1988-06-28

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have received a message from the Chief Electoral Officer advising me of his resignation effective January 1, 1989.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the sixteenth annual report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling seven tariff remission orders. Five of these orders will remit over $20 million in duty on textiles and apparel during a ten-year period. One will remit over $20 million in duty on tires over a five-year period.
The tabling of these remission orders meets the commitment made to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with respect to greater accountability and transparency in the tax and tariff systems.


PETITIONS
Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to S.O. 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Govenment's response to the 40 petitions bearing the following numbers: Nos. 33224552 to 332-4557 inclusively; 332-4570, 332-4574 to 332-4576 inclusively; 332-4586, 332-4587, 332-4594, 332-4597 to 3324601 inclusively; 332-4609, 332-4611, 332-4615, 332-4621, 332-4642, 332-4650, 332-4654, 332-4665, 332-4669, 332-4671 to 332-4674 inclusively; 332-4677, 332-4687, 332-4689 to 3324691 inclusively; and 332-4696 to 332-4699 inclusively.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This report deals with the subject of misleading advertising and recommends major changes to the Competition Act such as the inclusion of a class action procedure and appropriate administrative remedies to ensure consumer redress for misleading advertising.
After hearing witnesses on this subject for several months and travelling to Washington to see how they deal with misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices, your committee came to the conclusion that Canadian consumers should be better protected against those engaged in misleading advertising.
Our objective during the investigation was to find ways to improve the current system. We believe our recommendations do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties who participated in our work over the past several

June 28, 1988
Petitions
months. An atmosphere of genuine co-operation prevailed at all times. This report reflects a consensus of opinion and we hope it will lead to a renewed debate on the issue of class action suits.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, indeed honour, to present pursuant to Standing Order 106 a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who are of the opinion that the Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a trade agreement. I suspect these people have actually read the agreement and have come to that conclusion, unlike the Minister.
They believe that the proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and therefore undermine Canada's ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. Since the trade deal failed to provide us with secure access to the U.S. market and threatens a loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, they call upon Parliament to dissolve now and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade deal during a national general election.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two petitions from Canadians from Toronto, Scarborough, Brampton, and other points in that immediate area. They humbly pray and petition Parliament. Whereas 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 control foreign ownership effectively, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interest of Canada, or to equalize opportunities between the regions, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from residents of Seal Cove on Grand Manan Island in New Brunswick, where
the residents claim that the federal Government is discriminating against the community by not allowing them tax deductions under the northern allowance.
They also claim that they have just as much right to the deductions as residents of dozens of communities in Nova Scotia and hundreds of communities in Quebec and Newfoundland. Therefore, they pray and call upon Parliament to designate and add Seal Cove, New Brunswick to the eligibility list.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I also have several other petitions from New Brunswick residents, in particular from the villages of Saint-Antoine, Saint-Paul, Buctouche, Cocagne, Shediac, Saint-Thomas, Richibucto Village, Sainte-Marie, Saint-Louis-de-Kent, Grande Digue, Sainte-Anne-de-Kent, R.R.l (Buctouche) and again, Sainte-Anne.
These petitioners contend that they, as residents of rural areas in New Brunswick, are the victims of certain injustices and that the federal Department of Employment and Immigration failed to take into consideration the differences between rural and urban areas when it increased the period of eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits from 10 to 16 weeks. They are demanding that the governement revert to the original 10 week eligibility period.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions on behalf of a number of citizens from Toronto, Vancouver, and Halifax. They suggest that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will affect the very fabric of Canadian society, that the Mulroney Government does not have a mandate to negotiate such a deal, that it will reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs we need, and that it would implicate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore they believe the House of Commons should ensure that a national debate take place and result in a national general election before the agreement is signed.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present four petitions to the House of Commons on behalf of residents mainly from Halifax West but also from other parts of Halifax County in the Province of Nova Scotia and other centres across Canada.
The concern in each petition is about the Supreme Court of Canada decision rendering invalid Section 251 of the Criminal
June 28, 1988

Code of Canada. Each petition asks the House of Commons to consider a law that will protect the life of the unborn.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have another of the many petitions that have come to the House on behalf of my Bill C-204. I suppose this should now be a message to the Senate rather than to the House. Nevertheless, these petitioners are from Deer Island, St. Andrews, and St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
Whereas cigarette smoking is Canada's major preventable health hazard and is responsible for 35,000 Canadian deaths each year, and whereas secondary smoke is implicated in the deaths of 500 involuntary smokers each year, they request that Parliament pass the Non-Smokers Health Act, Bill C-204, to protect the health of Canadians by restricting the promotion of tobacco and guaranteeing smoke-free air to Canadian workers and travellers.


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of Powell River, British Columbia, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation immediately that will protect the unborn child from the moment of conception.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present two petitions containing a total of 301 signatures from five Calgary ridings and the riding of Bois River, organized by Wolfgang Rochow and Reverend Hilsden.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to protect the life of the unborn child.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 118 signatures, which was sent in by Jean Thompson.
The petition states that whereas a motion to provide for the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution Act, 1982 passed the House of Commons on May 2, 1988, and whereas the outcome of this vote reflects the true sentiments of Canadians, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to act upon the issue of constitutional protection for property rights by bringing forth and passing requisite legislation.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to rise and present these petitions which have been properly certified.
These constituents who reside in the riding of Kent recognize that the condition known as schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada affecting about 1 per cent of the population,
Order Paper Questions
causing severe mental anguish to patients as well as their families. However, research efforts dedicated to schizophrenia are extremely limited.
Therefore, the undersigned humbly pray that Parliament will ensure that research efforts in the future will be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians continue to be concerned about the plight of our country's homeless. It is my duty this morning to present these petitions signed by residents of Fort Erie, London, Toronto, Ontario, Kelowna, B.C., Mississauga, Ontario, Kingston, Chicoutimi, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Richmond Hill, Ontario and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
The signatories to these petitions object to the fact that more than 100,000 Canadians were homeless last year and that the number of homeless is steadily rising. They also deplore the ever-shrinking number of affordable housing units and the government's failure to take action to resolve this problem.
For these reasons, the signatories to these petitions humbly request that Parliament take immediate action to provide all Canadians with clean, affordable housing and to establish social reintegration programs so that these disadvantaged Canadians can once again become members of society.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to submit three petitions signed by a number of electors from the Province of Alberta and the Province of Ontario. These petitions have all been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
The signatories protest the free trade agreement. They believe that it constitutes a threat to the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty. They also protest the Government's failure to consult the people and demand that an election be held so that the views of the people of Canada may be ascertained in respect of an agreement they have not, up until now, had an opportunity to consider and upon which they have not voiced their opinion heretofore.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred Questions Nos. 358 and 359.

June 28, 1988
Customs Tariff
These answers are very lengthy, and I would ask that you consider that these answers have been read.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity): What is the final cost of the inquiry headed by the Hon. Willard Z. Estey into the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB) and the Northland Bank?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: The final cost of the operations of the inquiry headed by the Hon. Willard Z. Estey into the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB) and the Northland Bank was $1,493,000. This amount does not include the legal expenses incurred by the Department of Finance and the Office of the Inspector General of Banks which total $1,785,000.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity): 1.	Were lawsuits involving the Government initiated by individuals or other bodies as a result of the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank (CCB) and the Northland Bank and, if so (a) how many (b) how many of these are still ongoing?
2.	What are and what will be the total legal costs incurred by (a) individuals or other bodies who have initiated legal action (b) the Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1. Individuals or other bodies have not sued the Government as a direct result of the failures of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. However, the Government is involved as a defendant in three lawsuits indirectly relating to the failure of these banks, and these are still ongoing.
2. The legal costs of those who brought the lawsuits are unknown, and not likely to be ascertainable, being subject to solicitor and client privilege. The Attorney General is defending two of the above lawsuits while outside counsel has been engaged in the third. Legal costs of the outside counsel to date amount to $4,878.67, and it is not possible to estimate the total legal costs at this time.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Thomas Hockin: that Bill C-135, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff (code 9956), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present to the House today Bill C-135, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, for second reading. This Bill has being introduced in order to extend for a specified period the statutory authority which allows Canadian customs officials to prohibit the importation of obscene material and hate propaganda into Canada.
The Government is bringing in this Bill at this time because the authority provided under the Customs Tariff which prohibits the importation of hate propaganda, as well as obscene, seditious or treasonable materials, expires on June 30, 1988. This provision allows the Government to prevent the importation of the most virulent forms of violent, degrading and dehumanizing materials such as child pornography, depictions of violence against women, and many other things which are so repugnant to Canadians.
As Members of the House will recall, a sunset clause was initially inserted under this authority in 1985 in anticipation of new legislation on pornography which was to include amendments to the Criminal Code. The original sunset clause has since been amended on two separate occasions in order to extend the prohibition authority while the proposed pornography legislation was under consideration by Parliament.
While the provisions of Bill C-54 may be a matter of some debate, I do not believe that any Member of this House would want pornographic materials to enter the Canadian market unrestricted. I believe that as Members of Parliament we owe it to the Canadian public to ensure that such materials continue to be prohibited from entry.
Therefore I urge all Members to join with me this morning in giving unanimous and speedy approval to this technical amendment to extend the period of effect of this provision until December 31, 1989 and thereby ensure that there will be no lapse in the prohibition on the importation of obscene material and hate propaganda. The content is not changed. We are staying with the status quo. All we are doing with this Bill is extending the deadline for 18 months to December, 1989.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments on Bill C-135, which amends the Customs Tariff by extending the period during which a definition of pronography may be used by customs officers to stop at our borders pornographic material that someone is trying to bring into Canada.
June 28, 1988

Unfortunately matters are not quite as simple as the Minister who has just spoken would have us believe. The Minister is bringing before the House Bill C-135, which at first sight is designed simply to extend the definition for this tariff code for one year.
However, things are a little more complicated than that, and Bill C-135, which is being brought in by the governement, is intended not merely to extend the tariff code but also to conceal the government's failure to bring before the House a real bill dealing with pornography and hate literature.
This is not the first time the government has brought back to us a measure aimed at extending these provisions. To sketch in the background of the situation, Mr. Speaker,...

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that under the Customs Tariff Act customs officials are empowered to forbid entry into Canada of material of an immoral or indecent character. The definition of what constituted obscene material under the Customs Tariff Act used to be broader than the definition of obscenity contained in Section 159(8) of the Criminal Code.
This did not pose a problem until March, 1985 when the Federal Court of Appeal found that the obscenity provisions of the Customs Tariff Act were so vague as to be an unreasonable limit on the freedom of expression guarantee contained in Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore the court struck down these provisions and, until Parliament acted in April, 1985, there were no restrictions on the importation of obscene materials.
The Tory Government came into power and in April, 1985, instead of bringing in comprehensive legislation dealing not only with the entry into Canada and the dissemination within Canada but with the printing in Canada, the showing of obscene materials, and the dissemination of hate propaganda material, the Government decided to operate by way of a stopgap measure which at the time was known as Bill C-38. Bill C-38 in fact incorporated the obscenity and hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code into the Customs Tariff Act. I think the Minister will have to agree that this is what happened in April, 1985.
The problem is that Bill C-38 was introduced for only one year and it lapsed on June 13, 1986. In other words, during the course of that one year the Government did not find time to put together a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with obscene material, with pornography, and with hate literature.
What did it do a year later since it had not found the time to do the proper thing? It brought before the House Bill C-111, as Your Honour may remember, because Your Honour is very assiduous in attending this House. Your Honour must remember that in June, 1986 Bill C-l 11 was brought in, which
Customs Tariff
Bill extended the application of these obscenity and propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff Act until December 31, 1987.
However, after a second year the Government had not yet brought before the House and passed a proper piece of legislation, so what did it do? In December, 1987 it came forward with Bill C-87 to extend further the stop-gap measure by one year.
What is happening this year? The Government is bringing forward Bill C-135 to further extend the provisions by one year. The real reason for all these extensions is the failure of the Government to pass new pornography legislation which would address the definition problems contained in both the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff Act.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Government's new pornography legislation, Bill C-54, which I must admit it tried to pass through the House, did not wash. The legislation was decried. It was criticized by several elements in our society. It was depicted as backwards and Victorian. I also remember Members in this very House saying that it went much too far, that it would impose undue constraints even on libraries which would have to post signs stating that certain books contain material purported to be either obscene or pornographic because of an ill-advised piece of legislation, Bill C-54. In the opinion of some it would even criminalize normal adult sexual activity.

What happened is very simple: the government did not pass Bill C-54, it left it on the Order Paper. The government saw the country was against Bill C-5 and it didn't try to get it passed.
So today we have reached a point where the last extension of a definition of obscenity, of pornography, which allowed our customs officers to stop such material at the border, is running out, since Bill C-97, which was brought in last year, "expires" this week, on June 30, in two days, in other words, as it's already June 28.
The government, having failed to bring in a reasonable piece of legislation, containing definitions of pornography that would be acceptable in Canada (unlike Bill C-54, which was not acceptable to a majority of Canadians), now finds itself obliged once again to extend this provision for a year, to gain time. I don't wish to impute motives to the government, but this does give the impression that the government is trying to buy time so it can come before the people at the next election without really having tackled the problem of pornography in Canada, without having done its duty by bringing in legislation that would also cover hate literature.
This is what really lies behind Bill C-135, which at first sight is perfectly innocuous since it consists of exactly one line. I'll read it to you, Mr. Speaker, it's extremely simple. It has only the one clause, clause 1, which reads as follows:

June 28, 1988
Customs Tariff
Code 9956 in Schedule VII to the Customs Tariff is amended by striking
out the works following paragraph (d) thereof and substituting the following
therefor:
and I quote:
"(This code expires December 31,1989.)"
So all this mysterious language, which at first sight seems very simple, contitutes not just an extension of a customs tariff but a way for the Government to shirk its responsibilities and try to make it to the next elections without really having tackled the problem of pornography and hate literature in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the Government is putting off the admission that it made a mistake in presenting an unacceptable piece of legislation like Bill C-54, and putting off the drafting of another bill that would be more reasonable, more in line with the views of the majority of Canadians today, in the Canada we live in now. It is quite obvious that without an adequate bill defining appropriately what is obscene, what is pornographic, we don't have much choice but to vote for this extension of the customs tariff, so that at least unacceptable pornographic material doesn't get into Canada from other countries. But that doesn't really solve the problem of pornography, which can be home-grown. The government is evading its responsibilities.
It is thus with regret that we are going to support Bill C-135, but I wanted to review for you, Mr. Speaker, all the events that led up to this Bill, events the Government has no right to be proud of.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to represent my Party on Bill C-135 this morning. My remarks will not be long. I feel that this is an experience that we have endured-and I use the word advisedly-before, in regard to the extension of the expiry date of the Customs Tariff respecting the prohibition on the import of pornographic materials and hate literature. It is a rather sad irony that we are forced to do this again, for I believe the third time, and particularly that we are forced to do so because of a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal.
That judgment, after all, ruled on the applicability of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that when that Charter was passed most of us thought that it would be something that could be used to protect the weaker members of our society against the sort of aggression that the importation of pornography and hate literature represents.
By the perverse machinations of the legal system it came up with a ruling that rather made it easier to import pornography and hate literature into Canada. I think that it is a sad reflection on the way in which power has been vested in the judiciary in our society and taken away from the democratically elected organs of society that we are forced to do this now again, as I said, for the third time.
I should take this opportunity to point out to Canadians and to Members of the House the very narrow distinction, if any exists, between pornography and hate literature. We in this Party believe that much of what is today termed pornography is in fact hate literature aimed at women and children and that the function of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be to protect society, and thus women and children, from those forms of hate literature.
Because of the striking down of provision 99210 in the Customs Tariff which prohibited, and I quote, "the importation of books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, photographs or representations of any kind of a treasonable or seditious or of an immoral or indecent character", we have amended the Customs Tariff. The other reason we are amending the Customs Tariff is of course the fact that we have not had a Bill passed in this House which defines and outlaws pornography and hate literature.
My hon. friend from Saint-Jacques pointed out that simply the importation was governed by the Customs Tariff and that there was no provision in Bill C-135 that would effectively control locally produced obscene or hate propaganda materials.
The Government has been successful to a limited degree by providing a tighter definition of obscene material in the Customs Tariff. I do not believe the insertion of a sunset clause was unwise, but it is because the sunset clause and its latest reincarnation expire this weekend that we have to come forward with this motion to extend that sunset clause for 18 months, and it has to be by means of a Bill.
I sincerely hope, and I am sure all Canadians share this sentiment whatever are their views on the matter of pornography and hate literature, that within 18 months either this Government or our Government which will succeed it, will manage to bring in a workable definition of pornography and hate literature that can be widely supported within the Canadian community and can be applied not only to prevent the importation of such materials but also to prevent their local production.
By the operation of Bill C-135, obscene material according to Section 159 and hate propaganda according to Section 281.3 of the Criminal Code, always assuming the perverse and capricious other House does not interfere with the passage thereof, will be prohibited from introduction into Canada for a further 18 months.
Let us not lose sight of the objective that we should have in this House, the objective of producing a workable definition of what is pornography, what is hate literature, what is erotica, and of enshrining that definition into law so that we can safeguard Canadians, particularly women and children, from the effects of what I believe can ultimately be included in the definition of hate propaganda.
June 28, 1988


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I think you have the consent of this House to refer Bill C-135 to Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Do I have the consent of the House? The Honorable Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, before going to Committee of the Whole, I would like to make a few comments at second reading, as I am entitled to do. I would also like to explain to my constituents and to those who are listening to us the reason for Bill C-135, An Act to amend the Customs Tariff (code 9956). This kind of thing is all Greek to a lot of people, and I would like to make sure that it's at least clear.
What the government is proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that the expiry date for the application of the Criminal Code to code 9956 of Schedule VII of the Customs Tariff be extended. It reads as follows:
Books, printed paper, drawings, paintings, prints, or representations of any kind which:
a) are deemed to be obscene within the meaning of section 159(8) of the Criminal Code.
You have to look at the Criminal Code to understand what that means, and section 159(8) of the Criminal Code reads as follows, Mr. Speaker:
(8) ["Obscene".] For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.
Mr. Speaker, section 9956 continues as follows:
(b)	constitute hate propaganda within the meaning of subsection 281.3(8) of the Criminal Code.
Section 281.3(1) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
(Warrant of seizure) A judge who is satisfied by information upon oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court is hate propaganda, shall issue a warrant under his hand authorizing seizure of the copies.
Thus it is possible for a judge to take action. I return to section 9956, and I quote:
(c)	are of a treasonable character within the meaning of section 46 of the Criminal Code.
Now, section 46 of the Criminal Code states:
46. Everyone commits high treason who, in Canada,
(a)	kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty,
(b)	levies war against Canada,
(c)	assists an enemy, etc.
It goes on at length, Mr. Speaker, but essentially it covers treason and other offences against the authority and person of the Queen.
Customs Tariff
(d)	are of a seditious character within the meaning of sections 60 and 61 of
the Criminal Code.
That is, persons who take part in an organized rebellion against public authority.
Sections 60 and 61 of the Criminal Code read as follows:
Sedition
(1)	Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.
(2)	A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.
It explains what is meant by seditious words, libel, conspiracy and intention, and section 61 sets out a few exceptions.
Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced Bill C-135 in order to extend the life of the aforementioned sections because it does not have the courage to bring forward Bill C-54, which promised and proposed amendments that would provide Canadians with better legislation on pornography and hate literature.
Mr. Speaker, this is yet another sign of a government that is continually wavering, unable to make a firm decision and proceed with a bill it originated, devised and drafted itself, a government that is indecisive because it lacks courage.
Naturally, we will not oppose Bill C-135. I would like the government to know, however, that its lack of courage, its inability to act, to make decisions, to put firm legislation before the Canadian people, were discussed on television again yesterday.
I could recite the history of the bills that have languished in the House for a year or more. Already three bills have been passed to delay introducing provisions dealing with items that may be pornographic or seditious.

There was Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff Act. It received Royal Assent on April 13, 1985. At the time the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) argued that while the Liberal Party supported the Bill it was only a stop-gap measure. We said that in 1985. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal pressed for a response, in terms of legislation, to the Badgley and Fraser reports. I recommend Members read Hansard at pages 3604 to 3606 of April 2, 1985, wherein the Hon. Member for Mount Royal made a very good and thoughtful speech on the subject.
Later on, Bill C-lll further extended the code until December 31, 1987. It received Royal Assent on June 26, 1986. Again, I invite Members to read Hansard at page 14,306 to page 14,311. Still later, Bill C-87, an Act respecting the harmonized tariff system, received Royal Assent on December 17, 1987, and extended the code to June, 1988. Now, two days before the expiry of the code, government Members come into the House and say: "Hey, quickly pass this Bill, please, because we would like to act", and conserve or reserve, or pickle code 9956 of the Customs Tariff.

June 28, 1988
Customs Tariff
We only have a small number of MPs on this side. It will not be long. We do not mind telling the Government with its large numbers that if it decided to have it its way democracy would possibly be at work. They have to make decisions. They have to make up their minds what they want. They have Bill C-54 before the House, which indeed they probably will not call; they do not have the courage to call it.
As a lady said on TV last night, "if you don't like it, at least let us look at it to amend it or withdraw the darn thing and come in with something stronger, more in keeping with Canadian expectations". However, putting off and extending things is a sign of indecisiveness, a sign of those who do not know what they want, a sign of those who should not be governing the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary requested that the Bill go to Committee of the Whole instead of to a legislative committee, which would require unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Considering the urgency of the matter and the Government's intention to have this legislation proclaimed early, we will so agree.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-135, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff (code 9956).
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the Minister a simple question. It has been the practice of the Government to ask for the code to be extended for one year, from 1985 to 1986, from 1986 to 1987, from 1987 to 1988. Now we see that it is to be extended until December 31, 1989.
Could the Minister explain why he wants it to go for a year and a half now? Are they stretching things even further now and the next time it will be two or three years? I just want to know.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for two or three years. We are asking for 18 months. The Hon. Member is quite right. It is not 12 months; it is 18 months. We want to work with Parliament to make sure that Bill C-54 is properly debated in Parliament and that it receives proper consideration in the country at large. We felt that a period longer than 12 months was necessary to do it. To go beyond 18 months would
be saying something else. It would be saying that we do know when the change will be occurring. The 18 months is our attempt to consult widely, to listen to Parliament, but to get it done as soon as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister is confirming what I was thinking. He is telling us that Bill C-54 is as dead as a doornail and that the election will intervene before its discussion in the House.
They are not actually talking about serious discussion of the Bill at this time. Indeed they are canning Bill C-54, aren't they?


Thomas Hockin: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. We are determined to move ahead with this Bill, but we also are determined to make sure that proper debate is held and that Members do not feel pushed with an unreasonable time frame in this regard.
If in fact we were shelving the issue as the Hon. Member says, we would be asking for unlimited time, for three or four years, or whatever. Eighteen months will give us the time to do proper consultations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I suggest to the Minister that in that case, if he wants serious debate, why not call the Bill now?


Thomas Hockin: We have had this Bill before the House on five separate occasions already. The Opposition has not seen fit to give approval to the Bill. We will continue to bring it forward and hopefully find some co-operation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Co-operation is what you are getting. Serious debate is what we are looking for. Don't put the blame on the Opposition.
The Government proposes the agenda to the House for study. We just try to dispose of it in a democratic way and in a serious manner. If the Minister is asking for serious commitments on this side, he will get them. He will also get serious debate.
Bring on Bill C-54. We will amend it, possibly, because we do not like it in its present form. We are not the only ones; I think the Minister himself and many of his colleagues are also hesitant about Bill C-54 at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be
read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: that the Bill be read the third time and
passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
June 28, 1988


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act

Hon. Bill McKnight (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
Hon. Gerald. S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)) moved that Bill C-137, an Act to provide for incentives to assist in financing exploration for mineral resources and hydrocarbons in Canada and to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: the second reading of, and concurrence in, an amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act (designated lands).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise at this time and express to the House my appreciation for the way we have been able to co-operate on this important piece of legislation. It sets a milestone. I want to indicate to my colleagues in the other two Parties that it will benefit all as we proceed down this road.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the amendment coming back from the Senate on Bill C-115. 1 want to take this opportunity to say that this was a result of co-operation by a large number of people representing different levels of government, the Minister, his associates, the opposition Parties, and the initiative, I might say, of the Kamloops Indian Band. The Minister will recognize that it was the Kamloops band many years ago which first brought this initiative forward. Under the very positive leadership of Chief Manny Jules, as the Minister has indicated we now see the completion of a very important step for native people in this country, an important step toward the realization of self-government and self-determination for native people.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to put before you for second reading today Bill C-137 to establish the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program. At this point I would like to thank the Opposition for agreeing to deal with this matter expeditiously because it is an important program for Canada.
[Stage Direction]
The program I announced on May 3 will be of great importance to the petroleum and mining exploration sectors of the Canadian economy. In that sense, the program has a specific target, but from a broader standpoint, it will have more widespread significance since all Canadians benefit, in the long run, from higher profits earned by any industry.
[Stage Direction]
The oil and gas industry employs many thousands of Canadians directly and indirectly. When we include the oil and the gas downstream and the metal fabrication components, we are really talking about one-quarter of a million direct jobs and many more thousands of indirect jobs for Canadians.
The purpose of this Bill is very simple. It is to provide an opportunity for junior exploration companies to maintain an adequate level of exploration financing by raising new equity through the use of flow-through shares. In this way they can continue to contribute to our economic objectives and to the type of country we hope to share into the 1990s and beyond. The program will provide a positive environment in which our exploration industries are free to do what they do best, namely, explore for, develop, and market Canada's mineral and hydrocarbon wealth.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), retained the flow-through share mechanism in the tax reform package which he introduced last year. We in the Government know that flow-through shares work. They provide funds efficiently for exploration and they have brought prosperity to many of the outlying regions of Canada. Even before tax reform the Government moved on a number of occasions since 1984 to improve flow-through share financing. We extended the period of eligibility so that expenses made in January and February could be claimed for taxation purposes for the previous year. The flow-through share mechanism was thus more responsive to the realities of winter drilling. With tax reform we also lowered taxes for the mining industry in line with general rate reduction, and the industry as a whole has started to do very well.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1988
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
However, with the unforeseen downturn in the stock market on October 19, economic conditions changed all equity markets including the market for exploration issues. Funds became more difficult to raise. This, combined with the planned phasing out of the Mining Exploration Depletion Allowance or MEDA over the next few years, gave us cause for concern. If I had to capsulize what this program is all about, I would say that it will bring sustained and ongoing growth for the mining and oil and gas industries.
CEIP, the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, will provide an estimated $210 million per year to these resource exploration sectors so that junior exploration companies, be they looking for oil and gas or minerals, will be able to maintain an adequate level of financing or exploration. This translates into about $700 million annually for exploration activity for projects which go ahead as a result of this program. It can be expected to generate about 12,000 person-years of employment. As Hon. Members of the House realize, most of those jobs will be in areas of Canada where we desperately need new job creation. The program will begin on January 1, 1989 for mining companies. For the oil and gas industry, the program will kick in on October 1, 1988. The different commencement dates stem from the different phase out schedules for MEDA and the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program on the energy or hydrocarbons side.
Eligible companies will be able to claim 30 per cent of their eligible exploration expenses, up to a maximum of $10 million in expenses per company per year. This is a direct incentive payment. It is not within the tax system. After all, a fundamental principle of a responsible Government is that public expenditures are not hidden in the tax system if at all possible. Otherwise we would lose the fiscal responsibility which the Government promotes because we believe that Canadians have a right to know how their money is being spent.
Let me say a word about the $10 million ceiling per company. We can target the money to smaller companies by placing a cap on individual claims. It is a fairly generous cap including a 30 per cent payment which would limit an applicant to receiving 30 per cent of a maximum of $10 million, or about $3 million a year. This meets the requirements of most exploration programs for junior exploration companies.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have planned to phase out the Mining Exploration Depletion Allowance over the next few years. The 30 per cent under CEIP is somewhat more generous than the previous depletion incentive, but we felt that this was warranted by current market conditions and as a result of what happened to the equity markets since October 19.
However, to allow us time to consult with industry and to implement this program, the Minister of Finance agreed in his announcement of May 3, 1988 to extend MEDA for individuals to the end of this year, December 31, 1988, at a full rate of 33 and one-third per cent. This will allow us time for a smooth
transition from MEDA to our new program, CEIP. The industry likes the particular arrangement very well. The 30 per cent rate will be guaranteed for two years until the end of 1990, after which it may be adjusted up or down according to market conditions and how much incentive is required to maintain healthy levels of exploration.
Mineral exploration expenses that will be eligible for CEIP include those incurred on primary or grass roots exploration by qualified companies financed through issuing flow-through shares. Those expenses are the ones that currently qualify for the Mining Exploration Depletion Allowance which can be flowed through to the investors. In the oil and gas sectors expenses which are purely exploratory in nature and financed by means of flow-through shares are eligible. CEIP will strengthen the flow-through share concept. Exploration companies or limited partnerships acting as their agents will apply for the incentives. Therefore, for all practical purposes the program reaches the same client groups that purchased flow-through shares before, and it brings approximately the same benefits which the earned depletion deduction would have provided to June, 1988.
While CEIP is aimed at junior companies that issue flowthrough shares for exploration activities, it is nevertheless acceptable by both public and private companies. However, CEIP is designed to encourage new investment capital for exploration. The regulations must include special rules to ensure that only exploration activity rather than developmental financed by this equity will qualify. These rules will be covered in the regulations which will be developed after consultation with industry and the Department of Finance, hopefully sometime this summer or very early fall.
For most investors the program will provide greater benefits than earned depletion. Repayment will be just as fast because firms will be able to submit applications four times per year. They will be able to submit them through five new regional offices that will themselves make a contribution to regional economic development.
Since announcing CEIP on May 3, we have been in constant consultation with the industry. In fact, at the end of May, we sent out a discussion paper entitled Proposed Rules for Canadian Exploration Program to obtain the views of the relevant industry associations, provincial and territorial Governments, and key investment community planners. In general we have received in general very favourable responses to this paper.
Over the summer months while officials in my Department are drafting regulations for this Bill, we will address the technical questions arising from our consultative process. Consultation rather than confrontation is a very important policy of this Government and it will be continued. Reasoned discussions about problems will lead to equitable solutions within the spirit of this program.
June 28, 1988
[Stage Direction]
In conclusion, this program provides financial incentives that do not run counter to the Government's tax reform initiatives. It maintains a balance between the oil, gas and mining sectors with respect to opportunities to raise funds for much needed exploration. It allows the industry to make decisions and allows the investors to make decisions. It is not a discretionary, bureaucratically driven grants program.
[Stage Direction]
Historically, flow-through shares have enhanced prosperity in many isolated regions in Canada where there is often only one industry other than mining or oil and gas.
In particular, this program will ensure that these regions will continue to benefit from the profits earned through exploration financed by flow-through shares.
[Stage Direction]
In my opinion, when economically disadvantaged regions of our country benefit from such a program as CEIP, then all of Canada benefits as well. The program we are establishing by passing this piece of legislation today is a good one and is supported by the mining industry, by the equity industry, and by the exploration industry. It fulfils a need and will ensure adequate exploration in Canada over the short term and mid term. This legislation deserves our full support.
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party have no option but to support this legislation because in fact the initiative began with this Party. A rose by any other name smells as sweet, and that is the situation we have here. This is not simply a name change but a change in the mechanism to a system of passing out cheques rather than a system of allowing people to withhold taxes. In any case, it amounts to the same thing.
To listen to the Minister, one would think that suddenly a light had gone on in the Government's head with regard to a great new regional development incentive. The fact is quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, the March 12 edition of Daily Press, northeastern Ontario's daily newspaper, contains the following headlines: "Liberal critic watches Wilson", "Finance Minister dismantling tool", and in a separate item, "NDP finance critic changes his tune on funding scheme".
The reality is that this measure was brought in by this Party when we were in government in 1983, a measure which has been eminently successful. After 1983, it took off as the source of 70 per cent of the financing behind mining exploration. It was a successful regional development tool. It was an idea that worked. It brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of investment to small mining companies in remote regions of Canada, and it created thousands of jobs.
What happened to it? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) saw fit to discontinue it. Yesterday, in the debate on the Estimates, we heard of all the jobs that had been created in Canada by the present Government. Jobs may have been created, but where have they been created? They have been created mostly in Toronto, not in the regions.
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
This was an initiative that created jobs in the regions where jobs were needed. The Minister just said that in his speech, and that is quite true. However, the purpose of the Minister of Finance was to do away with that program which provided hundreds of millions of dollars to small mining companies and therefore to put into jeopardy the thousands of jobs that had been created and the new jobs that might be created.
This was not really a deathbed repentance on the part of the Government, either. It was only through a great deal of pressure from a very formidable lobby headed by people from Kirkland Lake and Timmins in northern Ontario, and from Val d'Or and other mining areas in Quebec, a coalition of concerned mayors, company executives and individuals from all of those regions, that the Government was forced to change its mind.
As a matter of fact, this is really a rerun of the drama of pension deindexing. The very same thing happened. The Government decided to stop the indexing of old age pensions and there was a hue and cry across the country. Grey power rose up in the thousands all across Canada, and there was enough pressure in support of the Opposition's attacks upon the Government that the policy was changed. The same thing happened on flow-through shares.
The Minister of Finance decided that creating jobs in Toronto was enough, and he decided to do away with flowthrough shares. This powerful lobby came together and supported the Opposition in its attack on the Government. As a result, the Government's policy was changed. That is the reality.
We met with this coalition, the Canadian Save Flow Through Committee, on March 1. The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and I met with that group. It explained to us its great concern that the regions would be affected and that small mining companies which had work in progress would not be able to bring that exploration to fruition.
The Minister is quite right. It is not just northern Ontario and northern Quebec that benefits from this measure. In my own province there is gold exploration and exploration for other minerals on the island of Newfoundland. That exploration is about to come on stream, and it was thrown into jeopardy by this move.
We met with that coalition on March 1, and our finance critic, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gameau), emphasized in his speech to the group that the retention of this deduction would constitute an important facet of the regional development strategy of future Liberal Governments. It was this Party that brought in the initiative in 1983. It will be this Party that continues to have that initiative in our program as a successful tool for regional development.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides also noted that flow-through shares represented a practical instance of co-

June 28, 1988
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
operation between the private sector and the Government since, as the Minister said in his speech as well, and on that point he was quite right, they avoided the bureaucratic red tape which often comes with direct subsidies. That is the reality, and we in the Liberal Party not only want to continue this initiative but to see it created as a box of tax incentives which perhaps would function in a manner similar to RSPs.
This is not something that the Government has suddenly discovered. It is not a light that has gone on in the Government's head. Rather, it is a baseball bat that was beaten over the Government's head to bring it to its senses with regard to a sensible regional development policy. It is an idea that worked. It is an idea that the Government wanted to stop. It is an idea that, thank God, is going to be continued because of the pressure from this Party.
I would like also to quote from the March 12 edition of the Daily Press which carried the following headline:
NDP finance critic changes his tune on funding scheme.
The article went on to say:
Michael Cassidy is not one to make apologies.
The personable New Democratic finance critic in the House of Commons readily admits he was totally against the concept of flow-through shares as recently as December 1986.
I will read that again.
The personable New Democratic finance critic in the House of Commons readily admits he was totally against the concept of flow-through shares as recently as December 1986.
The article continued:
At that time, he said he felt flow-throughs benefited only Bay Street and large investors.
Who does he represent? Not the place I come from. However, he has changed his mind and thank God for that. The article went on to quote him as saying:
"I have given a lot of thought to flow-throughs and the depletion allowance in the last year or so,"-
If it takes a year, then let it take a year as long as they come up with good policies. He said:
"But they have turned into quite a regional development tool."
That is true. We knew that in 1983. That is why the then Liberal Minister of Finance brought in this legislation. It has worked, so we support it. We have no option because it is creating jobs in eastern Canada, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, and northern B.C., as well as, obviously, in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Those areas need job creation.
This is not a hand-out. This is an investment that is paying off in jobs. It is one that this Party, the originator of the idea, fully supports now and well into the future.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Of course, I would not like the occasion to go by without remarking on the Government's
conversion. Despite the efforts of the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien), at the time the White Paper was issued almost one year ago today the Government turned its back on northern Canada, including his riding, and decided to phase out the earned depletion allowance which was an essential part of the flow-through share program. Therefore, I suppose it is incumbent upon me to congratulate the Government for having come around


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -to the point of view expressed by the NDP. While it might take some interpretation, I appreciate the endorsement and I know that when we form the Government Members opposite will continue to endorse our policies in as generous and open way as they just did.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Strike the applause.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to the minority report that we submitted at the time the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs issued its report on tax reform. You will recall that the committee itself had a number of questions about the flow-through mechanism and recommended changes in what the Government was doing. Recommendation No. 9 of the NDP minority report urged the development of tax measures specifically targeted to smaller companies and to regions in need of investment. We stated in the fall of last year that the flow-through share provisions had benefited small companies but were so broadly designed that large, well-established corporations which did not need the assistance had also benefited.
When my friend from Labrador speaks to this issue he suggests that the Liberal program of 1983 was sufficiently desirable that it should have been maintained in its entirety. However, it was the abuses that arose under that program which eventually led to the need to take some action. When companies like Falconbridge, Inco, and Cominco took advantage of the flow-through provisions meant to benefit junior mining companies and promote new investment and new mines, it was clear that something was wrong. However, just as the Liberals had thrown away billions of taxpayers' dollars on the scientific research tax credit, there was also the threat that that would occur with the flow-through provision as designed by the Liberals and perpetuated for a while by the Progressive Conservatives.
The Hon. Member is correct that in the fall of 1986 my Party questioned the whole flow-through mechanism as it existed because of the abuses which had been put in place by the Liberals and perpetuated by the Progressive Conservatives. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) then turned around and decided to throw out the baby with bath water by throwing out the whole mechanism in a very brief phase-out. That created enormous inequity since there was a continuing program for the oil and gas industry similar to what is being enacted today which was not provided for the mining industry. It created enormous concerns in areas of northern Quebec, northern
June 28, 1988

Ontario, and the West which had simply not benefited. They had not had a chance to benefit from any regional development programs from the Liberals or Progressive Conservatives. Yet this was a program, as they pointed out so effectively, that was working. I will cite the estimates made by prospectors in Quebec, for example.
[ Translation]
A study done by the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec, for example, found that the flow-through share mechanism, an incentive associated with the mining sector, had contributed to 71 share issues in 1985, of which 33 involved flow-through shares, and to 25 strikes. It is estimated that these strikes will generate profits and jobs in the future. The projections are for about 66,000 jobs, a value added of $2,8 billion and a gross increase of about $300 million in federal and provincial government revenues.
Mr. Speaker, the residents and the communities that would like the flow-through share program to continue have shown how effective this program has been in depressed areas where the rate of unemployment was running as high as 20 per cent, as was the case in the riding of the Honourable Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien).


An Hon. Member:: Twenty-eight per cent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Twenty-eight per cent. But this rate of unemployement fell from 28 per cent to, I believe, about 7 or 8 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: Six per cent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Six per cent, according to the Member for Abitibi, all as a result of this program, Mr. Speaker. And what did the Conservative government do after dismantling the program in terms of providing specific benefits to regions such as the Abitibi and northern Manicouagan? It abandoned these regions. And it abandoned the Members representing these regions, Mr. Speaker. A campaign was launched by the New Democratic Party, by the Liberal Party, by prospectors, by the junior mining companies, by the chambers of commerce .. . For instance, a coalition was formed in Quebec. It included universities, CEGEP's, unions, chambers of commerce, mining associations, junior mining companies and so forth. Everyone was involved, even the Quebec government. The municipalities also jumped into the fray.
In the end reason prevailed. When I say that reason prevailed, I refer to the recommendations which we made about eight or nine months ago to urge the development of tax measures specifically targeted to smaller companies and regions in need of investment. Through Bill C-137, the Government has come up with a program which provides for a substitute for the earned depletion allowance in the form of the 30 per cent incentive payment on qualified exploration
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
expense. The term "Qualified corporation" has been defined and this will require some study. I hope this Bill has a chance to go to committee briefly because I would like to ensure that the words are okay. However, "qualified corporation" has been defined, as I understand it, in such a way as to ensure that major mining companies will not be able to draw tens of millions of dollars from this program as they were able to do from the flow-through share mechanism which existed previously under the Liberals and Conservatives. The Hon. Minister says that they will probably not bother because the maximum incentive in a year will be about $3 million.
They have not eliminated but have certainly limited the use of the flow-through mechanism for step out exploration by companies like Falconbridge and Inco, which I believe was a major abuse. At the time mineral prices were low, Falcon-bridge stepped in and took advantage of this program for its routine annual program of exploration, designed to ensure that 10 or 12 years of reserves are always available as a part of the normal functioning of its mine in Sudbury. I felt that was an abuse.
There is, therefore, a limitation of $10 million and a cap on maximum expenditure, although I am not quite clear what happens if the applications for funding exceed the cap. The Minister may want to comment on that at a later date. This means that the Government has now accepted the type of advice it was receiving from the industry and communities affected which saw that so much of this activity was coming from junior mining companies that would not have been able to carry out the exploration expenditure without the incentive of the flow-through program and the mineral exploration depletion allowance which are now being replaced with the incentives in this particular program.
In other words, we now have a program specifically targeted to smaller companies. It is not regionally located, but most mining activity does not take place on the outskirts of Toronto. It takes place in northern Quebec. It takes place in Labrador. It takes place in northern Ontario, it takes place in the northern parts of the Prairies and Territories, and in the interior and north of British Columbia, areas which otherwise would be suffering from high levels of unemployment, areas which have been ignored by government far too long, and in many cases areas where there are single-industry towns whose only hope under existing Governments of continuing to thrive and prosper is the discovery of new mineral deposits and the development of them within reach of their workforce, in order that people can move from one mine to another as old mines become less productive and profitable.
I make no apologies for the fact that the New Democratic Party, and myself as spokesperson, questioned the generosity, the scope, and the lack of focus of the flow-through mechanism in 1986; nor do I make any apology for the fact that we as a Party which has a skeptical view of corporate tax incentives listened to the people, the communities, and the industry concerned with respect to whether or not there was a means by which the flow-through mechanism could be enhanced,

June 28, 1988
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
maintained, and targeted in the way which is being proposed today.
My Leader, the Lion. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), dating back to the 1984 campaign and before has been challenged on this very question. People say that New Democrats are opposed to the corporate sector, any form of incentive, and any type of so-called tax give away to business because we are basically, it is said, anti-business. It is one thing to be skeptical and another to be ideologically blinded. I believe that skepticism is entirely appropriate when we are talking about defending the taxpayer and having regard for who is paying for corporate tax incentives as opposed to the benefit.


Mr. Boyer:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I appreciate the applause of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer). I am not quite sure what it means, except that the Conservatives anticipate who is going to form the Government after the election and are seeking to establish a friendly working relationship. I appreciate that very much.


Patrick Boyer: Don't read that much into it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is one thing to be skeptical and another thing, as I said, simply to say "no" categorically under any circumstances. My leader has made it clear that where it appears that an incentive to business is working effectively in terms of promoting jobs, research, economic development, and equality for women and minorities, to which I believe every Member of this House in all Parties would subscribe, and where it is clear that the benefits equal or exceed the cost of that particular incentive, that particular program should be considered very seriously.
That does not mean that it should be automatically accepted. There may be other means of better using the public's dollars. We must always remember that a dollar put into an incentive for junior mining corporations, for example, is a dollar which cannot be spent on other programs such as a national child care program, an affirmative action program for women or, dare I say it, a contribution to peace and common security by means of an improvement in our foreign aid program.
We must be careful with these dollars. However, we have said very consistently that where it is demonstrated that there is a real benefit, it makes sense to consider the matter very seriously. It is in that spirit that the New Democratic Party supports the principle embedded in Bill C-137 which is before us today.
I believe that the Government and the Liberal Party are to be criticized for the fact that the Government turned topsyturvy on this and for the fact that both the Government and the Official Opposition from time to time have been totally blind to the wasteful use and misuse of incentives to the corporate sector. The Liberals brought in the scientific
research tax credit about 1981 or 1982 and it was a bonanza. The stock markets and promoters in Vancouver, Montreal, and particularly Toronto, rubbed their hands with glee. In short order they had put together programs which have successfully taken $700 million or $800 million out of the pockets of average Canadians and put it into the hands of promoters for research, much of which has proven to be useless, not well founded and, in many cases, not well intended, and which under any circumstances have been an arrogant and total waste of public funds.
The Liberals drew on a very strong tradition which began with the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Finance in the early 1970s. He began this tradition of give aways to the corporate sector for which there was no ground at all. That has been carried on by the Progressive Conservatives. In fact, they let another $1 billion or more go out the door through the scientific research tax credit before they finally stopped up that tax loophole. It was as if they had cut an artery and let the taxpayers' money flow into the pockets of people who are now sitting back and laughing at the stupidity of the Liberal and Conservative Parties.
Let me come back to the question of flow-through shares and the tax reform proposals. The Finance and Economic Affairs Committee did a useful job in its work on this particular subject in the last year and a half. In our study of the White Paper on tax reform during the summer and fall last year we closely considered this question and said that there had to be an alternative mechanism. We argued strongly that the Department of Finance timetable for phasing out the earned depletion allowance was unfair, far too short, and would create enormous difficulties in the mining sector. Of course, that has occurred.
I believe that has occurred not solely because of the stock market collapse in October last year but because there has been a general continuation of economic activities. Most sectors have not experienced a sharp cut-back because of the stock market crash.
However, this announcement has hung like the sword of Damocles over the Canadian mining industry, particularly the junior mines for some time. The large mining companies have not been affected because they returned to profitability a year or two ago. Their mineral prices have been high and rising rapidly. Their profits have been quite substantial, and they were able to write off their exploration and development expenditures from their profits. They did not need to take advantage of the earned depletion allowance and flow-through share system.
However, the smaller companies that were not in a tax paying position were badly affected. What has occurred since then could best be described as a pre-election strip-tease by the Government. In December, in response to the recommendations of the Finance Committee, the Government decided to
June 28, 1988

extend by six months the final phase out of the 16 and two-thirds per cent earned depletion allowance to the end of 1989. Originally it was due to expire at the beginning, then the middle of 1989.
It is my understanding that the Hon. Minister is announcing that the present rate of earned depletion allowance will be extended to the end of 1989. I believe that is a change from what was already intended. Finally, we have legislation which I have indicated my Party supports.
There should be a lesson from this. We had a program that was well intended, had proven to be effective in terms of helping the mining industry in remoter parts of Canada, but which had faults at the same time. Too much of the benefit was going to either very wealthy investors or large mining companies, rather than junior mining companies developing new mines.
That program has been substituted with a program that will be substantially more modest in its cost. It is estimated to have an annual cost of about $70 million a year. The Minister's White Paper estimated that the cost of the flow-through mechanism might have been as high as $300 million a year. We have effected a substantial saving to the Treasury and have a program that is more targeted.
The third point is that the industry came to us, as it went to the Minister of State and the Government, to say that it does not want a program whereby it must make an application every time it believes it can do exploration. It does not want a program like the regional development incentive in which it must pass proposals by a bureaucrat in order to gain approval. It would like an assurance that its judgment would be trusted. Therefore it is prepared to spend $7 or $8 on an exploration program on which it can get back some money. For every $10 of qualified expenditure there will be a 30 per cent incentive or rebate. That means the industry will spend $7 and the Government will be prepared to chip in $3 in incentives.
The industry also said that it would prefer such a program. The New Democratic Party listened to that proposal carefully and looked at some of the alternatives. It is proving possible to focus the program in such a way that that particular wish of the mining industry is being satisfied. The industry will make the decisions about where explorations should go and what kind of exploration should proceed. If a mining company finds a promising new prospect and does not want to tip off its competitors about it, it can proceed with its drilling and stake its claim prior to notifying a government official about what it is doing, and still qualify for the exploration incentive. I believe that reflects how the program is being designed to be sensitive to the needs of the original industry.
There were legitimate questions about the cost of the program and its focus. It seemed that too much money was going to large companies that did not need the incentives and that the program should have focused on smaller companies. If it is possible to take that program and improve it, it should be possible in other areas as well.
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
My party believes that an exploration incentive program would ensure the health of the mining industry, and in particular the health of the smaller companies. This program is an example of what other incentives could do for manufacturing industries. For instance, instead of handing out all kinds of incentives to people in the hope that jobs will be created, specific areas could be targeted to ensure that the taxpayers' money is not being wasted and that the benefits arising from the federal program are in line with the costs to the taxpayer.
I believe that in future, when we have, I hope, the opportunity to design a fairer, more equitable tax system than the old one, even though it was instituted by the Conservative Party's white paper and tax reform proposal, it will be possible in many sectors to effect the same kind of reform as that proposed today in Bill C-137.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying to my friend from Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien), who worked for this with the Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) ... it should be remembered that those Members had to seek support in industry and the Opposition parties.
Our party, as the Honourable Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) noted in his quotation from the North Bay Nugget, I believe, or the Timmins Press, affirmed its support for the flow-through shares program in March 1987, only two or three months after objecting to the previous program as a whole. However, it took the Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) (Mr. Merrithew) and the Minister of finance (Mr. Wilson) until May 1988 to issue a joint statement to the effect that, finally, the government would do something to meet the needs of regions affected by the government's decision to eliminate flow-through shares and previous incentives.
Mr. Speaker, it has taken 14 months, and it is only through the efforts of the people of the minig regions, such as my friend the former rector of the University of Quebec at Abitibi, Mr. Rene Trudel, that this issue has come before the House of Commons. It is through the efforts of the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec and other associations, of all the flowthrough share committees, the people who came here with their "Go with the flow" buttons to support flow-through shares. It is primarily through their efforts, Mr. Speaker, that the government was finally persuaded.
If the Member for Abitibi and his colleague from Timiskaming, Ontario, had had to go it alone, there would have been no change and mining areas would be in very difficult economic straits because of the decline in exploration that is ending already and will become worse in the coming months.
It is because our party was prepared to look at the region's needs objectively, to work with people there, to indicate, as we have done today, that we are ready, despite the Free Trade Agreement, despite everything else we are opposed to, to co-

June 28, 1988
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
operate in ensuring that this bill is passed. Mr. Speaker, it is thanks to all that, ultimately, that this step forward has been taken.
As I just said, I believe the details must be given some consideration. I don't know how this could be worked out, perhaps a legislative committee could spend two or three days on it. I don't know what discussions have been held among the House Leaders of the three parties regarding referral of this Bill to Committee. I have some questions about that, simply to reassure myself that, for example, this is really a program for junior mining companies and not a disguised program with hidden benefits for the big mining companies that won't be getting benefits. But although I'm suggesting referral to a legislative committee, I know we are committed to ensuring passage of the Bill before we adjourn in July for the summer recess, for the holidays, and we will keep that promise.
Thank you for your patience and attention, Mr. Speaker. I think it's an historic occasion to see the support we are showing for a Conservative Party bill, and to see how generously the Conservatives applauded our Party's support for their motion.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, following consultations with the various leaders of the various parties, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent in this House to immediate referral of Bill C-137 to Committee of the Whole.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, we would be agreeable to passing the Bill in all stages today. I would simply ask whether there is an opportunity now for questions and comments on the last speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments. Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-137, an Act to provide for incentives to assist in financing exploration for mineral resources and hydrocarbons in Canada and to amend the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program Act.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-Definitions


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask for the indulgence of the House. It might be simpler if we agreed that we would not watch the clock too closely and if we went a
couple of minutes past one o'clock to go through the committee stage. It would be more efficient than to leave the matter tied up with the free trade debate this afternoon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My questions really relate to the two points I raised in my speech. Perhaps I can raise them with the Minister who is here now. To what extent is the definition of eligible expenses reduced? To what extent is it still possible for these large enterprises in Vancouver and Toronto to continue to package flow-through investments under this particular program? Is that a healthy kind of situation or not? To what extent, if at all, can large companies benefit under this particular program?
There is a $70 million cap on expenditures. What is the intention of the Government if it finds that the rate in which this fund is drawn down is going more quickly than had been anticipated? Is it the Government's intention to judge that the program is a success and reduce the percentage rate of incentive from 30 per cent to a lower figure? Or, is it the Government's intention that this in fact is an open-ended commitment?
Those are the major questions I had hoped might be answered. I might come back to one or two of them, but if the Hon. Minister has some comment on those questions now it would be helpful.


Mr. Merrithew:: Mr. Chairman, just on the first point, the Act spells out very, very carefully under Section 5 that the eligible expenses which can be used by a qualified company using a flow-through share mechanism are exactly the same as they were before and as defined under the Income Tax Act. There are no changes whatsoever. It worked before. It is exactly the same mechanism.
Second, the Member asked what the role would be, whether CMP and some of those very large equity raising companies would be operating about the same. Yes, they will. In fact, they have already gone to the equity market-place with some packages. Limited partnerships will be put together as in the past. There is no change there.
Third, the Member asked to what extent large companies would be able to utilize this particular program. I can tell him that I have talked with quite a lot of seniors in the Mining Association of Canada. It is very unlikely that they would use it at all. It makes no sense for them. First of all, they may not have losses which they can write off, and they are unlikely to want to deplete their own share ownership and give it to investors through a limited partnership. They would much rather hang on to their shares and invest out of their cash flow.
I have an idea that they would be very unlikely to undertake that. I guess the good side of it is that the larger companies will tend to have their own exploration programs as they mostly had in the past.
June 28, 1988

This program, because of the cap, is designated for junior mining companies. I believe those are the three or four issues the Member raised.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the fourth question 1 raised was with respect to the $70 million amount. Is that for the first fiscal year that this measure will be in force? Perhaps the Minister could give some further estimates of how much the Government anticipates might be spent under this program.
Should the draw downs of money go above the $70 million at the current rate of 30 per cent, is it the Government's intention, should it still be the Government, as a matter of policy that the incentive rates would be adjusted to keep the annual draw down at about $70 million? Or, is it the Government's intention that this is an open-ended type of commitment?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be a Government, probably of the same political stripe.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Probably? You change your stripes every six months anyway.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Hardly. It is the NDP which changes its stripes.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that the amount that was to be drawn down from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is mentioned in this particular Bill, will cover the draw on it through the hydrocarbon part which is a replacement for CEDIP effective October 1 and through to the end of this fiscal year, March 31, 1989. Because this new program, CEIP, will kick in on January 1, it will be whatever draws will be made on that between January 1, 1989 and March 31, 1989 on the mining or the mineral side. Although no one will know, we think that there will be a adequate number of dollars in there to finance both programs. If not, we can always undertake to raise money the way we normally do if one program happens to be running short of cash.
I can tell the Hon. Member that the 30 per cent of the contribution on the incentive toward eligible expenses will be in place for two full years. At the end of that time we will have a look at it to see if the level of exploration is satisfactory. If it is, we will continue. If not we can either lower it, raise it, or whatever, depending on what the markets look like at that particular time.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, for the fiscal year 1989-90, how much is it estimated that this program will cost? How much will be paid in incentives? Of that, how much is it estimated will go on the petroleum side and how much on the mining side? Is there any substantive change on the petroleum side from the existing incentive which I believe was put in place a year or so ago? If so, what is that change?
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
During the calendar year 1989 there will be a continuation of the 16 and two-thirds per cent earned depletion allowance. How does that relate to the incentive? Is there a doubling up, or does the existence of the earned depletion allowance effectively undercut by an equivalent amount the incentive payable? Rather than getting a maximum of 30 per cent incentive, can one only get 30 per cent minus the end of year depletion allowance which is claimed?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, the first question had to do with the relative levels of expenditures that would be required to fund this particular initiative. It is very difficult to know because who has a crystal ball to look and to say "here is the number of millions of dollars that we spent in exploration in the year 1989"? Based on previous experience we estimate that it will be around $210 million for a full fiscal year for both programs, the replacement of CEDIP which starts October 1, 1988, and of course the new program, CEIP, which will begin January 1, 1989.


Michael Morris Cassidy: How much on each side?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: It is about $150 million for CEIP and about $60 million for CEDIP, the oil and gas CEDIP.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, was that $150 million on the mining side and about $60 million on the oil and gas side?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: That is correct.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Could the Minister say what is the status of these subsidies under the trade agreement? If a mine which has been developed with this particular subsidy were to begin exporting to the United States, would its production be subject to countervail by the United States if it chose to do so on the grounds of there having been a federal government subsidy? Is that the position in which the Government is putting mining companies which take advantage of this particular incentive?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that we understand the figures in the previous question, it is around $150 million for the mineral exploration side and about $60 million for the oil and gas or hydrocarbons. It is for a total of about $210 million for a full fiscal year. That is with the proviso that we do not know what it will really cost, because we do not know the level of activity. We think it will be adequate.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question on whether or not I think there is any conflict with the free trade agreement which is being worked out now, no, we do not think that there is at all. As the Hon. Member probably knows, this initiative is directed toward juniors, or very basic grass roots exploration. It is not a subsidy given to, for example, gold, zinc, antimony, or potash. It is available for just general grass roots exploration. From every source which we have checked we anticipate that there will be no conflict at all.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend the Minister on this legislation, Bill C-137. I am sure that the

June 28, 1988
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
program will assist small and medium sized explorers to raise capital. However, I have two concerns. The first has to do with arm's length and the other has to do with eligible expenses.
In his remarks the Minister mentioned that the regulations would be forthcoming at perhaps the end of the summer or early fall after consulting with the industry. I wonder if the Minister would give favourable consideration to the removal of the words "where the corporation and investor are at arm's length from the eligible expenses". There are numerous privately owned oil and gas exploration companies in the industry. I believe that this consideration would provide privately owned oil and gas exploration companies the same opportunities as provided for public companies under the present terms of the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program. Some small private companies will find it very difficult to issue more shares. It will really cause dilution of the company.
I want the Minister to comment on what expenditures qualify. Using the Income Tax Act, which the Minister mentioned in his remarks, really discriminates against the petroleum industry. The problem with the Income Tax Act is the threat of a potential retroactive assessment by the tax Department. That is sort of reclassifying a well from exploration to development.
This happens when a well appears to strike a new oil or a gas pool and then later when the geology is better understood it is decided that it hit upon an existing pool. A reassessment is then made under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The entitlement that is paid through the CEIP, which has probably gone out to the investors, is really null and void and would have to be collected back. Would the Minister talk about arm's length also in regard to what expenditures qualify?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary South. She has been very assiduous in trying to protect the interests of those small privately owned exploration companies on the oil and gas side.
I want to say what we have tried to do. The industry asked us in our consultations to use the same type of criterion under eligible expenses that would be given under Section 66 of the Income Tax Act. The industry said: "Leave it as it is. It is working now". We are happy with that so we will leave it that way. There will be no retroactive assessments. We are attempting to ensure that that does not happen.
The other one is a much more difficult one to resolve. That is the issue of small exploration companies on the oil and gas side. We have to remember that CEIP is not like CEDIP which is essentially an activity program. A tax mechanism is being used here. When the program was designed we wanted to ensure that it utilized the flow-through share mechanism. It was very important that we maintain that as a means to flow through those benefits to individual shareholders. If that is not done, there is some concern that there could be a potential for abuse. For example, one corporation could flow shares to
another shareholder, perhaps other small shareholders within the same corporation, or a wholly owned subsidiary. There is more potential for abuse using the other route and not having it at arm's length.
I wish it to be fully understood that CEIP is utilizing a tax mechanism. The idea is to find a way to raise equity for exploration. We do not want this to move in and find another way of doing it, if we do not have to use the tax system form. The rules do not preclude a private company making a private placement to existing shareholders, providing that shareholder is not the majority shareholder in that corporation or a member of a related group in which he would be a majority shareholder. In other words, while it might preclude the majority, it does not preclude any small company from utilizing the mechanism, providing it is not to the majority shareholder who already has control of that company.
There is one thing I will make in accommodation to the Hon. Member for Calgary South. We have had many consultations with the industry, not only the exploration industry on the oil and gas side but on the mineral side and through the investment community.
We will undertake to continue that type of discussion with them. We understand their concerns. We too have concerns about it. Perhaps something might be able to be worked out. I am not sure. We will undertake, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Calgary South and on behalf of other Members who share those views, to consider the interests of those small privately owned exploration companies on the energy side. We will undertake to work out the regulations with them. Hopefully we can come to a meeting of minds. We wish to be very careful that we do not, in some way, leave ourselves open to potential abuse by manipulating the shares between one company or a corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries. We have to be careful of that, and we will do the best. I appreciate the Hon. Member's views in this matter.


Bill Rompkey: The previous program was called CEDIP. With the type of turnaround that the Government has done, the new program might very well be called "CEDIP-CEDOO-DLE".
In the unfortunate event that the Party of the Hon. Member is likely to form the Government after the next election-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You bet!


Bill Rompkey: I notice the Hon. Member for Calgary South is wearing red today, which is no doubt a harbinger of things to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: -what type of dipsy-doodling will be done in 1990 when the review is done? What will be the factors in the review? Will it take another stock market crash before we see a continuation of flow through? Can we assure the industry now, particularly the Prospectors and Developers Association?
June 28, 1988

I think it should be put on record, the contribution of the Prospectors and Developers Association and of the flowthrough share committee with its chairperson, Eveline Kasner.
I would particularly mention the mayors of Kirkland Lake and Val d'Or who did an excellent job in the lobby process.
The question really becomes: Will we have to go through the lobby process in 1990? Will it take a stock market crash in 1990, or on what factors will the review process be done? What weight will be given to those various factors?
Mir. Merrithew: Like the Lion. Member, I have no crystal ball to see what the conditions might be like in the equity markets generally in Canada at the end of 1990. One thing we can assure the Hon. Member is that we will consult, as we have now, with groups such as the prospectors and developers, APQ in Quebec, the Mining Association of Canada and, of course, the CMPs, and the NIMs. on the investment side. We have already consulted widely with them. We will continue to do so.
Essentially, the reason we might have to change the level of contribution either up or down would be the level of mining exploration activity that we might have going on. We were forced to take this particular step. It was something totally out of the hands of anyone. That is what happened on October 19 in the stock market. Obviously we saw what was probably going to be a very adequate level of exploration expenditure suddenly disappear. This group will need help. We immediately started to consult with them and ask: "How can we do this?" We extended MEDA to the end of 1988 and brought in this program. Those two things would determine what we would have to do with the 30 per cent. There are two full years in which to deal with the level of expenditures, the grass roots expenditures, and the need for raising of equity by those small companies that do not have many other mechanisms by which they can raise equity for exploration.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I ask the Hon. Minister what would be the interplay of the earned depletion allowance continuing in 1989 at the lower rate and of the new incentive programs coming in for mining at the same time. Will the regulations be designed in such a way that it is not possible to stack one on top of the other, but that the total benefit will be in the order of the 30 per cent incentive? How will the Minister handle that particular problem?
As a final comment, because I believe it is time that we started going through the sections fairly quickly, as a finance critic I am uneasy that a complex piece of legislation similar to tax legislation should be adopted by the House within a matter of a day or less from it being introduced in the House. I believe that the delays were due to the Government. It has taken from May 3 to June 26 or June 27 for the Bill to be introduced. That is inadequate. I hope the Senate has a more profound look at it and will abide by the agreement that we gave to see this through. It is not good to legislate in this particular manner. I sincerely hope there are no egregious errors in the Bill as a consequence of its hasty passage. It is a bad way to
Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act
proceed. I hope that the Department of the Hon. Minister and the Department of Finance together ensure that this type of hasty treatment is not given to such future complex and important legislation. After all, we are engaging in the expenditure of $200 million a year. In anybody's language that is a lot of money.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: I do not share the view of the Hon. Member that there has been any inappropriate hastiness in this particular program. It is a complicated program because it does utilize other references to different pieces of legislation, for example the Income Tax Act and CEDIP. It was not an easy piece of legislation to put together. We wanted to take our time at it, and we did, in order to consult with the industry, and it appreciated that. We will continue that type of process. Most of the detail will come out in the regulations under the Act, not this piece of legislation which by itself is reasonably general.
On the Mining Exploration Depletion Allowance, under CEDIP on the energy side, that will continue at 16 and two-thirds per cent. Applicants who wish to utilize this particular mechanism will have a choice of going with one or the other. They can use either or an accommodation, but they cannot exceed the level outlined in the Act which is 30 per cent of a maximum of $10 million of eligible exploration expenditures.
On the mining side MEDA will continue at 33 and one-third per cent until the end of 1988 and will then be phased out to zero. They will go immediately into the new program which is as rich or even a bit richer.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The point that I make on the process is that if it is a complicated piece of legislation as the Minister states, and if it required a great deal of preparation, what is the basis of the assumption by his officials that Parliament can then turn around and pass it in the blink of an eye? If there were consultations widely within the industry, there could have also been consultations within the House of Commons. If the industry were only consulted narrowly, then there will be many companies that may have wanted to make some comments but would have been excluded from the consultation process.
Therefore, I suggest as a general rule that it is not good to legislate in this manner. I am afraid that all of us are familiar with the problems that arise when legislation is rushed through the House too hastily. I am saying this at the same time as recognizing that my Party has called for this type of legislation and is happy to see it go through. In process terms we run severe risks because of the way this is being handled.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
June 28, 1988
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.25 p.m., I do not leave the chair until 2 o'clock this day.
At 1.25 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, June 25, was Armed Forces Day in Canada.
The members of our Armed Forces are called upon to perform many tasks and, as a result, they have developed an expertise and professionalism in a very extensive variety of duties and responsibilities. Whether they are called upon to handle natural disasters caused by floods, fire, or earthquakes, they assume those duties with poise, efficiency and good naturedness.
Because of their ability to be good soldiers, and diplomats in their understanding of international politics, they have performed peacekeeping duties whenever called upon to do so. Their emphasis on training and their ability to meet new challenges make them an efficient and respected security force in the international community.
All Canadians I am sure will recognize that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces do Canada proud as they perform their duties of national and international security, with diplomacy and tact, anywhere in the world.
This Parliament of Canada thanks them for their dedication and efforts.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in 1905 a great Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, refused to entrench French in the Alberta Charter as the vast majority of the population in the new province were English-speaking Canadians
In 1988 a great Premier, Hon. Don Getty, and his Attorney General, Hon. Jim Horsman, and their PC supporters made English the language of legislation in Alberta because 97 per cent of the population are English-speaking Canadians. After all, a real democratic Government reflects the thinking of the majority of its electors in its laws, and both Laurier and Getty have done this. Furthermore, Premier Getty is operating within the Constitution, and Alberta's treatment of its minorities, including the French minority, is equal or better than that found in any other province.
I support the position taken by the Alberta Government as it is in direct accordance with the thinking of the people of the province to whom the Government is accountable, and that is democracy, Mr. Speaker.



LA CENTRALE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT DU QUEBEC


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Centrale de Venseignement du Quebec set a precedent yesterday by electing a woman, Lorraine Page, president. Ms. Page becomes the first woman in Quebec to lead a large labour union. The openness of the union movement to women is remarkable. We see Ms. Page's accession to the highest position in the Centrale de l'enseignement du Quebec as a result of the evolution in thinking that, we hope, will occur in all segments of our society.
The CEQ did not elect a token woman but a real president who sees her election this way, "I am rather inclined to believe that the fruit falls when it is ripe."
Ms. Page has proved her ability and leadership as president of the Montreal Teachers' Alliance. We wish her every possible success in her new duties, because we know that she will devote all her enthusiasm, determination and energy to them. I am sure that Ms. Page as president of the CEQ will represent the workers well, as does Shirley Carr, president of the Canadian Labour Congress.



June 28, 1988



SERBIAN DAY


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today the Serbian community in Canada celebrates Serbian Day, a day on which Serbian Canadians celebrate their rich culture, heritage, and tradition, and commemorate an important event in Serbian history, the Battle of Kosovo.
Serbian immigration to Canada began in the second half of the 19th century. Many of those who followed came in search of the freedom denied them in their homeland. Over the years, Canadians of Serbian descent have made significant contributions to the cultural, social and economic development of Canada and have taken great pride in their dual heritage. They have retained, enhanced and shared their heritage, and today the Serbian community in Canada invites all Canadians to join them in celebrating Serbian Day.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, Firestone has done it again. It ought to get the worst citizen of the year award in the country of Canada.
Having collected upon a $13.5 million interest free grant for five years, and after picking up stakes, it has gone to the United States and left the Canadian workforce high and dry. To add insult to injury, this week we discovered that at the Hamilton area warehouse where it should be hiring laid-off Firestone workers, some of whom have more than 30 years' service, Firestone has decided to hire scabs to work in the warehouse.
Why doesn't the Government collect over $6 million in interest that it gave to this company so that it could rip off Canadian taxpayers, rip off the workers and go to the United States with machinery that was actually paid for by the people of Canada? Why doesn't the Government demand an immediate repayment of the $6 million in interest so that the workers in that company could at least get a fair shake by setting aside that particular money for a pension, retirement, and replacement fund?
Start fighting for the workers of this country, not fighting for American based multinationals that pick up stakes when the going gets tough.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, in this period of glasnost there are still hundreds of Jewish families who are suffering inhumane treatment at the hands of the Soviet authorities, and for what reason?
I speak particularly of Boris Bendersky and his family who were brought to my attention by one of my constituents. Mr. Bendersky is seriously ill with a kidney ailment that can only be treated by doctors in the West. However, the Soviet authorities refuse to let this family leave.
We must insist that the Soviet Union honour its signature on the Helskini Accords, that it act in a humane way and let these people have their freedom.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, despite his best efforts the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has failed miserably in his attempt to convince the Canadian people that this country needs a fleet of nuclear powered attack submarines.
In fact, it seems he is having a great deal of difficulty convincing even his own caucus colleagues of the need to spend billions and billions of dollars on these submerged nuclear power stations. Many of his colleagues are wisely urging him and the Government to abandon this dangerous proposal. Tory Members of Parliament are belatedly realizing what we on this side of the House have known for some time now, that Canadians don't want these submarines at any cost.
A recent slew of public opinion polls certainly must be discouraging to the Minister. One poll, done only last month, found that opposition to his megadollar proposal had soared to 60 per cent nationally. It is clear that Canadians have passed judgment on the Minister and his proposal. They see no need for Canada to get involved in the nuclear sub game. It is time the Government listened to this wise counsel.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, Canadian women have been second-class citizens in law and still in many ways are second-class citizens in fact.

June 28, 1988
While Governments, including successive Governments here, have taken steps to see on the long journey to equality that this is changing, often progress comes when individuals and private organizations and individuals, men and women, join in this battle for true equality in Canadian society.
Today on the floor of the House I would like to pay tribute to the Etobicoke Rotary Club as being the first in Ontario to admit a woman to its membership and to point out that it intends to withstand the efforts being made by the head office of Rotary International in the United States to correct this development which they refer to as "a mistake", and to say through private organizations, like the Etobicoke Rotary Club, that we are seeing the spirit of equality of the sexes being achieved.
Not only do I pay tribute to this Rotary Club, I would also like to point out that I am very proud of the fact that the first woman to be admitted is the publisher of Etobicoke Life newspaper and my cousin, Lynne Boyer Parks.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I had the opportunity to take part in a peaceful demonstration of officials from the south shore of Montreal. There were representatives from nearly 250 municipalities, several Members of this House and several Members of the National Assembly. And they were all together to denounce a situation that has gone on much too long, holding the people of the region hostage on the transportation issue.
Mr. Speaker, Highway 30 was promised several years ago and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he was Minister of Transport made a commitment that a bridge would be built in the Salaberry-Valleyfield region, but this has not been done. Another transportation issue on the south shore of Montreal is the commitment made by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) concerning the tolls on Champlain Bridge.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the people of the south shore are getting impatient, and rightly so, because of two commitments that this Government has not kept and unfortunately, last Sunday, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), unlike his provincial counterpart, did not have the courage to come and explain his position to the people of this region.
Mr. Speaker, the voters on the south shore will not let themselves be bought at the last minute by another series of
promises from the Conservative Members. There must be a signed agreement and they must act immediately.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Ontario is using every trick in the book to harm the free trade agreement, including legislation on health centres and legislation on exports of natural resources. The Liberal Premier of Ontario is trying to isolate Ontario from the rest of Canada. But that is not what will happen. What will happen is that the Premier of Ontario, together with his Government and his Liberal supporters in Ottawa, supporters in both Chambers, will be isolated from the rest of Ontario. He will be isolated because Ontarians want free trade. Ontario's consumers want free trade. Ontario's business people want free trade, and with the kind of negative legislation it has introduced, the Government of Ontario will wind up in the opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope so.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, deregulation has led to a continuing deterioration of airline services throughout northern Ontario. Since deregulation, jet service has been discontinued to Dryden and drastically reduced to Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. Air Ontario has pulled out of Geraldton and Canadian Airlines has abandoned Dryden. Schedules have deteriorated, connection delays have increased, and transfers and overbooking have become more common.
In the meantime the major alternative, the Trans-Canada Highway, suffers from increasing truck traffic, is neglected by the provincial Government, and is totally ignored by the federal Government which provides funds for the Trans-Canada Highway in every other participating province.
I call upon the Government to abandon its slavish addiction to the ideologies of privatization and deregulation, to look at what is happening in real life to travellers in northern Ontario, and to establish a commission to examine the effect of deregulation on northern Ontario.
June 28, 1988



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
Introduction of New Member


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, once again the doom and gloom scenarios painted by the Opposition when the Government sold de Havilland failed to materialize. The Opposition predicted that Boeing would shut down the plant, thus making thousands of workers unemployed as well as crippling Canada's aircraft industry. So much for their ill-informed rhetoric.
Last week de Havilland announced new orders for Dash-8 totalling $116 million, with options for more if delivery time can be shortened. Along with the increase in sales due to Boeing's international contacts, production has been streamlined and made more efficient, employment has increased by
1,000	with the possibility of more, and the company will be profitable before the end of 1989.
The Opposition should congratulate the Government for giving Canada's aircraft industry and its employees a secure future.


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the two-price wheat system has been abolished and grain farmers will receive compensation in the 1988-89 crop year to ease the process of adjustment. However, the real issue has become why the two-price wheat system was changed.
I have been disturbed by the recent comments of some western Canadians that the reason for the change was the free trade agreement. This hollow argument ignores the fact that the policy was no longer doing what it was intended to do. The two-price system was artificially distorting the production patterns for wheat in Canada while also taxing food.
Why should the Government continue to tax consumers and encourage the growing of grain outside the Wheat Board region when 17,000 Saskatchewan farmers and farm workers have left the land in the last year? Clearly the policy had to be changed because it was not helping the majority of grain farmers while it was hurting other sectors of the Canadian economy.
This Government has made a sustained commitment to agriculture that is based on sound judgment. The reality is that since this policy was no longer sound, it was ended for all Canadians.



BY-ELECTIONS ELECTION OF LUCIEN BOUCHARD

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today is an important occasion. It is the first time that the House of Commons welcomes a Member elected in a by-election that has been the most expensive proposition ever for taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. This is the first time one of the Tory cronies from Lac-Saint-Jean, a native son who went first to Quebec City, then to Paris and then back to Lac-Saint-Jean to try and show people that the Party is pure as the driven snow, and who used the most underhanded tactics to win the election in that riding.
Mr. Speaker, he even promised Montreal would get the space agency. I would like to inform the new Member who has just arrived and who already has something of a reputation that as far as the space agency is concerned, the people of Montreal will not accept an empty shell. They will accept a space agency with contracts ...



NEW MEMBER

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer the certificate of the election and return of Mr. Lucien Bouchard, Member for the electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean.



NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Lucien Bouchard, Member for the electoral district of Lac-Saint-Jean, introduced by the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Hon. Don Mazankowski.
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the new Member and we intend to give him a short period of grace before testing his mettle.

June 28, 1988
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: My
question is for the Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade, the man in charge of selling the Prime Minister's trade deal, the Government's chief huckster, has admitted that he has not even read the whole deal.
What would you say, Mr. Speaker, if that man were your lawyer and you were up on a criminal charge-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -and after you were convicted he admitted to you that he had not read all the evidence, interviewed all the witnesses, or even read all the relevant law?
What would you say if that man were your doctor and gave you a clean bill of health, but then admitted he had not looked at all your tests?


Mr. Speaker:: It is not my place to say to the right hon. gentleman what I would say, but the right hon. gentleman might put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to put myself in your position with respect to what you would do if that man were an accountant, did an audit, and then admitted he had not read the books. I know what you would do. You would want that lawyer disbarred, the doctor charged with malpractice, and the accountant run out of business.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when is the Prime Minister going to fire that Minister for International Trade, a man who has been living a lie, going across this country trying to support this deal?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that what I said yesterday was that I had not read the entire text of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I once sold the Encyclopaedia Britannica and I never read every article in it to sell it, believe me. I once sold vacuum cleaners and I never once vacuumed a house.
This document has 2,106 articles, 195 pages, 12 pages of letters, and 500 pages of customs tariff changes. There is another 500-why, I can hardly lift it, much less read it all.
I have read all parts of this document which are of any importance. I left out a few pages. I will give you an example.
I refer you to page 56:
where:
A = acreage idled under the acreage reduction program B = yield per acre on idled acreage in bushels where:
B = [ (G + 0.85 x A) x (H - 0.85 x-
It's right here! Do you want to read that?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing funny about a Minister who does not do his homework.


Mr. McDermid:: Have you read it?


John Napier Turner: There is nothing funny about this deal that changes the whole future of Canada.


READING OF AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister didn't even take the trouble to read an agreement that drastically changes twenty-seven laws of this country. That is blatantly irresponsible. It is an abuse of trust. It is an incredible affront to the Canadian people.
The Government is hiding behind a misleading facade. The Minister is praising the benefits of the agreement across this country, an agreement he hasn't even read. No wonder the Tory Ministers are in favour. No wonder they can't answer direct and specific questions, because they haven't even read the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, why should Canadians believe what they are being told by this gang of impostors who haven't even read the agreement?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition isn't upset because the Minister for International Trade isn't doing his job. He is just disappointed that the Minister for International Trade is doing his job too well.
Since the Leader of the Opposition raised the issue, we just had a little referendum on his position on the free trade agreement. In Alma, he said he would tear up the free trade agreement, and the people of Lac-Saint-Jean gave him a memorable reply!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at least I read the text! And the Minister isn't doing a good job if he doesn't do his homework.


REQUEST THAT ELECTION BE CALLED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has not read one of the most important documents in the 121-year history of our



June 28, 1988

country. It is a document that diminishes our cultural integrity, diminishes our national sovereignty, and diminishes our political independence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: What a crock.


John Napier Turner: And he has not read the document. What hypocrisy! What incompetence! What incredible-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will put his question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Minister knows, as does every single Member of this House, that he should have read the deal. He should not have been selling it if he had not read it. The Prime Minister smiles and the Minister jokes but it brings shame to the idea of responsible Government that the Minister defends a deal, advances a deal, and attempts to sell a deal he has not even read.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, why should Canadian taxpayers tolerate a Government that spends $30 million on propaganda in an attempt to sell a deal which the Minister in charge has not even read? If the Prime Minister is so confident, why not go to the country now and ask Canadians to say whether or not they have confidence in a Government trying to sell a deal it has not even read?


John Horton McDermid: It will be your swan song, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a question by a person who hopes to be Prime Minister. It is the same kind of question he asked about Mrs. Margaret Thatcher last week. Perhaps he is going to allege she has not read the deal either.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said he read the agreement. He could not have read Article 2106 which says the agreement shall remain in force until terminated by either party upon six months' notice to the other party. If he had, he would not have gone around the country saying he was going to tear the deal up. Donald Macdonald said this about that threat: "I think it says more about the strength of his wrists than it does about the strength of his judgment."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, obviously he did not read Article 2006-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is your deal.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Look, the braying from the Member for Hamilton East continues.
Article 2006 says that cultural industries are exempt from the provisions of the agreement. Read the text, Mr. Leader of the Official Opposition. Don't just pretend you have.


THE CABINET
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
He can laugh all he wants at the lousy jokes of his clown for international trade, but I would like to ask him whether he thinks his Minister has done his job too well. Is the Prime Minister telling the House it is normal practice for his Ministers not to read the documents for which they are responsible and to be ignorant of the issues they are supposed to defend?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely gratifying to know that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has such a diligent and literate caucus behind him. Every one of them have apparently read the free trade agreement and every line of it. Well, I have not. I have read the analysis. I have read all the important points of principle. I have read John Crispo's book. I have read memorandums to the Cabinet. I have read analyses. I have read about previous free trade deals. I could not find the text of the Mackenzie King free trade deal because no one living was ever consulted by him.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL DEMAND MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The Minister for International Trade has just admitted a second time that he did not read all the documents he defends in the House before us and before the Canadian people. Once again he has admitted his crass incompetence.
Will the Prime Minister ask the Minister to resign immediately, on grounds of incompetence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made it abundantly clear that in a set of documents with a number of schedules that are very-do they want an answer, yes or no? I was asked a question!


An Hon. Member:: We want the truth!

June 28, 1988
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Do you want an answer? I am trying to answer the Elon. Member.
The Minister said that he may not have necessarily read every single letter of the provisions in the schedules or elsewhere, but that is hardly surprising. He has read and understands perfectly well every provision the document contains.
I think it is clear he is defending the document and what it entails very effectively across this country, and I think we just had another opportunity to defend the agreement.
I personally went to the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean where Quebecers showed what they thought of the agreement in general, and the result is here before you, the new Member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the Prime Minister. Since, it wasn't the Minister who signed the agreement but the Prime Minister, I want to ask him this question: Did the Prime Minister read the agreement before signing it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I read every word, every paragraph and every sentence, and I recommend that the Hon. Member do likewise.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I then ask the Prime Minister why he would not expect his own Minister for International Trade, who is selling this deal across the country, to have done exactly the same thing. Why is that fact not such a shameful admission that the Prime Minister will stand up in this House and demand the resignation of the Minister for International Trade for his inability to recognize the responsibilities of his position?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from the questions which come from the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition that not a Member over there has read this agreement in total. What they have read they completely misunderstand and try to mislead the Canadian public about. At least I tell the truth about the parts that I have read, the important parts. Why does the hon. gentleman not try to do the same? He will find it to be much more effective.


Steven W. Langdon: I expected, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister was going to stand and give us his resignation. My regrets.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has described himself as a revolutionary and a Trotskyite. Let me ask the Minister, as a Trotskyite, just exactly what he sees in this deal-in the parts which he has read, as opposed to the parts he has not read-which is so tremendous for this country, when we lose the ability to control our energy, the ability to control our culture, and the ability to control-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman claims that he has read the agreement it must be some different kind of agreement that he has read, or he has completely misunderstood it.


Some Hon. Members:: How would you know? You haven't read it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am resigned to having a continual barrage of silly questions from the hon. gentlemen opposite who do not want to spend the time of this House on something realistic, who cannot deal with honesty when they hear it, who cannot deal with real life, and who cannot deal with the facts.
Has Bob White read the agreement? Has Shirley Carr read the agreement? Has Ed Broadbent read the agreement? Has one soul in their caucus read the agreement? Obviously none of them have.


MINISTER'S RADIO STATEMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the real reason the Minister refuses to read the trade deal is that deep down he really does not believe in it.
Does the Minister recall saying on VOCM in St. John's, not very long before taking over this portfolio: "We had a very interesting trip to Singapore, to Southeast Asia. Most of our trade is, as you know, going to the United States, over 78 per cent now. We have a very dangerous dependence on the United States. Southeast Asia is one of the very few areas where we have improving prospects"?
Does the Minister still secretly "sing a song of Singapore"?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is the most serious question we have had today in Question Period. It illustrates that our policy is one of two sectors. One is the multilateral negotiations at GATT where we are expanding our trade with the rest of the world. That part is supposed to be Liberal policy until there is a GATT panel ruling against Canada, and then it ceases to be Liberal policy. The other of the two tracks is the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
I am afraid the hon. gentleman is off the track. He has gone on a "Singapore sling".
June 28, 1988


A QUESTION OF LITERACY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister long ago confessed that he is incapable of speaking French, even English for all that. I suspect that after today we can come to the conclusion that perhaps he is incapable of reading, that he did not get past Dick and Jane. Fascinated with Dick and perhaps infatuated with Jane, he didn't go any further.
While the Minister goes from town to town singing "I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy", when he puts the feather in his hat will he call it what it is, baloney?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we were sorry to hear that the hon. gentleman had a fire in his library. He lost all two books, one of them before he finished colouring it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The other one was Playboy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: We have heard that the Leader of the Opposition has a new song: "I've got a lovely bunch of caucus-nuts".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


READING OF DOCUMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it has been six months since the trade deal was originally initialled on January 2. The Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he feels this is the most important trade deal in world history. This is not a minor, typical piece of legislation, but, by the Prime Minister's own words, the most important trade deal in world history.
The Prime Minister felt it was appropriate that he read it. Since he felt it was important enough for him to read, and considering its importance in terms of the future of Canada's economy as well as social, cultural, and perhaps even political policy, does he feel it would not be unreasonable to expect the Minister responsible for international trade to have sat down and read it, having had the document in his hands for six months?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is just as sensible as saying that the Minister of Finance-


John Napier Turner: Reads his Budget before he presents it?


John Carnell Crosbie: -has to read every page of every tax Bill and every finance Bill that goes through the House.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Do you not do that, Michael?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: He does his homework.


Mr. Blaikie:: You should have read your 1979 Budget.


An Hon. Member:: How long did you have that job?


John Carnell Crosbie: I made the mistake of reading the 1979 Budget, and I will not do that again!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is obvious that the Minister did not read his 1979 Budget. If he did, perhaps he would not have brought Mr. Clark's Government down with him. I suggest that if he read this trade Bill he would not be bringing down Canada with this particular Government as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He felt it appropriate, in his busy schedule as Prime Minister, to read this deal. I suspect that most of his other senior Ministers would have read the deal at least once.
The Minister for International Trade has indicated publicly that he did not feel it was important enough for him to read through it at least once. Will the Prime Minister do what I suspect is the appropriate thing in the eyes of Canadians and ask for that individual's resignation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what would be appropriate for the Minister for International Trade would be a promotion, but he is already so high in the regard of the people of Canada that there is nothing I can do to elevate him any further.


An Hon. Member:: That is what you said about Eric last year.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Give him the job he wants-yours.


Mr. Tobin:: He will take over as Leader of the Opposition once you are gone.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend knows full well that the Minister made his comment in reference to very substantial annexes that go along-


Nelson Andrew Riis: You read it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not only has he read it and understood it and debated it-


Nelson Andrew Riis: He has not read it. He said he has not read it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is completely misstating the Minister's case and distorting the Minister's statement. Not only has he read it and defended it with great brilliance and success across Canada, the G-7 leaders read it and strongly

June 28, 1988
Oral Questions
welcomed the free trade agreement both for Canada and for the liberal effects that it would have on world trade. My hon. friend knows that. He knows that the NDP and Liberal position against the free trade deal is going absolutely nowhere because of the tremendous efforts of the Minister for International Trade.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. The Canadian Association of Direct Marketing which was here today in Ottawa, an industry that employs 200,000 Canadians, submitted to Canada Post a series of co-operative projects that would reduce the deficit on a permanent basis and it also asked the Government to make no changes in the postal system until such time as the projects have been assessed.
My question to the Minister is very simple. Has Canada Post assessed the projects submitted by the Association, which would have dealt with the deficit problem? If so, what is the conclusion?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an appropriate question to put to Canada Post. When it was before the committee the Hon. Member should have been there to put those questions.
This gives me an opportunity to point out that the Postal Services Review Board which I announced yesterday will provide the kind of mechanisms to allow the Direct Mailers Association and other interested customers of postal services to present their ideas and suggestions and to have them evaluated in an objective fashion which will hopefully lead to improved services and a contained cost of the stamps.


Alfonso Gagliano: This is another case of a Minister who does not even read his correspondence.


REQUEST THAT RATE CHANGES BE POSTPONED PENDING STUDY BY REVIEW BOARD
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Association of Direct Marketing recommends that the new proposed increase of rates by Canada Post, published in the Canada Gazette on May 14, be delayed until the new board is in place and can review this proposed rate. Will the Minister guarantee to the House today that all rate changes and service changes will be delayed until the new board he introduced yesterday will have time to look at them?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a spokesman for his Party said that the new board would not do any good. Now he does not want me to do anything until the new board goes into action.
The fact is that the Post Office and all those dealing with the Post Office require some planning time. Rate increases scheduled for January 1 have to go ahead, otherwise it would create a chaotic situation. In terms of any further adjustments to rates, it will be done on the basis of recommendations made by this independent review agency. I think everyone will benefit from that process.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the contradictions in his statement to the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. The Prime Minister said that Canada would promote measures to reduce the greenhouse effect, which is mainly caused by the use of coal, oil and natural gas. However, the free trade agreement encourages fast exploitation of these resources and is thus against reducing the greenhouse effet and against sustainable development.
Is the Government aware of this contradiction and how does it intend to resolve it? Is the Government in favour of reducing the greenhouse effect or in favour of the fast exploitation and use of resources that causes the greenhouse effect and is incompatible with sustainable development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two. These positions can be harmonized, and that is what we are proposing, with the collaboration of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and my Cabinet colleagues. There is no contradiction at all!


SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister would consult some experts who would tell him something about what causes atmospheric change. He would discover what this contradiction is.
If the Prime Minister is really serious about dealing with the greenhouse effect, will he bring in a policy of sustainable development? Will there be a real change in our energy policy in the direction of conservation and the use of renewable
June 28, 1988

resources of energy that do not pollute and cause the greenhouse effect? Are we going to be seeing a real commitment to a safe energy policy and sustainable development?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the advice that I consult experts with respect to this very difficult and challenging area. I try to do that and have done so with respect to a sensitive area of our national life, namely, the protection of the atmosphere, particularly with respect to the conference ongoing in Toronto.
In fact it may please my hon. friend to know that, contrary to the suggestion implied in her observation, Prime Minister Brundtland of Norway congratulated the Government yesterday for its leadership role in this respect and also paid a modest compliment to the Ministers who have been involved in developing this quite effective policy.


EMPLOYMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning, I, as well as the Liberal caucus, had the honour to meet members of the Quebec Coalition, mainly from the St. Maurice region. This coalition is opposed to the Government's decision to discriminate against older workers. They gave me a petition supported and signed by
70,000	people from the region. These people, some of whom are here in the gallery, would like to know-and I would remind the newly elected Member for Lac-Saint-Jean that he promised to help these people.
So I ask the Minister if she would be prepared to announce immediately that her Government will amend Bill C-50 so as to eliminate discrimination against older workers who lose their jobs and are not entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits under the so-called Bouchard law?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, with respect to the transition period in which we dealt for those older workers, many of those people have been reviewed and changes were made for many of them. The changes that were not made were all very carefully reviewed by my Department and by myself. I should point out, as I pointed out yesterday, that the unemployment rate among older workers is below what it is for the population as a whole, and we will continue to take action for older workers.
Oral Questions


ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have the feeling that all of them in that Cabinet have the same problem-they do not read the bills that they defend.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on!


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have the feeling that the Minister is like the Minister for External Trade.
Can the Minister tell us what kind of social justice says that an older worker in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver...


Sheila Maureen Copps: Alma.


Jean-Claude Malépart: . .. who loses his job and looks for work is not entitled to unemployment insurance because he has withdrawn his pension plan? Another older worker, like friends of the Minister, who are richer, who are in management, has an RRSP. He gets a lot of money and is entitled to full unemployment insurance benefits. What kind of social justice is that? Explain that to the people here in the gallery who have lost $10,000 through your mistake!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with older workers that we have seen over the past few years is not that they are older but that they have joined the long-term unemployed as a result of a very long recession that was there in the early 1980s. They then became discouraged workers and long-term unemployed through policies that had to do with the people on the other side of this House that brought about that recession.
Let me say as well that 119,000 new jobs have been created for older workers within the last year. There are 34,000 who have come off the unemployed rolls. We spent $1.5 billion on job development through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, and all older workers can apply for that and are eligible for it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last night, The Journal showed how the South African Embassy uses lies, distortions, intimidation, threats and even murder as tools in its propaganda war in Canada to

June 28, 1988
Oral Questions
support apartheid. The Government rightly acted against the Soviet Embassy for its unacceptable activities. Does the Government consider the actions of the South Africa Embassy to be unacceptable also, and if so, what action will the Government take against the South African Embassy?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the South African Government mentioned last night on The Journal were not of the same kind as the Soviet actions that brought the response from the Canadian Government. I believe that is well established and well accepted by all Members here in the House. But personally, I am pleased that The Journal has begun to point out the propaganda activities of the South African Government, here in Canada and elsewhere. As the Hon. Member well knows, I believe, the Commonwealth Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers to be held in Toronto in August will try to encourage the media and others to monitor the issues, the propaganda tactics used by the Government of South Africa.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AMBASSADOR BE RECALLED FROM SOUTH AFRICA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, surely the documentation of threats, intimidation, distortions, lies and, in fact, murder, against those who have testified before CBC cameras are enough to justify some kind of action on the part of the Government right now. If the Government has difficulty in defining what action it should take, would it not be reasonable, at least, to recall the Canadian Ambassador from South Africa to plot the course of action that this Government should take to ensure that this kind of activity in Canada which, by the way, threatens all of us in many ways, can be brought to an end?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that The Journal last night focused attention upon the propaganda activities of South Africa that occur in Canada and elsewhere. I hope that other members of the media in Canada will follow that very important story. Sometimes it takes great courage on the part of the Canadian media to follow that story. I hope that will be done. The Government of Canada has been pursuing the question of propaganda quite vigorously-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is some derisive laughter from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I take it that is her personal problem and not one that relates to the rest of the House or to the serious question of apartheid.
The Government of Canada has been pursuing the question of how we might effectively combat the propaganda activities of the Government of South Africa. We have been doing that at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver, chaired by the Prime Minister. We are doing it in a special committee of
Foreign Ministers that I have the honour to chair, which will be meeting with a focus on this particular topic in Toronto in August.


FISHERIES
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister will be aware of the present difficulties associated with the native food fishery in New Brunswick. Conflicting federal regulations, illegal salmon fishing, and seeming disregard for the authority of fishery officers, have exacerbated an already tense situation. Can the Minister advise what action the Government may be considering to defuse and finally resolve this problem?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the serious question raised by the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi. We have a situation in northwestern New Brunswick where the Eel Ground Band of Indians have a food fishing allocation, but it does not include an area in which they have been active for some two or three weeks, known as the Big Hole Track. This particular band is apparently alleged to be fishing illegally by net in this area. Shots have been fired and I am told that threats against the lives of fisheries officers have occurred. We have the situation under surveillance. We are very concerned, of course, about these circumstances, and appropriate actions will be taken as required.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Lavai-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the reform of financial institutions. The Government proposed in its December Blue Paper that in the future commercial and financial links be banned, along with the retailing of insurance by financial institutions. However, two weeks ago the Minister in a press release seemed to back away from these policies and it is not at all clear what the Government's policies are. So I ask the Minister to clarify his position. Will commercial and financial links now be allowed under the financial institutions' reform?
Second, will the Government allow in its reform the retailing of insurance by financial institutions?
June 28, 1988


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Two weeks ago I released to the press the information that in considering our draft trust and loan Bill we have reacted to the input we have had from across the country. We are going to place less reliance on the financial and commercial links part of that policy. Of course, the policy has 90, 100 or 120 principles in it. They remain.
The draft trust and loan Bill, as the Hon. Member has seen, will be largely the same except for some changes we might make to less reliance on commercial and financial links.
In terms of the banning of the retailing of insurance by banks, I am very pleased to tell the Hon. Member that in no way am I going to change my view on that matter.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the reform of financial institutions has been expected now for more months than I care to count, indeed since 1985. And in recent years we have seen companies such as L'Alliance and L'lndustrielle merge and give up their federal charter. Lately another company, Les Cooperants, has done the same. And now Montreal Trust is giving up its federal charter and we may be called upon to make a decision in this case.
I shall therefore ask the Minister: What is the Government waiting for to make its final position known? The legislation should have been introduced months ago and we still have nothing before us; in the meantime companies are giving up their federal charter in favour of provincial charters.
Does the Federal Government intend to abdicate all responsibility over financial institutions and introduce legislation only when all companies have left the federal jurisdiction?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member is not against consultation. As a result of the draft trust and loan Bill, we have had the consultations that have allowed us to make some modifications in our policy which will make its passage more speedy when it comes to the House.
With regard to charters moving, Montreal Trust has made it very clear, and the Hon. Member knows this, that it has nothing to do with federal or provincial jurisdiction and the new framework. It has to do with its internal organization.
________________________________________16869
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has produced a video entitled: "Delivering on the Promise". In that video Donald Lander states:
Nobody in the Government is telling us how to run Canada Post. Contrary
to what you hear in the media and so on. It's a bunch of crap. We run Canada
Post and there's no politician telling us what to do.
My question to the Minister responsible for Canada Post is this. Can the Minister tell Canadians why he has let Canada Post close rural post offices, cut back on home delivery, and proliferate supermailboxes? Is it because he is afraid of Donald Lander? When will he stand up for the rights of Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when Canada Post Corporation was created by Act of Parliament passed by unanimous approval of every Party in the House, the object was to have a Crown corporation that would act like a corporation at arm's length. Donald Lander is saying that he has the same authority in terms of Canada Post as Pierre Jeanniot has in terms of Air Canada. That is what Crown corporations are all about. It is not shocking. It is what this House asked should happen in 1981.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has failed to stand up to Canada Post as it runs roughshod over millions of Canadians because, as Donald Lander says; "no politician will tell us what to do".
When will the Minister finally accept his responsibilities and stand up for the millions of Canadians who are being denied full postal service?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the accusation is patently false. It is difficult to understand where the New Democratic Party is coming from. I have a letter here from the Hon. Member's colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who writes to Canada Post about a temporary post office box on Camrose and Tyndale in Burnaby. He says: "I am writing to request that you expedite the installation of a permanent box at Camrose and Tyndale." He then states: "Understandably, the people living in this neighbourhood are anxious to have a permanent box installed as quickly as possible".


Mr. Rodriguez:: That's a group mail box.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member stood up just a moment ago saying that the people do not want it. Yet his colleague is saying that that is exactly what they want.

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement INDUSTRY


GOODYEAR COMPANY-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Eight weeks ago in the House I asked the Minister if ,in light of the fact that the Government of Ontario was giving a $32 million interest free loan to Goodyear, and the fact that the federal Government was giving up to $50 million under a remission order to Goodyear, and contemporaneously with that the head office of Goodyear in the United States was taking an additional $25 million to $30 million out of the Canadian subsidiary, something which I described as an outrageous arrangement, the Minister of State for Finance would look into the matter.
I am asking the Minister today if he would now report to the House on what he found when he looked into the matter, and whether or not he has anything else he wishes to report.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his important question. I want to thank him, too, for his continuing interest in this matter.
On May 26 I made it clear that after my examination of these levies and of inter-corporate transfers at Goodyear that the levy was not out of line. The inter-corporate transfers in that company have been generally very modest.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are justifying that rip-off?


Thomas Hockin: Therefore this will have no bearing whatsoever on the duty remission which will be available for Goodyear as part of the existing industry-wide duty remission programs for that industry.
I might tell the Hon. Member that my tabling of the duty remissions this morning and the order today brings to a conclusion a process which will result in 800 jobs and $350 million worth of investment in eastern Ontario.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House opposes in principle and therefore declines to proceed with Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, because that agreement, which was negotiated in a secretive and irresponsible manner in the absence of a mandate from the Canadian people, will undermine the economic, social and political institutions of Canada, because it will fail to provide guaranteed and secure access to U.S. and other world trade markets, because it will create severe adverse effects on many industries and communities and because it will endanger the economic and social fabric and political independence of Canada."
And the amendment of Mr. Langdon:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the words "political institutions of Canada," the words "including our valued system of social and regional development programs,".
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-130 was last before the House the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert had completed her speech. The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Members, otherwise the Chair is prepared to recognize another Hon. Member on debate.
If there are no questions and comments, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Algoma on debate.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on Bill C-130. We believe this to be the most important economic agreement which Canada has ever signed. It is regrettable that we have this Bill before the House when we have not seen the United States legislation which would enable this agreement to become law. It is those types of concerns that cause great distrust among the Canadian people, not only of Government but of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this whole agreement.
They are equally concerned because only five years ago when the Prime Minister was seeking the leadership of his Party he said in very determined and candid words that he was opposed to free trade with the United States. In fact, he said: "Canada rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They will do it again in 1983".
My Party is not opposed to the liberalization of trade. We are opposed to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. We do not think that the Government got a very good deal out of it. It is not a free trade deal as such. It is a trade deal in which we did not get a great deal, and we gave away a lot.
The arguments that the Government is making for spending $30 million trying to sell this deal across the country are that it will give great access to the United States market, it is going to give secure access to the United States market, that it will give tremendous economic advantage to Canada, and that there is no alternative. Things are in such a terrible state that, even though the President has already vetoed the omnibus trade Bill, we have to jump off the cliff at any risk and accept this deal.
If we look at the deal itself we see what we have given away. We have given away or essentially aligned ourselves with the economy of the United States to make all of North America
June 28, 1988

one economy in which Canadian economic, trade, and industrial programs will be harmonized with those of the United States. We are turning over our water resources and our energy resources on an equal share basis. We are jeopardizing our social and environmental programs. When we start to harmonize economic policies, many other policies have to be harmonized, including social, cultural, and other programs.
In foreign investment the minimum goes to $150 million. Foreign investment will be able to come in and take over most Canadian companies without regard to providing any benefits to the Canadian economy. Our regional development programs will be affected because most of them under American trade law would be judged subject to countervail duties or antidumping duties. We will leap into the same economic basket with the United States service industry and financial institutions. All in all, we will give up a great deal.
I would like to look at the deal from the view of agriculture and the claims that the Government makes with regard to access to the U.S. market. Before doing so, I would like to mention the drafting instructions provided by the U.S. congressional committees, the Senate and the House committees, that went to the administration. They are very instructive. They tell us that this trade deal is subject to all other United States laws. It is interesting that our Bill C-130 is subject to the trade deal. Therefore, there is an inequity there. Not only is Bill C-130 subject to the trade deal, but any conflicts there are with provincial legislation will be subject to the trade deal as well, whereas on the American side, although we have not seen that Bill yet, its law will be superior to the trade deal.
Turning to the agriculture sector, if at some stage it is negotiated that we will do away with provincial marketing boards for the dairy industry, then Section 6 of the agreement on the implementing legislation or regulation can be drawn to do away with it. Those drafting instructions have a profound impact on all of agriculture.
Under Article 706 the administrative action recommended is that we get rid of all barriers for poultry and eggs. In Section 1901 there is a provision where the United States industry can put in place a permanent monitoring arrangement with reports to both industry and Congress in order that countervail or dumping duty actions can easily be taken by the United States industry.
Under these drafting instructions there is a section relating to the potato industry. It authorizes the United States administration to negotiate limits on imports of potatoes. There is a great deal in those drafting instructions to the United States administration which will end up in the United States Bill and will have a profound influence on Canadian agriculture.
Let us look at the argument the Government makes that we will have profound and great new access to the U.S. market. In the broad range of commodities traded with the United States the most commonly quoted one is the pork and beef industries. They will have great new access. Let us examine that situation.
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
With regard to beef, over a five-year period we will remove the 1 cent per pound tariff on beef going into the United States. Essentially we have free trade now. I do not understand how we will have massive new access to the U.S. market with only 1 cent being removed over five years. Likewise, there is a countervail duty against hogs of $5 per hog. That stays in place. How will there be great new access?
The most troubling aspect and one of great concern to all exporters, whether in relation to beef, hogs, or any commodity, is the appreciation that has taken place in the Canadian dollar against the United States dollar. There has been almost a 15 per cent appreciation in the Canadian dollar. That was forecast, but most people did not think it would happen as rapidly. Clearly the Economic Council and some other agencies predicted that our dollar would appreciate from 70 cents in relation to the United States dollar during the next five or six years to toward 94 cents or 95 cents. Already we have seen an appreciation of 10 cents on our dollar against the United States dollar, which is far larger than any tariff advantage that will result from this trade deal.
In the Canada-U.S. meat import law, American meat import law drafting instructions suggest that the U.S. will still be able to use its meat import law if it is to carry out the impact of a third country importing that is subject to their meat import law, whereas our law does not provide for it. In fruits and vegetables, I have heard the Minister say that we may have an opportunity in a couple of commodities such as mushrooms, but generally our opportunities in fruits and vegetables are relatively limited in the U.S. Our controlled commodities of dairy and poultry products are far higher priced and there is little opportunity there. In the grains sector there is a tremendous market building up in the Pacific northwest for Canola meal. The western grain transportation subsidy is being removed almost immediately, whereas the tariff in place will be phased out over 10 years. There may be some increased access to the U.S. market, but it is extremely limited.
Let us look at coming the other way for the Canadian agriculture industry. In poultry, eggs, and turkeys, the U.S. has scored a major increase in its imports into Canada. The removal of tariffs on highly processed foods will increase that dramatically, as well as when those tariffs are removed. The CEMA organization has pointed out that there is a major problem with regard to surplus eggs, and that that will mean a further deterioration in the quota available in that sector.
In the dairy sector, the Government has moved to put in place import control regulations, but I think that we will wait a long time before we actually see any quantitative limitation. The grocery products manufacturing industry has made it clear right across the board that we cannot have supply managed and controlled commodities such as poultry and eggs and the goods processed from them being sold in this country and have them compete with eggs, poultry, and dairy commodities produced in the United States. The SAGITS told the Minister that in a report, and it has been ignored. Most

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
processing food companies in this country are American controlled. Clearly 21 out of the 26 companies are. The industry sent a very definite signal that unless the Government gets rid of supply management in this country, within a matter of six or seven years it will be moving to the U.S. The pressure from the free trade deal, and through the GATT negotiations will be to get rid of supply management, which I think will be a disaster for the dairy industry and the poultry industry.
In the grain sector, we see that our two-price wheat system is going by the boards. Instead of consumers paying for their wheat when they buy their bread or grocery products, the Government will be providing a subsidy in that regard. Many people in the industry believe that the Canadian Wheat Board will be severely weakened, that it will not have the power to have import end use certificates, that they will be handled by the Canadian Grain Commission that in the long haul the Canadian Wheat Board will lose its power, and that we will come under the control of the multinational grain companies, which will gain greater and greater control. It is interesting that when the Government lists subsidies in the free trade agreement it lists the Western Grain Transportation Act as a $700 million subsidy. That is an historic arrangement that has been with us almost since the turn of the century. It is given to western farmers to make up for the costs of transportation. Nowhere in this agreement is it mentioned what the corps of engineers spent on the Mississippi River system. In the GATT negotiations the American industry will be trying to get rid of the Western Grain Transportation Act, transportation assistance.
There is no provision in this agreement to list what is spent on the Mississippi River transportation system. Perhaps in no area do we see a greater impact than in the fruit and vegetable industry. That industry will be severely hampered. It will lose its seasonal tariff it will not be able to keep it. The snap back provision to the most favoured nation tariff is a cumbersome, crude device which will not work. It is designed to replace the tariff that existed. If the price of fruits or vegetables in Canada drop below 90 per cent of the five-year average, a device like that which takes five to seven days to be put in place is a total joke. Once the price breaks on fresh fruits and vegetables, is gone for the season. No industry, of course, has suffered more than the grape industry, the wine industry. Even though this deal does not come into effect until next January, that industry is going through tremendous strife already. I talked to a producer in the Niagara escarpment over the weekend who has some 800 acres. I believe he is the largest producer of grapes in Canada. He said that his vines will have to be cut and removed. To give up those special fruit, vegetables, grape growing areas, to say that we can sacrifice them and that they are not very important is not a criminal act, but I think it would be a terrible decision for a Government to take. We would become dependent in future on the wine and grapes produced in California.
If the Government were to do this-and it is its decision-it should have had those adjustment programs well in place and even had them listed in the agreement so that they could not be countervailed themselves. This trade deal was a signal to the GATT that they could lower the boom on the Canadian wine industry, and in fact they have.
Fortunately, at least in Ontario, the Ontario Government has brought in arrangements to reduce the tariffs over 12 years. That is what the B.C. wine industry pleaded with the Minister to do. That is what the Minister said she would do and understood she had to do. If they had the 10 to 12 years they could have survived, but if they lose half the differential in price in one year they will not survive.
Similarly, this agreement is a signal to the GATT to get rid of Article 11 which in the get rid of supply management in this country, within the next seven or eight years.
With the pressure coming from the Americans at the GATT, the Cairns Group the grocery products manufacturers and others, I think the whole supply management industry will ultimately be destroyed.
A monitoring mechanism should be put in place as well in this drafting instruction so that countervail and anti-dumping can be applied as well. In the long haul the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed, as well as our supply management in other commodities. Massive new access to the U.S. market will not occur, in my opinion, because we have already seen an appreciation of the dollar by some 15 per cent. We will probably see another 15 per cent over the next few years, which will make it that much more difficult for Canadian producers.
I believe that we will ultimately see the destruction of our supply management system which has a tremendous regional development diversification aspect to it. We have a healthy dairy industry in Atlantic Canada and in other parts of our country. We will not see that if we harmonize with the United States vertically integrated system. I believe GATT and this trade deal will have a very negative impacts on agriculture, the whole idea of a family farm and of moderate sized, efficient units. I do not think we want it. It is not good for Canada. We intend to oppose it in every way possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member who probably is one of the most negative people in the House of Commons-"nothing is right in Canada. We can't compete. We are not very good. We must withdraw into our little shell here in Canada and hide behind barriers and hide behind this, that, and the other thing".
First of all, let us talk about the supply management program and some of the comments that he made about supply management. He said that we dramatically increased the
June 28, 1988

importation of chicken under this agreement. What in fact happened is that chicken remains under quota. It went from about 6.3 per cent of production in Canada to 7.5 per cent. Do you know how they arrived at the 7.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker? They took the average of the last five years of actual importation of chickens into this country to reach that number.
That is in fact an historical figure. There is not a huge influx of chicken production coming into this country. The Hon. Member is a doctor of veterinary medicine. He should know that the production of chicken in this country has increased dramatically over the last number of years. That particular industry is healthy and is doing extremely well. We know that the egg hatching people are looking now at a marketing system which, I might point out to the people watching, is permitted under the free trade agreement.
The Hon. Member talked about the demise of our marketing system. I might point out that people around the world are looking at our marketing systems. They see farmers getting a fair return for their product under the marketing system. As a matter of fact upper state New York is looking at putting in a dairy program much like the one we have in Ontario. For the Member to talk about the demise of all these marketing systems is pure folly.
I might say one other thing. Yesterday John Swan, President of Hillebrand Estates Winery Limited, spoke on free trade in St. Catharines. Here is a little of what he said:
Hillebrand Estate Winery promotes the fact that here in the Niagara Peninsula we can compete with the wines of the world. We provide a strong indepth marketing strategy to sell our wines in Canada and abroad. We have grown from sales of 6,000 cases a year to 200,000 cases in four years time. All Hillebrand wines are produced from French hybrid and vinifera grape varieties.
These grape varieties are grown in the Niagara Peninsula. Listen to this:
Eight thousand cases will be exported this year either to Japan or the United States.
Mr. Swan delivers a good speech on the free trade agreement and says what a challenge it is and how well he will do. With all the Hon. Member's doom and gloom and how terrible this whole deal is for agriculture, why is it that the majority of the agricultural groups in Canada support it? Why are the cattle producers, the pork producers, and the Canadian dairy industry supporting it? If this agreement is so bad, why are all these agricultural associations supporting it?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the Bill or the agreement very well.


John Horton McDermid: I have read the agreement more than you have.


Maurice Brydon Foster: He is just like the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). Let me point out to him that in poultry meat alone the increase in the quota is some 21 per cent. It has
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
gone from 31 million kilograms to 37 million kilograms. I am glad the Member raised the question of the hatchery egg marketing board because that board, established a year or so ago, had been pleading with the Minister to put in place import controls. The Government has refused to do so month after month after month. In the Ontario region alone three egg hatchery marketing producers have gone broke because of the Government's refusal. Why does the Government refuse to put in place those import controls, Mr. Speaker? It is because it is still negotiating and will be negotiating for the next five to seven years.


John Horton McDermid: You are wrong.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I would like to draw to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention a letter written by Archie McLean, the Senior Vice-President of McCain Foods Limited. He points out that he was a member of the Special Advisory Group on International Trade for agriculture. In a letter last December, the day the documents came out, he described himself as a member of the Minister's SAGIT, Special Advisory Group on International Trade for agriculture, and a hard core Tory. He launched into the worst denunciation of the agreement that I have read any place. In a letter he writes:
I believe the Free Trade Deal in its present form, is a bad deal for food processing and will be a bad deal for Canadian farmers whose products are supply-managed or for farmers who produce fruit and vegetables.
This is a guy in the industry. He has served on SAGIT. He knows exactly how the deal runs. He goes on to point out-


John Horton McDermid: He wants the abolition of marketing boards.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -that the industry is organized from the United States. He points out that most of the food processing industry is nearly all American, at least 20 of 26 processors are, and that they will simply pull back their manufacturing and processing to the United States and just have a distribution system in Canada. When they do that, from where do you think they will get their food supplies? They will get them from outside the supply-managed system. Let me read his final paragraph:
As a member of the agriculture SAGIT, I'm committed to improving and expanding our trade potential for primary and further processed agricultural products. I believe the Free Trade deal in its current form, however, is a bad deal for food processing and ultimately, will be a bad deal for farmers whose products are a) supply-managed products or b) fruit and vegetables.
Clearly those sectors are sectors which will be severely hurt. What do we get in return? We give up on poultry.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We give up on fruit and vegetables.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Mr. Cadieux:: Totally wrong.

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement


Maurice Brydon Foster: We give up the whole wine industry. Even worse than that was the signal sent to the GATT on the grape and wine industry. The Minister wrote a letter to the B.C. grape industry in October last fall and said: "Look, we understand this industry will require at least a 10-year period to be phased in". What did it get? Within one year, between January 1, 1989 and January 1, 1990, the industry will lose half its differential in pricing. The GATT decision to phase out the differential pricing over 12 years is why B.C. producers said they could have adjusted. They would have moved to a higher quality grape production which could have found certain niches in the market. This deal is phasing out half the differential in one year.
The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to put a gloss on something that is just unacceptable to Canadian farmers. I did not hear him telling us about how well the Ontario Federation of Agriculture liked the deal.
I had the opportunity to attend the annual meeting of the Canadian Horticultural Council in January. A panel of people outlined the opportunities of the free trade deal. I listened for two hours and heard a diatribe against how the industry would be destroyed, whether from Gerald Green of the B.C. tree fruit producers or others. When you get into the drafting instructions on how the Government will put in place a monitoring mechanism so that information will be available to pork producers, beef producers, or any other sector allowing a countervail or dumping duty to be imposed-all the subsidies are listed in this book-you will see that we are in for an extremely rough ride. There does not seem to be any adjustment programs in place. Fifteen or seventeen grape producers have been moved out of operation this year already in Ontario, yet there does not seem to be any adjustment put in place for them. People who served on SAGIT for agriculture and food production say that if we have highly processed food in Canada produced under supply management competing with highly processed food coming in from the United States that not produced under supply management mechanisms, we need import controls. Even though that was recommended by SAGIT, import controls have not been put in place by this deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. Minister of Labour.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on a bill that will implement the historic agreement we have signed with the United States. Mr. Speaker, I intend, and I am sure this will come as a surprise, to vote in favour of the Bill.
At the Toronto Summit, heads of Government from the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany, and of course Canada and the United
States, spoke out in favour of the free trade agreement. They felt that the agreement was a positive step, not only for Canada and the United States but for all our major trading partners.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the free trade agreement is often discussed from a single perspective, as though it affected North America exclusively. In fact, we are talking about an agreement negotiated under the provisions of Article 24 of GATT. Furthermore, practically all the issues discussed by Canada and the United States during the bilateral talks are on the agenda of the multilateral trade negotiations now going on in Geneva.
That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was right to say in his speech to the Americas Club in New York, and I quote:
At the multilateral level, a trade agreement between the two biggest trading
partners on this planet has exceptional significance. In fact, the outcome of the
GATT negotiations depends very much on this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may name a few of the issues: putting a stop to the introduction of new protectionist measures; preparing new rules for international trade in agricultural products; reducing or eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers in order to improve market access; and developing basic principles for so-called new issues such as trade in services, intellectual property and trade-related investment.
The vocabulary is impressive and the concepts are high-sounding but basically, Mr. Speaker, it all boils down to this: All exporting countries are now part of an integrated world economy. As a result, they have to adopt trade policies that take into consideration the interests of their trading partners. For all practical purposes, the national market we have known for centuries is a disappearing bread.
That is the international reality that our country must fit into, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality on which the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States is based. However-and this will surprise you too, Mr. Speaker-some among us refuse to see this reality.
Mr. Speaker, they are dealers in a big illusion. According to them, Canada can fully enjoy its interdependence with the world's main markets without at the same time exposing its companies and industries to international competition. They are greatly mistaken when they say that we can adopt trade and industrial policies without considering our trading partners. They are greatly mistaken, Mr. Speaker, when they say that we can adopt discriminatory laws, regulations and practices against the products, services and capital of our trading partners.
You konw, Mr. Speaker, according to an old law of physics, for every action, there is a reaction. This same law applies to international trade. If a country imposes barriers on other countries' exports, it will have barriers imposed on it. If a country is prepared to negotiate freer entry of goods and
June 28, 1988

sevices from other countries, it will get the same treatment for its own goods and services. Action, reaction!
The so-called nationalists will one day have to realize the interdependence not only of Canada but of all the major industrialized countries.
It is fine to talk about national self-assertation, Mr. Speaker, as long as one can see beyond a narrow parochial view.
Mr. Speaker, to deal with the real world, we need global attitudes and especially a worldwide vision.
To take up our place in the world, Mr. Speaker, we need a world-class industrial structure. What does the Official Opposition propose to ensure the competitiveness of our businesses and industries? They want to resurrect a department which they dismantled as they propose to tear up the Agreement, if they can. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, they want to create a new department or resurrect one which they cut into pieces just six or seven years ago. They want to hire hundreds of public servants to look after international trade and industrial development. They want to spend more than 100 million dollars on God knows what bureaucratic initiatives to accomplish God knows what.
In other words, this proposal is typical of the liberal Party: when faced with a national challenge we see the federal public service, skyrochet, new allocation of funds and greater government interference in everybody's lives. We are all too familiar with the results of such an approach. Look at what happened between 1970 and 1984. The national debt incressed exponentially. And in spite of theire so-called national policies and their speeches on the famous third option, our reliance on the American market increased from 65% or so to more than 75%. That is what they call diversifying our export markets, Mr. Speaker. That is what I call blundering!
One need not look any further, Mr. Speaker, to get an idea of the Liberal party's economic expertise. We only have to look at how they manage their own funds. The key to economic growth and prosperity is not a bigger Canadian Government. The key to industrial productivity and international com-petitivity will not be found in the drawers of the bureaucracy. The key to our economic future lies in the entrepreneurship, the inventiveness and the initiative of our entrepreneurs and workers.
However, they need open and secure access to a world scale market in order to compete around the world. It would be extremely difficult over the next few years for our firms, our industries and our workers to compete with the Japanese, the Europeans and the Americans without a privileged access to the richest and most dynamic market in the world. This, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we secured through the Free Trade Agreement.
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement

Some say that we should rely exclusively on the multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. They think we are too small, too weak, and not sharp enough to negotiate one on one with the Americans. That is simply a contradiction in terms. Just imagine, if we cannot negotiate with the Americans, how can we hope to negotiate with the European Community and other powerful trading partners such as Japan?
Others insist that the free trade agreement threatens our sovereignty. These are the same people who insist that we negotiate trade liberalization exclusively through the GATT. What they do not say is that each time we introduce a new policy, law or regulation related to international trade, we must ensure that it is consistent with the provisions of the GATT.

Mr. Speaker, does that mean we are any less sovereign? Definitely not! Does that mean we cannot maintain, much less improve our health and welfare programs? Not at all! Does that mean we cannot maintain or improve our regional industrial expansion programs? Definitely not! Are our cultural programs threatened? No, Mr. Speaker, our cultural programs are not threatened. The same goes for our trade agreement with the United States.
Since that Agreement was signed by the Prime Minister and the President last January, we have announced a number of new initiatives in all those areas. For example, Mr. Speaker, our national policy on film distribution and production, our new Copyright Act, our national policy on daycare, our new policy on women subject to marital abuse, our very recent agreement with Quebec on the St. Lawrence River clean-up and the development of fringe areas. Whether it be culture, welfare, health or economic and industrial development, Mr. Speaker, we are totally free and sovereign.
The FT A does not say anything about economic or political union. Mr. Speaker, it is simply a matter of creating a free trade zone as defined under GATT. Canada and the United States will indeed continue to have different policies, different laws, and different regulations. Mr. Speaker, the day the FTA comes into force there will not be any more snow in the Keys than there are palm trees in Chicoutimi.
However, one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be more jobs and more wealth in Canada, the kind of wealth which will enable us to maintain existing programs and introduce new ones. All independent research organizations are at one on this, including the Economic Council, the Conference Board, and Informetrica, just to name a few. To those who are concerned over the issue of sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, I say that political sovereignty without economic clout is nothing more than a mirage. All regions of Canada will benefit from the many free trade spinoffs. Industrialized regions will have freer and more secure access to the American market, and less industrialized regions will finally have an opportunity to diversify their local economy.

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
So what is at stake as far as Quebec is concerned, Mr. Speaker? In 1986, Quebec exports were estimated at roughly $21 billion-$3,500 for each man, woman and child in the province-or to put it another way, Mr. Speaker, $14,000 for a family of four. Perhaps you are wondering how much of that the American market accounted for? For about 76 cents of each dollar earned through Quebec exports, Mr. Speaker.
That is why we say that the Free Trade Agreement is the key to our economic future. That is also why the Premier of Quebec is one of the staunchest supporters of free trade. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when some people tried to use Clause 6 in the Bill to sow discord, the Government of Quebec responded by annoucing that it would take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that provincial acts and regulations are in accordance with the Agreement's provisions.
The Government of Quebec fully understands what is at stake and knows that Quebec industries such as the newsprint industry, the automotive industry and those involved in the production of aluminium, telecommunications equipment, softwood lumber, railway and transport equipment or high tech equipment such as semi-conductors, all need access to the American market not only to grow but to survive.
Given the size and complexity of our country and our interdependence with the world's largest markets, not only the U.S. but also the European community and the growing markets of the Pacific Rim, our horizons must be large and our vision must be global. We simply cannot afford to withdraw into a protectionist shell. More important, as journalist Richard Gwynn has written, free trade represents "the ultimate declaration by Canadians of self-confidence in themselves, confidence both in their ability to compete and their ability to continue as a distinct political and social unit.

Mr. Speaker, in this age of advanced technology and integrate world economy, we need free and secure access to the world's markets. Trough the Free Trade Agreement, we will have unfettered access to the world's richest and most dynamic market.
As the economist Rodrigue Tremblay has said, and I quote:
The United States and Canada have an historic opportunity to go foward in
the direction of economic progress and to help North America become the
most prosperous territory in the world.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favour of the historic Free Trade Agreement and the bill to implement it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a few questions to the Minister. My first point is that he should show that there is something for us in this agreement. The Tory Minister should do that because a number of his cabinet colleagues have
yet to read this agreement themselves. The Minister stated that our health scheme is not at risk. I must say that here, on page 203 of the Agreement, there are health facilities which are covered. Also, when we take a closer look we realize that American laboratories and clinics will be able to set up shop in Canada. These Americans will kill our own approach to health services in Canada.

The Minister suggests that there is no threat to our regional expansion system. Let me point out that we have not reached a satisfactory agreement with the U.S. on the question of what constitutes an acceptable subsidy. We will negotiate this for seven years and then, when our economy will have restructured itself, it will be very difficult for any Canadian Government to stand up to the U.S. if it says that our regional development subsidies have to go. For us to withdraw from the deal then would have devastating consequences for our economy.
[ Translation]
The Minister also said that our cultural life is not at risk. Again, there is on page 297 of the Agreement the notwithstanding clause-


Pierre H. Cadieux: "La disposition derogatoire"in French.


Steven W. Langdon: -which states that if we insisted on doing something to protect our cultural life in the future, the United States would be able to take trade actions against Canada to respond to these changes.

One must also say, when one talks about GATT, as someone who was at the start of the present GATT round, that we are a respected and fully accepted member of GATT, with many allies and many countries which look to us for leadership. That is not the case in a one-for-one negotiation with the United States.
The Economic Council of Canada did not compare the results of this Agreement to a freer trade under GATT without having all the information concerning the give aways to the United States which are included in the Agreement. These are the facts and they are not as mentioned by the Minister.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has referred to the reading of the agreement. It is important to read the agreement, but it is also important to read it carefully and to read it the way it is written in order to understand it and not misrepresent what one believes is written in the agreement but in reality is not.
My hon. colleague posed about 25 questions. I will try to address a few. He refers-
June 28, 1988



-that Canada is a respected member of the GATT and, for once, I agree with something which was suggested by a Socialist. It is a fact that Canada is a respected partner within the GATT, as it is a respected partner of the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is not because Canada has signed an historical Free Trade Agreement with the United States that Canada is no longer seen as a respected partner within the GATT.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member, because he forgot to mention this, that the G-7 leaders who met recently in Toronto and whose countries also members of the GATT, have great respect and even admiration for Canada because they unanimously supported the Free Trade Agreement. Not only do they support free trade, but they stated this should help indeed the GATT negotiations which include Canada and which are scheduled to extend over a number of years.
It is my hope that the Hon. Member, who was here when the current round of GATT negotiations started, will still be here at the end of those negotiations to see how much more Canada will be respected at that stage, for reasons that include such initiatives as that historical accord reached with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, every day during Questions Period, which you follow reverently, you hear Members from the Official Opposition and the unofficial or not so official one rise and try to distort and sow fear among Canadians on items that are not written into the Free Trade Agreement, which again I suggest the Hon. Member should read again, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing that prevents us as a sovereign nation to look after our culture indeed.
Mr. Speaker, how often do they rise across the aisle to shout that Canada's culture is threatened! My colleague, the Minister of Communication (Miss MacDonald), recently tabled two important pieces of legislation, one of which deals with film distribution in Canada. If we were to believe hon. Members on that side of the House that is sometimes referred to as the unofficial opposition, culture would be threatened by that Free Trade Agreement, but such is not the case. And I suggest to the Hon. Member that if he reads the Free Trade Agreement and if he claims to understand it, he should read the film distribution legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Time allotted for questions and comments is now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this Bill I am concerned that it will, in 20 minutes, be very difficult to explain comprehensively what is wrong with the Bill. I will try to define certain aspects of it which may help the people who are watching understand some of the implications of it.
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
As I talk to people in my riding and other ridings I am continually asked what the trade Bill is all about. People say that they do not understand it, that people are not explaining it to them, that some are saying it is good for Canada, others are saying it is not good for Canada, and they are left out in the cold.
The process which took place with this agreement has left people asking why the Government was rushing to get it signed when we did not have the text. The committee held hearings without knowing the specifics. When a government attempts to do that without allowing full discussion and debate, it is clear that there is fear. There is no question in my mind that the Government has been operating under an intense amount of fear. It has put legislation before this House which comes from a base of nothing but fear.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said that we have to pass this Bill because one form which U.S. protectionism can take is politically inspired distortion of trade remedy law and another form is direct limitation of trade as proposed in earlier versions of the U.S. omnibus trade Bill. We know that the trade Bill did have implications which certainly would make trading very difficult for Canada. We also know that protectionism exists in the United States because its economy is in such a dreadful state. The United States has a dreadful deficit in trade not only with Canada but with Japan and the European Common Market as well.
I heard the Minister say recently that our horizon must be large and our vision global. If we are looking for large horizons and a global vision, we are certainly not looking at a North American fortress. Yet that is exactly what I hear from the government side of the House. I keep hearing the word "harmonize" from each speaker. If you look up "harmonize" in the dictionary you will see that it says "become more like, become similar". That is certainly not what we on this side of the House want.
Over the years Canada has built up a very special value system and a very special country. Our ancestors sacrificed a lot to ensure that trade above the 49th parallel was able to create a society which had its own integrity and which did not become totally dependent. The wars which we fought in 1776 and 1812, and the declaration of our independence in 1867 were all statements that we as a people can be a little bit different but can be strong. We have had great success in doing that.
I heard my colleague from Algoma talking about supply management and the Government saying it was protected. My understanding is that Article 7(10) of the agreement says that both the United States and Canada are protected by Article 11 of the GATT. I agree with that. However, it does not go on to say that there has been a constant move by the Reagan administration and the Canadian delegation to remove Article 11 from the GATT rules. The Government is, on the one hand, saying that we are protecting our supply management system by Section 7(10) of the Accord and, at the same time, is

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
moving to remove the clause in the GATT which gives us that protection. That is the most devious kind of hypocrisy that I can think of. I do not think that all the Members on the government side have looked at the agreement in detail and recognized that that kind of thing is happening.
I question whether the Minister for International Trade is as committed to this as he seems when he says that he has not read it. He seems to form a policy with his friends through jokes rather than serious thought. When asked to make a concentrated response about the deal, rather than any serious analysis we see witticism that attempts to put people down.
What will be the implications of this Accord on women? There are those who say there will be wonderful benefits for women. They will only be wonderful for women who are presidents of multinational corporations, because multinational corporations do not want to be restricted by borders.
I am concerned about women in the service and manufacturing sectors, and women in the labour force who perform minimum wage and lower paid jobs. I cannot believe that members of the Government who have seriously considered this legislation believe the deal will help those people. We have known for some time that the United States wants a trade agreement in order to reduce barriers to services. We also know that Brazil and India, along with Canada, have strongly opposed that until now.
Now we find that services are included in the trade agreement. Our concern about services does not refer to hairdressers moving from one community to another, as has been suggested, but the future of data processing, health and education services and the variety of jobs that are being created today. Eighty-two per cent of our economy is in the service sector, and most of those jobs are the better paying jobs held by women. Yet the Government has gone ahead to trade the service sector.
Currently, information in the data processing industry must be collected in the branch plant or at the company where that information is being collected. Many of those jobs exist in Canada. According to a study conducted by the Computer Association of Canada, over 180,000 jobs in data processing will be gone when companies are no longer required to collect that information here. That is the consequence of part of the trade agreement in terms of trade in services. It is important that we consider those details.
The Minister who just spoke talked about all the studies that had recommended this trade agreement as a way to increase the employment base for Canada. The Economic Council of Canada admitted that it did not look at any studies that included the service base. The Macdonald Commission, which rationalized many reasons to support free trade, did not take into account one study on the service industry.
Last night I met some women from the National Organization of Women in the United States, as well as some of the executive from the Feminist Majority. They were very concerned about what could happen to our population in light of all we have worked for over the years. They do not have income security programs, minimum wage requirements or the same working conditions for women for which we have worked so hard.
They were impressed by our ability to have a national old age pension in spite of our small population. Many of those living in poverty in Canada are women over 65 years of age. The women whom I met were amazed at our ability to have developed our social programs over the years. It was with some pride that I acknowledged that we have a reasonably good social network system, particularly for women. It is frightening to realize that all of these programs could be at risk. There does not seem to be any concern or discussion about it on the other side of the House.
Women who work in the goods producing sector often fill the lower paying jobs. They are particularly vulnerable under the trade agreement. This sector includes the textile, clothing, leather products and small electrical appliance industries. These are the kinds of industries in which women are employed in my riding. Not only will there be a rapid loss of jobs in those industries, there has been no concerted effort to devise an adjustment strategy.
Some members of the Government have suggested that these matters will resolve themselves in 20 years. What will happen to the people who are affected in the meantime? There are enough homeless people who are already getting their food from the food banks. Surely those Members are not willing to ignore a whole group of people who will be dislocated from industries.
While there was great support for the free trade agreement at the Summit, I did not hear anyone talk about the importance of the trade agreement and the developing world. An agreement like this closes the doors on some innovative trade agreements that Canadians can enter not only in our own interest but in order to have a global vision, in the words of the Minister. No longer will we be able to get into special programs like auto insurance or dental care without asking permission of the United States. The agreement states clearly that we can no longer implement such programs if they affect American firms.
Many of our insurance companies are American, and we welcome them here, but we certainly do not intend to implement our own programs only by the grace of the United States. We would like to make those decisions on our own, as we have in the past. Without our health care plans, we would be facing the same situation as the United States. They cannot deliver health care as cheaply as Canada or cover their whole population. We have learned to conduct these programs well, and this agreement jeopardizes that.
June 28, 1988

The service industry in the United States allows for private management firms in health care. This will affect all our social services except child care. However, it will not be long before there is great pressure to provide child care services for profit.
Canadians have recognized over the years the importance of being able to deliver non profit services. We have delivered those non-profit services with a lot of efficiency and caring. Some of our social services need amendments and need to be addressed, but we can do that.
I become very worried when I hear that this trade agreement means we have confidence in ourselves. If we have confidence in ourselves, we do not have to run in a corner and decide there is only one partner we can trade with and we have to get into an agreement with them. If we have confidence in ourselves, we can stand up proud and tall, believing that Canadian workers can deliver anywhere in the world. We can get into a multinational kind of trade agreement. We do not have to get tied into American foreign policy. We do not have to get tied into every multinational that wants to exploit our people and resources. What we do understand is that our environment is sacred. There is dignity to the work our people do and they should have, and do have in most cases, a quality of life commensurate with the dignity of work they perform. It seems to me that if we are just going to get into the economic constitution of President Reagan, that is not what the majority of Canadians want. It is not what the majority of women in this country want and it certainly is not the future we want to build for our children. I think we understand that very clearly.
I have been very concerned about the fact that not many members on the government side have taken the Accord particularly seriously because, I believe, they trusted some of their cabinet Ministers had read the agreement. However, they are beginning to recognize, I would hope, that this is a very serious document, and not only must we read this document but we must look at every analysis of it. If those Members could convince me that this agreement would build a stronger Canadian economy, giving us the kind of sovereignty we had in the past, giving us the ability to have some direction over our own lives, to protect our environment and ensure our native people do not get caught into the whole economic development of our North that could very easily result in a further industrial militarization of our North, if they could convince me that that is what we were going to have, then I would say, yes, we would support it.
I think every one of those things are at risk now. The financial institutions can now come to Canada and purchase any part of the Canadian economy they choose. Can we go down there and set up our banks in the United States? No, we cannot.


Mr. Malone:: Sure you can.


Marion Dewar: No, we cannot. Read the Act. You obviously have not read it. We cannot do it because the American Bank
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
Act is in contravention of the Canadian Bank Act. It was that Member's side of the House which changed that Bank Act in the last 18 months. That is why we cannot go there and set up a bank in the United States. That is the kind of agreement we have got ourselves into and government Members do not even understand it. That really does concern me.
I think we are looking at the ability of this country to govern itself. We want a country that has the kind of economy we have some say over. We want to be able to provide programs when we know that there are certain needs in our society that we collectively can deliver for the betterment of perhaps the weakest in our communities. Certainly, we will not be able to do that if we are tied into what the American companies are delivering in our country. It would be impossible. We would have to ask the permission of those American companies.
I could take examples of banking, women, telecommunications, resources, manufacturing, and go through the agreement paragraph by paragraph. There are thousands of pages. It seems to me that is what we should be doing in this House instead of cutting off debate. I think it is crucial we take every paragraph, analyse it, and then perhaps we would change our minds on some things and perhaps the Government would change its mind on some things. At least, our country would be better served. Certainly, the reason I ran for Parliament and the reason I want to represent the people of Hamilton Mountain is because they have great faith and confidence in this country and in the future. I am not going to let any government destroy that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Steven W. Langdon: I have a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member would get in his chair, I would be able to recognize him. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for a question or comment.


Steven W. Langdon: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: No one else could dignify that speech.


Steven W. Langdon: I would have hoped that the Conservatives, since they were heckling so vigorously, would have had some constructive questions to raise. Since the Hon. Member comes from an industrial city and since that city has experienced a great many takeovers of Canadian companies and eventual problems that resulted from those takeovers, I wonder if she would deal with some of the threats that exist, especially for a city like Hamilton and for industrial cities right across this country from the West to the East? Will she comment on what we have given to the United States as part of the agreement, that we will no longer have a system of review for the massive takeovers of Canadians companies, and we will no longer ask for any commitments, any performance requirements? What

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
in her experience and in the experience of her constituency is likely to be the consequence of this?


Marion Dewar: My colleague raises a very serious question. What we have seen since the early 1980s is the shutting down of plants and the relocation of plants that are not Canadian owned to the United States so factories that are under capacity can be filled. The Firestone situation has shown that its Canadian experience was more efficient, less labour costly and certainly the market was here for the factory in Elamilton. Yet, they made the decision south of the border that they would close that plant and fill a plant in the United States that was over-built and operating under capacity. That was of very great concern at the time. However, we were able to get back the money that had been given to Firestone to modernize in Hamilton. With no review, with the ability of plants to come and go whatever way they like and without any value standards to be looked at, what will happen? At the beginning of my remarks I noted that the United States economy is in very serious shape. We know there are a lot of parent companies operating under capacity. There will be absolutely nothing to stop them from filling up those factories completely without any worry whatsoever about what is happening in Canada.
Something else that is very serious is that we have seen a company come into Hamilton when Canadian Ceramics was closing and the workers themselves wanted to buy that plant. Of course, the American company said it would operate the plant but within two years it is closed. They undermined the competition that was there and off they went after they got a monopoly on the market. There was nothing to stop them. That is not free trade, Mr. Speaker, that's total exploitation of Canadian workers.
Something else we have to look at, and the Minister for International Trade referred to it in his speech the other day on this Bill, is the fact that we now send our resources out of the country and then import them at a value added and tariff. He seemed to think that we would be able to stop doing that because the tariff would be reduced. There is absolutely nothing we can say with this trade agreement that they must process in Canada. What we have done is put up more obstacles. Of course, we become, again, just the hewers of wood and drawers of water. We have limited ourselves of the ability to put any kind of regulation in because of this trade deal.
I heard from some of the steel people in Hamilton that their hope was that they would have great access to the American market. They said that it is so large that it would be great for people to have that kind of access. However, we then looked at the agreement and saw that there is nothing in it that says that the countervail has been removed. We are being asked now to put a voluntary export limit on our steel. Up to this point we have been agreeing to do that, even though we do not have to do it. We know that if we take the voluntary export limit off, that quota off, we could be subject to countervail. Then we
thought that at least there would be a dispute settlement mechanism. We thought that perhaps this would protect our workers and even if it took a year or two we would be able to do it.
What did the Minister for International Trade say? He said they hoped that the agreement would stop unfair laws. The agreement does not stop any laws. What the agreement states with respect to the dispute settlement mechanism is that the Americans will interpret whether or not the laws are being properly interpreted.


John Horton McDermid: That's right.


Marion Dewar: Yes. So they can put the most unfair trade laws in place. As long as they are being properly interpreted, then that is fine.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong. I do not think that you have read the agreement.


Marion Dewar: I do not think that you have read the agreement clearly. It certainly is true.


John Horton McDermid: They have to abide by GATT. Read the agreement.


Marion Dewar: Not only have I read it, but we also have two legal opinions with respect to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time allotted for questions and comments is now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on debate.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating second reading of Bill C-130. Its purpose is to approve the Government's comprehensive trade agreement with the United States.
Should this House and should the Canadian people approve this agreement? Let us take a look at the deal that was made. Let us ask ourselves a basic and simple question. Is it a good deal for Canada? There are two ways to find an answer to this question, two ways to assess it. One is to look at the objective the Government set for itself when it began the negotiations and see whether or not it was achieved in the deal that was concluded. The other is to identify the benefits and the costs of the deal and to see to what extent the benefits, if any, will outweigh these costs.
What was the Government's primary objective in seeking a comprehensive trade deal with the United States? It was to ensure secure access to the American market. This secure access, the Government said, would be achieved by complete exemption for Canada from United States trade remedy laws. This would mean that Canadian exports would no longer be hit by American anti-dumping or countervail duties.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated this primary objective of his Government very clearly and categorically in
June 28, 1988

an interview with The Wall Street Journal in April, 1987, when he said: "Trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada period..."
Was this objective achieved in the deal covered by Bill C-130? Clearly not. Even with the Government's trade deal Canada's exports will continue to be subject to all current American anti-dumping and countervail laws. In fact, the deal also states that Canadian exports will be subject to any new American trade laws adopted before January 1, 1989. Even though President Reagan vetoed the omnibus congressional trade Bill, if another version is passed that he accepts or if his veto is overridden, then it will apply to Canadian exports to the United States in spite of the Government's trade deal.
Therefore everything remains the same. We are not exempted from U.S. trade remedy laws. They do apply to Canada, in spite of the Prime Minister's words, which are shown to be empty and meaningless, as has happened all too often in the past. However, there is one difference, one change brought about by his deal. There will be a new dispute settlement mechanism. What does this mechanism do? How does it work? What will it accomplish? It comes into effect only at the very end of the presently existing and very lengthy process provided for by the American trade remedy laws now on the books.
The process that has sometimes troubled Canadian exporters remains the same, except in effect it has been lengthened and will have added to it this dispute settlement mechanism which involves the setting up of a panel. However, this panel can decide only if the American law has been correctly applied in terms of its own language. The panel will not have the power to decide whether the American law itself conflicts with the international trade rules created by the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and therefore could be rejected as being contrary to those GATT rules. This will not be able to be done by the provisions of the Prime Minister's trade deal.
A key issue when it comes to secure access to the American market is the definition of a subsidy. What government payments, what government programs should be considered as a subsidy of the kind that should be subject to countervailing duties to American trade penalties? Under the Prime Minister's trade deal this question, this key issue is left completely open. It is to be negotiated between Canada and the United States for a period of five years and even up to seven years. We are left in total uncertainty as to what the situation will be at the end of this seven-year period.
How will subsidy be defined as a result of these negotiations? What leverage will Canada have at the end of seven years from now to reject American demands that its definitions be accepted, even if these demands mean that Canada's social programs, medical care, pensions, industrial and regional development programs will be considered to be unacceptable subsidies? How can business in Canada make
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
plans for investment and production with this uncertainty hanging over it?
Clearly, the Government did not achieve its primary objective of secure access to the American market in the deal it negotiated with the United States. Let us take a look at the deal in terms of its benefits and its costs.
One benefit supposedly coming from this deal is the elimination of all tariffs, all customs duties on goods moving between our two countries over a period of 10 years. However, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of all goods moving between the United States and Canada already do so duty free. This has been accomplished through the periodic rounds of international trade negotiations under the GATT since the Second World War. The average level of the remaining tariffs has been reduced from some 40 per cent to some 10 per cent.
Surely, even further substantial reductions in tariffs and customs duties would have been achieved through the new round of international tariff negotiations presently under way without the necessity of the massive concessions, the massive costs to Canadian sovereignty, and the massive risks to the economic well-being of this country that have been created by this deal. The Government's claim that the trade deal would bring tremendous benefits to Canadians as consumers through the elimination of customs duties on goods brought into Canada from the United States on examination is just another Conservative Government sham.
If the deal is implemented Canadians will not be able to rush over to the United States on January 1, 1989, and bring back anything they want free of duty. They cannot do this in spite of the suggestions raised by the Government that this will be possible. Instead, what they will buy will still be subject to federal and provincial sales taxes. Customs duties will still be payable if the goods are not manufactured largely in the United States. I am not sure that people realize that many of the consumer goods, the clothing, the appliances that they would like to buy when they see them on sale in the United States are in fact not manufactured in that country. Again, I say that this trade deal is a gigantic sham when it comes to consumer benefits.
What about jobs? The Government originally claimed there would be substantial economic benefits, that large numbers of jobs would result from its trade deal with the United States. Its own Economic Council is showing how wrong these claims are. Before the deal was concluded, the Council predicted
350.000	net new jobs would be created if a deal were entered into. After it looked at the deal that was actually negotiated, the Council revised its estimates sharply downward. It said the elimination of tariffs would create only 76,000 net new jobs over 10 years. Then it said that, if one could assume a threefold increase in productivity-and it did not say exactly how and why Canada would achieve this-the number of jobs created by the deal would be 250,000. This is quite a reduction from the 350,000 originally estimated, and it amounts to only
25.000	net new jobs a year over 10 years.

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
This is within the normal margin of error for economic forecasting. Therefore, this degree of net new job creation is very small and could easily happen as a result of the operation of normal domestic fiscal and monetary policy without having the trade deal of the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in place.
If the benefits of the deal are so slight, can it be said that at least the cost of it for Canadians is not high? Unfortunately, this is not the case. The price for Canadians far outweighs any benefits. In brief, that price is a severe limitation on the right of Canadians to make decisions about and policies for the direction of their country through their governments, both federal and provincial.
The policy areas covered by this deal include energy, investment, regional development, industrial policy, agriculture, financial services, and cultural industries.
Let us look at what this deal means, if it goes through, when it comes to energy. If the deal is constitutionally valid, a province would no longer be able to offer a preferential price for its energy to encourage industrial development in that province. The federal Government will no longer be able to ensure that, in times of world energy shortage or crisis, Canada is supplied first, that Canada's needs are taken care of first with its own energy. Instead, under the Government's trade deal, the United States will be entitled to the same proportional share it received from Canada before there was such an energy crisis.
When it comes to investment the deal further reduces, and in some ways wipes out forever, the ability of the federal Government to screen or review American takeovers and to set performance requirements as a condition of their acceptance.
The Government claims over and over that cultural industries are exempt from the deal. It says that is what is stated in clause 2005. However, the very next subclause of 2005 makes clear that if the United States does not like any new Canadian cultural policies or programs it can retaliate against those programs or against some other sector in Canada. Some exemption! It is a meaningless exemption, no matter what the words of the deal say.
The Government makes the same claim of exemption from the deal for our social programs: medicare, pensions, and unemployment insurance. How can we be sure of this when the deal leaves open for seven years of negotiation the definition of subsidy. The United States may yet force on Canada a definition of subsidy that includes and puts at risk these crucial and important social programs for Canadians.
The Government promised Canadians that the Auto Pact would not be touched by any trade deal with the United States. It said over and over during the negotiations that the Auto Pact was not on the table. Now that the deal is public, Canadians should ask whether the Government told them the truth. Canadians can judge for themselves. Even though the
Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has not read the deal, Canadians can do so. They will see that there is a whole chapter in the text of the agreement on the Auto Pact and the auto sector. The Auto Pact has worked well for Canada and the United States. It has brought about a tremendous expansion of production of cars and parts both in Canada and in the United States, and a tremendous increase of jobs in our country, and in our neighbour's country as well.
There are some 150,000 direct jobs in the Canadian auto industry, and many more indirect jobs in related sectors. Contrary to what the Government claimed, the Auto Pact is not a free trade agreement. It is an agreement that manages our trade in cars and parts with the United States and provided safeguards to ensure production of cars and parts and, therefore, jobs in Canada. It says if a North American automobile company did not provide at least 60 per cent Canadian content on cars and parts sold here, full duties would have to be paid on all imports that those companies bring in from the United States.
This deal will eliminate the duties the Government used in the past to enforce compliance with the content safeguards. In fact, it changes those safeguards from a Canadian content rule to only a 50 per cent North American content rule. This means that the North American auto companies still under the Auto Pact would not have to manufacture one car or one auto part in Canada in order to sell their products duty free in this country. This deal rips the guts out of the Auto Pact. It puts at grave risk tens of thousands of jobs that directly and indirectly depend upon the Canadian auto industry. It is a real sell-out of Canada's interest when it comes to the auto industry, a foundation of our economy.
When the Conservative trade deal is fully examined it is clear that its costs, its price for Canadians, far exceed any possible benefit for our country. As a deal it is simply not a good deal for Canada. What we have here is a massive giveaway of Canada's sovereignty and independence. No wonder we call Bill C-130 nothing more than "the sale of Canada Act".
The Prime Minister recognized what this type of deal with the United States would mean when he said, while campaigning for the leadership of his Party in 1983, that the kind of arrangement with the United States contemplated by this deal was an intrusion into our sovereignty, and he would have none of it now or at any other time. Canadians will ask why did he go back on his word in this important matter with so little for Canadians in return.
In effect, this deal brings about a massive change in our Constitution, not by the process provided for in that Constitution, but by an agreement with another country. It is an intrusion into the jurisdiction of the provinces. Most serious of all, it takes away from present and future generations of Canadians many of the rights that they now have to decide through their Governments what kind of country they want.
June 28, 1988

There is a better alternative to this deal, the Liberal alternative set out in documents we have published. I do not have time to go into that alternative in detail, but I do wish to say that it is to expand trade, lower trade barriers with the United States and with the world through negotiations, not only with the United States, but at the same time with many countries in the world using the GATT system. Under the GATT system it is not only Canada and one other country, the United States, 10 times Canada's size, in which much of Canada's economy is controlled. In the GATT we are joined by many other countries to balance the size, the impact, and economic clout of the United States.
Surely we should seek out the markets of the world as well as the markets of the United States and not lock ourselves, as this deal would do, into a new form of continental protectionism. We should have enough confidence in ourselves to reject this continental protectionism and reach out to the world. Surely this approach is better than what the Government's deal is all about. It is not about trade or tariffs, it is not just a trade deal, it is really about our sovereignty and independence. It is about our future. It is about the economic integration of Canada with the United States. If that happens we also face the eventual cultural, social, and political integration of our country with the United States.
Expressing concern about this does not mean any lack of friendship or regard for the United States. On the contrary, it simply means that we believe there is something that we have built here as Canadians that is worth preserving, and much for us yet to do in this country. Basically this agreement binds future generations of Canadians and their Governments to the current Conservative Government's narrow ideological view of Canada. Surely this is contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy. It should be open to future generations to decide what approach to take to energy, regional development, investment, or social policy. They should be able to say what the balance should be between the operation of market forces and the role of governments in the unfolding of their lives, and not have their rights to do this fixed and limited forever by this Conservative trade deal.
Let future generations of Canadians decide on the values that they consider important, for example, whether they want the American approach to medical care in which a Doctor checks your wallet before he checks your pulse.
I say by way of conclusion that because this agreement is such a sell-out of-


An Hon. Member:: He didn't find your pulse.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -our sovereignty and independence, of our economic well-being, even this government should have the courage and the faith in Canada not to proceed with it at all. Certainly it should not do so unless it first has a full and clear majority mandate through an election,
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
something I am convinced that when an election comes-and I hope it is soon-it will not get.
This deal, and therefore Bill C-130, is contrary to the best interests of Canada and its people.
I call on the House to defeat this Bill and to defeat this Conservative Government's trade deal in the interests of the future of this country and its people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened to my hon. friend's speech. I did not hear him thank the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing him to get in an earlier slot to speak tonight so that he would not have to stay this evening. I understand that he wanted to get all his speech in.
I welcomed his remarks because it shows that he has not read the agreement, or if he has read the agreement, he does not understand it. The nonsense that he is passing around that the Government does not retain any rights any more to control its destiny, or Canada's destiny, is just totally, totally wrong. The free trade agreement does not do that to Canada, as he would suggest. We have a wide range of powers. General taxation policy, fiscal, monetary policy, regional development incentives, all these policies remain intact. They like to say that they are not going to remain intact. Nonsense. They are going to remain intact.
The Hon. Member knows that. He is a very intelligent man. He has been here a long time. He knows that 80 per cent of our trade with the United States today is duty-free. We are talking about the last 20 per cent. He knows full well that services covered under this agreement are under negotiation at the GATT as well. He talked about relying on GATT. He said we should rely on GATT. Well, we are negotiating at GATT. We are playing a very meaningful role, especially the leadership being provided by this Government.
The agricultural community problems that we are experiencing are global problems. It is Canada that is leading the charge at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I had lunch with Willy De Clercq, the Chief Administrator at the GATT. Do you know what he said? He said that this is a marvellous agreement. Do you know what the GATT partners were doing? They were watching this negotiation very, very carefully. They said that if the two largest trading partners in the world could not reach an agreement, then how in heaven's name did they ever think they would reach an agreement at GATT? That is exactly what they said. The partners were very pleased to see what happened in the free trade agreement. They are using that. It was a hopeful sign that negotiations would carry on in GATT in a very positive way.
My hon. friend from Windsor West is nodding his head. I talked to the people from GATT. I know he hasn't. I know

June 28, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free trade Agreement
what they are saying. They are very pleased with this agreement.
The other point that the Liberals and the New Democratic Party failed to mention is that the free trade agreement was negotiated under the GATT rules, and that GATT rules still pertain to trade. I listened to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar). She said, these rules are just for us now, that we won't have any GATT rules any more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is commenting on somebody else's speech. I wish he would direct his comment and his question to the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was getting heckled over here. I was answering that. I apologize, and I apologize to the House. In any event, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), first of all why he disagrees with negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States, why he would put all his eggs in the GATT basket, why he would bring in a policy, which the Liberals have done, which is 10 years old. It is just going back to the same old stuff.
When the Liberals started their diversification of trade for Canada, we were at S17 billion in trade with the United States, and when they finished governing this country, thank God, in 1984, we were doing $80 billion of trade from Canada with the United States, after their diversification program.
What makes him think that this 10-year-old policy that the Liberals are resurrecting, or trying to resurrect, is going to do the job?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in reply I am tempted to say that if trade went from $17 billion to $80 billion under this 10-year-old policy, I rest my case. I would like to take a few more minutes to deal with my hon. friend's comments. If we are doing so well, I repeat, under the existing policy, why do we need this deal?


John Horton McDermid: To do better. We want to get better.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: How can we do better than a move in 10 years from $17 billion to $80 billion? When, as my hon. friend says-


An Hon. Member:: You were in office. The U.S.-Canadian trade-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There are tariffs to be removed. Those tariffs came off in the past under the GATT negotiations, without the tremendous price we are paying. We are giving up our right to make our own energy policy, our own investment policy. We gave up our right in many other areas. My hon. friend says that the Government has many powers. I didn't say all the powers are gone.


John Horton McDermid: You sure made it sound like it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: But look at Article 2011, the nullification and impairment clause, which says to the Americans, "If there is anything you don't like about Canadian policy that isn't mentioned in this agreement, you can hit us about it. Set up a panel and if-"


John Horton McDermid: And vice versa.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: "If the Canadians don't agree, you can hit back at us".


John Horton McDermid: And vice versa.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend wants to know what is wrong with having a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. We are dealing with a fundamental imbalance, with a country 10 times the size of ours, where much of our economy is controlled.


John Horton McDermid: Here we go. Inferiority complex.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The dynamics are wrong. This is proved by the weakness of the agreement. No, it is not a matter of weakness. If my hon. friend does not have enough brains to know that if you are a light-heavyweight you don't get into the ring alone with a heavyweight, but you can join together with others.


John Horton McDermid: Inferiority complex.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: He says, lock ourselves into a system of continental protectionism.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


An Hon. Member:: He should be over on the NDP side.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The issue is not tariffs. This is not simply a deal to remove tariffs. If that was the case, we would be having a very different discussion.
This agreement is the broadest agreement of its kind between our two countries. It touches much more than the removal of tariffs. If this was only for the removal of tariffs, you would have the tariff schedules attached to a one line agreement and a one line bill. This deal calls for the integration of our economy with the United States in matters of energy, investment, financial services.


John Horton McDermid: No.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is what the Americans say. That is why they signed it. That is what this deal says. If my hon. friend does not understand this, then they are the ones who ought to spend more time reading the deal. No wonder the Minister for External Trade does not want to read the deal. If he read it, even with his interest in becoming closer to the United States, he would shrink back from it in horror. The facts are clear. This deal is not simply about tariffs, it is about the integration of our country with the United States. It is the limitation of our sovereignty and our independence. It is about
June 28, 1988

the limitation of the ability of Canadian Governments on behalf of the Canadian people to make the kinds of decisions that they have made in the past.


John Horton McDermid: That is silly.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: You know that is not true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   HERITAGE RAILWAY STATION PROTECTION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Taylor that Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-205 was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) had the floor. As he is not in the House, we will continue debate with the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I will take a few minutes to address Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations. The object of this Bill is self-evident and laudable, the preservation of Canada's heritage railway stations. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for his unceasing efforts to preserve Canada's heritage and, in particular, his initiatives aimed at saving Canada's heritage railway stations. These stations are close to the heart of most Canadians and I am sure that all Members of the House, no matter what their political stripe, support the intent of Bill C-205.
The Hon. Member for Bow River has certainly done more than his share to awaken Canadians to the value of threatened heritage railway stations. Regardless of the ultimate fate of Bill C-205-I certainly hope it passes-by raising consciousness on this issue the Member has made it easier for concerned citizens to organize and take effective steps necessary to save their heritage railway stations. He has helped people to care about these stations and as more and more of them are saved because of his initiative, the thanks we owe him can only grow larger in the future.
Heritage Railway Stations
To return to the Bill, its purpose is to provide effective mechanisms that would allow concerned citizens to make timely objections to the alteration of railway stations of historical or cultural value. That is a very worthy intent of the Bill and I wholeheartedly accept the principle of it. Bill C-205 is similar to Bill C-211, a Private Member's Bill which in 1985 was introduced by the Hon. Member for Bow River. Heritage railway stations are close to the hearts of many Canadians, including Members of Parliament who have often spoken movingly of the need for their preservation. When such stations are destroyed it is a loss for all Canadians, too many of whom have seen their local railway stations disappear. It would be difficult to underestimate the importance of the contribution that railways have made to the Canadian heritage. In all of Canadian history, in all the ways that Canadians have left a mark on the continent, nothing rivals the importance of the construction of our railways.
In Canada, the railways fulfilled a unique role not only because they brought our country into existence but also because they helped shape our fundamental character. Because of Canada's vast size, geography, dependence upon trade and twin needs for settlement and political identity, efficient modes of transportation have been of vital importance to us. Railways have been the very backbone of our nation. Pierre Berton, although we do not always agree with him, was certainly correct from both a psychological as well as a realistic point of view when he called Canada's railways our "national dream".
Our railways' heritage is the legacy of our national dream, and in large measure it is inextricably bound up with our railway stations themselves. These stations were points of departure and arrival for thousands of families as they travelled on odysseys of settlement across our enormous country. They saw the farewells of tens of thousands of Canadian troops who went off to fight in two world wars, and they were the welcoming sight that greeted the boys when they returned to their home towns.
These stations range from humble structures in tiny hamlets to grand edifices like Montreal's, Windsor's or Toronto's union stations. They have been the scenes of millions of journeys undertaken by Canadians of all walks of life and they loom large in the memories of millions of Canadians. The distress of Canadians when these stations are lost or destroyed is completely understandable and Canadians are familiar with the fights that have gone on when sometimes there has been an effort to destroy a railway station. The undying efforts of the Hon. Member for Bow River to preserve our heritage railway stations are to be heartily applauded. Canada has already lost far too many of these stations.
However, there are encouraging signs that at last we are beginning to do better. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada knows how important it is to recognize the heritage value of our railway stations. Twenty-four stations have already been declared on the advice of the board to be of national historical or architectural significance. These are the stations that would be afforded protection under Bill C-205.

June 28, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
The Board first recommended for commemoration stations which express the development of our various railway lines. This is in keeping with the board's mandate to preserve heritage locations of truly national significance.
For example, the stations at Levis, Quebec and Pictou, Nova Scotia represent the Intercontinental Railway Line. The Canadian Pacific Railway is represented by stations in McAdam, New Brunswick and Kensington, Prince Edward Island and at Rothesay, New Brunswick. Miami, Manitoba, commemorates the heritage of the Canadian Northern Line. The fact that these stations and others, such as Union Station in Toronto, have been recognized to be of national significance by no means precludes other stations from consideration in the future. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board receives submissions more or less continually and judges each proposed railway station on its merits in terms of national historic and/or architectural significance. Our early railway stations are an irreplaceable part of our heritage. Bill C-205 makes this point very clearly and I think that all Members of this House would agree with that sentiment.
The best way to save our heritage railway stations is to encourage co-operation among those parties having a stake in their future. We all have a role to play. This Government is working hard to see to it that Canada's heritage railway stations will be preserved in an appropriate and effective manner. At present the mandate for looking after them is divided and uncertain. The Bill before the House does us a service in reminding us of this fact. The Ministries of Transport and Environment, our railways, CN, CP and VIA, and non-governmental heritage organizations are all involved in this issue. We have certainly heard from the heritage organizations with respect to this Bill. In fact, The Heritage Canada Foundation has recently written about the importance of supporting this Bill and indicates that these buildings will not survive for future generations through good intentions alone. Legislation is the only fair and practical means to ensure that these buildings are protected and cared for.
I think it is appropriate that the House of Commons owes the Hon. Member for Bow River a debt of gratitude for introducing Bill C-205, an Act which has the commendable intent of protecting Canada's heritage railway stations. I, and I am sure other Members of the House, strongly support and recommend that Bill C-205 be referred to the appropriate committee for detailed study and then railway stations across our country so important to our lives will be commemorated. They represent a valuable part of our common history and I hope we will have the support to see this Bill come into fruition.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as you might have expected I rise on this occasion. I want to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on his Bill. It is something that he and many others as well as myself have been working on for a number of years. I want to
quote from a letter that I got this very morning from The Heritage Canada Foundation:
One of the most important Bills relating to heritage preservation in Canada is now before Parliament. Bill C-205, an Act to protect heritage railway stations-
The letter goes on to say:
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) has performed a highly commendable service in sponsoring Bill C-205. There is no question that the protection of heritage railway structures in Canada is long overdue.
It is signed by Jacques Dalibard, Executive Director of the Heritage Canada Foundation.
I am only too happy to add my personal support and the support of my caucus to the Bill of the Hon. Member for Bow River. Over these many years of his experience, and my own, we have fought long and hard to preserve these buildings not just as museums but for practical usage. We want to use the buildings as well as recognize their heritage, history and architecture, as the Hon. Member who just spoke mentioned.
Over the last 10 to 15 years, many dozens of railway stations and other historical objects of some significance have been demolished. We recall the instance of the CPR and the famous railway station near downtown Toronto which was demolished. The Railway Transport Committee of the CTC, six or seven years ago, after it received complaints and found out that the railway had simply moved in bulldozers and levelled the station, ordered the CPR to rebuild and restore it to its original state. I must confess that I have not looked into the situation in the last three or four years, so I do not know if the CPR has done that or not. The letter from The Heritage Canada Foundation mentioned these tragedies, and that was a tragedy. I am not sure if it has been corrected or not.
I think my hon. friend's Bill is timely, in fact overdue, and deserves passage in this House by six o'clock today. I want to say on behalf of my Party that we would agree to that, rather than send this to committee, have it go to Committee of the Whole and be given third reading between now and six o'clock.
I want to bring a particular matter to the attention of the House. My colleague from Bow River, who also sits on the Transport Committee, and other colleagues have had to suffer through this from me on more than one occasion. I want to cite a specific example of a building that the local heritage people in Regina have declared a heritage building, the Union Station in downtown Regina.
Since 1970, and that is quite awhile, I have been trying to get all the parties involved, all the actors in the piece, to agree to establish it as a heritage railway station that would not just sit there as a museum needing upkeep but as one that would have practical usage for many more years to come. That station was one of the early examples of the two competing railways having a Union Station and there is a lot of history there. All during the First World War, the 1920s, the 1930s and the Second World War, right up until the time of VIA
June 28, 1988

Rail, it was maintained and operated. It had a nice restaurant and one or two shops, and it was kept clean. People by the thousands used it every day.
I and many others in my city and in other places have tried to get that station established as a heritage railway station that would also be a multimodal transportation centre. Greyhound Bus Lines, the Saskatchewan provincial bus company, initially the CPR and subsequently VIA Rail, the City of Regina, the Department of Transport, the Canadian Transport Commission, the Province of Saskatchewan and the Government of Canada were involved. The Chamber of Commerce, the Regina Labour Council, the senior citizens' association and the downtown businessmen's association all agreed that this is something we must do. On two or three occasions, the city council unanimously passed a resolution in favour of doing it. It made alterations to the design of the big shopping complex in downtown Regina, the Cornwall Centre, in order to accommodate this multimodal transportation centre with pedestrian crossings, underpasses, the location of Saskatchewan Drive, whatever was required.
It took until February of 1982 before anything happened. Before I say anything more, I want to tell my colleagues opposite, the Hon. Member for Bow River and my friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), that I and others from all political persuasions have deliberately and actively kept this issue totally non-political and non-partisan, and it still took until 1982.
I am just as annoyed at the former NDP Government of Saskatchewan as I am at the present Conservative Government of Saskatchewan. In February of 1982, an agreement was finally signed. We got all the actors in the piece together. They signed an agreement to make that building a multimodal transportation centre as well as a heritage building. To be quite honest, blunt and frank, I think the NDP Government goofed all during the 1970s about getting that done. I fault that Government just as much as any other.
Then we lost the election of April, 1982. In June of 1982, the present provincial Government cancelled the bloody agreement. It was incredible. There was unanimity from all Parties, all business, labour, senior citizens and transportation organizations. This is the kind of tragedy to which The Heritage Canada Foundation refers in its most complimentary letter to the Hon. Member for Bow River.
May I put in a plea, Mr. Speaker? I will beg, grovel, snivel, whatever is required. Would the Hon. Member for Bow River and my good friend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and other Members, particularly those from the Prairies, make representations to the Premier of Saskatchewan? I met with the premier. I met with the former Minister of Highways and Transportation of Saskatchewan. I tried everything I could, and I did not throw out any NDP dogma or ideology. I was careful not to do that.
For some crazy reason, maybe because I promoted it too much, maybe they got a mental block, that if it was the NDP
Heritage Railway Stations
promoting something good, it was no good. I do not know. I want to make that plea. I hope the House will pass this Bill quickly in all stages by six o'clock.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like my Hon. colleague, I received a letter from Heritage Canada, urging me to take part in this debate, and that is one reason why I welcome this opportunity, because I have been very well served by this agency in the past. I also think the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made an excellent suggestion, and that is why I decided to speak out in public about my interest in protecting heritage railway stations.
This Bill therefore deserves our attention, and I think the Hon. Member is to be commended, but on the other hand, the proposed legislation should be examined very carefully.
Mr. Speaker, I think all Members will agree that in addition to being a reflection of our past, our old railway stations are often representative of an architectural style that is typical of North America. They bear testimony to the expansion of our country and are a heritage that cannot be replaced. The federal Government has hardly any mechanisms for protecting historic buildings other than those that come directly under its jurisdiction, such as federal buildings.
There are hundreds of railway stations in Canada that can be preserved. In fact, there are several in my riding, and this year, the card I send to all my constituents shows a magnificent example, the station in Huntingdon. There are other stations as well, including the stations in Beauharnois, Valleyfield and Bellerive, that ought to be preserved. There are stations that the wrecker's ball has already destroyed such as Ville de Lery and Ormstown.
Mr. Speaker, the historical role of these stations should not be forgotten, and in fact, they are very much a part of the memories of many Canadians. At a time when railway tracks are disappearing, they are the last vestige of the conquest and settlement of this country. They represent important milestones in the buildings of our railways.
Mr. Speaker, they were the focal point for the departure and arrival of thousands of families on their travels across this vast country they had come to settle. These stations have always brought back memories for those who go back to the places they came from. I imagine many of us in this House have felt the same way. They are part of our national dream.
Many Canadians feel that without historic buildings, a nation loses its sense of history. This heritage must be transmitted from one generation to the next, so that the way of life of a previous generation, how it communicated and how it travelled, and in this case we are talking about the railways, can be understood, and in fact that generation now has a chance to preserve these buildings.

June 28, 1988
Heritage Railway Stations
However, when we hear that despite the joint efforts of municipalities and members of the community, some stations were destroyed, that is a sure sign something must be done to protect them. Earlier, the Hon. Member mentioned a number of cases in his own province, hence the need for measures of the kind proposed by the Hon. Member for Bow River.
In 1976, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board recommended declaring some twenty stations as being of national historic significance. The Minister at the time accepted the Board's recommendation, and in some cases commemorative plaques were put in place. In Quebec, for instance, commemorative plaques were installed at the stations in Levis, Saint-Jean-d'Iberville, Acton Vale, Berthier and at Windsor Station in Montreal. However, this measure was far from adequate, considering the desired goal. In fact, when the Historic Sites and Monuments Board submits recommendations for having certain buildings declared of historical value, this does not put any obligations or constraints on private or public owners. I could mention some examples. In my own riding, in the Municipality of Havelock where a commemorative plaque was installed, a decision was made to preserve the monument that had been so honoured.
The growing awareness of our heritage in recent years shows the good will of all concerned. There are several examples, Mr. Speaker, including Acton Vale. I will make an aside here, because during our caucus meeting to be held in Saint-Hyacinthe this summer, the whole Quebec caucus will take the train from Saint-Hyacinthe to Acton Vale, the very train promised by the Prime Minister in his election campaign, and we will go to this historic station on August 19. So it was possible to preserve this abandoned station in Acton Vale and for it to become a source of pride for the whole community.
If ordinary citizens like the people of Acton Vale can get together to preserve their national heritage, is there any reason why Parliament cannot find an appropriate way to encourage the public in its efforts and to speed up the conservation process considerably? We firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that a law protecting heritage railway stations is feasible, although complex, and that Bill C-205 is going in the right direction.
The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) was right to present this Bill. Its purpose is to prevent any change that would decrease the value of these stations. It provides that the status of a station may only be changed with the express permission of the Governor in Council, the opinion of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and the joint recommendation of the Departments of Environment and Transport.
This Bill seems to fill the gap. It would require the railways to ask for specific authorization before demolishing or altering a station. The Governor in Council would have to issue an appropriate decree in each case on the recommendation of both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport and after public hearings by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the best way to protect heritage railway stations is to encourage cooperation between the railways and people interested in saving these stations. I know that the federal Government is now looking at other options that could be considered for protecting our heritage railway stations.
Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the Hon. Member for Bow River for this initiative to protect heritage railway stations in Canada. We are pleased with this initiative and we congratulate the Hon. Member.
We hope that this Bill will be submitted to the appropriate committee so that it can receive all the attention it deserves and be thoroughly considered.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues and commend the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on this initiative. For a country that was built to a large extent on its railways, this Bill is particularly important in that it provides us with an opportunity to do what we can to ensure that these critical facilities in the form of heritage railway stations remain in place. So many have been obliterated from the historical and cultural landscape of Canada over the past number of years, I think it is appropriate that we take this step today.
Since we have all made statements in support of this legislation today, there is no question that the House is in favour. Therefore, it makes nothing but good sense that we show leadership, and I wonder if you would care to seek unanimous consent to not only pass it at second reading today but to go into Committee of the Whole and deal with it in its entirety. On behalf of my colleagues in the NDP I offer that co-operation to this first-class initiative. In this way we can demonstrate clear leadership in supporting not only the principle of the Bill but its substance in an effort to preserve heritage railway stations across Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there such agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It was my understanding that at approximately 5.30 this debate would be interrupted for a visit to the other place to conduct some business. I believe that there was agreement among the Parties that we would recess after that until six o'clock. If that is not the understanding of my colleague, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, I would like to hear what he has to say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that was in fact the understanding that we had as we progressed through Private Members' Hour. However, while listening to the very thoughtful debate from all sides of the House it occurred to me that, although we will be interrupted eventually for a few moments as we make the trek over to the other place, we could return relatively quickly. This
June 28, 1988	_____________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________16889
is not the kind of Bill which will require an awful lot of debate in clause-by-clause consideration. As a matter of fact, it may not result in any further debate.	Heritage Railway Stations THE ROYAL ASSENT [English] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): I have the honour to
I would like to suggest that, if time permits before six o'clock, we return to the House of Commons from the other place and move expeditiously through clause-by-clause examination of this Bill and wrap up third reading of it. We can actually show some strong leadership on this heritage issue.	inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau Hall June 28, 1988 Sir,


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we consider this to be a very important Bill. It is an excellent Bill introduced by my colleague, the Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and we want a legislative committee to study it.	I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Eric Le Dain, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 28th day of June, 1988, at 5.25 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills. Yours sincerely, Anthony P. Smyth


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What for? There is unanimous agreement on it.	Deputy Secretary, Policy and Program Mr. McDermid: Might I suggest, Sir, that the House recess


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wants to ram things through when it is in his interest.	until the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrives here at the House. We will then take care of our business in the other place and come back, probably by six o'clock, to return to the Orders of the Day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We're being helpful.


John Horton McDermid: No, you're not being helpful at all. We want this referred to a legislative committee.	PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is, therefore, no agreement.	[English] HERITAGE RAILWAY STATION ACT
MEASURE TO ENACT The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Before we proceed, may I put the question on Private Members' Business?
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE	Mr. Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If my hon. friend had not risen to his feet we could have dealt with this Bill in all stages by now. All he is doing is procrastinating. The Government requests our co-operation and when we give our co-operation, it does not want it. This Bill could have been given third reading by now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-138, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1989. Also a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, the following Bills: C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products; Bill C-135, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff (code 9956); and Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.	Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has already gone through second reading and has been sent to a committee, from which it has not returned. In my view it was sent to the wrong committee, the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. It has already had tremendous examination. I would certainly like to see it pass. I am receiving letters from all across the country asking that it be passed. I am very much in favour of it going ahead today if at all possible. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Mr. Taylor moved that Bill C-205, an Act to protect Heritage Railway Stations, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

June 28, 1988
Royal Assent
Is it the pleasure of the Elouse to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order. Would it be in order for me to ask again for unanimous consent for the Bill to go to Committee of the Whole now rather than the legislative committee? If so, I request that unanimous consent.


John Horton McDermid: No. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We have been asked that the Bill be directed to a legislative committee for proper examination. We have passed that motion in the House and I would like that to stand. I am not prepared to give unanimous consent.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A motion was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
['Agreed.\nAt 5.51 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health-Chapter 22.
Bill C-115, an Act to amend the Indian Act (designated lands)-Chapter 23.
Bill C-51, an Act to prohibit the advertising and promotion and respecting the labelling and monitoring of tobacco products-Chapter 20.
Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising-Chapter 21.
Bill C-l 35, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff (code 9956)-Chapter 24. Bill C-l38, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1989-Chapter 25.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this has been a rather historic day. I think the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) should be congratulated.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: No matter what an individual feels about the piece of legislation, whether opposing or supporting it, she did a tremendous job in getting her Private Members' Bill through. It was a great piece of work and I want to congratulate her on behalf of the Government.
As well, there has been agreement with our colleagues that we have a brief recess until six o'clock, at which time we will resume the free trade debate on Bill C-l30.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed to suspend the sitting until six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.51 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.