said:
They are basically trying to change the fundamental relationship between animal life in general and human beings. They are basically challenging our use of fur ... they are challenging the fundamental relationship between man and wildlife, and they are doing it gradually. They are doing it in a way in which they have learned they can win at this game, and they have sensationalized one aspect of the struggle at a time. They are doing it methodically. They have fanatics in the back of them, but in the front of them they have moderates.
The animal rights groups are unrealistic in their goals and the current movements in Europe. If their goals are met it will undoubtedly be extremely harmful to the many Canadians who depend on the fur industry for their livelihood. What the British and European parliamentarians and public must recognize about our fur industry is that it is the responsible harvesting of a renewable resource.
I raise this issue today because I feel it is extremely important at this time to send a strong message to the British and European Parliaments and public. What the elected representatives are being told through the animal rights lobbying groups are distortions and manipulations of fact. As these interest groups did with the seal pup issue, they have singled out Canada and our export industry as their initial target. The European public is being fed sensationalized videos, billboards, and posters. They are hearing documentaries with misinformation and half-truths.
In this time of need, as Canadian parliamentarians, we must act. I say to my colleagues that we must remain steadfast in our support for the fur industry, in our support for trappers across our country, and in our support for our native communities and people for whom the fur trade is an integral part of their lives.
We are tonight trying to ensure that thousands of Canadians will have the opportunity to continue a way of life which is vital to them and their communities. We must ensure that they have the opportunity to continue what they believe is correct.
In conclusion, I wish to draw into focus what this debate tonight is all about. It is not necessarily about an economic industry, an export commodity, but about individual Canadians, their own sense of being, and about a livelihood and way of life.
Let me leave with the House the thoughts of an elder:
I have been a trapper all my life. I had a family, but I lost my wife. 1 am just by myself now. 1 am 69 years old. I draw the Old Age Pension and I am still trapping.
I have never been to school. I just live in the bush. All I know is how to sign my name on a cheque. I cannot read one word, but I make a living anyway.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on this very urgent and
pressing matter of the proposed order by the British Government and Trade Minister Alan Clark. He is proposing to bring in an order stating that garments may contain a label saying that some furs in the garment may have been caught in a leg-hold trap.
It is important to put this debate into context. We are not debating an anti trapping issue, but what is the precursor of an anti fur issue.
When we consider what happened with the sealing industry, with a campaign that began largely on an emotional argument based on little environmental data, we can see what can happen to an industry and the lives of the people involved in it.
Today we are dealing with a $600 million a year industry in Canada that is primarily a family oriented industry. Most retail furriers are small business furriers. The people who make the garments are mostly involved in small family businesses. Then there are the trappers and fur ranchers themselves.
The British Trade Minister said that this proposed order to label furs is a minimal response to a strong so-called animal rights lobby. Let me make the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. I am sure very few people would disagree that we all must be concerned about the welfare of animals and ensure that animals are treated humanely and not subjected to inhumane treatment as part of our ecology and environment.
There is a strong lobby in Britain against animals being killed for any purpose, including medical research. This can occasionally take comic proportions. For example, in Maclean's on March 21, 1988, in an article entitled "Stocking Canada's Wild Fur Industry", the British humour magazine Punch asks whether the next step in the battle over animal rights might come when sweaters suddenly appear on store shelves bearing labels that warn: "This sheep was damned cold without this wool".
It is true that this proposed legislation has a very incremental effect on many products. For example, a product may be labelled that it creates a deterioration of the ozone level because of the way it is manufactured. While this incremental effect may be ludicrous on the one hand, it is also very serious.
The legislation in Britain specifically addresses the leg-hold trap. That is a form of trap used for many animals, but primarily for submersible animals like beaver and muskrat, which are caught under the water by the trap. Therefore, many of the objections to this trap are simply not applicable.
However, it is important to consider this issue from the British perspective. When I visited England a couple of weeks ago, it was clear to me that many British legislators understandably considered this from their own historical and cultural perspective, which was the exploitation of furs.
The history of the fur trade in Canada is that people from abroad, primarily Britain, took as many furs as possible and
June 1, 1988

depleted the stocks with no consideration for the future. 1 pointed out that we are not dealing with the trapping or use of endangered species, which is clearly not done in Canada, but about a renewable resource harvesting industry. That is a very different concept from that of the historical exploitation of the fur trade.
Renewable resource harvesting involves utilizing the land, much like a farmer. It is the interest of that person to ensure the resource is maintained. It is an economic endeavour whereby the trapper, in this instance, has a great incentive to ensure that he is running his business well. In some instances, the trapper may leave a trap line for a year, much as a farmer leaves a field fallow for a year. This is a managed industry which harvests a renewable resource.
Many people in Canada as well as abroad, particularly in Europe where there is virtually no wilderness left, romantically revere the wilderness of the northern parts of North America and come to visit as tourists. A viable industry of renewable resource harvesting, such as trapping, maintains the wilderness of which we are so fond and which forms such a part of our Canadian identity. When there is a viable industry on that land there is an incentive to preserve the environment for the development of the renewable resource.
Many trappers in this country are aboriginal people. When the Europeans first came here this industry was one in which aboriginal people could effectively participate. This industry became a way of life and part of their culture, as well as part of the economy.
What are the effects of this labelling on people in the industry? There are about a thousand trappers in the Yukon, over 70 per cent of whom are aboriginal people. I want to quote the President of the Tungavik of Nunavut who also addressed this issue. I think he quite graphically portrayed the interests of his people when he stated:
Hunting, fishing and trapping remains vitally important to Inuit throughout Nunavut (eastern Arctic). The "land" is our cultural and social bedrock, and is the basis of our economic life for it provides us with food and clothing. Unfortunately there is very little wage employment in Nunavut apart from a few jobs with the Hudson Bay and Co-op stores, which are ubiquitous in our communities, and some jobs with government agencies.
When some people present the fact that these people can do other things and that there are other alternatives, it is important to remember that this issue is not confined to one region of Canada. This industry involves all the provinces of Canada and the two northern territories. It is particularly carried out in the more isolated and rural parts of these regions. It provides a form of regional economy of which there are many alternatives for people to participate in. It is extremely important to remember that that basis of a rural and regional economy has a spin-off effect not just for that particular region but for Canada as a whole in terms of taxes and other revenue and secondary businesses.
I have talked somewhat about some of the alternatives that have been proposed when people say: "Well, trappers can do something else", just as they said: "Well, sealers can do something else". Basically, one of the options that was presented to me when I spoke to some people in Britain was that if Britain is going to pass this kind of legislation then Britain should provide compensation. When we look at that a little more in depth we have to ask what kind of compensation are we talking about. Are we going to give handouts to people? Are we going to make people welfare recipients? What are we going to do? It is just not a logical response to this issue at all.
There is a great concern in the country, and many of us have spoken on it before, about the high degree of unemployment, both in rural areas and in aboriginal communities. By destroying this industry as a result of benign neglect we would simply increase welfare rolls and the dependency of people, thus contributing to the loss of pride that self-sufficiency creates. This would simply add to the social problems that already exist in many rural communities. That is obviously not an alternative.
Other types of development include non-renewable resource development. There is certainly a place for this kind of development in rural and wilderness areas. But we have to think very carefully about that and about the preservation of our wilderness areas as well. I would submit that trappers and that kind of viable economic industry help to preserve that wilderness and that environment, as I have said before.
There are three major groups that will be affected by this labelling order should it go forward. They are the United States, the U.S.S.R. and Canada. Canada will probably be affected the most of the three.
However, there are other groups, members of the European Economic Community, such as Denmark, which have expressed their opposition to this measure because they also see the ramifications of it beyond this immediate so-called minimal response. Denmark has raised this issue with the European Economic Community, and it is being discussed because of the implications for some of the European countries and countries such as Greenland. It is an issue that is not confined just to Canada, although it is true that Canada has been making some of the most vocal statements about it.
I would like to say that the United States could be more vocal. The State of Alaska, which is very much affected by this legislation, in May passed a resolution condemning the British Government for this proposed order, requesting that the proposal be rescinded by the British Minister of Trade and Industry. Its concern hinges on the fact that this is a centuries old harvesting of animals for subsistence and trade. It is a centuries old tradition. It cannot be replaced without severe economic hardships. The State of Alaska has registered its concerns, as has the country of Denmark.
There are options that could be taken by Britain, as well as actions that our own Government should look to. The discussion tonight and today, with all-Party approval, will send an

June 1, 1988
extremely strong message to the British Parliament about the concern that all Canadian parliamentarians have with respect to this issue. It is my feeling that the Canadian Government should consider asking for, minimally, a postponement of this legislation so that there will be an opportunity for Canada and Britain to discuss it further, and to negotiate some alternatives. My understanding is that it is generally accepted that when countries are about to bring in legislation which may affect trading items with other countries that they consult those countries. My understanding is that Canada was not consulted in this case. I think that we have some ground to stand on to ask, at least minimally, for a postponement of the bringing in of this order.
There is an organization called the International Trapping Standards Organization to which Canada and 17 other countries belong. It seems to me that it is an appropriate forum for those who are concerned about trapping methods to participate and to get agreements among countries about the kind of trapping that would be acceptable. Britain is neither a member nor an observer of this organization. As I said to Trade Minister Alan Clark in Britain, this seems to me to be a responsible alternative.
There are other measures which I think the Canadian Government must consider. I suppose that we could label British products to the effect that their manufacture contributes to pollution. But it becomes a very spiralling effect. I am not sure how useful it is. I suppose that one could get into that type of quid pro quo.
There have been suggestions particularly by more private organizations and individuals in Canada with respect to boycotts of goods, trade retaliation and so on. It is clear that those measures would have to be undertaken extremely carefully and within the context of over-all trade relations. Obviously, the United Kingdom is one of our favoured trade partners. We would like to continue in that way. But some form of countervail would certainly have to be at least looked at, I would suggest.
One of the things that the Canadian Government could most usefully be doing is to speak to some of the very large British investors in Canada. I had the opportunity to speak to one of the managers of Canada British Petroleum which has very large holdings in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, as well as in other parts of Canada. I did so to inform him about this legislation and about some of the reaction that his company might get when it begins to deal with, perhaps, aboriginal groups with respect to leases and so on. This is a measure which I hope the Canadian Government would consider to use in order to inform some of our larger British investors.
While this is an extremely important opportunity this evening to discuss this issue and to bring up the points-and all Members have an opportunity to speak on it to express their concerns and to send this extremely strong message to the British Parliament-I hope that the Canadian Government
will be able to present us with some concrete steps that it will be taking in this area.
In conclusion, I would say that we must do something as a Parliament. The matter is urgent. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) mentioned the effect on individuals. This is extremely important, whether it is the person who works with a furrier, or a furrier, a trapper or a farmer. If we are not able to do something about this, what will we tell people such as Alarja Harper who is in his seventies now, an Indian from the Yukon who gave up his Indian status to go to fight in World War II for the freedom of this country and for the freedom of Britain? When he came back, he did not have a vote. He did not receive land as a veteran. He returned to trapping, and he is still trapping. What do we tell Elijah Smith? What do we tell Charlie Peter Charlie, also in his seventies who is from Old Crow? He and his grandsons continue each year to participate in this. What do we tell them if we let it go by? We cannot let it go by.
What do we tell the many, many families? I spoke to a number of them this past weekend in my riding in the Yukon. Those families are reliant on this industry both for their economic welfare, their cultural and traditional heritage, and for their family. In several instances that I am aware of, it is interesting to note that the courts, in lieu of sending someone to prison, have looked at the particular case and decided that prison will not work for that particular person. What we will do is send this person out on a trap line with his uncle or his cousin. This will be a way to teach him a skill, to teach him how to work, and it will be culturally appropriate for that person, and it will contribute to society.
In conclusion, this is an extremely important discussion tonight. I hope that we can see some concrete action taken out of it, and that it will send the strong message that we wish to to British Parliamentarians.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I am personally pleased that the two applications for this special debate were allowed this afternoon by His Honour. I wish to commend my two colleagues, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), and the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) who were responsible for initiating this debate. In participating in this evening's debate, there are three points that I wish to make, time allowing.
The first of these points is that the Canadian fur industry is a legitimate industry. It is unjust and it is wrong that it should be crucified by the misguided animal rights movement which is so active in the United Kingdom and other parts of Europe.
The second point is that the fur industry is of particular and special interest, concern, and importance to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, as well as aboriginal peoples elsewhere, such as Greenland and the State of Alaska,
June 1, 1988

My third point would be that threats to the fur industry from the animal rights movement and what it stands for, and now supported in part by the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster in its labelling legislation, should be vigorously and effectively counteracted.
Let me begin then on the question of legitimacy. I believe, Sir, that trapping has always been and should remain an essential part of the cultural and economic life of Canada. The Canadian fur industry is worth a great deal to this country. It is probably worth approximately $600 million annually, and then one could add perhaps $200 million more to that figure if one takes into account the other industries it supports. This country earns $350 million from the export of fur products. Our main market for those exports is Europe.
In Europe there are problems which are looming and lurking. European buyers of fur products are becoming hesitant. Part of the reason for this hesitancy is the successful efforts of the animal rights movement in influencing consumers in the attitude that there is something wrong in purchasing, wearing, and using a fur product. We are beginning to feel the effects of this in Canada. For example, fur prices this year dropped by approximately one-third over last year. Some trappers are abandoning their activity, just simply giving it up. But I emphasize to you, Mr. Speaker, that the fur industry is a legitimate one.
Trapping is another name for wild life harvesting. Here we are harvesting a renewable resource. An essential aspect of this harvesting activity must be that of conservation. Countries such as Canada which harvest wild fur simply cannot afford to be derelict in the protection of those animals. Fur bearers are harvested under sustainable yields in order that wildlife populations are in fact growing steadily.
When the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs conducted its hearings which led to the issuance of the document known as The Fur Issue, we learned that fur bearing populations in Canada are at least as high, if not higher, than they were when Europeans first came to this continent. No Canadian fur bearers are now being trapped which belong to any catalogue of endangered species. The trapping of all other species not on the endangered list is carefully and closely monitored by provincial wildlife biologists.
It is not the wise harvesting of fur-bearing animals which is a threat to their existence, but rather it is the loss of their habitat which is the threat. The loss of habitat is as a result of many other of man's activities. For example, the development and expansion of cities, the building of super highways and airports. That is far more a threat to wildlife than is harvesting or trapping of animals.
It is tragically unfair to select trapping and the use of fur as being illegitimate when so many other of our activities are deemed to be acceptable. We use the earth and its resources in so many ways, all deemed to be acceptable ways. Sometimes in the process we pollute and we destroy. The trapper must live in
harmony with nature. By definition he or she must be a strong environmentalist. They must be a conservationist. After all, if the environment in which they function and earn their living is destroyed, if all of the species that they trap were to be killed off, then it is the trapper who suffers the consequences and becomes poorer as a result. It is accepted in Canadian society that we use but do not abuse animals. We use animals in a great variety of ways for food, for clothing, for recreation, for medical research, for pampered pets, and sometimes, not as often now as in the past, for work.
Just listen, Mr. Speaker, to Chief Georges Erasmus, head of the Assembly of First Nations, testifying at the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. He said: "I see everyone here is wearing shoes. We are all wearing leather. We may not be wearing fur as the Inuit wear it, or as the Dene and other fur-wearing original cultures use them, but we use them in a more sophisticated fashion. Most of us will eat steak sometime this week. It might be beef, it might be lamb. Most of us will eat fish sometime this week. We are not all living on vegetables and called vegetarians".
In our use of animals, it is always recognized, as the Hon. Member from the Yukon pointed out, that we are not allowed to be cruel to animals. In fact, the Canadian Criminal Code makes it an offence to wilfully cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to an animal. Regarding the method by which animals are trapped, more and more in Canada, acceptable, humane, trapping methods are being developed and utilized.
Listen, for example, to Mr. Art Lalonde, Executive Manager of the Canadian Trappers Federation. He said before the committee:
I believe Canadian trappers have developed the most efficient and humane trapping methods in the world today. We are genuinely concerned with wildlife conservation. We have a good record and should be proud of it. This does not prevent us from trying to improve and we are constantly working at it. We must remember that the sealers were not defeated because they lacked any of this. They were defeated by public opinion, manipulated by the same people who were out to get us.
The key to our survival is making it known to the general public that we use humane methods and that we are concerned about the way trapping is done. The person buying a fur coat must be convinced of that. It can only be achieved by public information through communication.
The lurid scenes presented by animal rights activists are, as a rule, a long way from reality. Some of the advertising that can be seen on British television borders on the obscene and ridiculous, scenes such as those which depict blood oozing from a fur coat worn by an attractive model. I would like to share with you, Sir, the view of one trapper who saw one of these films depicting the cruelty of trapping. This is how he testified before the committee. He said:
I watched that tape and I looked at it and the person on the tape set a trap. He had on brand new pants-still creases on them-brand new snowshoes, a brand new shirt; and he set the trap with his bare hands in the warm weather, sun shining, the tree with no frost on it.

June 1, 1988
He set it under the tree in order to catch the animal. The animal was still alive. If you do that up here, your hands are going to freeze to the trap. They just made that movie to create more illusions and more arguments on their side.
By "up here" he meant the North.
Fur has been targeted by the animal rights activists and I suppose one reason is that a fur coat is thought of as being a luxury item; here is a way to get at the affluent or the rich. In part it is a luxury item, that is true, but it is also in my view a very wise purchase. It is a long-lasting garment. It is warm, lightweight and easily altered, and in cold climes there can be no better investment in comfort and good appearance than to have a good fur coat. That is why so many Canadians make the effort to make the purchase and why the product has been so popular among European buyers.
I believe if furs were more widely used and everyone recognized their utility, then the animal rights activists would have to choose a different target altogether. They are unlikely to get much support for a chicken or fish boycott. There are few who are ready to give up eating beef or lamb or the wearing of leather shoes and jackets, so they pick on fur. I would like you to listen to the very frank testimony give before the committee by Stephen Best, Vice-Chairman of the International Wildlife Coalition. He was describing for the committee the tactics of the animal rights group of which he is a member. He said and I quote:
If the international public was in full support of the fur industry and we were no longer able to raise funds to deal with the fur industry, we would definitely then shift over to whatever animal area we could raise funds to address. There are many animal issues.
It is estimated that about 105,000 Canadians earn all or part of their income from the fur industry. Of those, approximately 100,000 are trappers. Of that number, 50,000 to 60,000 are aboriginal people. The majority of trappers in this country are aboriginal people and that brings me to my second point.
The fur industry is of particular and special importance and concern to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Opponents of the fur industry have promoted the myth that what we are dealing with here is a large, monolithic industry. This is a holdover from the fur trade days when the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Trading Company were virtual monopolies in Canada. Today the fur industry is made up of small, generally family-oriented businesses, composed of trappers, ranchers, marketers, processors, artisans and retailers.
Trapping is vital to the aboriginal subsistence economy. Not many Canadians are aware of exactly what the subsistence economy is. Subsistence means a great deal more to aboriginal people than simply getting by. It has a very definite cultural aspect to it. Here is a member of the Old Crow Band in Yukon talking about subsistence. He said:
Subsistence means we like to trap, we like to hunt and we like to fish and live with the land and in harmony with the land and off the land. As one person said, we do not live up here for nothing. So, with that, we also have a lot of hard work to maintain our way of life.
Indigenous Survival International is an organization set up to relay the indigenous trapping message overseas. It was established to protect and promote indigenous harvesting rights and to maintain and promote a market for aboriginal fur products. It represents about one and a half million aboriginal people living in Canada, Greenland and Alaska. Indigenous peoples themselves are rightfully taking the leadership in protecting their harvesting rights. I want to quote from an interesting document put out by that organization which talks about the land as their life:
In the arctic and subarctic we make our living off the land. The growing season is short and the soil poor in nutrients. We must hunt to survive.
We hunt, fish, and trap as a way of life that has allowed us to survive for thousands of years in this harsh and delicate environment.
For generations our people have lived in balance and harmony with nature. We respect the land and it has served us well. We are part of the land and we are a natural part of the ecosystem.
My final point is that threats to the fur industry from the animal rights movement, now supported in part by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster through its proposed labelling legislation, must be vigorously and effectively counteracted by every possible means. It must be done by encouraging and giving support to Indigenous Survival International. It must be done by raising this issue at the Economic Summit in Toronto. Today in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs we voted unanimously that additional copies of the fur report that I mentioned earlier be printed and available for distribution in Toronto at the Economic Summit as requested by the Government.
The other way in which we can get the message to Great Britain and Europe is by means of the debate which is taking place in the House tonight. During the debate on the patriation of our Constitution the British Parliament made a great deal about its concern for aboriginal rights, but in my view this proposed labelling legislation flies in the face of that concern.
I have received many letters from my own constituency, the James Bay Trappers Council for example, written to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) urging him to lead the way in indicating to Great Britain that the action they are proposing is totally unacceptable. In Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon there are proposals that we start boycotting British goods if this action goes through. I agree with the Hon. Member for Yukon that this kind of spiralling approach is counter-productive and no one wins.
I conclude by repeating that the fur industry is a legitimate one. It is of vital importance to the subsistence economy and culture of aboriginal peoples. The British Government must reconsider its ill-advised action. Passing this Bill in the British Parliament will do nothing at all to enhance Canadian-Anglo relations which many of us continue to value highly, especially those among us who see the Commonwealth of Nations as being a force for understanding and good will in a world which is too frequently hostile and violent.
June 1, 1988


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) and other Members of this House for seeking this emergency debate and to express my appreciation and that of the Government of the Chair's decision to have a debate on the matter of the proposed British fur labelling regulation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and I have raised this matter directly with British authorities and it will be very helpful to us and to the country to have this debate on record in the House.
As I said here in Parliament on February 10, this Government reacted immediately to the British proposed regulation and very strongly declared our intention to fight it. I am, therefore, pleased to spell out the Government's position on the issue and at the same time help to send a clear signal of the unanimous concern of Members of this House to the British Government. This has been so far if I may say so, Sir, an excellent debate. I hope not only will it continue in that tone but that its contents will be read by parliamentarians in Britain, by Members of the British Government, because what we have here tonight are individual Canadian Members of Parliament, from all of the regions of this unique country expressing concern about an economy and very much about the Canadian tradition and our way of life.
I should stress from the outset that the preservation and enhancement of the environment is not at issue here. Canadians do not need to be read lessons on the care of our natural heritage, including our wildlife. Trapping, hunting and other harvesting are closely monitored and weighed against their environmental impact. The Canadian fur industry has cooperated fully with federal conservation authorities and with the provinces and territories in ensuring that the balance is maintained between different species of wildlife and their habitat.
The British Government, to the best of our knowledge, does not contest this fact. Yet, there is a grounds well of sensitivity in Europe for the animal welfare movement which tends to propagate willfully or unwillfully a false picture of Canadian wildlife management. The current crusade by organized animal groups in Europe, the United States and Canada aims at banning trapping and particularly the use of leg-hold traps.
What is really at issue here? The real issue here is whether an historic and legitimate trade on which important segments of our aboriginal population depend for their livelihood can arbitrarily be destroyed as a result of unsubstantiated accusations. Let me cite, Mr. Speaker, a few figures on what this means for the people of Canada, particularly in the North. Fur is, of course, a billion dollar industry in Canada. But for many people it is much more than an industry. It is the only way they can gain their livelihood. This question is not just about animals, this question is about people, how they respect their traditions, how they maintain their lives and how they build and sustain their communities.
Trapping accounts for approximately 50 per cent of our fur harvest. It employs over 100,000 people of whom at least 50,000 are from native communities. Therefore, the imposition of this regulation will seriously affect 50,000 native Canadians whose sole source of income in many cases is from the traditional occupations of hunting, trapping and fishing. Trapping provides or supplements income for thousands of Canadians in rural and remote regions where, very often, there is little alternative employment or only seasonal work. The fur industry is characterized primarily by small family run operations at all levels of the production chain.
Since 1980, the number of furs sold has declined, yet the yearly average value of furs exported from Canada is approximately $350 million. Europe currently constitutes the second largest market-place for Canadian fur products with total recorded sales of $150 million in 1987. The United Kingdom was second to West Germany among our European markets. It is clearly possible for an action of the British Government to disrupt the livelihood of hundreds of small Canadian communities. That is what we are here tonight seeking to avoid. That is why this Government has steadfastly rebutted the arguments of the British opponents of fur trapping while, at the same time, pursuing proposals for international standards of humane trapping which would meet any legitimate concern.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a marginal market. However, the paradox here is that most operators on this market belong to a minority whose economic activity is constantly subjected to unfair criticism.
Canadian representatives met their European counterparts in April to keep them informed of Canadian concerns. Ministers from the Northwest Territories visited Great Britain to explain the impact the measures proposed by the British might have on our northern communities. The Office of our High Commissioner in London has been in touch with all levels of the industry in Great Britain. Members of this House have spoken directly to and corresponded with British members.
At the Cabinet level, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), raised the matter at recent talks in London. Personally, I also raised the subject in the course of bilateral discussions with Sir Geoffrey Howe. After these meetings, it was clear to all concerned that unjustified action that could be seriously damaging to Canadian communities could not but have a disastrous impact on our relations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) discussed the matter during his conversations with Mrs. Thatcher, who said she wanted to obtain more information on the subject.

I hope, Sir, reason will prevail and Mrs. Thatcher will see to it that the proposed regulation is not adopted by the British Cabinet. But we need to remind ourselves and our British friends of some basic facts regarding trapping in Canada.

June 1, 1988
Trappers, industry and Governments within Canada support the development and the use of humane trapping systems. Canada is a world leader in the research and development of humane trapping standards as well as in trapper training to ensure conservation of resources, the best use of fur and high quality fur products.
No endangered or threatened fur-bearing species are trapped in Canada. The fur trade today is solidly based on the responsible use of a renewable natural resource. This is true for both farmed and wild furs.
Both for Indians and northern communities generally, trapping represents an integral part of a special way of life. Trapping is a vital element in the tradition and culture of many of Canada's rural and indigenous people. Its roots go back to the days of the early fur traders of the Hudson's Bay Company and the continuity they represent with modern times.
Native groups, territorial and provincial Governments and members of the fur industry have all approached me to express their legitimate concerns. There is an indisputable unanimity here which cannot be ignored. On this basis, and in full appreciation of the strong expressed willingness by the fur industry to adopt even more humane trapping methods, I want to take the opportunity in this debate to emphasize again that there is a constructive and positive alternative to the labelling requirement. Canada has made a very serious proposal that nations work together to establish humane trapping standards.
Therefore tonight I want to reaffirm our early proposal for the creation of an international humane trapping standards committee in which the United Kingdom, as well as Canada, the United States and other countries with pertinent fur interests might participate together. This would allow our friends across the Atlantic to be part of the humane trap development and monitoring process on an international scale while assisting the Canadian fur industry in continuing to ensure the further growth of an industry that is ecologically sound. That is a constructive way to achieve the goal of some members of the British public without disrupting Canadian traditions, without destroying Canadian communities.
We have learned much about morality from Great Britain in the course of the history of this country. Our respect for the integrity and the fair-mindedness of British institutions and British Governments is too great to permit the thought that in the name of morality, they could seek to secure the immoral consequence of destroying an industry of hard working people, an industry conducted in harmony with nature. It is our hope, on the contrary, that British authorities and authorities in other countries will join with us in developing new standards of humanity for the industry which will gain acceptance in all countries that originate furs and that utilize furs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 1979, the former Hon. Member for St. John's East, who is now the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, moved a motion under Standing Order 43 that this House reaffirm the right of Canadian sealers to go about their legitimate pursuits under the strict supervision of the Government of Canada and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies free from harassment and interference. All Members present in the House at that time agreed to that motion.
A similar motion was agreed to on February 9, 1982. There was all-Party agreement to the continuation of the seal industry in Canada in the face of protests and opposition from the same kind of people who are now pursuing the fur industry with the same vigour. My fear, and the fear of other Hon. Members, is that the same results might ensue.
Today, there is no real commercial seal industry in Canada, and this has been as a result of the actions taken against that industry and against Canada by the immoral vilification of Newfoundlanders and Canadians who go about the legitimate business of working with animals and harvesting animals as a part of the traditional way of life Canadians have had for centuries.
We need more than simply an all-Party agreement to a motion in the House. We need serious action on the part of the Government to do more than just make pious arguments to the British Government which, unfortunately, is about to take action against the Canadian fur industry.
This is not just a response to concerns about the leg-hold trap. It is not only the wild fur industry that will be affected, although that industry will be seriously affected. In Canada, there are large ranching operations. In Newfoundland alone, there are 120 silver fox farms and 15 mink operations. These operations bring in in excess of $1 million at the farm gate, not counting the spin-offs to feed and other related industries. That part of the industry depends as well on the international market. All fur will be affected by the insidious action being proposed in the United Kingdom.
It is proposed that labels be required to say: "This garment may contain furs caught in a leg-hold trap". That affects the entire fur industry, whether it be the wild fur industry or the ranched fur industry, a very important part of the lives of many communities, individuals and families in Canada.
Very similar to those involved with the seal hunt, these are individuals, families and aboriginal peoples who depend upon this industry for their livelihood and who have very few other alternatives. When the sealing industry was destroyed by international actions and by boycotts in the U.K. and the EEC, many Newfoundlanders suffered a loss of income and a loss of self-respect and pride from not being able to earn an income. In other parts of Canada, there were far more serious consequences.
For example, on Broughton Island, a community in which Inuit hunters harvested more seals per capita than any
June 1, 1988
COMMONS DEBATES____________________________16019
community in the world before the European ban was imposed, eight of the community's 60 teenagers have taken their own lives in the last two years and a dozen more have tried and failed. This is the effect of such action on communities that are devastated by economic losses suffered because of the destruction of a traditional way of life.
The truth is that Canada trying to take the high moral ground, suggesting that we are humane in our trapping methods, has promoted more than anything else the research and development into proper methods of animal harvesting, but these actions have not worked. We have to recognize that in a sense, it is the tip of the iceberg to suggest a minor labelling program, something the British Government calls a minimal response to the demands of its people. The actions being taken in the U.K. will affect proposed legislation throughout the European economic community.
The EEC's environmental and animal welfare committee will be meeting in the near future to discuss various proposals relating to the fur industry. These include proposals to tag furs from all EEC countries, to ban the use of the leg-hold trap in Europe and to extend the present ban on the import of white coat and blue-back seal products to cover all seals up to one year old.
We have moved from the very emotional issue which was predominant several years ago, the banning of the white coat seal harvested in Atlantic Canada, to another one. That issue dealt with cute, pretty seals who were cute and pretty for three weeks and were easy to use in fund raising efforts and to create emotional responses. The farther one got away from the realities of making a living in Atlantic Canada, in rural Newfoundland and in the far North, the more sympathy was generated for the kind of measures that were being taken.
We require a very serious action on the part of the Government, not merely action to let the international community know that we are good guys when it comes to humane treatment. Those sentiments fall on deaf ears. We have to spend money and resources to ensure that the people in the United Kingdom know that we take seriously their attack on the rural people of Canada, their attack on the relationship our communities have with the natural environment around them, their attack on the opportunities available for the people of rural Canada to make a living. They are showing incredible hypocrisy in their countries in relation to the use of animals. Every country in the world makes use of animals in the way in which they live and pursue their economic destiny, be it wool in clothing, silk scarves or neckties, or leather shoes or belts. All these items come from animals. One could label a steak as having come from a cow that was shot between the eyes, or a pork chop as having been produced by slitting the throat of a pig. People who live in the cities or far removed from the realities of life do not concern themselves with from where these products come.
The reality is that human beings live with the animal kingdom and make use of the resources of nature. We have to do that in order to maintain our existence on this planet.
We need more than all-Party agreement that this is a serious issue. We know that this is a most serious issue for the aboriginal people of Canada, rural Newfoundlanders, and all people trying to make a living harvesting animals. That message must be put across in a most forceful way, not only through diplomatic channels but through the efforts of the Government aiid all parliamentarians. We must ensure that the British Parliament is well aware of the serious consequences which their previous actions caused for the sealers of Newfoundland, the aboriginal people of Canada, and the communities of Canada.
I call upon the Government to renew its commitment and to start acting on its commitment to the sealers of Newfoundland to respond to the recommendations of the Malouf Commission, which have yet to be implemented, in terms of support for the rebuilding of the sealing industry in Canada. We need an active demonstration that the Government will fight for the preservation of the culture and way of life in communities which depend on fur farming, trapping, hunting, and on fishing as well.
If we allow these kinds of attacks on the way of life of Canadians to continue, we will see no end to the bans, impositions, and strictures on our way of life. We have to make it clear that there will be consequences for countries which take such actions against Canada. It will require such a tough response from the Government of Canada to hold back the actions being proposed in the United Kingdom, mainly supported by those who themselves make use of animal products at all stages of their daily lives.
They have as their goal not only the attack on a particular type of alleged cruel activity, but in fact wish to ban all use of animals by humans and will ultimately destroy many communities in Canada. The banning of the seal hunt destroyed not only the communities but the lives of those affected by a high suicide rate and increased inactivity, leading to alcoholism, desperation, and no possibility of carrying on in a dignified manner to pursue the way of life they had pursued for many generations.
I call upon the Government to be forceful, to act strongly, and to leave no doubt in the minds of all parliamentarians in the United Kingdom that Canada means business on this issue, that we will not allow this industry to be hurt the way the seal industry was hurt, and that we will take forceful and appropriate action against the U.K. if it goes ahead with this proposal.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on the subject being debated in this emergency debate this evening. It was rather interesting to watch the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stand in the House a few moments ago and say

June 1, 1988
that he discussed this question with Sir Geoffrey Howe, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) discussed it with the British Prime Minister, and that the officials discussed with the officials.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said absolutely nothing regarding retaliation by this Government if the Cabinet of Britain goes ahead with this resolution. He should have said that they would tell the British to forget their submarine contracts if they go ahead with this resolution before the British House.
However, he did not say that. The Government is going to lay back again and, this time, allow the British Parliament to run all over it like the Government of France has run all over it. I suppose one could say-


John Barry Turner: This is a non-partisan issue.


George Baker: The Hon. Member says that it is non-partisan. There is nothing non-partisan about this issue whatsoever. I am going to be extremely partisan. The NDP may not like what I am about to say, either.
At least the Government of Canada can announce, at this very moment, what it intends to do in retaliation if the British Cabinet goes ahead with the resolution it has under consideration. They did it to us with the seals and they are going to do it to us again with our trappers.
There are 105,000 people employed in this country, directly or indirectly, partially or full time, in the fur business. We had $600 million of trade with Great Britain in 1985, plus $200 million in transportation costs with Great Britain. The Government will do nothing. It will let things slide as it always has.
It was this Government which turned around only a few months ago and announced that it was official, that no more would white seals be killed in Canada, that it was illegal to kill the whitecoats. The Government announced that without saying why it had taken that move.
They should be ashamed of themselves, especially Members from Atlantic Canada-


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell me about Romeo Leblanc? Where is he from? Where was he when all this started?


George Baker: Let me get down to a few facts.


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell us about Romeo.


George Baker: The Hon. Member will have a chance to speak in a few moments. I hope he does so, but I am sure he will not. He does not want to stand in the House for 10 or 15 minutes and put his thoughts to paper because he does not have any.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where was Rompkey when this problem started? Where was Leblanc?


George Baker: Let us deal with the question before the House. The seal hunt in Newfoundland was-


J. Michael Forrestall: Where was Don Jamieson when these problems started?


George Baker: The seal hunt still continues in several areas of Newfoundland today.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where was Rompkey?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is a Member talking across the way. Could you bring him to order? He is getting on my nerves.


J. Michael Forrestall: You do not like the truth, eh?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has the floor.


George Baker: At the beginning of the seal hunt issue there were several groups that supported the organizations that were opposed to the seal hunt. There were several Members of Parliament who stood in their place in the House and demanded an end to the seal hunt back in the early 1970s.
A lot of money was collected in Canada itself for organizations like Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare Incorporated which was situated in St. Laurent, Quebec, at 1505 Lapine Street, to be exact. It is a matter of public record that some Members in the House at that time supported what the opponents of the seal hunt were doing. It is a matter of public record that they included Conservatives and New Democrats.
However, I do not believe that any of the political Parties agree with banning the seal hunt today. Each Party has passed a resolution in support of the sealers of Newfoundland and Labrador.
There are approximately 3,000 sealers in my riding, which stretches along the northeast coast of Newfoundland. There is the outrageous situation today in which thousands of these men go out and still get their seals but can only sell the meat. There has always been a seal meat cannery in my riding that employed some 100 people during that time of the winter. Of course, some of the seals are still killed today but only for the meat because the pelt is no longer in demand.
The Government still has not answered as to why there was initiative to do exactly the same thing with the seal pelts when similar action was being taken as they were being shipped overseas? Perhaps that is the biggest fault of Governments that had to deal with the problem in those days.


J. Michael Forrestall: Where was the Liberal Government in the 1970s? What were you doing? Tell us about that.
June 1, 1988


George Baker: I hope the Hon. Member will tell us what is on his mind. He has not spoken in this House in about 10 years. Maybe he will give us a speech in 10 or 15 minutes.


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell us about Rompkey.


George Baker: The Government should address this issue before the House tonight by retaliating against the Government of Britain. If it were doing its job, it would tell Britain to forget about a nuclear submarine contract. It could spend the $8 billion on daycare or allocate it to a special program for students who are trying to work their way through university.
Why is the Government not prepared to take this action? Perhaps it is because the friends of the Government are with the PR firms and lobbying firms that have contracts with the British. For example, GCI was recently hired to represent the Government of Great Britain in lobbying to sell its submarines. Perhaps that is why the Government will not deny the British any opportunity for a submarine contract.
My colleague who began the debate for the Official Opposition stated that the bottom line of the debate was that there should be a solution to the long-term problem. Perhaps we should be trying to develop a market here in Canada and to do with the pelts and fur what is being done in other parts of the world.
Perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of this debate is that there is no such thing as a leg-hold trap in use in Canada today. It is illegal in Canada and has not been used here in 10 years. Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs stands in the House to say that he spoke to Sir Geoffrey Howe and that the Prime Minister spoke to Mrs. Thatcher about this problem. I hope he informs them that the leg-hold trap has been illegal in this country for the last 10 years.
I am sure that all trappers and all sensible people who know and are concerned about this issue are calling on the Government of Canada to say how it will retaliate if this resolution is passed by the British Cabinet.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to Hon. Members from all Parties. I just heard the unfortunate speech of the Hon. Member for Gander-[DOT] Twillingate (Mr. Baker), who decided to interject with political rhetoric about a vital issue.
He brought the level of debate down to a new low with his typical "Twillingate-isms" from Newfoundland. It is unfortunate that he could not have used the same style and quality as the Member from the New Democratic Party.
My concern about this issue of humane traps relates to my lifetime of outdoor interests. It goes back to 1974-79, during the period that I served on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At that time the Standing Committee had the opportunity, on an annual basis, to review the report of the Federal-Provincial Committee for the Development of Humane Trapping and the development of a humane trap. That committee was a creature of the Liberal
Government. It laboured long and hard to invite the trappers of Canada to send in their inventions for a humane trap and have those inventions tested.
This is now operated by the Fur Institute of Canada. The traps are now tested in Vegreville, Alberta, at the Environmental Research Centre run by the Alberta Government. Therein lies one of the problems which we face. The annual budget for the research centre at Vegreville is around $600,000. I suggest that if this nation has the capacity to put into space on a U.S. space vehicle something that is so vastly advanced in technology as the Canadarm, surely we have the inventiveness and the funds to develop a very precise and effective 100 per cent, "no problem whatsoever", humane trap.
In the minds of trappers there are, of course, precise traps for precise purposes for precise animals. In the minds of average persons, for example someone living on Bay Street or Bloor Street in Toronto, or anywhere else in a big city in Canada, a trap is a trap and an animal is an animal. They really do not make any differentiation as to how an animal is caught and how it dies.
What is the purpose of testing the mechanisms in Vegreville? Is it to provide a trap that will provide an instant kill for, say, a marten, a fisher, or a mink? What is instant? One minute, two minutes, a maximum of three minutes? That is pretty fast.
There are other traps such as the leg-hold trap. We heard the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate on the wrong track on that issue. Recently there has been some extensive testing conducted at the University of Minnesota on behalf of the Canadian Government and the Fur Institute of Canada to develop and determine the kind of pressures that there are on foxes in terms of emotional stresses and strains with the new type of leg-hold trap. Those tests have been very positive. Indeed, the tests show that any fox in a wild state has more pressures, more stresses, and different kinds of environmental strains on it which occur after the first 20 minutes in this revised, modernized, and scientifically developed leg-hold trap.
It cannot stop there. What this debate is really about is not what has happened today in Britain or is happening today in Britain; it is what is going to continue to happen and what has already gone on before, going back to the 1970s, going back to the birth, the spawning of the Brian Davies of this world and all of that ilk.
I refer to the animal rights peoples and the animal rights funds that sought millions of dollars and received millions of dollars in support of their efforts to bring a stop to the legitimate seal hunt of Newfoundland. What did they gain? They gained all kinds of gold to line their own pockets. There was not one receipt, not one financial statement, not one membership card-nothing. Ask Brian Davies. He will tell Hon. Members that it was the best thing he ever did in order to earn money. That is where that group is coming from.

June 1, 1988
Where has it gone? Where has it gone from that point? What is happening here in Canada? The European Economic Community and the European Parliament were the ones who initially torpedoed the fur seal. They are the ones who made the political decision to ban the fur seal in Europe. It was a decision that was based purely on politics and not on facts. They had the facts. They knew the facts.
However, it has gone beyond that. We now see the European Parliament busying itself with precise measurements for chicken coops. We must have a precise space for a laying hen. We must have a precise space for a broiler chicken. We must have a precise space for a pigpen, and a precise space for a cattle pen. That is where it is going.
Where else is it going? I was given a document recently, printed by an animal rights activist group, an extremist group. What did the document contain? In chapter and verse it laid out the manner in which to burglarize, terrorize, destroy vehicles, or break and enter a lab or a university. It sets out how to break and enter a zoo, or any facility. It sets out how to destroy the vehicles that may be there and how to run a car off the road. It tells one how to stretch a heavy steel cable painted black from one side of the highway to the other. What happens then? A car coming down the road strikes the cable, slides along the cable and off the road, and it is out of one's hair. That is the nature and the extreme to which these animal rights movements are headed. They are not out simply to vandalize a Dixie Lee chicken or a burger joint because they have meat or because they have chicken. Mr. Speaker, you are going to say: "You are really getting into extremes here". The fact is that those extremes are there. They are with us. That is what concerns me.
When we come back to Canada and trapping today, we see that we are making improvements in the development of humane traps. Two of the traps that have been tested at Vegreville come from my riding. I refer to the spillet trap or ymir trap and the kanya trap from the Slocan Valley. A gentleman of 70 years of age tested and tested his traps for a very long time and then developed them to the point that they could be tested at Vegreville.
I go back to the point that we are only spending $600,000 per year on the trapping fraternity of Canada, on all those indigenous people and their way of life, and that is all we are prepared to lay out. It goes further than that. It is not just trapping. It is hunting. When the animal rightists have succeeded in altering that milieu, that type of environment, then they will move on to fishing. I ask Hon. Members: "Do not think that that is some kind of idle suggestion?" It has already been espoused by the guru himself, Brian Davies.
What is needed is a plan that has been well thought out, well worked out, a plan that pays attention to the balance of our ecology.
The people who are hurt the most in all of this are the people who can least afford it. What we have are the animal rights people attacking, for example, the indigenous people,
but not necessarily. They also attack the trapper, the hunter, that element of society. Once successful they remove them. Successfully removing them for what-for industrial development, for that pipeline that might otherwise not have been approved, for that large industrial complex that might not otherwise been approved because there were several trappers there, tribes, or groups of indigenous people. We have got them out of the way because we have removed from them their lifestyle. That is what the animal right movement accomplishes or can accomplish. The philosophy of the animal rights movement can then unconsciously serve the interests of the developer rather than the indigenous peoples of this country.
It is the British who have the fox and the hounds. It is the hounds that tear apart the fox. They tear it to shreds after they have chased it to death. That society condones that. At the same time it seeks to impose its will upon us while it subscribes money to hedgehog hospitals. What a mockery.
It is the reality of today that we provide a system of understanding. We should be prepared to invest substantially in the education of Canadians and also of people of other nations about what Canada is all about-that huge land of mystery with only 26 million people who must live off the land and have lived off the land since the day that the indigenous peoples arrived along the Arctic shores.
Today, at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I had the privilege to move that 5,000 copies of that committee's excellent publication in 1984 be published. On reconsideration, that was increased to 10,000. The committee has approved that. Earlier today, in response to a question that I put, the Minister indicated his support of that publication, with the view in mind of the European press, the world press at the Economic Summit, having an opportunity to receive a copy of that excellent publication. It is the creature of a great deal of work by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and all its members in 1984.1 am proud to have played a small role in that regard. In March, I was also pleased to have the opportunity to discuss those concerns on animal rights and where the fur trade was heading with colleagues in the United States-a couple of Senators and a couple of Congressmen-with a view to developing an over-all plan required to offset the negative, damaging, and deceitful impact of the animal rights movement.
Therefore, I urge the House to consider the development of a long-range plan in terms of the explanation, the understanding, and the acceptance of trapping. In that context, we must start in the schools. In the same context, we must move to a better understanding of hunting, the balance of nature, and how that works.
It is interesting to note that the provincial Ministers have shown an interest and concern in coming together to determine what they as Ministers of the Environment or Ministers
June 1, 1988

responsible for wildlife may do to assist Canada in the development of a master plan. It will take a great deal of work and money. There is nothing very sexy about someone in a white fur coat being shot on the street and thrown over a pack horse to demonstrate that this is what happens to the animal. It has a great deal of shock and audience appeal in the context of shock.
We must take a lesson from such people as Allan Herscovici and Second Nature, a very excellent text. The public would be well served to take the opportunity to read some of the statements that he has provided.
I would like to conclude with a brief remark made by Mr. Herscovici who said: "The root of our ecological crisis lies in technology, urbanism, and wealth. Animal rights groups, however, have to date attacked those who live closest to the land, who are poorest, and who have remained relatively aloof from mass technological society". Let us come up with a master plan.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can have order in this debate. It is a very serious debate. We are not only attempting to address Canadians or our colleagues in the House, but we are seeking to get a message to Britain. We hope that Members of the British Parliament will have an opportunity to read these Debates, or we could send them a video tape in order that they could receive the message from all of Canada on our concerns in terms of the motion before their House.
I wish to begin by reading from a letter with the letterhead of "10 Downing Street". The person who signed the letter is the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She indicates in the letter that this matter "is still the subject of consultation". While she understands that we have concerns in this country, she states that "we must also take account of the widespread public concern here in the U.K. about the use of leg-hold traps. There is strong pressure for a ban on the import of furs ... ", and the letter continues.
The proposition that I wish to put before this House is that the action that Britain is considering is presently at the stage of study and consultation. Prime Minister Thatcher refers to that and refers to coming to a final decision. The counsel that I would like to give to the British Prime Minister is for more study and consultation. She ought to reflect upon this matter in full before coming to a decision. She ought not to make a decision on this matter on the basis of widespread public concern or strong pressure. She ought to be looking at the merits of the case. While she says in the letter "there is strong pressure for a ban on the import of furs", and that the United Kingdom is being pushed to have a ban, she later states that the U.K. is being nice because it will label the products instead, and that this is a minimal response.
We do not want to be fobbed off with a minimal response, which leaves us with a sense of guilt that we are doing something wrong and the British Parliament is being nice to
us. We would like them to take the time to study this issue and come to a moral conclusion. In other words, if furs from trapping ought to be banned and a solid and sound argument can be made for that, that is the irrefutable conclusion, then ban them; however, consider the matter first and fully and make the decision on the basis of merit, not of public pressure.
Surely if there is one Leader on this globe who has demonstrated a capacity to make decisions on the basis of principle, it is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I fundamentally disagree with many of her principles, but I call upon her to provide leadership and to make a decision in this regard on the basis of principle. She should continue with the study and consultation and reflect some more on the issue take the time to come to a full and reasoned conclusion, and not just respond to public pressure.
What we as parliamentarians are faced with is a battle for the public mind. That is evident from Margaret Thatcher's letter in which she says that they must take into account widespread public concern. We have to win over the public if we are to win over the British Government and preserve the trapping industry in this country.
I think the fundamental question here is one of balance. On one hand we have animals and on the other we have people. The animal rights movement has done a very effective job of putting forward the case for protecting animals. I have nothing against them for doing that. However, there is another story which has to influence the decision if it is to be just and moral. The other side of the balance is people and communities. What happens to them if the industry is destroyed? I believe their case could be imaginatively and graphically presented if we took it upon ourselves to do so.
A hundred years or so ago there lived a great British writer, Jonathan Swift. The children of Ireland were starving and he used his pen to get that point across. The way he did it was to say: "We have so many children here that we ought to market them. We ought to chop them up like beef and sell them". He drew such a horrid picture that people became fully aware of the suffering of those children. We need to do the same thing today with respect to trappers. We have to do it through television, of course, because that is the way we communicate. We use television images. We have to be able to tell the British people that if they destroy the trapping industry, if they destroy the livelihood'of aboriginal communities in the North, they will have increased unemployment, increased alcoholism, and increased suicide. To achieve a real balance, for every bleeding animal they see on television they should also see the dead bodies of those who have committed suicide as a result of the destruction of this industry.
If the people of Britain want to make a moral decision they have to have a balance. They have to consider the people and their communities. Those communities include more than northern communities. In the City of Winnipeg where I come

June 1, 1988
from and in which my riding is located we have many people involved in the fur industry. It is not just a northern question.
Another aspect of this question is this: Where is the good in the issue of trapping and harvesting? I suggest that when it comes to using natural resources, the difference between use and abuse of a resource is again a question of balance. You have to balance your use against your need. If you look at aboriginal practices, history, and culture, it is easy to learn. Aboriginal people have historically taken from the land what was needed for sustenance; they have not done what we do today, rape the land and destroy the environment. If you take what you need from this planet, I suggest that what you are doing is good. That is not only true with respect to historic and traditional native values. It is also true in the western Christian tradition. The Bible says that we should take dominion over all of this. You name the animal. That is the theological, moral and spiritual basis for describing the taking of something for your own use and sustenance as good rather than evil.
There is another sense in which the question we are faced with today is one of balance. I want to speak about this historically and then in modern terms. Historically there is a question of balance between peoples. I think the Europeans are on the verge of repeating an historical mistake and once again doing an injustice to aboriginal peoples. It was the European demand for furs that created the fur industry in the first place. It was the European markets that disrupted the subsistence economy of North America. It was that market that made aboriginal peoples dependent upon European peoples. That led to undercutting the culture and way of life and spiritual values, which led to the destruction of the aboriginal way of life. That was started by the interaction among European peoples, markets, and aboriginal communities.
It was the tastes of Europe that led to the destruction of the aboriginal way of life. I am sure Europeans would not want to repeat that process because their tastes have changed and because someone thought that television advertising, through the effective use of propaganda, could sell the notion that it is wrong to wear fur, to trap and harvest animals. I ask Europeans to consider carefully their own history and to ask themselves whether they want to repeat the errors of the past.
The question of balance occurs in another way. As the Europeans look at the aboriginal peoples there are a couple of pictures to see-the pictures of trapping and of the animal suffering. People could conclude that that activity must stop because it is wrong for animals to suffer. I have already dealt with that question. I have dealt with the need to look at the other side of the coin, that is, what happens to the people. However, Europeans should look at the over-all behaviour of aboriginal peoples as they affect the environment, which is important to learn and observe. The aboriginal peoples have lived on this continent for a millennium and have preserved the environment. They have lived on this planet in harmony with the environment. Europeans should learn the values that
underlie the aboriginal way of life because we have need of those values today.
Let me turn to another point. What are we doing about preserving the Brazilian rain forests? How man McDonald's restaurants are there in Britain, and how many of those are labelled? We know that the Brazilian rain forests are destroyed to make way for massive ranches to raise cattle and have cheap beef that shows up in a fast food restaurants in the middle of London, England. That destruction alters our climate. The Europeans ought to focus on the relation between the aboriginal peoples and the environment. They should be asking questions. They should focus upon the important and big issues rather than look at things in a narrow context, forgetting that there are two sides to everything.
It is time to consider this issue and to study it in more depth. No one should rush into a decision responding to pressure campaigns that can be mounted by the electronic media.
Margaret Thatcher says that by labelling she is offering a kind of minimal response. But you can have labels and you can have labels, Mr. Speaker. The suggested label is to state that fur comes from animals that may have been caught by leg-hold traps, which is meant to project a negative image that what was done is bad. She says that the purpose is to provide information. Maybe the label ought to say that these animals have been harvested by trapping.
There are many kinds of labels and many ways to present information. Time should be taken to study the issue, to consult and reflect. Rather than responding to pressure, one should consider that by coming to a just decision one not only considers what happens to animals but what happens to people. One has to consider what happens in a remote northern community dependent upon fishing and trapping. What happens to that community if it no longer has the revenue from trapping? What happens to a community that already may have 60 per cent to 80 per cent unemployment and is deprived of its source of income? What happens to people who have no hope in their lives? One must consider not just animals but people as well, and take time to come to a reasoned conclusion as to what may or may not need to be done.
I hope Members of the British Parliament have an opportunity to see the record of this debate and that Great Britain's Prime Minister can take the time to consider her decision. If her objective is to provide people with information, she ought to consider what kind of labelling she is getting into. First, she needs to consider the over-all question of justice and morality and the whole question of trapping and making a living.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate this evening. The Parliament of Great Britain is referred to as the mother of Parliament by Canadians. We hope it will recognize the importance that Members of this House, representing three political Parties, place on this issue. We asked our Speaker to recognize the
June 1, 1988

June 1, 1988
by the people of the Northwest Territories. I am proud to carry it. It would be something that I would carry to Great Britain, and I would like to say that though that may be found objectionable, it would not be objectionable to me and it is not objectionable to other Canadians.
There are ways that southern-based animal activists could attempt to understand the harsh realities of life in the North, and they are unrealistic to believe that these people who rely on this industry could survive without the animals they use to trap for income.
The destruction of the Canadian fur industry would pose a much more lethal threat to healthy wildlife populations in Canada than would disease, mismanagement and starvation combined. Anyone who believes that this action will protect the wildlife of Canada does not understand what can happen through over-population.
In thousands of years the native people of Canada have trapped fur-bearing animals and they have never-and I repeat, never-endangered a single species. It is because the trappers, more than anyone else, realize that their responsibility rests with the greater good of the total environment, with the health and survival of the species, not of an individual animal. Conservation is truly a way of life for trappers. The existence of their trap lines ensures that the natural habitat will remain undisturbed and will continue to support the thousands of animals that depend upon that habitat for their survival.
It is not something that is done haphazardly. It is a controlled harvesting of a resource, just as I, as a farmer, control the harvesting of the resource on which I base my livelihood, that of the land and the soil. Trapping is regulated in Canada by provincial and territorial Governments through licences, quotas, seasons, and export permits. The Government of Canada holds that trapping is environmentally sound. It is in harmony with nature and is an important part of a cultural life in this country.
It is not only Members in this House of Commons representing three political Parties who recognize that. In World Conservation Strategy, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources states:
Conservation is ... the management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. Thus conservation is positive, embracing preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilization, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment.
Canadians have much to be proud of in this context. There are 20 major fur-bearing species trapped in Canada. After several centuries of trapping, none of these species is endangered. Good trapping practices have resulted in good wildlife conservation.
In fact, the people of Great Britain should know, stemming from beaver hats, that the beaver has been a heavily trapped species in this country. It may now be more populous than it has ever been before. To maintain the validity of their licences, in some provinces, Ontario for example, trappers must trap a minimum percentage of beaver as part of their annual quota. That is required because if that resource were left unharvested it would destroy itself.
The Constitution of Canada recognizes and affirms the unique rights and special status of Indian, Inuit, and Metis people within the Canadian Confederation. These rights are being debated and have yet to be fully defined in law, but trapping is clearly regarded by the aboriginal peoples of Canada as a fundamental right. I do not find that strange. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to protect the right of aboriginal people to determine their way of life. Trapping is integral to their land claims and their spirituality and culture. Without trapping there would be a great loss of self-identity and self-worth.
Trapping and hunting have allowed aboriginal peoples to walk the fine line between their traditional lifestyle and assimilation into the industrial world. That has been their choice and that, of course, is a choice that they should be allowed to make.
In conclusion I would like to read into the record, not my words, not the words of someone from south of 60, not the words of someone unfamiliar with the needs of people in northern Canada, but the words of Stephen Kakfwi, the President of the Dene nation. He spoke to the Arctic Institute of North America in the winter of 1985. As we all know, Mr. Kakfwi is now a Minister of the Government of the Northwest Territories, duly elected by the people of his constituency. Mr. Kakfwi said:
My people have cherished and protected our land for centuries and will continue to do so in the future.
To a people who continue to live in close contact with the natural world, and who have always viewed ourselves as part of that world, the argument that trapping is cruel just doesn't ring true.
We know that there is no humane death in nature. Animals that die of disease, or starvation, or fall prey to predators, suffer.
On the other hand, we are appalled at many of the cruelties that industrial society imposes on animal populations. For us, the thought of an animal living its life pent up in a cage, with its only purpose being to await slaughter for someone's table-that is cruelty.
We understand that many people are worried about the loss of wildlife species throughout the world. We share this concern.
But we also know that the greatest threat to animals is not from hunting and trapping. It is from the destruction of their natural habitat by the industrial society-by pollution and encroachment on natural areas that provide shelter to animal populations.
He concluded:
We believe we can offer our knowledge and experience as a people who live in close contact with nature to help change this dangerous trend.
I really hope that the Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Great Britain, the people of Great
June 1, 1988

Britain, and the people of Canada recognize the importance of this emergency debate on an issue supported by all three Parties in this Chamber; indeed, supported by thousands of Canadians who are represented in this Chamber. I would suggest that those Canadians would support the trappers and aboriginal people in Canada. If it comes to making decisions to retaliate against something that can be done without cost by another country imposing something on an industry and a people who are very important, it must receive the support of this Chamber and the people of Canada.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate this evening resulting from the motion before us. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) and the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) called for an emergency debate with regard to considerations being made by the British Government to apply labelling to fur goods on sale in British shops which could lead to a large-scale boycott of the fur products.
1 am pleased to join in the debate, not because it is a happy matter. Quite the contrary, it is a matter of enormous importance to many Canadians. It is a matter of enormous importance to people across the North and in that context it is very appropriate that my friend, the Hon. Member for Yukon, should have requested the debate. It is also a matter of enormous concern across northern Ontario, which makes it so very appropriate that the Hon. Member for Timiskaming should have put the motion forward.
In my area of northwestern Ontario, specifically in the constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, a great deal of fur trapping is carried on as part of the livelihood of aboriginal people and residents of various communities including the City of Thunder Bay.
In these circumstances it is of enormous importance to consider what would be the impact of this British proposal. Not wanting in any way to get into a competition, because I recognize the involvement of a government private Member and my colleague in asking for this debate, I think it might be of interest to all of us in the House and to those listening across the country to be aware of how longstanding the concern about the threat to fur trapping in Canada has been.
As long ago as 1985 the federal council of the New Democratic Party dealt with the situation in a way which focused on the importance of fur trapping and the necessity for the real, strong action which we have been seeking evidence of from the government in Question Period today and at other earlier times. Our resolution declared:
Whereas the fur industry in Canada is worth $600 million to our economy; and employs 100,000 Canadians 60 per cent of whom are native; and
Whereas most native and many non-native trappers rely on trapping for a large part of their annual income; and
Whereas for native people, the harvesting of fur-bearing animals is a traditional occupation and an integral part of their way of life; and
Whereas evidence on October 15, 1985 to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicated that an international campaign to destroy the livelihood of Canadian trappers is well underway; and
Whereas the success of such a campaign would result in catastrophic loss of income and social disruption such as that already caused by the European ban on seal pelts,
Therefore be it resolved that the New Democratic Party of Canada calls for:
(1)	Support for trappers and recognition of the importance of trapping to the economy and society of northern, native and rural parts of the country;
(2)	Immediate and substantial funding for the development and presentation of the Canadian trappers' side of the story to Canadians and to the public of those countries where inaccurate and unfair representations of the industry are being made;
(3)	Scientific baseline studies on the populations of all fur-bearing animals in Canada;
(4)	Evaluation of all available technologies on trapping methods.
Be it further resolved that the NDP calls on the Government of Canada and on our fellow parties in the Socialist International to protect and enhance the livelihood of trappers, particularly native Canadians.
In that resolution was a clear statement by the New Democratic Party of the importance of trapping as a basis for the livelihood of 100,000 Canadians, 60 per cent of whom are natives. Trapping was a vital source of income for these people and an essential part of their lifestyle.
The place of trapping in the life and livelihood of aboriginal people of Canada deserves particular recognition. There are some profound ironies in this regard, because across the vast reaches of this country where trapping is so important, who was it that made trapping a fundamental activity in the lives of these people? Surely it was the British subjects in early days, particularly those in the Hudson's Bay Company, who saw to it that this was how people would live.
Life before that was one of subsistence, in which hunting and fishing were important and furs would only be obtained for use as clothing and shelter, not for the purpose of sale. It was the fur trade from Europe, particularly Britain and the markets in London, that changed the lives of the aboriginal peoples in the North.
The extent of this transformation is well worth considering. Before the fur trade aboriginal peoples were more closely tied to the land, perhaps only moving from a summer fishing area to a winter hunting area. It was an almost symbiotic relationship with the land on which the aboriginal peoples lived. That close relationship still exists in their understanding of themselves and the recognition of the territories in which they live even though they have been pushed back into small reserves.
The arrival of the fur trade drew them from those hunting and fishing activities into trapping of furs for sale to the traders and the ultimate use of those furs far from where they lived. Of course, this had far-reaching consequences which have been documented by historians like Harold Innis, author of a great works in the 1930s dealing with the fur trade in Canada.
June 1, 1988

One can think of more recent historians and anthropologists who explored what the fur trade represented for native peoples of Canada. They became involved in transportation activities by relocating to live at James Bay or Hudson's Bay in order to trade with the agents and factors of the Hudson Bay Company. They may have become involved in hunting activities for these fur traders.
In all of these activities, the lives of the aboriginal peoples were transformed. They were forced into a new mould of life and were dependent on the products they obtained from trading the furs they hunted. They became dependent on the use of guns and the ammunition that had to be purchased, as well as other goods they required.
This was the impact of the British and European demand for furs. There was an incredible transformation of their lives, for good or ill, from the kind of subsistence in which they lived.
What will happen if the British proposal is adopted and the labelling goes into effect? The fur market could collapse under this impact. What will happen if the European Economic Community decides to take similar action?
After 300 years of encouragement to move into the cash market for furs, aboriginal people have become largely dependent on that livelihood. Suddenly, as a result of British government action, they are faced with the return to subsistence and worse, in which their ancestors lived centuries ago. It is not an easy transformation.
When the buffalo were virtually wiped out in the past century, the Plains native people went through a century of readjustment to a different livelihood. Such readjustment, if possible, is an enormously costly and drawn out process. There must be an alternative.
What is the alternative in this case if the British succeed in destroying the trade and remove from the hands of our aboriginal people the source of livelihood and self-respect that has come to form the basis on which they relate to the land and resources around them? What process of readjustment will result from that? Those who speak of this action as being an act of "cultural genocide" do not exaggerate. We can only expect the most catastrophic of consequences.
These steps are being taken in a country which columnist Jeffrey Simpson recognized in an article last February in The Globe and Mail was characterized by the most profound of contradictions. He said very nicely in his column on February 20:
Six years ago, when the Irish Republican Army detonated a bomb that killed men and horses in London's Hyde Park, public sympathy for the horses rivaled that for the men.
He went on:
The British, you see, have this thing about animals. They chase foxes across the countryside, blast away at pheasant and grouse and run horses ragged over steeplechase courses. They race pigeons, train frogs to jump and, like the rest of us, slaughter livestock.
He went on:
The British chase, kill, maim and revere animals. They also like to set
standards for how others should treat animals, which partly explains why the
British Government will now require certain fur products to carry a label
indicating that the fur came from animals caught in leg-hold traps.
That final observation of his is the one we want to stop.
Members of the House, representatives of all three Parties as the Minister of Northern Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) recognized a moment ago, stand united on this issue. Canadians have had to stare hard at this issue, this question of the extent to which we will be obsessed with the rights of animals. None of us wishes cruelty to animals. We have as much of the sense that is involved in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals among us as I am sure there is among all the fine people in Great Britain who are pushing this. We want to see research done on more humane methods of trapping.
We urge the British Government to join in that effort to provide funding and to advance the cause. But we are not ready in any of our Parties in this Parliament to sacrifice people to the sentiment about animals. We are simply not prepared to see the lives of people changed, transformed, as I have already indicated, from fur trade for over 300 years of activity, by this sudden obsession, which people in Great Britain have in one particular area, to focus on these furs, ignoring completely all of those who are still enjoying meals of meat and in other ways benefiting from the uses we make of animals. We are simply not prepared to see a blow at people in our country. As somebody has said, that may be done at seemingly no cost to the British people.
I was interested to hear the Minister of Indian Affairs suggest ways in which British enterprise might experience a Canadian reaction. I was interested to hear him indicate some of the well-known British enterprises operating in Canada which might find themselves experiencing boycotts organized by those who support the aboriginal peoples in their desire to go on trapping, to go on maintaining their livelihood as they have for so long.
That is an important statement of determination. We see even more from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that we want to have real evidence that the Government is pressing the British Government and Parliament to give it up. We want to see real evidence that the British people are aware of the concern of Canadians.
Recognizing that the Press Gallery is not exactly proud of this evening, I ask myself whether the British people, through the BBC, might be made aware of what we are debating. It is of course night hours over there, but tomorrow's news should give at least a short focus on this debate in the Canadian Parliament which is expressing concern about what the mother of Parliaments intends to do to people whose lives it has affected so profoundly in centuries past and now should not be considering destroying.
June 1, 1988


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day when I would stand in this Parliament and speak to the mother of Parliaments. However, I am very pleased and proud to have this opportunity to participate in this emergency debate.
I congratulate you, Sir, the Speaker, for allowing this debate to happen. I congratulate all Members from all three Parties of the House who have participated in this debate. We are seeing a totally non-partisan debate. This is Parliament at its best, when it speaks with one voice on behalf of all the people of our great country.
You, Sir, may wonder why I as an urban Member, a Member from the nation's capital, representing a constituency in Ottawa, speaking to a debate that relates to the importance of our fur industry. I want to speak because my background is as a wildlife biologist. 1 studied biology and majored in wildlife management at the University of Ottawa. I have worked in this profession in Africa, Central America, and with Parks Canada. I want to speak because I think it is important. We are talking about an essential way of life for tens of thousands of Canadians in all our 10 provinces and both our territories.
I am also speaking because I love our renewable wildlife resources, as do the people who hunt and trap them. This is their farm. This is their life. This is their livelihood. No one should take it away from them.
If you think, Mr. Speaker, that no one traps around the National Capital Region, around Metro-Ottawa, you are wrong. Just 28 miles west of this city there is the little town of Dunrobin. In that town there is a man named Harvey Boucher. He traps for beaver and muskrat in the spring and in the wintertime. There is a man who works for the Sunday Herald, one of our newspapers, whose name is Ken Lehman. He traps beavers on behalf of the National Capital Commission. He relocates them to areas where they will not be doing damage to vegetation or flooding of people's backyards-in this city, the capital of Canada. That is something I want to get across to Great Britain.

I have another friend who lives in the Ottawa area, north of our capital, and his name is Aurele Knight. In winter, my friend Mr. Knight traps beaver. He also traps other animals. That is his life and he is very, very proud of it.

It is people like him who make this our way of life. This is Canada. This is, as some people call it, the great white North. Our country was explored, built and developed by people from the Hudson's Bay Company and other pioneering people who explored our northern regions.
Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have had an opportunity to visit other regions of our country. I want to review some of the great places I have seen in Canada. While I am doing this, I invite all British parliamentarians to take out an atlas of Canada and to review the size of this country. Let
me speak to them and say that all of Great Britain, all of it, can be put-now get your atlas-inside Hudson Bay five times. That is the size of this country that we are speaking of. I want the House of Lords and the House of Commons to understand that. Lake Superior-stay near your atlases-is .6 times the size of all of Great Britain. That is what I want to talk about.
Keep your atlas because we are going to go to a place called Old Crow in the Yukon. Go to the Yukon. Find the Yukon. See how big it is. 1 visited Old Crow with the Hon. David Crombie, the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and former Secretary of State. I was struck by one of the villagers I met there. There are only about 300 people living in Old Crow.
I had a discussion with Norma Cassie who is one of the leaders of the community. I said: "Norma, what do you do here in the spring and summer?" She said: "We go rattin' because you sure as hell can't grow tomatoes and lettuce in permafrost".
Stay in your atlas. We are going to go on to Eskimo Point which is on the west side of Hudson Bay. I had the pleasure of hunting with the Member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk). His people hunt caribou and seal and they trap and hunt foxes. I thought that I was so smart and knew something about the outdoors. I will never forget that I had a pair of boots made in southern Canada which I thought were warm. We were going hunting on his skidoo and it was minus 30 degrees. He said: "You can't leave until you get better boots". I said: "These are good boots. Look at the felt lining". He said: "You won't last 20 minutes on the skidoo. The chill factor is minus 50". He went through his village, and what did he find for me? I am fairly tall and I needed big boots. The people in the North are not very tall. He found a pair of caribou skins that I wore. They kept my feet warm. The villagers said: "You can't wear felt boots with rubber outside because you will not survive in this part of the world. You need skins from caribou, and that is what I wore.
Stay in your atlas, House of Lords, we are going to Tuk-toyaktuk near the Beaufort Sea. We have travelled 2,000 miles across the North. In Tuktoyaktuk I ate caribou. When I asked the people: "What do you do with the caribou?" They said: "We eat it, Sir. We use the skins for clothing and boots." I asked: "What do you do with the horns?" They said: "We carve them and sell them to the southerners, because that is our way of life in the North."
Let us go to Manitoba, a place called Reed Lake. I was there four days ago. It is in northwest central Manitoba. I spent some time with a trapper and a fisherman named Corky Peterson, and his son Hal. I was also in the presence of Bob Carmichael, who is the chief of commercial wildlife management for the Manitoba Wildlife Department. He is a real pro. He works in renewable resources. That area is not over-

June 1, 1988
trapped. It is well managed and conserved. The trapping of beaver, marten, fox and muskrat by Corky and his son is a well-managed wild-life activity. They are not at all endangered. It is in his best interest to maintain the resource to the best of his ability.
In Reed Lake I also met a man named Paul Vincent. He has 850 acres outside of the City of Winnipeg, one of Canada's largest western cities. He has a muskrat farm where dozens of people work. His business and industry are being threatened by the possible introduction of this initiative by Great Britain.
The animal rights people, the "antis" as they are called, have it all wrong. On March 10 I moved a motion in the House that asked the Government to do everything it can to enhance our wildlife resources. I have spoken on this issue all over Canada in the last three years. As one might say, I have been busting my buttocks to see that the Government spends more to manage this resource more effectively. With the help of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and his colleagues in Cabinet, some day we will have more moneys allocated to enhance our wildlife resources.
The animal rights people and the "antis" have it all wrong. Most of them live in a cloistered, urban, downtown environment. Let us return to the atlas and remember what we are talking about. Great Britain can fit five times inside Hudson Bay. That is the dimension that I wish to remind the British House of Lords and House of Commons that we are dealing with. I invite them all to get out into the real resource world and see what they have been missing. Come to Canada and visit this country. Experience its vastness, its diversity, and its dependence on the natural resources, particularly our people in the North.
It has been said that some of them care more about wildlife than they do about people. Our wildlife is directly related to our people. Our people are directly related to our wildlife. They depend on it. They protect it. They manage it. Yes, they harvest it, but this is their way of life in a great part of our country. Therefore, they should be allowed to trap, whether they are sealers or hunters. This is an important historical part of the building of our country.
It is in their personal and professional interest to do so and to perpetuate this resource through respecting quotas and good management practices set by the world's best wildlife biologists. Professional Canadian wildlife biologists are world famous. They work for the Canadian International Development Agency in countries all over the world. They work for the Canadian Universities Services Overseas all over the world. They work for non-governmental organizations all over the world because they are the best and are highly respected in professional fields. The Canadian non-governmental organization community, such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ducks Unlimited, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and hundreds of fish and game clubs are all involved in the process of protecting and enhancing the wildlife resources of this country.
How many people have ever visited an abattoir? How many people really know how domestic animals die, for example, chicken, pigs, cows, sheep? I dare say it is not too pleasant in some circumstances. How do fish die? Most of us eat fish. How do they die when they are caught in the nets at sea? They suffocate. I dare say Members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Great Britain eat fish. Nobody is up in arms saying: "Kill the fish humanely, or don't kill them at all". Let us remind ourselves of some of these facts. We all eat for our survival.
Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) spoke tonight in the debate. He made reference to the international humane trapping standards committee. As an appropriate mechanism to address this problem, Canada has suggested that Great Britain become a member. I invite Great Britain to consider seriously this timely and appropriate proposal from our Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Let me send this message to the people and all elected MPs of Great Britain. We have a saying in this country: "You use it or you lose it". If we do not use our renewable wildlife resources to the best of our collective ability, we will all lose it.
The Queen's Footguards in London have that great tradition of red tunics and black hats. The black hats are made from what? Bear skin. Canadian bear skin. I ask the House of Lords if it wants to see the uniforms of decades of tradition replaced with some North Sea synthetic: "Do you want to see that happen?" I do not believe you do, because you are a people of true, long-lasting, and important traditions. Therefore, maintain the Queen's Footguards as they have been for decades, and maintain that important link with our country through the hats that they wear, that we also have here on Parliament Hill. We are proud of that. The people of the world come to this nation's capital to see the changing of the guard, which is a true, British tradition with Canadian black bear fur hats.
I say to the people in Great Britain and their parliamentarians, please reconsider your proposed actions regarding furs. Do not let your emotions overcome your reason. Our people depend on it.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) used a phrase which I believe all the world should be aware of, that extremists may care more for animals than they care for people. I would like to carry that one step further. The extremists may have a detrimental effect on wildlife as well as on people. The absurdities of the ban on seal hunting, for example, may not be known for another generation. Yet when they are, we are going to find the seal population has more than doubled. That means that seals will be eating an additional one million tonnes of the cheapest and healthiest protein supply available to people around the world. In addition, nature's way of thinning a population, which is usually disease,
June 1, 1988

will probably have a detrimental effect on a wider part of our wildlife than just the seal itself.
I think the record of this country and its environmental laws are probably the best of any in the world. We have denied ourselves great economic advantage from British Columbia to New Brunswick in order to preserve the ecological and animal life of our country. We have denied ourselves the opportunity to use a renewable resource, water, for the generation of energy, the cost of which has gone up four or fivefold in the last 15 years. It could have gone down if we used all of our water resources without considering the environment.
What then is expected of Canada? Should we not have developed James Bay? When it was developed, billions of dollars were given to the native people affected to sustain them and compensate them for the loss of their environment. What more can we be expected to do? We have banned the seal hunt, not only of grey seals but of all seals. As a result, we now have harbour seals all over the east coast of North America and the islands off that coast, and the result has been millions of dollars of damage to fishing gear and the loss of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fish devoured by those seals.
We have possibly created a situation in the sea, in response to the extremists, comparable to that of the rabbits and the fox on land. When the fox population drops, the rabbit population multiplies. I predict that somewhere down the road we will see a similar situation with the seal because of the ban on hunting. The seals will either die of disease en masse or starve to death because they have depleted the fish stock. This is a self-defeating exercise by the European Economic Community. It wants greater opportunities to fish in the Canadian waters of the North Atlantic, yet it will have less and less opportunity as the seal population multiplies.
If we go to the Pacific coast we find that Senator Stevens of Alaska is now saying to the U.S. Government that it has to remove the ban on the seal hunt and the whale hunt. Whales have now reached a population level such that they are appearing in waters in which they had never appeared before. They are preying upon the salmon stock, among others, on the west coast of North America. Senator Stevens, who is nothing if not interested in the environment, fishing, the caribou and all those other things that sustain his native population, is complaining to his Government that it has to do something about the seals and the whales. They are destroying fishing gear and eating fish to a degree that is very detrimental to the fishing community.
How, then, can we respond to the extremist who does not recognize the negative effect on wildlife caused by overpopulation? I believe it is a kindness to control that population.
In New Brunswick the coyote was on the protected list. Do not hunt it, do not kill it, do not trap it because it has not existed in any numbers at all for generations. What is the situation now? The deer and moose populations are suffering depredation. Domesticated animals are being attacked in their pastures or barns because the coyote population is far in excess
of the natural supply of food available to them. We have protected the coyote beyond a rational point and we may just have to put a bounty on it to protect both wildlife and domesticated animal life in the Province of New Brunswick.
I am of course concerned about the dollars that accrue to trappers, native or otherwise. However, I do not think the dollar is all that counts. It is also important to recognize that it is a kindness to wildlife to keep their numbers under control so that they are comfortable in their environment and healthy. I do not believe it is right to go the route proposed in the United Kingdom or the route followed in the European Economic Community with respect to the seals.
It seems rather strange that on the one hand the UN is happy to listen to the aboriginal people of the world, whether they be from Greenland, Canada or Australia, but on the other hand, because it is listening to the extremists in the wildlife groups, those people are being starved because they are not being allowed to hunt a resource in a way which would not threaten it but would control its numbers. It is ironic that the aboriginals of the world can get sympathy in the UN while at the same time being denied this economic opportunity.
It is not that members of the EEC do not know what has happened. This situation has been presented to them before. At a meeting of the Canadian Parliamentary Association with the European parliamentary group there was present a gentleman from Greenland. He was pleading with us to support him because the native people of his country had lost 75 per cent of their income as a result of the ban on seal hunting. That was a pretty harsh sentence to impose upon the native people of Greenland by extremists and those who care little really for mankind which depends upon the life of this world. Mankind always has and always will be dependent for food on the vegetable and animal life of this world, whether it be ocean or land oriented. We shall always be dependent upon the animal and vegetable life of the land and sea for our food.
Why then should we restrict a group of people in a harsh and cruel manner? Why not allow these forest-oriented individuals to make a living, whether native or otherwise? We should appeal to the communities of the world, including the United Nations, to let us take a look at what is fair and right, what is in accord with the needs of mankind. Sure the people in the extreme North need furs to keep them warm and the people in other sections of the world enjoy wearing the furs which keep them warm. Maybe in some instances furs are a status symbol. Nevertheless I believe that since we are all dependent upon this form of life and the food and clothing supplied by them, we should have a rational control of populations as we did have with the seals in Canada. They should not be allowed to get out of control to the detriment of all the seal species and in the long run to the detriment of the food supply of the world.

June 1, 1988


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the very nation which some centuries ago sent explorers to this continent and subsequently large fur companies to disturb the balance and the equilibrium that existed at that time between the aboriginal people in this land and the animals which they hunted for fur should now be attacking those people again. These are the people whose very balance with nature they destroyed in the past and now they seek to destroy again by this action proposed by the Government of Great Britain in the form of a ministerial order which would have all furs, irrespective of their source, labelled to the effect that they may have been obtained as a result of leg-hold traps.
I am a biologist, Mr. Speaker. As a biologist I respect life. But I understand the differences that exist in that vast array of entities in this world that we call life. One thing that I recognize is that animal liberation organizations apparently do not understand the difference between human life and human existence and the value of humanity as compared to animals.
It offends me greatly that there are those who would place a higher value on animals of any sort than they would upon human existence, even upon the existence of human beings that could teach those city dwellers in Great Britain what it is all about to live a life of respect for nature and in balance with nature. The aboriginal peoples of this country, whether pertaining to seals or to fox, respected those living entities. They understood that their survival depended upon their exploitation to a certain limit. They also understood that they are a part of an ecological chain in which the fox kills smaller animals in order to survive. The aboriginal peoples, up until this day in the North and at one time throughout this country, lived the same kind of existence in that ecological balance.
Today we are faced with a group who would draw equivalents between animals and human beings. They talk about animal rights rather than animal welfare. How distorted can your thinking be if you truly believe that there is a real comparison between the existence of animals and the existence of human beings. This is a sorry example of tremendous hypocrisy perhaps more hypocrisy even than an incapacity to understand the world in which these people live. The hypocrisy of the Government of Great Britain and those who would push it to take action against the aboriginal people can be dramatized by the fact that they make much more of the existence of a fox than they would of that of an aboriginal person. This is an inconsistency from a nation which is entirely incapable of reacting to the blood of children spilled in South Africa, a Government that has refused every request for action in response to South Africa and the injustices there. This is a nation that would take strong action in response first to baby seals and now to fur-bearing animals in northern Canada and elsewhere. What kind of a nation is it that would refuse to behave in a fashion that is humane to humans but is more humane to animals? What kind of Prime Minister is Mrs. Thatcher who will not react to the oppression and the death of children in South Africa or the children, the elderly and others
in Mozambique who day by day lose their arms and legs not in leg-hold traps but by mines planted by a Government, indirectly by a Government that the Thatchers of this world refuse to condemn. This seems so inconsistent that I wonder whether there really is an inconsistency here. Isn't it rather that this is a nation led by a Government that has little humanity for aboriginal peoples anywhere? After all, in South Africa we are talking about aboriginal people. So we have a Government that places rather low value on the aboriginal people, the original people of southern Africa, and low value upon the aboriginal peoples of Canada. This kind of hypocrisy cannot be tolerated by Canadians. This is a brand of hypocrisy that would condemn our native people to penury, and this loss of way of life cannot be tolerated nor can it merely be responded to by rhetoric.
There are those who have said that there ought to be strong retaliatory action by Canada in response to this proposed action of Great Britain if it carried through with it. That we should do. We should not allow a repetition of the tragedy imposed upon those in Newfoundland who depended on, as I described, and who existed in an ecological balance with the seals, the fish and the other partners in the chain of ecology. We cannot allow it to be repeated for the northern natives, the aboriginals who depend upon fur-bearing animals.
Every Member of this House should commit himself or herself to write to Members of the British Parliament immediately to point out what a disgraceful, hypocritical action is proposed by that Government. If indeed the British proceed with that action then the Canadian people, with the leadership of this Parliament, should selectively boycott British products so that the Government of Great Britain will understand that we will not allow our people to suffer because of the hypocritical stupidity of those who would value the lives of animals above the lives of human beings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are three or four Members rising to speak. We have until 12 o'clock so I would hope Hon. Members would govern themselves accordingly.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on the adjournment debate concerning the move by the British Government to impose a labelling device on furs from Canada, a device which would detract from their value and would discourage people in the United Kingdom from purchasing those furs which come from Canada.
It is important that this debate take place tonight. We must send a uniform message to the British Parliament indicating that we are very concerned about this move to put in place such a regulation. We know what impact it would have on the incomes of literally tens of thousands of Canadians, most of whom live in northern regions and most of whom are at the bottom of the economic scale. These people probably earn less than those living in large urban areas. I am told that there are
June 1, 1988

at least 100,000 Canadians who still earn a living from trapping fur-bearing animals.
We normally think of this as being an activity which takes place in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, but clearly it goes far beyond that. It takes place in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and throughout many of the northern regions of Canada. In my own constituency of Algoma, there are some 12 Indian bands, and I would say that in at least half of them some level of trapping takes place.
It is an activity carried on not only by native people. Many small farmers and land owners are also involved, and there are many people whose primary occupation is trapping. This move on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom could have an extremely adverse impact on all of these groups. These groups are composed of low-income people who live in northern areas. The only cash money they receive for income is from the sale of fur-bearing animals.
I think it is important that we send a uniform message to the British Government indicating that we are very concerned about these Canadians. Often, the only source of income they have for many months of the year is their trap lines.
It seems to me that here we have a clash of societies, a clash between the urban sophisticated society of the United Kingdom and the society of northern Canada in which native peoples and others live. Trapping is an accepted way of life in this society. In my own riding, they use those kinds of traps, kanya bear traps and others, which are not considered to be in any way cruel. From the experience I have had with trappers, I do not believe that they operate in a cruel and unjust way. They are concerned with the biological movement from generation to generation.
It is clear that the proposed action with regard to the fur trade in Canada taking place in the United Kingdom and in other European countries is the same kind of action we saw with regard to the seal hunt a few years ago, which action ultimately cancelled the whole seal hunt. It was important to those of Prince Edward Island, on the shores of Quebec and in Newfoundland while the fur industry is important to those in most provinces. I am told that it generates some $600-million worth of income a year and some $350-million worth of income in exports alone.
I want to join with Hon. Members who have spoken tonight, and with Members like the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) who put questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) yesterday calling on the Government to take the strongest possible action with the United Kingdom Government in sending a very strong message. We hope that the fate that befell the seal hunt will not fall upon those who earn their living in the hard and difficult world of trapping in the northern regions. I have spoken to trappers from the federal riding of Algoma and they have told me how concerned they were about the move that took place with regard to the seal hunt. We see now in the
United Kingdom a telegraphing of possible difficulties in the future.
I simply want to join with those who have spoken tonight to urge that the United Kingdom Government back down from this action, which could have a devastating impact on tens of thousands of northern citizens, many of whom have a very difficult and onerous life as trappers.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) as well as the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mrs. McLaughlin) for arranging this evening's adjournment debate on the proposed British fur-labelling issue.
This issue is not a partisan issue, as many which are debated in this House are. For one evening, we have managed to set aside our Party bickering because we have ascertained a common enemy. When Canadians are faced with such a common threat, they tend to set aside their differences and work together for the common cause, in this case the common cause of trappers and the fur industry.
The Government is appreciative of the support given by opposition Parties to date on this issue and the support that we expect will be forthcoming in the future, because this undoubtedly will not be the last time this matter is brought up in the House. I have spoken in the House on many occasions in the past on this particular subject, and many, perhaps more eloquently than I, have spoken on the issue tonight. What I am about to say will be somewhat repetitive, but I hope to keep it fairly short.
The seriousness of the threat is not to be underestimated. It is something of the thin edge of the wedge. What starts out as a labelling requirement in one European country could spread to other European countries which constitute a large market for furs, and the labelling could, over a period of time, escalate into a total ban. It could have, in the long run, a devastating effect on our fur industry. The seriousness is demonstrated by headlines that appeared in The Globe and Mail on May 30, just a couple of days ago. One such headline reads "Fur Industry Jeopardized by Activists". On another page of the same newspaper, as the article continued, the headline reads "Activists Threatening Canada's $350 million in Fur Exports".
Therefore, interest in this issue is not restricted geographically to Canada. It is one in which all Canadians from rural, far northern, and major metropolitan areas can join together. It affects all aspects of the fur industry from the trapper or rancher to the traders, to the auction houses, to the factories, to the garment manufacturers, and the people involved in sales. Earlier this evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) told us that it was a $1 billion industry in Canada with about $350 million worth of exports.
I intend to restrict my remarks mainly to the northern trapper because those are the people whom I have the honour

June 1, 1988
of representing in the House. I will do so by quoting from three letters from people who are all more knowledgeable on this subject than I am myself. The first letter is from a gentleman who has already been quoted once this evening in the House of Commons. I am going to quote from a different letter from the Right Reverend John Sperry, Bishop of the Arctic. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Great Britain in which he says:
As the Bishop of the Arctic, with some nearly 40 years of residence in the Northwest Territories, I have lived with and served a people, both Indian and Eskimo (Inuit) who for centuries have survived only because of their relationship to and the harvesting of the animals that inhabited their land and waters.
For these people throughout their history lifestyles have certainly undergone changes but, for centuries, always in the colonial relationship they experienced under the British Monarchy and its Governments no challenge was ever given to their deep cultural affiliation to the land. This affiliation has always and necessarily involved harvesting by both hunting and trapping, the whole industry being given dramatic input by a succession of Europeans who opened up the Canadian Northwest for both exploration and commerce.
The alleged action proposed by your Government to label Canadian fur products in such terms as to stigmatize the labour of the native trapper is viewed by many of us as little short of an act of cultural genocide upon a small minority of people who for so long have held the British Monarchy and its Governments in deep respect for their understanding of what life and survival on the most northerly frontier of the Commonwealth really entails; this threatened stance of your Government could prove to be a shattering experience for our people.
The second letter, Mr. Speaker, is from the Hon. Titus Allooloo, Minister of Renewable Resources with the Government of the Northwest Territories. It is addressed to the Right Honourable Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs, and is with regard to the proposed fur labelling legislation by the British Government. It reads:
The Government of the Northwest Territories wishes to express its strongest objections to proposed actions by the British Government to legislate a requirement of retailers to prominently display labels on products which contain the pelts of wild animals that may have been caught with a "steel-jaw leghold trap".
Once again, we experience the highest levels of frustration, and indeed indignation, that foreign governments and/or agencies are taking actions without due regard to the detrimental consequences their actions have on the basic livelihood of groups of people around the world.
I request your assistance on communicating to the British Government our total rejection of such a proposal. In addition, we would offer to, once again, present our positions to them in the most effective manner possible, including direct representation.
We have appreciated your high level of support in the past to counter these measures. The funding support to lobby organizations, such as the Fur Institute of Canada and Indigenous Survival International, are good examples of your dedicated support.
We thank you also for your prompt statements in the House of Commons and the media. Your proposed meeting with Sir Geoffrey Howe is of special interest to us as we feel it may prove to be a most effective action.
Our government is presently examining a variety of strategic options open to us and we shall continue to keep you advised of our planned actions.
Thank you for your support and you may be assured of our total cooperation in this matter.
The third letter with which I wish to illustrate my point, Mr. Speaker, is from Ms. Alice Hill, Executive Director of the
Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories. In a letter dated March 14 of this year she says:
The Native Women's Association of the N.W.T. is fully supporting the Indigenous Survival International and the Fur Institute of Canada to ban England's Legislation to label fur garments regarding leg hold traps.
Our livelihood depends on fur trapping for food to feed the children, family and relatives. The fur hide is used to make moccasins, parkas, mukluks and mitts. It is used by the Dene (Indian) people of the North today. Every part of the carcass remains are used up. Monies made from the furs go right back into the Economy to purchase supplies and equipment necessary for trapping. Native women today sew arts and crafts decorated by fur. Fur has warmth and insulation for Northern climates.
The fur season is from December to February when the weather is extremely cold in the North ... During peak periods, the fur on the animals is very dense, therefore trapping is only done for approximately three months of the year.
To our understanding, work is under way to Find a new type of trap for the future, rather than the leg hold trap adversely opposed by the anti-fur lobbyist group. Despite this, families living off the land, still have to eat, live, and survive the climates and conditions of the Northwest Territories on an everyday basis.
Jobs are not so easily available to Northern Indian and Inuit people. Many (majority) of them do not have the education required to go into the labour market. Historically, Indian and Inuit people were sent off to convents and residential schools for a short period of their lives for schooling.
It was acceptable to send their children home with a Grade five or six education level so they may go back to trapping with their families. This colonization by the Government was an accepted practice. Consequently in the long run, we have many trappers depending on trapping with minimal education but very proficient as a trapper and would like to remain a trapper.
Should England legislate the label, it would have a pronounced effect on our culture and our way of life as it did with the Inuit and the Anti-Seal Campaign, which destroyed the livelihood of the Inuit people who now depend on Welfare and odd jobs.
Historically, England's demands for fur was what started the Fur Trades, and the long accomplished orientation of the Dene and Inuit to meet those demands were met, consequently, the majority of Natives in the long run are now trappers, which has carried on for generations upon generations.
Today, we ask the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, NOT to legislate labelling fur garments which would jeopardize the lives of the Dene, Metis and Inuit people of the Northwest Territories.
The Native Women's of the N.W.T. would like to remind the Government of England to think of the poor Indian families and their children in making this decision.
I would like to comment on some of the actions of Governments to date. Both provincial and territorial Governments have been most active. They have sent delegations to England to try to argue the point. In the Territories a spontaneous movement has grown up. School children have written letters to the British Prime Minister and parliamentarians. A wide variety of people from that area, not only those who are dependent upon trapping themselves but the rest of the people who live there as well, have been very active in pursuing this matter.
With regard to the federal Government, we have been much better prepared with this issue than we were with the seal issue. Foreign officers, high commissioners, ambassadors and their staff know the position of the Government, thanks to the
June 1, 1988

early forceful statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They have been in a good position to present the Canadian viewpoint. They have had the facts available to them.
There have been personal meetings between our Secretary of State for External Affairs and his counterpart with the Government of Great Britain, Sir Geoffrey Howe. We have been working in conjunction with the Canadian fur institute. We have been funding Indigenous Survival International, for example, for an exhibit they put in the Museum of Man in London not long ago. We have been doing everything possible to see that the British and Europeans are aware of the facts and of our Canadian concerns.
So far, what we have been able to accomplish in concrete terms is to delay the proceedings. It is interesting how we have been able to do this, at least in part, by bringing this matter to the attention of Denmark which has trapping interests in Greenland and also, I am told, fox farms in Jutland. Denmark is a member of the EEC and was able to lodge a formal protest by way of a note of notice. That has brought about a three-month stay of execution.
Now we must consider what courses of action might be available to us in the future if the British persist in this measure. Of course, we will carry on with the representations as to date and we will work with our allies, especially those in the EEC, like Denmark.
However, we must look at action that might be a little stronger. This matter is certainly what I would call a restraint of trade. We must look at the possibilities under the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade and perhaps take it to that body.
I well understand and compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his reluctance to escalate this matter into something of a trade war. No one really wants to see that. He takes a much more constructive approach by suggesting such things as joint membership of Canada and Great Britain in the International Humane Trapping Standards Committee where we can work together to make sure that fur is produced as humanely as possible.
However, if we were to really look, I am sure we could find a variety of British goods that are produced in ways that might not bear too much scrutiny. I hope that this would not become necessary.
Of course, there is the question of nuclear submarines which they would like us to buy. If they want to sell them, they must keep on pretty good terms with potential customers.
If we chose, we could be just as bloody-minded as the British. Hopefully, however, they will be sensitive and sensible enough so that that does not need to happen.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make a few comments and congratulate the Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) and the
Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) for introducing this important topic.
The all-Party agreement on this issue must indicate to the Parliament in Britain that all of us believe the British Government proposal is unwise and is perhaps made more out of ignorance than understanding. All Parties oppose the British Government's proposal to compel the labelling of furs made from animals caught by the leg-hold trap.
This issue was first brought to my attention by my colleague, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). One of his constituents is involved with the Canadian Fur Traders Association, and I know the Member has been concerned about the proposal by the British Government.
There is a fear that if this is successful, the fur industry in Canada will be ruined. This is an important matter because over 100,000 jobs are involved.
Presently, Parliament is caught up in a debate about free trade between Canada and the United States. The best estimate shows that there could be a net increase of some
120.000	jobs. Yet this British proposal could affect some
100.000	jobs.
This industry primarily affects aboriginal people, who have had great difficulty in adjusting to the western industrialized society. It is an industry in which they can earn an income while retaining a sense of pride.
The British Government, through its ignorance, is threatening this livelihood and has the potential to produce social and personal tragedies as the native communities no longer can make a decent living through trapping.
One can get into a philosophic debate about the role of animals in sustaining human life. Others have attempted to compare the cruelty of the slaughterhouse with trapping and the use of the leg-hold trap. However, I think those are moot points.
It should be pointed out that Canada is concerned about the humane treatment of animals and ensuring that they suffer the least amount of pain.
It is also important to point out that the meat of many animals that are trapped is more valuable to native communities because it sustains their diet. Therefore, while the British Government's proposal threatens the viability of the fur trade, it could harm native communities. Trapping is an important part of the native culture and the native tradition. Again, this tradition and this culture is being threatened tonight by the proposed actions of the British Government.
In concluding, and I assured you, Mr. Speaker, I would be brief in my remarks, the one point that I want to emphasize again is the importance of the fur trade to the aboriginal people. In my City of Regina I know many native people who have come from the country and the reserves because there

June 1, 1988
was nothing for them there. They end up in the city where, again, there is very little for them. There are poor-paying jobs, if they are available. Generally it is a life of hopelessness and despair. People have had great difficulty finding a meaningful role for themselves in modern industrialized society. There have not been many opportunities for them to participate as human beings in our social process.
One of the few areas that is open to them is in the fur trade. The action of the British Government threatens that. 1 think it is a dumb move on their part. I am certain they do not know and realize the consequences that this will have on human beings in Canada, people who have experienced the hardships of the western civilization, brought about in great deal by Great Britain and the fur traders sent out by Great Britain. They will now ironically inflict even more harm and suffering on the native people by the actions that they are proposing to take.
I take great pleasure in joining with my colleagues from all political Parties this evening in urging the Government of Great Britain to cease and desist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for being cognizant of the clock. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) and then the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) before we end the debate.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I too will try to be brief because of the hour. First, I would like to say that I appreciate this opportunity to have my few words in this debate.
I cannot really believe that we continually have to get up in the House of Commons to defend industries that we have had here for centuries in Canada, and our way of life, from animal rights activists. First it was the sealing trade. Now it is the native people of Canada, the fur trappers and so on. Next it will probably be the fur farming industry of Canada.
Where will it stop? Where will the animal rights activists want to stop? Will it be with chicken farmers, hog farmers, cattle ranchers, with turkey farmers, or fishermen? Finally, will they go after the vegetable farmers because vegetables are living beings? We must surely realize that what is happening is deliberate. It is causing deliberate damage and disruption. This should be apparent to all.
In case some people may sympathize with what is being proposed by the animal rights activists, I would like to remind them that this will affect all Canadians, not only the native peoples of Canada who richly deserve our support but all Canadians. All Canadians should be alarmed and angered by the attack on our people and our economy. Canadians must realize the damage and destruction which is being caused to our communities. Canadians must realize the chain reaction effect which will touch us all. In case they may not know that we are being affected, I will give an example.
Let us take a fox ranch or a mink ranch, something which I am more familiar with. Let us say that ranchers in one of the communities in my riding, such as Little Brook, Weymouth or Havelock, who raise fur animals use the waste from the fishing industry, from the fish plants, thus acting as a waste disposal unit. Fish offal is used as food for the animals. It is a high protein food. The ranchers also use offal from chicken farms, as well as the eggs that have gone bad. These various waste products do not go to clutter up the environment. They are being used by the fur ranchers. These waste products might become quite damaging environmental problems. The carcass from the mink and fox ranches are then put to quite good use by being put into a rendering process, and what remains is used in various areas.
The chain reaction does not end there. Not only is fur farming important for the fishing and livestock industries, it is also important to the grain farmers who produce the feed that makes the food for the animals. Nobody would deny the problems that our wheat farmers and grain farmers have been undergoing over the past number of years. Fur ranchers support the lumber industry in the building of pens and in the furring sheds. Fur ranchers purchase wire for cages. So it affects the steel industry. The transport industry is affected since it transports feed to the ranches and the pelts to market.
How many jobs will be affected in the manufacturing of clothes from furs? Thousands. I could go on and on. We could mention the models who model the clothes. We could talk about the manufacturers of cardboard boxes, veterinarians and drug manufacturers. The list could go on and on.
If we as Canadians think that this is only affecting the aboriginal people of Canada-and it is affecting them and the way of life that they have held for thousands of years-it is affecting us as well, non-native Canadians. We should be reminded of this.
Centuries ago our ancestors came to Canada. One of the cornerstones of our economy, along with fishing and lumber, was the fur trade. This, I might add, is the oldest land based industry in Canada. Fur trapping and fur ranching is as Canadian as the beaver and the maple leaf. We have had a fur industry for centuries. We wish to continue for centuries into the future for the sake of our children and our grandchildren. We do not want a bunch of animal rights activists playing on the sentiments of people in order to raise funds for God knows what purpose. This is something of which I want to remind Margaret Thatcher. The company she is keeping nowadays leaves a lot to be desired.
I want to remind the British who have a sport which I think they should be looking into. I refer to the famous sport of fox hunt-tallyho and all that. I do not think that that is the way to go either. Let them look in their own backyard before coming to Canada.
Both the fur ranching and fur trapping industries are important to us. We want them to continue to maintain jobs
June 1, 1988

for our rural communities, for our native communities, and we want them here for a long period of time.
I would like to draw attention to how fast damage can be done to industries. In 1980 in our sealing industry we could not produce enough seal pelts. It was a completely open market at that time. We could sell as many as we wanted to sell. That was in 1980. In 1982, there was virtually no market at all. So I would like to pass that on as a closing comment.
I promised that I would be very brief. I am living up to my promise. I am leaving time to other speakers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank the Hon. Member. I know that the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River will do the same.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I must say, in rising to address this matter of the proposed fur labelling legislation in the United Kingdom, that I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak. I would like to start by thanking the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. Mac-Dougall) and my colleague the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), for this opportunity. I would particularly like to compliment and express my gratitude, and that of my constituents, to the Hon. Member for Yukon who has been so involved in this issue, and who went to the United Kingdom at her own expense to pursue this matter and lobby Members of the British Parliament and of the House of Lords.
I would also like to pay tribute to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). The degree of concern that he has shown in this matter does him great credit. I believe that the support which he has given to the fur industry is much appreciated.
The range, not only geographically but in terms of ideology and demography, and the range of constituencies whose Members have spoken in this debate tonight should show, if anything can show, the degree to which this concern is felt within this country. I have heard Members from Prince Edward Island, our smallest province and cradle of Confederation, from the two Territories, from the other provinces of this country, from urban settings, rural settings, and vast remote settings like that of my own riding, or that of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), who is not present but who would also have liked to have spoken, ridings that are larger in size than the entire country of the United Kingdom where these regulations are proposed.
The Hon. Member for Southwest Nova (Mr. Comeau) spoke of fur farming. Because of my experience in my own riding I will speak only of the wild fur industry. What concerns me is the danger that we may be engaged in a dialogue with the deaf. After all, the Members of the British Parliament are presumably abed and do not have the opportunity to see this debate live as it is happening. We can only hope that their media sources are alert to the concerns of Canada, although
past experiences with visiting British journalists have largely been negative. We can only hope that the mother of Parliaments, whose members at the time gave this Parliament its very existence and endowed this Parliament with its very traditions right down to the minutia of the colours that we see before us, are indeed going to pay attention to what is said here and the depth of concern from which our statements spring.
The history of the fur trade in Canada is a history that is intimately linked from its very beginning to the history of the United Kingdom. Our oldest corporate identity is the Hudson's Bay Company founded by Royal Charter in England at the Palace of St. James on May 2, 1670. It was a company of gentlemen adventurers trading into Hudson's Bay, at the initiative of those great French explorers and entrepreneurs, Radisson and Des Groseilliers, but nevertheless it was a company formed in England which took as its motto Pro pelle cutem which has been roughly translated as "We will give our skin to get theirs", or "Seeking their hides at the possible cost of our own".
The under-appreciated or perhaps totally ignored reality is that the fur trade, while we now see it as being integral to the very traditions and culture of aboriginal people in this country, changed North America socially and economically at the time and in a very dramatic fashion so that tribes and entire nations relocated across hundreds, indeed, thousands of miles to pursue this trade, their first and most basic economic interaction with the European society that intruded into this continent.
I think that I can bring some very special perspectives to this debate. I can remember as a child of seven raising funds for the people's dispensary for sick animals, one of those organizations which was in the forefront of animal welfare in the United Kingdom, long before we heard of animal rights leagues. I can also remember, before I came to Canada, being represented by two Members of the British Parliament who, I believe, are still Members. Memory may serve me incorrectly, but since I studied at the University of Exeter where the Hon. Gwyneth Dunwoody, who has co-operated so well with my colleague and friend from the Yukon on this matter, was a Member of Parliament, it may be that she at one time represented me.
Having grown up in England, I think that I understand very well some of these springs and the psychology which leads to this type of regulation being proposed. As a columnist in The Globe and Mail so wittily pointed out: "Anthropomorphism is a very deep strain within the education and upbringing of the English". I am sure there are English children who believe, as I did, that rabbits run around in little blue vests, and hedgehogs might be dressed in the style and manner of Victorian grandmothers.
There is also the urban psychology. I will not go into too much detail of fox hunting in the United Kingdom, a barbarous relic described by the poet, Siegfried Sassoon, "as the

June 1, 1988
unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable". After all, we must be fair and acknowledge that many of those whose opinions and views are behind this labelling regulation that is proposed are also opposed to fox hunting.
I would take up the point as to what constitutes cruelty, and others have made it very well. We eat steaks and we wear leather shoes. 1 respect those who avoid those things. But so many of us, in so many ways, use animals, and I believe it is far-fetched for anyone to suggest that there is more cruelty in the harvest of wild fur than there is in the confinement, breeding, and slaughter of domestic animals, whether it be for food or leather.
Let us remember the point raised that trappers do not use only the fur. They use carcasses for their own food as well as for the food of their dogs. Let us remember that nowadays, with the transition of the centuries, the fur trade and the fur harvest is so deeply entrenched in the psychology of the aboriginal people of this country that many of them see it, and quite correctly, as being their major link to that land with which they identify, that land and natural environment of which they see themselves as part, as a seamless continuum without the discontinuities of man and nature, the juxtaposition that we in our western way of thinking impose upon that environment.
Let us remember that the trapper is truly the conservationist, that no species has ever been driven into extinction by trapping, and particularly not by trapping undertaken by aboriginal people who are 60 per cent of the trappers in Canada, and perhaps 85 per cent of the trappers in my riding.
Those hunters and trappers, users of animals as they are, like the vast majority of all us, whether we live within an urban, rural, or remote environment, are the true conservationists; these are the true environmentalists. They were not the ones who drove into extinction the dodo or the passenger pigeon. That must be laid at the doorstep of those who came later.
I am somewhat reminded, in viewing this proposed fur labelling legislation by the Government of the United Kingdom, of the words of Neville Chamberlain in justifying appeasement: "Czechoslovakia is a far-off country of which we know nothing". It appears that these regulations are being introduced in the spirit that Canada is a far-off country of which Britain knows nothing, or indeed very little.
I believe that the misinformation and the lack of information that has been present in the public treatment of this issue in the United Kingdom reflects no credit on the Government of that country, and indeed reflects little credit on the popular views of many people in that country. It cannot be said that the mode of death of an animal, even one that is trapped in a leg-hold trap is something that is wilfully or arbitrarily cruel. Death is never, of course, an attractive reality. Elowever, to say this is more cruel, more arbitrary than the death of an animal kept for slaughter is making a judgment that reflects not values but simply cultural perceptions.
I recall the seal campaign and the way that that affected the livelihood of many of Canada's aboriginal peoples and the way it led to a verifiable increase in the social misery indicators in the aboriginal communities. They saw their livelihood disappear because of arbitrary decisions made in another country. Let us not be deceived. This labelling regulation is but part of a campaign aimed at the complete elimination of the fur industry. That will cause untold disruption to the economy of Canada, and particularly that of our poorest communities, the aboriginal communities. The final irony will be that these communities will be left in their final agony through the elimination of that trade which gave them their very existence.
I would of course like to continue on this subject for a very long time tonight but obviously will not do so out of respect, but only for yourself and those who serve us here, as well as for my colleagues who have limited their own remarks. However, let us not forget that the precedent being set will allow speculative, at best, and fundamentally dishonest at worst, propaganda labels to be attached to fur goods in the U.K. Let us ask the Government to pursue this further. Let us ask the Government to make a commitment to further increase research and development of humane trapping within Canada. Let us ask the Government to put this matter on the agenda with the United Kingdom at the Toronto summit. Let us urge Members of the British Parliament to consider and pass Early Day Motion 651 which speaks so eloquently of the disruption and deterioration of aboriginal societies in Canada should this labelling legislation go into law in the U.K.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) here to speak?


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Yes, I am.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There has been agreement to allow the last few Members to speak for about five to seven minutes. If the Hon. Member is able to participate in the debate in that short period of time, I will recognize him.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not aware of that arrangement. I was 100 miles out of Ottawa at a meeting tonight and I just got in and I wanted to speak in this debate.
I simply wanted to say that this debate is indeed not a modern occurrence. It is an historic debate in Canada over the fact that Great Britain is discouraging the sale of Canadian fur in that country and that pressure groups from the animal lobby are going after British politicians, obviously with results. Our minds must wander back to the days when the fur traders travelled up and down the Ottawa River past my riding for 150 miles. The canoes were those of the Northwest Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, British money. They came to Canada in those early pioneer days when Canada's staple crops, if we want to call them crops, were fish, fur and timber.
June 1, 1988

Grain was added later. Yet today, without proper research, without proper consideration for the economy of this country, we see a large organized pressure group in Great Britain come forward actually to attack the fur trade as it now exists in Canada. I must say that I am of British ancestry and I am very disappointed in what is taking place in Great Britain, as I think most Canadians are.
In our dealings with Britain, indeed other European countries, we have always been looked upon as a sort of good neighbour and good friend. Now we are being tossed aside. However, it is not the first time that Canada has been tossed aside by Britain and our other friends. In 1903 Great Britain and the United States came together and made an agreement, and Canada lost in the establishment of the boundary between Alaska and British Columbia.
Today, with the trapping industry in Canada going through a very difficult time with prices down one-third from what they were last year and with 100,000 or more Canadians who depend, if not entirely at least in part, on this industry for a living, I think it is time for our British friends to remember that Canada has done a tremendous amount for them over the years, to say nothing of the support we gave them and Europe through two major world wars. We can see the evidence of that as we look at the tombstones of our soldiers across Europe.
I think it is sad that we have come to this stage where animal lobbyists in Great Britain, without any research into the commerce flowing back and forth across the Atlantic, without any respect for the history or traditions of our two countries, are attacking this industry.
I heard one Hon. Member speaking just a little while ago about the fur hats of the Grenadier Guards in Great Britain. They forget where those hats came from. These groups are throwing that tradition aside, and it is ironic because if any country in the world loves tradition, it is Great Britain.
I would simply appeal tonight to the British Parliament, to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet colleagues,
to listen to these comments from the Canadian Parliament. Let them give a second thought to the situation and remember some of the things Canada has done for Great Britain at great expense in lives and great cost in food during a time when that nation was in crisis. We came to their rescue. Now, during a time of peace, we should be cementing that relationship. We should be building bridges of trade rather than tearing them down.
If there is any issue which has ever been brought up in this Parliament or in the British Parliament that relates to the previous days of the British Empire and the Commonwealth up to the present day, it is that of the fur trade. Let us ask our British friends tonight to reconsider this move and let us ask the general public in Great Britain and the animal lobbyists how they would feel if, all of a sudden, their very livelihood was cut out from underneath them. No matter what industry they work in, if suddenly tomorrow morning their work was no more, how would they feel? That is precisely what they are doing to many Canadians in this country today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me say these few words. I hope this debate in this Parliament of Canada tonight drives the message home to British parliamentarians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to thank the Hon. Member and all other Hon. Members who participated in this debate, as well as our staff, the clerks, the Table Officers, the pages and the media.
Pursuant to Standing Order No. 29(12) I am satisfied that the debate has now been concluded, and therefore I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. MacDougall) agreed to


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 12.30 a.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.30 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 2, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers