1988-04-22

Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. As Members will know, this Bill provides for the reduction and removal of duties on a narrow range of products not manufactured in Canada.
Bill C-118 also makes some technical amendments to the Customs Tariff to correct errors in the new harmonized system which came into effect on January 1, 1988, and to allow facsimile transmission equipment and diesel engines to continue to enter Canada at the rates which have historically been applied.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not make mention of my colleagues on the finance committee who once again put their collective expertise to work to deal expeditiously with this piece of legislation.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take only a few minutes to add a brief word on behalf of the Liberal Party with regard to this Bill. Normally, of course, my distinguished colleague, the Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), would be responding on this Bill,
but this morning she is temporarily detained elsewhere here on Parliament Hill. Since she cannot be with us to address this issue I will make a few remarks on her behalf.
Bill C-118 is designed to do a number of things. It is to correct errors in the new harmonized system of tariffs by amending Section 20 to restore duty treatment for certain imported alcoholic beverages. It will correct an error in the new system in relation to remissions under the machinery program. It will delete the tariff item being amended in Schedule I to the Bill.
Another item in the Bill is the continued free entry for facsimile equipment not made in Canada. This equipment is commonly referred to as telecopying equipment. There will also be a removal of the duty on radio controlled model glider kits and radio controlled self-propelled electrically powered model vehicle kits. This hobby equipment is not manufactured in Canada and therefore the Tariff Board recommended that free entry be provided for these items. The Bill will address that issue as well.
Schedule II also provides for the removal of the duty on burial shrouds. We are told that they are not made in Canada and I suppose until such time as they are made here there would be no purpose in having a duty to protect an industry that does not exist at the present time.
There are a number of items generally involving tariffs which sometimes come to the attention of Members as being contentious. I remember a year or two ago a case involving veterinarians. Veterinarians working with farm animals have a specific piece of equipment which they attach to the back of their truck. This equipment has a refrigerated compartment in which to keep drugs and another space to keep medical equipment used by veterinarians. This piece of equipment had a duty imposed on it, even though it was not made in Canada.
A number of Members of Parliament, including myself, wrote to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to ask that he intervene with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) in order to have the duty removed since there was really no purpose for it. It only created hardship for some veterinarians. I am happy to say that the representation was effective because the Minister saw fit to intervene and I understand the duty was eventually removed. That is an example of how these tariffs are sometimes counterproductive.
I am told that officials at the Department of Customs and Excise interpreted that equipment to be a part of a truck body,

April 22, 1988
Customs Tariff
which it was not, and gave it the same recognition as a camper. Obviously it had nothing to do with camping but met a very specific purpose and should not have been subject to a tariff.
I want to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received concerning another tariff issue. Since we are dealing with an Act to amend the Customs Tariff Act, I thought I would use this opportunity to raise a specific tariff issue that has been brought to my attention by a textile firm in my constituency known as Consoltex. Consoltex is a company located in Montreal but which also has a plant in my constituency.

In the letter sent to me by Mr. John F. Trickett of Consoltex, he informed me of correspondence he had with the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) after the announcement on March 22, 1988 of the tariff reform for the textile and clothing industries.
So Mr. Trickett said in a letter that he sent to the Minister, and I quote:
I am very concerned that this list of fabrics included in Schedule I.. .
... of the tariff list...
... was not thoroughly considered and contains several items that are definitely manufactured in Canada by Consoltex as well as other textile companies. Furthermore, some products on this list can be directly substituted for others made in Canada.
It is essential that direct consultation with us and other Canadian textile companies take place before Finalizing what fabrics-will be eligible for customs exemption.
So in this case, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Government has chosen this time, it seems, to eliminate tariffs which should not have been eliminated; that is, removing them will hurt the textile industry that is so important for the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I will give you an example of some of these fabrics, according to the list provided by Consoltex:
(1) Fabrics of a weight not exceeding 70 grams per square meter, other than lining fabrics.
It seems this is one type of fabric for which we are proposing tariff remission. Consoltex informs us that they manufacture this product themselves.
(2)	Fabrics containing 35 per cent or more, by weight, of silk.
Consoltex says:
This item alone could result in unfair competition for virtually all fabrics now manufactured in Canada, because of the tariff remission.
In other words, this particular product that will not be subject to duty could be substituted for others that are now being manufactured in Canada.
(3)	Jacquard fabrics: These fabrics are now manufactured in Canada, and Consoltex is manufacturing more and more fabrics that are not included in this item but might be adversely affected by duty free imports under this tariff item.
(4)	"Leno" fabrics containing 50 per cent or more, by weight, of cotton.
Consoltex manufactures "Leno" fabrics and other fabrics that are not included in this item and would be directly affected and, in fact, replaced by duty-free imports.
Mr. Speaker, the rest of the text I have here reads as follows:
In addition to the above items, there are other products on the list that
require further clarification and definition. The list is too vague in its present
form, and significant improvements are urgently needed.
What Mr. Trickett is trying to say is this: Although all Members of this House do, I imagine, approve of the principle of tariff remission which is important to the garment manufacturers in my riding, we should not forget that those who manufacture fabrics in Canada must be protected, so that when we provide for tariff remission, we should make sure that we protect products that are manufactured in Canada or that can be replaced by a product manufactured in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, those were my brief comments this morning on Bill C-l 18, and I also wanted to take this opportunity to point out that one of the manufacturers in my riding is dissatisfied with some of this Government's tariff policies.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you, and we in the Liberal Party intend to co-operate in getting this Bill through the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this is not one of the earthshaking pieces of legislation to come before the House of Commons. Nevertheless, it is legislation which, during the second reading debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Hawkes), suggested represented the following principle: "The policy of the Government is to meet the needs of the business sector and individuals by amending the tariffs in its annual Budget. This Bill maintains this tradition, and I therefore urge the House to adopt it as quickly as possible".
It is interesting in the context of that statement to recount to the House of Commons the case of a machine manufacturing plant in my constituency, Tri-Way Machine Ltd. which is one of the few companies in this country capable of producing a machining system, combined with transfer mechanisms within the machining system, all computerized, which permits a product to be produced to extremely high levels of tolerance. We raised the case of Tri-Way with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) this past year. In fact, Tri-Way officials came to Ottawa to point out very clearly to the Government the tremendous irony which exists in the present tariff schedule. It is the irony that if one imports certain machines which go to make up this transfer system of machining, one can import them at no tariff rate.
If, however, one imports a complete transfer system-with the machining and transfer mechanisms built in-one has to
April 22, 1988

pay a tariff of over 9 per cent. One could not recognize a more detrimental situation for the production of these very sophisticated high-tech machines here in Canada. By that structure of the tariff, every incentive is given to plants to bring into the country the basic machines and to assemble a transfer system based on those machines, instead of actually creating the transfer system from the ground up, as Tri-Way itself has done in Windsor, and it has employed over 200 people in the process of production.
This case was put very, very clearly to the Minister of National Revenue. It was put very clearly to the Minister of Finance. We have here a Bill which claims to represent amendments to the customs tariff in response to requests from the private sector. Yet there is absolutely no response to this request which would give to this country a greater capacity to produce sophisticated machinery right from the ground up, to expand employment and thereby build the base for exports in the future.
Tri-Way exports the great bulk of what it produces to other countries, mostly the United States. Yet the Government has seen fit to ignore completely this absolutely straightforward and legitimate request from this important company within my constituency for a tariff change . I think it is a shame the Government would act that way with respect to this specific company.
I think there is inherent in the changes proposed in this Bill a perspective on Canada for the future which reflects exactly that "no" to a high-tech machine- based company in my own constituency. The kinds of changes which are taking place with respect to this Bill, when you consider them in detail, indicate what we are opening ourselves up for. We are reducing the incentive to Canadian producers to produce high-technology machinery which is crucial for many sectors of our economy in the future.
If we take, for instance, the changes which have to do with machinery which is employed in mining, recovering and producing crude oil from shales, oil sands or tar sands, what do we see taking place? We see a vast variety of machines which we in this country have the capacity to produce and the incentives to produce them stripped away from the various tariffs which existed under the general preferential tariff or the most favoured nation tariff. We see a reduction to free entry for the whole set of these machines, including bridge conveyer systems, mechanical shovels, multi-bucket excavators, coke cutters and so on.
I cannot understand the logic of trying to paint a picture, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sometimes does, of this country as a technologically sophisticated nation with a capacity, not just to produce this kind of important machinery but to export it, based on the fact that we have resource sectors here which require such machinery. I cannot see the logic of taking the incentives to Canadian producers to produce this machinery here in Canada out of our tariff structure.
Customs Tariff
If what the bulk of this Bill were aiming to do was to make some reductions on very skilled, non-technology intensive products, and to give some advantages to less developed countries to be able to export into our country, one would have no problem with that. It would make some sort of sense. But to take the very top, the most sophisticated of our products, the most sophisticated potential for the future of the country, as represented in some of this machinery which is being given duty-free status, as represented by the lack of response to a company such as Tri-Way, which is producing extremely sophisticated machining systems, is to say that the Government believes that the future of Canada is to be a resource producer. It is to say that our future is to be an extractor of raw materials rather than a high-tech producer able to compete with the rest of the world.
That just makes no sense from an industrial policy perspective whatsoever. Anyone who looks seriously at what our industrial future will be, in terms of what we can potentially compete in against the lower wage, lower benefit, developing countries of the world, comes to an obvious conclusion. We have to move toward more sophisticated production. We have to move toward production of precisely the type of items I am talking about, much more sophisticated technology machine goods. That is the direction we have to take. That is the direction which will make us competitive, because the capacity to export products which have a skill input is important for the future of Canada. Yet the Government heads us in precisely the opposite direction.
I grant Hon. Members that this is not, as I started out to say, a major Bill. However, taken together with the other elements which exist in the Government's trade policy direction, there is only one conclusion that one can draw. It is that the Government does not have a trade policy which sees Canada as a leader in high technology production in the future. Instead, it sees us tied in dependent terms to the United States through the trade agreement that it wishes to sign. It sees our companies as unable to respond rapidly and flexibly to trade threats, as Bill C-110 which we talked about yesterday demonstrates. It sees us as a country which is devoted to importing other people's machinery, to giving other people advantages and benefits, and to cutting out the incentives which exist for our country with respect to high technology machinery for the future.
It is a policy which is as ridiculous as one can possibly imagine. It is sending us on a track which in 20 years' time will make us much less competitive and much more dependent at a time when we could be taking steps, albeit small ones in this Bill, in the opposite direction. We could be taking steps which would give us much more capacity for sophisticated machinery production in the future, not just in the case of Tri-Way in my own constitutency but in the case of the various machine goods which are noted in this Bill itself.

April 22, 1988
Customs Tariff
Thus we have a Bill which is a failure through what it omits, such as the Tri-Way case and the tremendous benefits which machine transfer systems being produced from the ground up could give to the country. We have a Bill which is a failure in terms of what is in it, in terms of cutting away incentives which presently exist that favour us moving in the direction of higher technology and more sophisticated production which will give us a place in the world in the future.
If this were taking place at a time when we had prosperity throughout the country one might sit back and not be so concerned about it. However, if one looks at the statistics for Canada one sees that, with the exception of small geographic parts of the country, unemployment rates are unacceptably high. We see unemployment rates in Atlantic Canada which are simply shameful for us to accept. We see unemployment rates in the West where there is a lack of a diversified manufacturing base which western economists and western producers are very concerned about. We see in much of Ontario and Quebec communities which face serious problems for the future. We see textile communities, for instance-

... there are textile communities in Quebec that are facing a very uncertain future. We must try to do something about these problems, and I am referring to present and future jobs. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this Bill that shows the Government understands the problem.

The same is true of Ontario. In my own community of Windsor we have an unemployment rate of over 9 per cent. That is the official rate. Many people in the community think that the unofficial rate is much higher. In great parts of northern Ontario unemployment rates are as bad or worse. In Brantford, unemployment rates are at levels which reflect the tremendous collapse of one of our important machine producing sectors of the past, the farm equipment sector.
With the small exceptions of certain geographic areas, in this country we have serious economic problems and unemployment. This unemployment is the basic and fundamental reason why we should be looking at a future which gives us high technology potential and potential in the machining sector. These are the sectors where highly skilled employment is possible in the future. These are the sectors where exports based on these skills, growth of technology, and the sophistication of the products that can be produced in this country. That is where the future exists for Canada. Yet this Bill takes steps away from that future.
I have gone through the Tri-Way plant in Windsor and seen the tremendously sophisticated production of which it is capable. Officials of that plant have also put to me the fact that that production is vulnerable if there is not a fair base of protection for them, not to establish high costs for Canadians buying their equipment, but to establish fairness between those
who import the equipment and those who import the parts and assemble them here in Canada.
I would urge that the Government look at this Bill again, that it realize that it has embarked very much in the wrong direction, and that it give this country a sense of a high-tech future which this Bill does not present to us.


Mr. Althouse:: I have a question for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). I was not privileged to be in the House when the Government introduced the Bill, but I have gone through the remarks of the Hon. Member who introduced it on behalf of the Government. I did not see any explanation of the Bill, other than a very brief description of some of the goods on which the Government is proposing to reduce the tariffs.
Did the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor have an opportunity to look into the reasons for some of the tariff reductions that were posted? I notice that some of them include tariff item 73.08 which would reduce the tariff to zero on structures and parts of structures mostly for bridges and bridge sections, lock gates, towers, masts, roofing, framework, et cetera. In short, these are mostly products made out of steel in which we understood Canada normally has an ability to be quite competitive. Does the Hon. Member have any insight as to why these proposals were put forward in this case?
I notice that very large compressors will now be permitted to have better access from outside the country. I know these are very much in use in the oil and mining industries, and I wondered if the Hon. Member has any insight into the effect that this change will have on the steel industry which produces materials for doors, belts, and so on. What, if any, impact will there be on the compressor industry? I know that that industry is fairly important in Calgary and the West as they are great users of compressed air in the oil and mining industries.


Steven W. Langdon: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Hawkes) was absolutely frank in saying why these particular changes had been introduced. He said that the policy of the Government is to meet the needs of the business sector and individuals by amending the tariffs in its annual Budgets. The Bill maintains this tradition.
Unfortunately, that is not quite an accurate statement. The needs of businesses which have been put before the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance have not been met, except on a selective basis. There have been certain things on which the Government has stated that it would accept that representation and put it into effect. But, for example, on this representation from Tri-Way to get the capacity for better machining and better production of transfer systems in this country, the Government states that it will not select that particular suggestion.
The logic of saying to the business community that it will be responsive is not being followed with respect to this Bill. Therefore, one has to ask, why is the Government choosing
April 22, 1988

particular groups and individuals to say yes to, and other groups and other individuals to say no to?
I was particularly intrigued in trying to answer that question by the fact that burial shrouds were going to be allowed into the country duty free. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I associated that with the next election and the fact that there would be a tremendous demand on the part of the Conservative Party for such burial shrouds.
With respect to the points raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), there are serious problems raised. Here we are being hit by countervail tariffs in the United States on some of our specialty steel items, and what we do is to establish a reduction in tariff levels, and in many cases completely free entry for other specialty steel items coming into this country.
Again, we seem to be hurting an industry which has been tremendously competitive, which has a high technology base, and which has tremendous skill inputs. My friend asks, does it make sense? My answer is that I do not think it does make sense. I do not think there is logic in what has been put before us, and certainly that logic has not, at any stage, been presented by the Government in attempting to defend this unfortunate Bill.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to congratulate the Hon. Member on his excellent speech about a Bill which, at first sight, is not of great moment in the context of more important legislation we will be considering to implement the free trade agreement. Nevertheless, he has indicated to us in a very informative way some of its implications.
What is involved here is the lowering of customs duties on goods coming into Canada. Part of the free trade agreement, of course, is to eliminate almost all tariffs over a period of time. That is intended to gain Canadian access to the American market. I think Canadians have done reasonably well over the last little while in the American market because of the value of the Canadian dollar compared to the American dollar. That difference, which was to our advantage, overcame some of the tariff barriers imposed by the Americans.
I am sure my colleague would be more than willing to examine the situation of Birla Industries in Windsor in the context of the free trade agreement and the increase in the value of our dollar. Perhaps he would also consider it in the context of the Canadian dollar achieving the not unprecedented level of 90 cents or even parity, and what would be the implications of that situation for Canadian industry, particularly in the City of Windsor, the representation of which I share with my colleague as a Member of Parliament.
Customs Tariff


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the collapse of Birla Industries is perhaps the sixth or seventh shut-down of an auto parts plant to hit Windsor and Essex County in the last year. Previous shut-downs include Cross-LaSalle, International Tools Ltd., and others.
There has been a constant and growing sense of pressure on the auto parts industry which comes from three things. First, because of a possible downturn in the industry associated with the problems of a lack of government policy and lack of enforcement of the 60 per cent Canadian content rule on Japanese producers. The second factor is the expectation on the part of many of those companies that the free trade agreement will be passed. I would suggest that they should not be so certain about that, but the expectation has led them in a number of cases to design at this stage to shift production to the U.S. That would seem to have been the case with Cross-LaSalle and the recent Hawker-Siddley shut-down. It is possible, given that Birla produces in the U.S. as well, that this was a factor in that shut-down.
The third factor has been confirmed for us by the Federal Business Development Bank with respect to Birla Industries. They and the management of the company, in their statement about the shut-down, pointed to the 10 cent increase over the past year in the value of the Canadian dollar. I think that appreciation is part of a quiet agreement between the Government and the U.S. Government with respect to the trade agreement, and it has resulted in this particular plant shutdown. It has also resulted in the shut-down of certain other auto parts producers across Ontario.
I have a sense that the Government does not understand what it is doing when it puts into effect a high interest rate policy which creates this tremendous increase in the value of the dollar. These high interest rates have now brought us to a point where the prime lending rate is 10.25 per cent at the chartered banks. That means a flow into this country of shortterm capital which does not go into new industries or new production but into speculative paper investments. At the same time we have an increase in the value of our dollar which, in the case of Birla Industries, has cost 152 people their jobs. Again, I think this is a sign of the lack of serious economic thinking and economic policy making on the part of the Government.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I call it eleven o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, it is now time for Statements by Members.

April 22, 1988



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Siracoe):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC Commentary program of February 3 featured comments by Dr. Peter Cole, regional health officer for the County of Peel, Ontario, who made the false statement that the abortion rate in the U.S. decreased after abortion on demand became legal in 1973. Dr. Cole misled the Canadian public by distorting the true facts, that abortion has indeed increased drastically since 1973.
The CBC showed its bias by not even having one pro-life commentator on the program despite the fact that a substantial number of people stand on both sides of the question. The question that begs to be answered is how the CBC Commentary guests are selected, and by whom. As well, why was the pro-life side of the issue not presented after the Supreme Court decision on the Morgentaler case?
This is another example of the CBC once again doing a poor job in keeping bias out of its programs. It is hoped that the ongoing investigation by the CRTC will censor the CBC and force it to curtail its biased programming and henceforth give equal opportunity for both sides of all issues to be heard, and not just what the CBC wants people to hear.



APPOINTMENT OF WOMAN AS ASSISTANT DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, since the House came back at Easter one thing is very different around this place and perhaps it is time we noted it as Members of Parliament.
You, Sir, and the Sergeant-at-Arms have seen fit to appoint for the first time in the history of our country an Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms who is a woman. The appointment is great and should be underlined and recognized in this House by all Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: On behalf of all my colleagues I want to congratulate Mrs. Marie Charbonneau who is now our Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms.
I hope this is the beginning of a number of such appointments recognizing the fact that women have their place not only in the house, but in the House of Commons.



UNION LEADERS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, isn't it wonderful to live in a democracy?
We have the President of PSAC, the President of the CLC, and the President of CUPW, three of Canada's favourite people, saying they are going to do everything to defeat the current PC Government. Well, I'll be damned. Three of Canada's favourite people are all now clearly aiming their expensive union membership dues at our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Daryl, remember the imposed program of 6 and 5 on pensioners by the former Liberal Government? Do you want that kind of co-operative government again? Do you remember the April 11, 1985, agreement that you signed relating to pension deindexing and what you have done and said since?
And Shirley, if you think the Prime Minister is Margaret Thatcher in jockey shorts, wait until he takes his gloves off.
And we have dear Jean-Claude, that great defender of democracy and postal rights.
Oh boy, what a three-ring circus they will represent. Worse than Larry, Moe, and Curly. And you figure out who Curly is!
With loose cannons like this firing at us, Mr. Speaker, we can't lose.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the chief, the council, and the Spallumcheen Indian Band members reject the Minister of Indian Affairs' (Mr. McKnight) recent proposed child welfare program. They reject not only the policy but also the so-called consultation process. They believe that by transferring jurisdiction over native children's welfare to provincial Governments the federal Government is actually breaching its trust responsibility for Indian people and is playing politics with the lives of Indian children.
Seven years ago this band began its own child welfare program based on a thoughtful and well developed band bylaw which gave the band members the right to administer their own child welfare programs, which they have done exceptionally well. They do not wish now to surrender this jurisdiction to provincial Governments.
If native self-government is to be a reality in Canada, those bands which presently have complete jurisdiction and responsibility over their child welfare programs must be able to continue to act in that fashion.
April 22, 1988



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the socialists are certainly using underhanded recruiting methods. Here is the stratagem: The socialist "comrades" attend all the meetings of the Postal Workers' Union, without identifying themselves as "comrades." They ask the participants whether they are satisfied with Brian Mulroney. "Do you want to work against his re-election as volunteers?" If they answer yes, afterwards, one of the "comrades" will contact them to say that they will volunteer under the socialist banner. That, Mr. Speaker, is real hypocrisy!



IN MEMORY OF JEAN GASCON

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians learned yesterday of the death of one of the most important figures in Canadian theatre, Jean Gascon. Jean Gascon, actor and producer, distinguished himself as cofounder and director of the Theatre du Nouveau Monde, founder of the National Theatre School in Montreal, artistic director of the Stratford Theatre in Ontario and, in 1977, director of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a personal tribute to Mr. Gascon and say how important he was in discovering and establishing the theatre in Quebec to people of my generation. Jean Gascon helped us discover and love Moliere. He gave us the desire to go to the theatre and pride in seeing local Canadian actors perform on our stages in Quebec. He gave us a taste for quality. With Denise Pelletier and Jean-Louis Roux, he made us realize that the theatre was as important in our lives as science and the other professions.
To his family and to all theatre people, I offer my sincerest condolences on behalf of Quebecers and Canadians; we all share their sorrow.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday next Manitoba's new Liberal queen is hoping to lead a new lean machine in the provincial Legislature. "Competence with heart" is the campaign theme.
Ontario residents learned yesterday that both the competence and the heart have gone out of the Ontario Liberal
Government. In Ontario, the Liberals are taxing and spending as only Liberals know how. Gas tax has increased by 18 cents per gallon. Cigarettes are up by 1 cent per smoke. Ontario residents have seen an increase in their sales tax of 1 per cent, and personal income tax increases of 1 per cent this year and another 1 per cent next year. Why, even a case of beer will cost half a buck more. Ontario residents have learned what confidence with heart means.
In Manitoba, without a doubt the new Liberal Queen of Hearts would quickly show her true colours. Manitobans should learn from the Ontario experience. They should use their heads on April 26 because, if their choice is wrong, they may lose their heads after the election.



THE LATE JEAN GASCON

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, last night at the Theatre du Nouveau Monde, actors and audience observed one minute's silence as a tribute to a great man of the theatre who had just died, Jean Gascon.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has lost one of its most prominent performing artists. The founder of the Theatre du Nouveau Monde and the father of modern theatre in Quebec became one of the most respected figures in this country.
His work as actor, producer and director took him from Montreal to Paris. Subsequently, he was made artistic director of the well-known Stratford Festival. His passion for the theatre was overwhelming: From Tennessee Williams to Tchekov, Moliere, Claudel and Shakespeare, he made us laugh and cry.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the papers are full of reports of the cod war between Canada and the United States, and the posturing politicians vying for the presidential prize in Paris are talking about the situation. Mitterand says it is "an unacceptable situation". Mr. Chirac says it is "an absurd conflict". I fundamentally agree with them both, Mr. Speaker, but not for the reasons they say.
I suggest it is time that the last of the empires on North American soil came to an end. The Spanish left several hundred years ago, the British have gone, and now it is time that the French got out of North American affairs.

April 22, 1988
Discussions with France should not be just on fish but also on this anachronism of history. St. Pierre and Miquelon should no longer be a curiosity clone of France but should take its proper territorial place and develop a status with Canada.
As a former colony, which found its national soul, Canada knows what independence is all about. It is time that St. Pierre and Miquelon cast aside the shackles of history, came out of the shadow of Napoleon, and entered the 20th century.
If France still stays imperial on fish, then it better get realistic in its relations with Canada. Why should we buy the French airbus or submarine if we cannot agree on basic cod?
The Canadian union is all embracing, and if Newfoundland can join the union and sustain its national distinct character, so can St. Pierre and Miquelon. Viva St. Pierre and Miquelon libre! Vive St. Pierre and Miquelon Canadien!



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago we heard about the appointment in this Chamber of the first Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms who happens to be a woman.
I would like to talk now about the first Premier of Canada who happens to be a woman, namely, Sharon Carstairs. Next Tuesday she will come up through the middle. The NDP have botched it in Manitoba. The New Democrats have autopacted themselves out of any possible government and the Conservatives have been forced to put their Leader under wraps. Every time they let him out to speak for a moment or two he takes one foot out of his mouth and replaces it with another.
The only Leader who is speaking the truth, the only Leader who is speaking with consistency, the only Leader who has taken a Party and led it from third place to the possibility of forming the Government is the fiery Sharon Carstairs. She will provide for the Liberal Party the kind of resurgence on the provincial scene that we will also see in the next federal election. Go to it, Sharon! Take those Tories out. You are going to be the next Premier, and congratulations.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April 24, the Armenian community in Canada will be commemorating the anniversary of the
commencement of the Armenian genocide which began in 1915. Last year we discussed in the House setting aside a special day which would have occurred this week, not only to commemorate the Armenian and Jewish genocides of the first two World Wars, but also to focus on the acts of individual and state terrorism occurring in the present.
Seventy-three years ago may sound like ancient history to most Canadians. However, my point in presenting the motion was that it is really living history. Earlier this year we again learned of the wanton killing of peaceful Armenian civilians in Azerbaidzhan merely as a result of requesting a referendum.
Members of Parliament in all Parties join with the Armenian community in commemorating these tragic events.



ETHANOL ADVOCATED FOR USE IN AUTOMOBILES

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, by the end of 1992 all Canadian car owners will be driving automobiles powered by unleaded gasoline. Manufacturers will thus be in need of a good octane enhancer. Ethanol, an alcohol based fuel derived from agricultural sources, is just what the refineries need.
In spite of the proven ability of this product to fulfil Canadian fuel needs and at the same time help farmers by converting their lower quality feed grains into fuel, the tariff provisions in the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal favour the choice of a petrochemical octane enhancer over ethanol. As well, Canada's own Petro-Canada has been very negative about ethanol and has even refused to blend the product at its refinery in Taylor, B.C. Why does its shareholder, the Government of Canada, not instruct Petro-Canada to reconsider?
1 urge the Minister to begin promoting ethanol for use in all Canadian cars by 1992 to avoid lead pollution and to enhance the agricultural sector.



NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the week of April 17 to 23 has been declared National Volunteer Week across Canada, and I ask all Hon. Members to join with me in saluting Canada's volunteers and in wishing them every success and continued participation.
We in Edmonton have been blessed with a legion of citizens who endlessly donate of themselves for causes that are truly honourable. Whether it is working at a sporting event,
April 22, 1988

bringing cheer to hospital shut-ins or, as was evidenced after last summer's devastating tornado, pitching in to bring comfort and other essentials to the desperate and homeless, Edmonton's volunteer brigade is as vibrant as ever.
I am proud that the Government of Canada has taken such a positive and financially supportive stance in promoting the volunteer spirit in Canada. It is important that volunteers know that their time and efforts have not been spent in vain.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, marine accidents in Atlantic Canada have brought to national attention the need for a more responsive search and rescue system on the East Coast of Canada. While strengthening the human resources and equipment of the Canadian Coast Guard should be encouraged, the solution lies in the effective deployment of search and rescue helicopters operated by the Canadian Forces.
Only highly disciplined and dedicated service people can respond to the life or death situations that occur regularly on the North Atlantic. Our East Coast fishermen risk their lives on the open sea. Let us do everything possible to protect them.



ABORTION


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court decision which struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code has sparked a heated and divisive debate in homes across Canada. As an individual opposed to abortion, I was deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court decision, as were many other Canadians who hold similar convictions.
While the court ruled that Section 251 violated the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and security of the person, the door was left wide open on the rights of the unborn child. Parliament must take up the challenge to define and protect the rights of the unborn child. We must ensure the rights of doctors and nurses to act according to their consciences. We must make certain that the new law is applied equally in every province. All of this must be accomplished in a manner consistent with the social, moral, and ethical standards of Canadian society.
Clearly the need for action is pressing. I urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to bring forth new legislation with all
Oral Questions
speed to fill the vacuum created by the Supreme Court decision.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Following the Prime Minister's first summit with President Reagan in March of 1985, he said he had a deal on acid rain. He said the same thing following his summits of 1986 and 1987. However, to the great regret of all Canadians, the United States has not cut acid rain by one drop since the Prime Minister has taken office, despite all these great deals.
Now, the leading private environmental agency in the world, the Sierra Club, has said: "Mulroney is doing his own country a great disservice".
The Prime Minister is having his fourth and final summit with President Reagan next week. Will the President and the Prime Minister be signing a meaningful treaty to actually cut emissions of acid rain from the United States, or will this just be another summit full of photo opportunities and talk and no real action to cut acid rain?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it will certainly not be the latter. The Hon. Member will know that this Government and the Prime Minister have given the highest possible priority, to the question of making progress on acid rain. We have made some progress, though not nearly enough. We will be continuing to press for progress on acid rain in this series of summits.
I find it curious that the Hon. Member would quote a publication suggesting that it is somehow against Canada's interests for the Prime Minister of Canada to make the fight against acid rain an international priority and for him and for his Government to assume leadership at home in Canada so that we can ensure that we go with our hands clean into those negotiations and discussions with the United States.
This Government has acted very vigorously to deal with the threat of acid rain to Canada. We have not had the success that we have been seeking. We continue to seek that kind of movement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the United States has not reduced its acid rain by one drop. In spite of the supposed efforts of the Prime Minister, his policy has been a failure.

April 22, 1988
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


COST OF DAMAGE CAUSED BY ACID RAIN-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as far as summits with the President of United States are concerned, the Prime Minister is more interested in photo sessions than in reducing acid rain.
I therefore want to ask the Acting Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister give President Reagan a bill at the next summit for the millions of dollars of damage to our lakes and forests, especially our maple forests, all as a result of U.S. acid rain? And will the Prime Minister ask President Reagan to have the United States pay for these damages immediately? Could he give the House a concrete answer with respect to these important and decisive issues?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can give a concrete answer. Our Government is determined to continue its search for an international and bilateral solution to the acid rain question. We have made considerable progress. We have made more progress than the previous government, because we have consistently set a high priority on the acid rain issue. We have not attained our objectives, but we intend to continue to seek further progress.

The Hon. Member talks about whether or not we will be presenting a bill to the United States. That proposal was put forward by his colleague, the Liberal Party spokesman on the environment, some time ago. It is a classic example of a stunt: when you have no policy, you pursue a stunt. We have a policy, we have a goal. It is to reduce acid rain emissions in this country, and it is to reach an agreement with the United States. We are not interested in Liberal stunts.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister is saying that he would prefer to have the Prime Minister sing When Irish Eyes Are Smiling than to do something concrete to get the United States to act finally on the damage it is doing to Canada because of its acid rain.
Will the Acting Prime Minister not admit that the Prime Minister made a monumental mistake when all he did over the past four years was praise, agree to, and accept the U.S. line that research was enough? Is it not a fact that all the Prime Minister has done is agree with President Reagan when he said that acid rain was caused by ducks and birds and trees?
The fact is that the Prime Minister has let pass a monumental opportunity to get action accomplished on acid rain. Will he not admit that failure? Everyone else in the country realizes that, and it is time that the Government admitted it as well.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is not the case. I do not know of anyone in the country who holds that view except the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party and perhaps a duck or two which have been reading presidential directives. We have never accepted the view that research alone was enough.
The relevant comparison is between what was done by the Progressive Conservative Prime Minister on acid rain and what was done by his Liberal predecessors. His Liberal predecessors did not summon the courage to raise the issue in meetings with the President. We have not succeeded as much as we would want to, but it has been a consistent theme of ours.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We can swallow a lot, Joe, but we can't swallow that.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East is telling me what she can swallow. Frankly, I am not interested in what she can swallow. I am interested in the fact that the former Government took no effective action on acid rain. We have. We have not succeeded as much as we would like, but it continues to be a priority of the Government and the Prime Minister of Canada.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter issued by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the former Minister of Communications, in which he is pleading for the application of the Government's book publishing policy, the Baie Comeau policy, to his colleague, the Minister of Industry.
He is saying that it is obvious that there is a split around the Cabinet table, that Canada is abandoning its own cultural policy, and that it is pretty obvious that the Minister of Communications is sitting there powerless.
My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Is the Government prepared to admit that it is betraying its own policy, that it is backing off under pressure from the Americans in the interests of free trade and thereby abandoning a very important sector of our cultural industry?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite clear. No, we are not backing away from anything. We are not giving in to any kind of pressures. I have never been under any pressure from the Americans on any of the issues which confront us in this area. The decision which was made in the case referred to
April 22, 1988

by my hon. colleague is totally consistent with the Baie Comeau policy.
There is no split in Cabinet. Obviously, members of Cabinet have the right to express their opinions. We do that. We talk to each other. That may be a practice not known to the Opposition. We consider the positions of various members.
I am convinced that this, in no way, shape, or form, goes against the Baie Comeau policy and in no way, shape, or form goes against the Investment Canada Act.


Sheila Finestone: That is totally false and the Minister knows it!


IMPLEMENTATION OF CULTURAL POLICY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, our cultural industries need distribution outlets, and the Cabinet knows it. Could you explain to me why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had to plead with his Cabinet colleagues to stop them from abandoning the entire book publishing policy to American interests? At stake is the survival of the cultural industries, so that is a bad policy for Canada. You are well aware that you have jeopardized the cultural industries. Why don't you apply this policy, as it should be?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's preambule is totally false. As I mentioned in reply to her first question ...


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why the letter?


Robert René de Cotret: -because we consult with each other and I am always interested in the opinions of my colleagues.
With regard to this transaction, NAL Canada is not a full distributor. For example, the company pays no accounts receivable, it performs no accounting functions, it does no invoicing of accounts receivable, it makes no significant management decisions, it does no promotion, it has no distribution contract with NAL U.S., it holds no sales conferences, and has no computer installation other than a terminal linked to the main computer of NAL U.S. It is a warehousing operation that does not fall under the Baie Comeau policy.

[ Translation]


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister and President Reagan have
Oral Questions
discussed the acid rain issue at every summit. Again a month ago the Prime Minister of Canada criticized President Reagan, but yesterday our Minister of the Environment said that the Canadian Government did not expect positive results. What is hapening here? Is this mere grandstanding for domestic political motives?


Charles Joseph Clark: As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the acid rain threat is definitely more than grandstanding, it is a fundamental issue which affects both the environment and the integrity of our country. This is why we have given such high priority to our negotiations with the Americans with respect to the mutual reduction of acid rain. We have not been as successful as we had hoped, but we will continue to seek an agreement on acid rain. It is the Prime Minister's personal priority and that of all Ministers in this Government. We did suggest specific means to achieve something, and I hope we will continue to make progress. However the American approach is the antithesis of our basic premise.


REQUEST FOR PRE-SUMMIT STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the truth is that the Prime Minister of Canada has not made a single critical observation of President Reagan after these summits. In fact, incredibly enough, he praised him for progress after the last summit when the President committed himself to absolutely nothing.
The Prime Minister said in his speech in New York that friendship has inescapable costs. Considering that the Americans have the friendship but the Canadians have paid the costs in this, is the Prime Minister for once prepared to say, in advance of this summit, that unless President Reagan commits himself to very specific reductions in levels of emissions, the Government of Canada will regard this summit as a failure? Will the Prime Minister say that in advance of the summit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not have before me in the House the precise language used by the President of the United States when he spoke to this Chamber. However, I think my memory is quite good. At that time the President indicated that he was going to consider seriously the proposal of the Prime Minister of Canada for an accord. That was certainly the intent of what was put forward.
Canada has followed up with some detailed suggestions as to how that might be given effect. We have not been successful in getting that accepted yet.
Surely what is at issue here is that we have given this a priority. We have worked very hard to achieve it and we intend to continue to do that.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has an approach which I would think novel except that it is, unfortunately, characteristic of his Party. He wants us to condemn the results

April 22, 1988
Oral Questions
of the meeting before the Prime Minister arrives in the United States. That would be rather like a political Party saying: "We are in favour of NATO but we are going to get out".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Another example of high wit from the Conservative Party.


Mr. Nystrom:: Half-wit.


CANADIAN POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will deal with the question. The Minister knows that the people of Canada take this issue very seriously. Whether or not the Government does is another issue.
The Minister responsible said yesterday, and I quote, that the Government of Canada has no expectations of any progress. That is what the Minister of the Crown who has responsibility is saying before the summit takes place. We want the Government to stop fooling around on this issue.
In the past on such questions as the South African issue, the Government has said before a conference that unless there is progress of a specific kind it would regard the conference as a failure. Why does the Government of Canada not take the same approach on this important issue for Canadians and say that unless Mr. Reagan-the only politician in the world who believes that trees cause acid rain-makes progress, the meeting will be a failure? Why does the Government of Canada not act with some gumption on this issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, because the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister-a very important development in our relations with our largest bilateral partner-deals with a range of issues. To say that they will all be a failure because we are unable to make the progress we want on acid rain would be a foolish position.
We are very concerned that we have been unable to persuade the United States Administration to see what we believe the world sees with regard to the cause and the importance of acid rain.


Mr. Tobin:: Why not give someone else a chance.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear from a Liberal that someone else should be given a chance. The Liberal Party had a chance for years and did not even have the courage to raise the question at presidential levels.
I may well have misrepresented the New Democratic Party. I see they are raising their hands. It could be that their position in fact is: "We are not in favour of NATO so we are going to stay".


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, who just said that in his opinion the takeover of New American Library by Penguin does not come under the policy of the Government.
Let me remind him that a letter he received from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on April 13, 1988, begins by saying just the contrary. The letter states that this takeover:
... clearly falls under the guidelines established by our Government concerning acquisitions in the book industry in Canada. (It goes without saying that any distribution company needs warehouse facilities.)
The jewel which the Minister does not want to mention is that the Minister said in his letter:
... in deciding not to apply the 1985 policy, Investment Canada makes itself vulnerable to accusations that the Government is backing off under pressure from the United States, where dislike of the measures that apply to foreign investment in publishing and distribution has been vocal.
Will the Minister honestly admit that he has been caving in to the Americans in order to make sure that they are pleased and the trade deal will pass? Is that not the reason? Why not be honest?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am being honest. I have not been lobbied on this issue by anyone from the U.S.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Your fellow Minister.


Robert René de Cotret: I have heard the comments of my colleagues. I have looked at the facts. I can assure you that, to the best of my knowledge and my judgment, this decision falls well within the Baie Comeau policy and well within Investment Canada policy. There has been absolutely no pressure. That is a figment of the imagination of my colleague opposite.


NEGOTIATION OF CULTURAL MATTERS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, here is a figment of the imagination of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources:
I remain convinced that the popularity of the trade agreement will be related to our success in demonstrating to Canadians that we have not sacrificed our cultural sovereignty in pursuit of this agreement.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who said that?


Jacques Guilbault: This is from the Minister of Energy.

The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources himself, who used to be the minister responsible for culture, is telling us that the Government put cultural issues on the table, something the
April 22, 1988

Government has always denied. Today, admit yourself, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, or you, Secretary of State of Canada, that you negotiated culture with the Americans and that you did so on your knees instead of standing up for Canadians.


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, the preamble contradicts the preamble of the Member's first question. In the former question I was accused of caving in to American pressure. I have not been lobbied by anyone on this issue. As we always do in cases like this, we consult with other Departments. We consulted with the Department of Communications, which agreed that this did not fall within the purview of the Baie Comeau policy.
I can only say that this company pays no accounts receivable, performs no accounting functions, does no invoicing of accounts receivable, makes no significant management decisions, does no promotion, has no distribution contract with NAL U.S. and holds no sales conferences. It is a warehousing operation and does not fall within the purview of the policy. I am sorry to disappoint the Hon. Member, but it is just not there.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Let me express our very great concern with his answers to the Hon. Member for Oshawa. They are just not good enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lynn McDonald: When the Minister of the Environment says that he does not expect any progress with President Reagan on the issue of acid rain, is that not giving up? Is it a satisfactory answer to tell Canadians that we have given up on this subject?
Will he not say that it is absolutely essential to get an agreement for real reductions in emissions that cause acid rain and that nothing less will be considered a success? Will he not agree that that is absolutely fundamental in our relationship with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the only proposal that I have heard about giving up on acid rain was the proposal by the Leader of the New Democratic Party a few minutes ago when, as I understood him, he said that before the meeting begins we
Oral Questions
should declare a failure on the question of acid rain. That may be the NDP position, but we do not think that is a very fruitful way to proceed.
I have indicated that we have taken a number of initiatives with the United States. We have proposed an accord with them. We have made very clear that our objective with the United States is an acid rain accord which contains specific targets and a timetable of emission reductions. We have proposed specific ways that that can be done.
I think it would be the height of folly for us to adopt the NDP advice and call the meetings a failure before they begin. I am not optimistic that we will be able to get a great deal of progress on this issue in the summit next week, but the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment, and I will continue to press because the environment of Canada is too important to abandon, as the NDP appears to propose.


AGENDA FOR MEETING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the notion of trade-off to which the Hon. Minister was referring earlier in answer to the Hon. Member for Oshawa. He suggested that there are other items on the agenda and would not consider the summit meeting a failure if progress was made on the other items. We want to make it very clear that the environment is not to be traded off against other items. That is absolutely fundamental. Will he at least say that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there can be no question that the environment cannot be traded off against other issues. Neither can there be any question, as far as we are concerned, that we do not want to write off the chances of progress on the environment before conferences occur.
The NDP is at least consistent. Their attitude on NATO is to get out; their attitude on free trade is to get out; their attitude on acid rain is that, because we have made no progress, get out. That is nonsense.


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister will know that an unidentified oil tanker has broken in two and is ablaze about 370 miles south-southeast of Cape Race, Newfoundland. I know that all Members will regret any loss of life in this incident.
The vessel appears to have been sailing the Great Circle route in the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream flows north, past the Georges Bank, a very rich fishing ground, and north, past

April 22, 1988
Oral Questions
the Grand Banks, an equally rich and important fishing ground.
Will the Minister advise the House what action Canada has taken in conjunction with the United States to protect our environment and particularly to contain any potential oil spill that could have disastrous consequences for both the Georges Bank and the Grand Banks?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out, this vessel is in international waters. The rescue efforts are being co-ordinated by the United States Coast Guard. The House will know that Canadian aircraft are now in the air searching for survivors.
The Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport are monitoring the situation. They advise that most of the oil seems to be burning off. There is no sign of any oil slick yet. If there is an oil slick, it would likely be carried northeast by the Gulf Stream and would not threaten fish stocks in Canadian waters.
If the situation changes and there is a pollution threat, our Department of Environment and other Departments will react accordingly. The situation is being monitored. We do not see it as a major threat, certainly not at this particular stage.


OIL SPILL CONTAINMENT MEASURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciate the information is still very sketchy with respect to this particular incident. I wonder if the Minister can assure the House and, through the House, assure Canadians, particularly Atlantic Canadians, that the Government is now taking the preparatory action and has the means to take the preparatory action to contain any potential oil slick?
I agree that if the oil burns off, all of us will be well served. However, the Minister knows that we have to act quickly to contain any oil slick if we are to protect the Georges Bank fishing grounds and, indeed, the Gulf Stream flows right by those grounds and ultimately by the Grand Banks. Can the Minister give the people of Canada, particularly the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, the assurance that the Government is ready, willing and able to act today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have is that there is a slick and that the American aircraft is evaluating that slick today. But let us keep this in perspective. This is some 300 miles off our coast. It is not a slick that is going to come in. I have already explained the direction of the slick. These incidents do happen on the world's oceans everywhere. The situation is being monitored. If there is any action that needs to be taken and can reasonably be taken, our Government, I suppose in conjunction with the U.S. Government, would take
whatever action we can reasonably take in these circumstances. This is an incident that is happening out at sea and beyond our 200-mile economic zone.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. As the Minister is aware, the Auditor General is currently spending some 25 per cent of his time and about 3 per cent of the total budget of his office, that budget being some $48 million a year, on international auditing matters for which there is no legislative mandate or authority.
Will the Minister advise the House if it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to amend the Auditor General Act to give the Auditor General authority in this area and to legalize these expenditures? Will he also explain to the House why for 40 years now the Auditor General has been permitted to continue these expenditures on international auditing matters and for 40 years apparently the Treasury Board has been approving these illegal expenditures?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really deal with the last 40 years but I am prepared to deal with the present. I think it is fair to say, and I know my friend has a list of this information in committee, that Governments are traditionally reluctant to do anything which would appear to interfere with the independence of the Auditor General. At the same time, I think a case can be made for broadening the knowledge of the Auditor General in other countries through international relations.
I would suggest in this matter that if in fact the Auditor General was operating without legislative authority, there are two course of action which may be appropriate. One course of action would be for the Auditor General to seek amendments to the Auditor General Act from the Government. The other alternative might be for the committee, either the Public Accounts Committee or the Finance Committee, to follow this up and present a recommendation to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier-I mean Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Cassidy:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do intend to run in Ottawa Centre next time.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member. I realize it does cause distress when the riding is improperly identified, and I extend my apologies.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since you reside in my constituency, I accept that with pleasure.
April 22, 1988


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It concerns the impact of the new rise in bank interest rates and the continued high level of the Canadian dollar on Canadian workers and industry. Does the Minister agree with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who told the House yesterday that if an automobile parts plant in Windsor has had to close, it is not the fault of the current high rates of interest, or the fault of the current high rate of the dollar, but that there are "other things wrong with it"?
Is it the policy of the Government to put the blame on workers and plant managers if plants close because of the Government's tight money policy? Or is the Minister prepared, with the Government, to press the Bank of Canada to bring interest rates down to more reasonable levels?


Robert René de Cotret: First, Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague that I just happen to agree with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Second, I would like to say that interest rates today, just to enlighten my hon. colleague from Ottawa Centre, are significantly lower than what we have known in past years. That is largely because of the initiatives that were taken by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance. As a result, the Canadian economy and Canadian industry are doing much better.


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, what I hear the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology saying is that despite the objections of the Canadian Exporters' Association at the high level of the dollar, despite the objections of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association at the high level of the dollar, he is not prepared to have the Government take any responsibility. If they are having trouble, it is all their fault. You are simply going to point the other way and say someone else is responsible.
Is the Minister aware that the Government's estimate just two months ago for interest rates in 1988 called for interest rates of 8.6 per cent average over the course of the year, but they have now risen to 10.25 per cent and are continuing to rise? What will be the impact of that sharp increase in interest rates from the Government's forecast in terms of Canadian industry, Canadian jobs, and Canada's depressed regions? Will the Government bring forward a new forecast next week to see what its tight money policy is doing to Canadian workers and industry?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, what our policies are really
Oral Questions
doing are creating jobs, the fastest rate of job creation we have known in this country for decades. It is the fastest rate of growth in job creation in any of the industrialized nations. They have maintained our inflation rate stable. They have brought down interest rates. Our economy right now is outpacing the economy of the U.S. and Japan. It is outpacing the economies of all our major trading partners. That is what our policies have done. That is what our policies will continue to do, to ensure that this country, in terms of economic performance, is well ahead of any other country in the world in relative terms. That is what we are doing.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Last Monday Canada Post abandoned the long tradition of transporting mail to Europe by way of Canadian based airlines. Does the Minister approve of the new Canada Post policy of sending Canadian mail to Europe by way of truck to New York and then using Interstate Airlines of Little Rock, Arkansas? Will the Minister tell the people of Canada Post, the ones with those little rocks rattling in their heads, to come to their senses? What is the Minister doing about this horrible situation?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when Canada Post Corporation was unanimously created by this House, it was for the purposes of allowing it to operate independent of the kind of political interference the Hon. Member now seems to suggest I should engage in. As I understand from Canada Post with respect to this contract, in order to meet competition it was seeking the ability to meet a 24-hour turnaround or delivery time for special express mail to Europe. Because of the schedules of airlines, and so on, this could only be met by the particular airline with which it contracted. It had extensive conversations with the Canadian carriers and they are simply not able to make it.
The other difficulty in terms of long-term relationships is that the Canadian carriers had added the mail to normal passenger flights if space was available. Canada Post, in endeavouring to improve service, put in a requirement that it must be guaranteed space and Canadian carriers were not willing or able to meet that requirement.
If the Hon. Member wants more details, then why does he not go before committee when Canada Post will appear in the not too distant future?

April 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the next thing is that we will be labelling our mail "U.S. Mail".


JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURE OF $3 MILLION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister how he can justify spending $3 million a year more. How can he justify spending $8,000 a day more than before to send mail to Europe?
Why not take this $3 million a year to give postal service to Canadians instead of giving $3 million to the Americans?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from where the Hon. Member got those figures. He probably invented them, along with most of the other accusations he makes.
I suppose he may not be aware of it but 1 understand that previously when Canadian carriers had the contract, and because they did not have the space to fulfil the contract obligations, they subcontracted to KLM. I guess we had "Dutch Mail" then, did we?
The Hon. Member is asking stupid questions that really ought to be asked in another-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley- Hants.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this will not be that type of question, obviously. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In all the discussions and debate over St. Pierre and Miquelon, and the question of fish and who has what fish and what quota, has there been any discussion at all between our Government and the Government of France about the status of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the fact that it is long overdue that that last vestige of an old empire should get out of North American affairs? If we have not advanced it, is there any position within External Affairs that is being studied so that we can start to move to have that type of status?
After all, if Newfoundland can join Canada and maintain its distinct character, and there can be other distinct characters in Canada, then St. Pierre and Miquelon could very well enjoy a very interesting status.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to those questions is no. The Hon. Member would know that if there were to be any initiative of that kind to be taken by any political entity not
now associated with Canada, that would have to be initiated in that other political entity. To my knowledge there is nothing of that kind occurring. We certainly have no intention of initiating some action of that kind.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who clearly does have a difference of opinion with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The Minister of Energy says very clearly in this letter that the New American Library acquisition clearly falls under the guidelines established by our Government. He also says that his own Department has been affected by this because: "- other foreign investors who have complied with the policy . . . will perceive that they have been dealt with unfairly and will argue that the Government is capricious in the application of its own policies." Investors value one quality-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members, especially taking into account the time, not to quote unduly and to put their questions directly.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is this. In view of the Minister's statement that this represents an inconsistency, why has the Minister taken it upon himself to establish this inconsistency with respect to that important takeover?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have answered before, and I will again, after a careful review of the request that was put before us in Investment Canada, my officials and myself, after consultation with the respective Departments, came to the conclusion that this particular transaction did not fall under the Baie Comeau policy and was fully consistent with the objectives and the guidelines contained in the Investment Canada Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member on a short supplementary, please.


MINISTERS' POSITIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. How does the Government intend to deal with this split between the Minister who established this policy and the Minister who is now in charge of it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no split. Of course, if this were
April 22, 1988

the New Democratic Party and there were a split the New Democratic Party would simply get out of the split, too, like it would get out of NATO, the free trade agreement, and they would tear up everything that would come before it.


MUNITIONS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns large shipments of gunpowder which was manufactured in Canada, which made its way to Iran and was used in the Iran-Iraq war.
As the Minister knows, late last year his Department issued export permits to Expro Chemical Products of Valleyfield, Quebec, which is the largest privately run gunpowder factory in North America. These export permits were issued to allow the shipment of gunpowder to Portugal which has a reputation of being an arms gateway to Iran.
My question to the Secretary of External Affairs is as follows. How was it possible for these export permits to be issued when his Department knew or ought to have known that the ultimate destination for this gunpowder was Iran?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is making an allegation that the Government knew that the ultimate destination was Iran, then he is wrong. He knows that this is an issue with some history, including a history of discussion in this House.
He knows that there has been an RCMP investigation that has cleared Expro of any fault or guilt in the matter. He knows that there are investigations continuing in Europe with regard to follow-on actions of this kind. He knows that immediately the matter was raised in the House of Commons I issued an order that there should be no new export permits issued to Expro.
I have read reports, as he may well have, that there has been some action taken by Expro on some export permits that were issued to it prior to the order that I gave. I am very concerned about those reports. I learned about them today, and I am looking into them. I will report to the House once I have some result to those investigations.


EXPORT PERMITS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or his Department knew that these export permits were issued even though the Dutch Government had suspended exports to Portugal of a company which is a partner of Expro of Canada.
Oral Questions
If the Government was aware that the Dutch Government had taken action, why did it issue the permits? Does the Minister not believe that his Department ought to have known that the Dutch Government had taken the action that it took against the partner of Expro?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the general question, we cannot know everything. Unlike the Hon. Member, when I do not know something I do not pretend that I do. I have answered the question that the Hon. Member put forward. Not only have I answered it, we have acted on it.
We stopped the issuance of export permits. As soon as this matter arose an RCMP investigation was caused to be undertaken. That has found that there was no violation of the law by Expro.
There are ongoing investigations regarding other connections that may have occurred outside our jurisdiction by other police forces in other countries.
The issue that concerns me in any event, and which should concern the Hon. Member, is that it appears as though there might have been some action taken on pre-existing export permits after I had issued an order that no new permits be given. I am concerned about that. That would be a mistake if it occurred. I want to find out exactly what happened and why.
Even though the Hon. Member did not ask the important question, I will certainly report to him and to the House upon the results of my enquiries.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will know that Dr. Kornel Morawiecki, leader of the Polish opposition group, Fighting Solidarity, has been imprisoned by Polish authorities since November, 1987. Dr. Morawiecki's only crime is his dedication to democracy, freedom, and fundamental human rights.
Can the Minister tell the House what actions the Government of Canada is taking to secure the release of Dr. Morawiecki, and to reprimand authorities in Poland for violating the letter and spirit of the Helsinki Accord?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the case of Dr. Morawiecki, and certainly know the interest of the Hon. Member in the case.

April 22, 1988
Tabling of Documents
The Hon. Member will know when I was in Poland earlier in this session I raised the question of the need to put in place arrangements that would allow Canada to deal more effectively with this broad category of question.
With respect to the particular case, I have asked our embassy in Warsaw to monitor the status of that case. I have also brought it to the attention of Canada's delegation to the third follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation that is meeting in Vienna.
As we have progress, and I hope we do have progress, I will naturally keep the Hon. Member closely informed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, a single question, please.


APARTHEID
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to the House, and to those of us who are concerned about the defeat of apartheid in South Africa, how it is that his Department has approved the sale of germanium crystals and indium antimonide in sufficient amounts to supply night sights for hundreds of rifles to South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the case, but the Hon. Member is usually very careful about his facts. I will take a look at the facts, see what they are, and report to him. If there is a need for us to tighten our arrangements, if there is some loophole that I have not seen, I will certainly try to close it.
That is the best answer that I can give to that question at this time in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough, if the Hon. Member is present.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question was going to be directed to the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I believe that he has just left so I will ask the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare the following question.
I have here in my hand letters from across the country, petitions, resolutions passed by more than 30 municipalities in the Province of Ontario, more than 12 school boards, 16 Members of Parliament, including Conservatives, as well as Members of the Legislature in the Province of Ontario, supporting legislation to restrict the sale of fast foods across the country to fast foods that are labelled so that lives can be saved, particularly in the case of people who suffer from severe food allergies.
I wish to ask the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare, given that the Government has refused to introduce its own Bill on the matter, whether the Government will be prepared to support the Bill that I am in fact tabling today, and of which I gave a copy to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can only give a procedural answer to that question, for reasons the Hon. Member will obviously understand. I will take her representation as notice and convey it to my colleague.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to fifty-two petitions numbered as follows: 332-4059 to 332-4065, inclusive; 332-4138, 332-4217 to 332-4222, inclusive; 332-4230 to 332-4232, inclusive; and 332-4246 to 332-4280, inclusive.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Sheila Maureen Copps: for leave to introduce Bill C-289, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.


The Deputy Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?
April 22, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this Bill is very simple. It would require each restaurant to make available for public consultation a list of all ingredients in any food sold by it, and specifically it would also compel each branch or chain restaurant to affix on the packaging of any packaged food sold by it a list of the ingredients in the food. We feel that this is a life saving measure which should be supported by all Members of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that has gone through the proper procedures under Standing Order 106. The petition is from residents of the Wishart, Wynyard, and Elfros areas of my riding. They call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who, on December 16, 1987, indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging, to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen as stated in its report on the White Paper on tax reform, stage one.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions, and following the practice of the House to table them together, I will do so.
The petitions are primarily from the Chatham area. The petitioners call upon the Government and Parliament to ensure that legislation and regulations are enacted to require ingredient labelling of take-out and fast foods, and public access in all restaurants to a complete list of food ingredients for sale in the restaurant establishment.
I have several dozen signatures from the Chatham area, primarily as a result of a tragic death in that area. I am sure there will be many more coming in the near future.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition from some hundred and more residents of the City of Toronto, mainly from the riding of Spadina, but also from other constituencies in Metro Toronto.
The petitioners are concerned that last year the then Minister of State for Immigration promised that unmarried sons and daughters of all ages would be considered as members of the family class of immigrants, and that married children and brothers and sisters in the assisted relative class would get
Petitions
15 points instead of 10 points when they were assessed for immigration to Canada.
The former Minister of Justice promised that the unfair distinction between Canadians citizens and permanent residents of three years or more would be eliminated, in order that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age.
Whereas none of these promises has yet been fulfilled, these undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call on the House of Commons to ensure that the Government fulfils its promises in these matters now.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from some 150 residents of Toronto, Windsor, Sudbury, Guelph, Aurora, Mississauga, Scarborough, and North York, in the Province of Ontario.
The petitioners point out that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, for which the Government had no mandate whatsoever; this trade deal will reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social, and cultural programs; and it will integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, for those reasons, the undersigned ask the House of Commons to ensure that a national debate take place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions signed by some 79 people. These are, in part, people who worship at the St-Columbans and St-Aloysius parishes in Gatineau. They live in that community as well as in Perkins, Quebec, and Ottawa, Ontario. They have asked me to present these petitions because they are concerned that the Supreme Court has struck down Canada's abortion law, leaving unborn children without any legal protection. They feel the unborn should be protected by law and that the court has said Parliament can act on this matter. I am therefore presenting these petitions in their name.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition on behalf of over 200 Calgarians who believe that Bill C-72 discriminates against unilingual Canadians and therefore does not help them to get a promotion in the Public Service of Canada. They wish that this Bill would die on the Order Paper.

April 22, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper SUPPORT FOR BILL C-54 TO COMBAT PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions on two topics. The first petition is from a number of residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, parishioners of the First United Church, who are concerned about Bill C-54. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the Bill which would make it illegal to manufacture, import, sell or rent pornographic material as defined in the Bill. They call upon the Government to pass Bill C-54 without dilution in the belief that this Bill gives recognition to the inherent dignity of individuals, particularly women and young people who are most vulnerable to exploitation in this area.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have two further petitions from residents of southwestern Saskatchewan who are concerned that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in December of 1987, indicated his intention to eliminate block averaging for farmers. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on tax reform, stage one.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have today two petitions, one signed mostly by residents of Ignace, Ontario, and the second signed by residents of Dryden and Vermilion Bay, Ontario, all in my riding. The petitioners feel that the application of the northern residents tax allowance is unjust and divides northerners, making some communities eligible and some neighbouring communities ineligible. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to designate all communities in tier three ridings as eligible for the allowance.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance that Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-118, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. 1 would first like to outline the main points of the Bill and the main concerns my Party has with it.
The Bill is something with which my Party is generally in agreement. It combines three existing agencies, the Canadian Import Tribunal, the Tariff Board, and the Textile and Clothing Board. It is the last board with which I have had the most association on account of the presence in Spadina of a very large textile and clothing industry. The duties and functions of the new tribunal are, first, to inquire and report on economic trade or commercial matters as requested by the Government. I will come back to that because that is a limitation on the powers presently available to the Textile and Clothing Board, a very grave limitation.
Second, it has the duty to inquire and report to the Minister of Finance on any tariff-related matter, including Canada's international rights and obligations. The Government will set the terms of reference for those two inquiry functions. In addition to its research functions, the new tribunal will take over the existing appeal function of the Tariff Board. It will hear appeals of Revenue Canada decisions regarding customs and excise duties and classifications.
Finally, the tribunal will provide direct access on injury inquiries. When a Canadian industry considers that it has been injured it will have direct access to the board. We are particularly in favour of that aspect of its functions.
At present the Textile and Clothing Board provides the right of direct access for an injury inquiry upon petition by producers. That is to say, if clothing or textile producers feel they are being injured by imports or subsidies in a foreign country, they have the right to petition directly to the Textile and Clothing Board. That right is now to be extended to other industries, and we are in favour of that.
The new tribunal will then examine whether the increased imports are the primary cause of the injury. Obviously there could be loss of business for reasons other than imports, even if imports were also present. Therefore, it will examine whether the imports are the primary cause of the injury. However, it cannot deal with subsidized and anti-dumping conditions for injury inquiries.
I am very concerned that it will not be able to deal with subsidies. The matter of subsidies has been a very important
April 22, 1988

point during the last several years, particularly in the discussions about the trade deal with the U.S. They have accused us of subsidies and they are vulnerable to the same accusation. I think it is very unfortunate that this new board will be prevented from inquiring into such things.
Our main concerns, but not our sole concerns, with the board are as follows. We agree with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association-


Alan Redway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Hon. Member's remarks are being directed towards Bill C-110 rather than Bill C-118. As you know, Bill C-118 is before the House for debate. The question of the import tribunal is Bill C-110, and perhaps you might ask the Hon. Member to direct his remarks to the correct Bill, or perhaps he would like to finish his remarks at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to be relevant to the Bill, please?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I accept the correction of the Hon. Member. I was under the mistaken impression that we would begin Bill C-l 10. I am sorry if I misunderstood.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on Bill C-118 for a brief period of time. It is noted that this Bill introduces amendments to the customs tariff in response to a request from the private sector. Duties are being removed on a range of equipment used by the oilsands industry, such as certain differentials, compressors for motor vehicles, steel rods for farm silos, recording tapes used to make cassettes for the blind, certain model kits, and burial shrouds. The Bill also provides for a few technical amendments to the customs tariff.
It is, as others have remarked, not a big Bill. We can compare this Bill to C-87. Bill C-87 concerned the development and implementation of a new harmonized system. A great deal of work was done on tariffs and so on. Much of what was of concern to manufacturers, importers and other business people was satisfied in that legislation. In any case, as one of the Parliamentary Secretaries to the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council noted, most people are preoccupied with the free trade agreement that has been negotiated with the United States. We are waiting to see what the Government will do with legislation to implement the agreement. We are waiting also to see what will happen in the United States on that agreement and what its impact will be on the Trade Bill now being considered in Congress as well as other activities that must occur in the United States in that regard.
One of the elements of the free trade agreement that concerns us all is what it may mean to the future economic development in our country. We have a reputation for selling off our vast resources to other countries to the profit of those who own companies involved in shipping our wood, minerals,
Customs Tariff
fish, coal and oil which produce jobs. The primary motivation of the Americans, is to ensure the availability of just those resources that we have. Of course, the old pattern of selling off our resources to Japan, Europe, the United States or Great Britain so jobs can be produced elsewhere rather than in Canada has, over the years, inescapably led to a never tested, rather casual, happy economic existence for this country because we did not take a close look at the real world. It is wrong that those same elements in our society and in the United States which sold off our resources cheaply so jobs could be produced elsewhere will be able by this agreement to ensure that that state of affairs continues in Canada.
There is a lesson in the contents of this Bill which refers to a number of items. Let me just list a few as they are listed in the schedule attached. Other Members have made reference to this list, but let me do it again. First, with respect to the removal of tariffs, these include those on specified machinery used by the oil sands production industry, certain compressors and differentials for automotive vehicles, steel rods used in the construction of silos, unrecorded magnetic tapes used to make cassettes for the blind, certain model kits and burial shrouds.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues in this House, does it not strike you as being a little ridiculous that Canada does not manufacture burial shrouds, much less the electronic technology and construction equipment and equipment for the oil sands industry? Does it not strike you as ironic that we do not produce these things in a country in which these products are commonly used? That calls attention to our continuing problem. We have got into a mind-set by which we are willing to depend upon others to use our resources to produce products which are sold back to us. We have not even developed the capacity to produce products which have a vast market in Canada. If we are not capable of making implements for the mining and petroleum industry ourselves and capable of doing so well that the machinery and implements can be sold elsewhere, then we are failing our own country and our own people. It is for this reason that the free trade agreement is an admission of failure.
At least perhaps it is a failure that results from a marriage of attitudes between this Government and that of the United States because the Americans believe that Canada should remain one vast resource pool for the benefit of others. If there is any doubt that that is not the case, one need only look at the free trade agreement.
If one thing is clear, the free trade agreement deprives us of the mechanisms by which we can mobilize our own capacities and industries to produce jobs here with respect particularly to science and technology. We should embark seriously on an effort to make this a knowledge-based economy, but we have put ourselves in a situation by the conditions accepted in the free trade agreement with respect to control of our industries in the face of foreign acquisition from the United States that we cannot mobilize the kind of scientific and research thrust necessary to depart from this long-standing habit of great

April 22, 1988
Customs Tariff
enrichment of the few at the expense of the many who could have jobs generated from those resources.
Let us just consider, in discussing this small Bill but nevertheless symbolic Bill, some of the things that we would not have been able to do if a century ago we had this free trade agreement with the United States. Every one of the following would have been impossible under this free trade agreement: prairie settlement, the Canadian Pacific Railway, our domestic steel industry, the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Air Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board, de Havilland, Canadair, Petro-Canada, health insurance, the Auto Pact, Bell Canada, Northern Telecom, Hydro Quebec, the James Bay Development, Lavalin and, indeed, the domestic automobile industry.
All of these areas in which Canada has had success which have benefited Canadians and created jobs-all things which Canadians hold dear as the manifestation of what we are capable of and on which we are prepared to take government action in co-operation with industry-would be impossible to do again under this free trade agreement.
That is what is at issue, not elimination of tariffs but the elimination of the capacity in Canada to organize our resources, our manpower, our industry and our inventiveness to ensure that in this sovereign nation we can move forward to a new kind of vision of a prosperous yet just land which would be a symbol for all the world and a certain contrast to the neighbour with whom we are going to sign this agreement.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) has expressed himself more than once on the subject of development and the need to develop our industries. He has just listed industries which could not have been developed had the proposed trade deal agreement been in place in the past.
I know he is also concerned, for example, in the future, the not too distant future, for the development of energy from hydrogen. I have heard him comment on this subject, and I am wondering whether he can comment on the relationship of the trade deal restrictions to our chances for developing the potential that we have for the hydrogen energy system in this country.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer that very briefly. Of course, the many reports that have advocated, as we have advocated, a national mission for Canada in hydrogen technology have pointed out that it is not possible to embark on such a mission without it being owned by Canadians. There is no question that this mission would require participation by the Government. Unquestionably, it would involve in some measure, for example, subsidies and procurement largely limited to Canadian interests. It would have to involve the ownership of those companies which are participants.
According to the free trade agreement, we could not insist upon a research and development standard to be met after the acquisition of Canadian companies. In brief, if Canada is to launch into a future which would be defined in terms of the knowledge we possess and the technology we have developed, one way of doing that would be to have a large mission which is uniquely national. It is not to be a hanger-on, a follower or a passenger, a participant in someone else's national mission, as is the case with the space station. However valuable that may be, it does not have the mobilizing characteristics that bring people together with pride to point to a vision of Canada which this kind of technology would produce for us, using the resources and skills we already have and the technology we have already developed to some extent.
If we are to go on such a mission, that mission must be owned by Canada totally. That would be specifically excluded by the free trade agreement. That mission is very much like Northern Telecom, Canadair, de Havilland, CP and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, institutions and corporations which have been established in the Canadian interest. They were established because we felt it necessary to establish the means by which we could maintain our uniqueness, our sovereignty and particularly our economic sovereignty.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke has once again revealed the New Democractic Party's intellectual weakness. He referred to free trade as a handicap for the further development of Hydro-Quebec, which is absolutely ridiculous, because as he well knows, most Quebecers are in favour of free trade, and Hydro-Quebec, which was an expression of Rene Levesque's Quebec nationalism, has profited enormously from American capital, but this did not prevent Quebec and Quebecers from prospering. I think it is too bad he is so hostile to an agreement that is strictly a trade agreement and will benefit generations of Quebecers.
I just want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker, before we vote on this issue.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. Again, I think that the Hon. Member is a participant, along with her Party, in failing to understand what the free trade agreement is all about. Perhaps that explains why there is this preoccupation with association with the space station and the development of artificial intelligence among the Conservatives. They may very well need it.
The Hon. Member cited Hydro Quebec. In fact, Hydro Quebec could not have existed if there had been a free trade agreement before its establishment. That is fact.
The fact is that this Party is not opposed to free trade. We are opposed to those elements of the agreement about which Conservatives do not talk about. The CBC talked the other night about the elements that would have us give control over our own country to another nation in whose interest it would
April 22, 1988

be to use our resources and our capacities to produce jobs over there and not in Canada.
Those facts will be illuminated and emphasized in a debate during an election campaign. If the Conservatives want to join in with the New Democrats in discussing the merits of multilateral free trade versus a stupid agreement to which they are committed, we would be happy to do so at any time.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) moved that Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 1988.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE TRIBUNAL ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-110, an Act to establish the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.
Canadian International Trade Tribunal


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I do have this chance to speak on this Bill, Bill C-110. The point that I wish to make in this Bill is that while we support it because we support the idea, the general principle of bringing the three boards together into one, that is, the Canadian Import Tribunal, the Tariff Board and the Textile and Clothing Board, we are concerned that the powers are too limited and that powers that did belong to the Textile and Clothing Board will be taken away in the new legislation.
The powers being proposed here are that they inquire and report on economic trade or commercial matters as requested by the Government, that they inquire into and report to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on any tariff-related matter including Canada's international rights and obligations, and on those two inquiries, they will of course be directed by the Government's terms of reference. In addition, the tribunal will take over the existing appeal functions of the Tariff Board. That is to say, it will hear appeals of Revenue Canada decisions about customs and excise duties and classifications.
Then, fourth, it will provide direct access on injury inquiries. This is the one that concerns me very much. The existing right of the Textile and Clothing Board for an injury inquiry upon direct petition by producers will be extended to all industries. We are very much in favour of that. However, when the new tribunal examines whether increased imports are the primary cause of injury, they will not be able to deal with subsidizing and anti-dumping concerns. This is a very serious restriction and I think it is very unfortunate.
I want to explain why I think it is so unfortunate by giving an example of what has recently come to my attention through the clothing industry in Spadina. From talking with some of the representatives of the corporations that produce clothing in Spadina, and through Style magazine, I find that there is a new player in the field. Thailand has, in the last two or three years, moved from a country whose main export was rice to a country whose main export is clothing.
Thailand has a large and fairly modern clothing industry financed jointly with countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. There are over 400,000 workers in their clothing industry, move than twice as many as we have in Canada. Their population, of course, is twice as large as ours. Last year they exported 140 million pieces of clothing, one-quarter of their total national production.
According to reports handed out by the Thai Government, their export is increasing at 23 per cent per annum. In the past year they sent only two or three per cent of their total production to Canada but they wish to increase that very considerably.
It is also alleged, although of course not reported in their government hand-out, that their labour conditions are very substandard, that there is very serious suppression of the rights of trade unionists in that country, and that large numbers of

April 22, 1988
Canadian International Trade Tribunal
the workers, young women largely from the countryside, are required to live a regimented life in dormitories on low wages. It is also alleged that quite young children are used as labour there.
These practices have been excluded from accepted labour practices in Canada, Great Britain, and western Europe. Therefore, we should not be encouraging countries which use these unacceptable practices to produce goods at prices below world market prices for the sake of competition. That is unfair competition.
Unfortunately, it is quite possible that that situation would be removed from the jurisdiction of the Textile and Clothing board and the new tribunal to be created. It is not a matter included in their jurisdiction according to the description which we have been given of this Bill. In particular, subsidies and related matters are excluded. I believe, also, that labour conditions would no longer be considered.
I want to point in particular to a very aggressive subsidy policy of the Government of Thailand. It is the policy to promote producers of garments for export and to give them heavy tax privileges. That is to say, the producers of export clothing will pay a lower rate of tax than will producers of clothing for domestic use. The industry ministry has also exempted garment factories that have no more than 20 sewing machines from the requirement of obtaining a permit for setting up a factory. There are also tax rebates given to exporters who use local raw materials. For imported raw materials the duty on the manufacture of garments for export is refundable. There is also an export tax and business tax exemption for manufacturers of garments for export.
These are very weighty exemption privileges and are subsidies which the new board will not be allowed to examine. Another even more direct form of subsidy is a rebate on electricity payments to manufacturers of garments for export.
I hope that this will be considered very seriously by the Government because Canadian producers will not be able to come before this new tribunal, which will unify the present three tribunals, to raise issues such as this very recent issue with regard to Thailand. It is only this year that some Canadian producers became fully aware of these conditions in Thailand. It would be unfortunate if the Government introduced legislation which would reduce or perhaps cut off their ability to take the matter up with the new tribunal.
There are other difficulties with this new tribunal. It offers very little protection to small and medium-sized producers unless they can organize in large associations because the tribunal can only take up an injury complaint if the producers of the majority of goods petition for the injury inquiry. However, within the garment industry there are so many subsectors and sub-subsectors which have very specific conditions of their own and which relate very specifically to other countries, either for export or for import, that it is not at all clear that this requirement of having a majority of the
producers of the goods in question petition would be interpreted in a way which would be properly sensitive to the needs of producers in some of the sectors.
In Spadina in particular we have many factories with 10, 20, 30, or 40 employees. These are long-standing, traditional firms for the most part. They are not mass organizations. They have been a very important part of the life of Canada, both in the production of clothing and in the life of the City of Toronto and of Spadina in particular. They are the mainstay of many families, including many immigrant families for whom that is often the first and best opportunity of employment.
In fact, I have talked with immigrants who are themselves from Asia who are not happy at the thought that their jobs may be transferred back to Asia from where they came. They came here as legitimate immigrants seeking, as has been said over the decades, a better life. They met the conditions and arrived. They have settled in Canada and do not like to see the better life being exported to some other country, even to the country from which they came.
The new tribunal must be reshaped to enlarge its scope so that it can take account of things like the alleged very bad labour conditions, and either the bad labour laws or the neglect of labour laws in countries like Thailand. It must also take account of the subsidies which have not been quantified. We do not know the number of dollars or the per cent of costs concerned. However, with regard to the tax exemptions and the rebates for electrical power consumed, it looks like a very considerable subsidy, particularly since the Thai Government reports that labour costs as a share of the total are increasing and that costs other than labour and raw materials are increasing as compared to raw materials.
They have a legitimate natural advantage in raw materials because of their climate. They can produce fabrics such as cotton that we cannot. That is fair enough for them to use that, but it is not fair for them to use bad labour conditions or direct subsidies apart from what is allowable under the GATT.
Therefore, we do need a broader tribunal to be able to give the producers in Canada, who understand the situation, the chance to bring this information to the attention of the tribunal. The tribunal should not only have the jurisdiction to inquire but also have the jurisdiction to make recommendations. Who better than a tribunal, such as the present Clothing and Textile Board, can recognize the facts, the conditions and the standards by which recommendations ought to be made?
Of course, it is still up to the Minister, having received recommendations, to take action as he or she sees fit. But I think it is very unfortunate to remove from this board the power and the duty that the present Textile and Clothing Board has, the power and duty to make recommendations in cases of injury by imports. Therefore, I hope the Government will take these matters into consideration before the Bill has been finalized.
April 22, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that the question be now put?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since we have disposed of the two items of business on the Order Paper, Bill C-110 and Bill C-118, the Government has no further business it wishes to call today. I want to express my appreciation for the co-operation of my colleagues in the House.
I believe we have two alternatives. We could suspend business until two o'clock and proceed with Private Members' Business at that time. The other alternative would be to have consent of the Chamber to move immediately to consideration of Private Members' Business from one o'clock to two o'clock. We are in the hands of the Opposition. We would be prepared to co-operate in any way they suggest.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, let me suggest another alternative. It is that we suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair and then deal with Private Members' Business. This may give us time to contact Members who are interested in participating. If we call Private Members' Business for one o'clock, some Members may be doing something else right now and will not be able to get to the House.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, while in other circumstances the suggestion would meet with our approval, unfortunately we are not in a position to give our consent. The author of the Bill is indisposed and will be so until two o'clock. She is responsible for arranging our speakers in respect of this Bill to which we attach great importance. It would be our preference to recess until two o'clock.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and in accordance with our undertaking, I suggest that the House suspend until two o'clock, at which time we will proceed with Private Members' Business.
Non-smokers' Health Act SITTING SUSPENDED


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until Private Members' Business at two o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 12.56 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the study of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are four motions on the Order Paper to amend 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. After deliberation, I am now ready to make a ruling with respect to their procedural acceptability. All of these motions I find to be in order. Motion No. 1 and Motion No. 2 deal with enclosed work space and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 and Motion No. 4 deal with passenger transportation and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 3 will apply to Motion No. 4.


Lynn McDonald: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 16 to 18 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) for an office building or other enclosed work space constructed prior to January 1, 1990 an enclosed space, and
(b) for an office building or other enclosed work space constructed on or". Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-204 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 33 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"other enclosed work space provided by an employer,".
She said: Mr. Speaker, the four amendments before us today are purely technical amendments, non-controversial. They

April 22, 1988
Non-smokers' Health Act
were proposed by Departments concerned to take care of a few flaws left in the Bill after second reading and study at committee stage. I am hoping that Hon. Members will move quickly through report stage today into third reading and pass this legislation which has been before the House and in committee for years. I am hoping people will not speak against it. I suggest to anyone who, in the guise of friendship to the Bill, stands up to talk it out today is not a friend of the Bill. 1 ask very strongly for the House to show its support for this important health legislation by letting it go through today.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words with respect to this first motion and also with respect to my support, notwithstanding the comments of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), for her Bill, Bill C-204.
The Bill, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is 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. The most controversial portions of the Bill, of course, do not relate to this particular amendment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understood we were speaking to the amendment at this point. I think it would be appropriate if we restricted our remarks to the amendment and, if we want to make a speech, to make it after it is into Committee of the Whole.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: He was speaking to other elements of the Bill. We are dealing with Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Can we deal with those amendments, please, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member is speaking on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Alan Redway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you have indicated, I am speaking to Motions Nos. 1 and 2. I was referring to the fact that they are obviously not controversial amendments in any way, shape or form. The main controversial portion of the Bill really deals with the whole question of advertising and the restrictions on advertising and those are the sections of the Bill which have generated a great deal of concern and controversy.
The aspect of the Bill with which we are dealing here relates to the type of area in which smoking would be restricted. Those restrictions would apply to smoking within federal Departments and agencies. I am led to believe there are some 235,000 workers involved. It also applies to Crown corporations and private sector workplaces under federal jurisdiction. I believe there are some 700,000 workers that would be involved there. It would also apply, of course, to this Chamber, the Senate, and to the Parliamentary' Library. It could be applied, I suppose, to aircraft, buses, passenger trains, ships, passenger terminals, museums and other public places under
federal jurisdiction. All of the provisions to which we are referring in Motions Nos. 1 and 2 would apply.
Those amendments, of course, while not controversial in themselves, are part of a Bill about which there has been a great deal of controversy. That has not only happened with this Bill, but with Bill C-51, which is going to be coming before this House at report stage very soon. That Bill contains other provisions that will also spark a great deal of controversy and a great deal of debate.
I have listened to the debate and I have been subjected to lobbying by my constituents and by various organizations, including tobacco companies, organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and the Canadian Dental Association. I would point out that in fact I have received in total certainly a much smaller number of communications than most of my colleagues. I think I received in total some 34 letters and calls against this Bill. They have mainly come from a lobby that has been organized by the tobacco companies. I think I have received about 22 calls or letters in favour of the provisions in this Bill. Most of those I find come from cards that were inspired by the Canadian Cancer Society, or letters from them or from the Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada or the Canadian Dental Association, and so on.
I have had to debate and resolve in my own mind how I felt about these varying lobbying efforts, the principles they contained and the concerns they set out with respect to this Bill and with respect to Bill C-51. I resolved that debate within my own mind in favour of supporting this Bill. I think it is a good Bill.
As the Hon. Member has pointed out, the amendments that are before us today are technical amendments. I am sure that when we get to a thorough debate on the Bill at third reading, which I am sure will happen since there are very strong feelings on this matter, there will be many other points raised, particularly with respect to the advertising aspects.
I want to say at this stage that I am a supporter of the Bill. I will be supporting it and voting in favour of it when it comes to third reading.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, specifically on the amendments, and briefly, since it is certainly not the intention on this side of the House to kill the Bill by excessive rhetoric-it means nothing if the Bill does not pass today-I am glad to see that there has been some cleaning up of the language, in particular with respect to the first amendment. It makes it more clear that the intent of the legislation is specifically to deal with enclosed work space as opposed to any space.
I must point out that in the last couple of weeks I had an opportunity to visit a military base. There was some concern expressed about legislation that might impinge upon a person's
April 22, 1988

right to smoke within their own married quarters and residential quarters. This amendment deals with that issue.
We will certainly be supporting the amendmens. We will be restricting our rhetoric on the issue because we would like to see the Bill passed today.
[ Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this Bill today since I did not have the opportunity to do so on previous occasions. I understand that some Members would want to amend certain sections of the Bill about which I am concerned myself. For example, according to the definition in section 2(g) of the Bill, "employer" includes:
a Member of Parliament who, in that capacity, employs or engages the services of any person or has the direction and control of staff employed by or engaged to provide research or associated services to the caucus members of a political party represented in Parliament.
Further on in the Bill, it says in paragraph 3(3):
Notwithstanding sub-section (1), an employee may, because of the nature of the employee's duties, be required by an employer-in other words, the Member of Parliament described in Clause 2 may be required by an employer, by me, the Member for Gatineau-to perform his or her duties from time to time in a designated smoking room.
In fact, according to this Bill I should tell my office staff that if they want to smoke, I can require them to go and work in a room I would set aside as the designated smoking room in my office. I have a problem with this, because first of all, Mr. Speaker, in our office we work as a team and we respect each other. For instance, we have job descriptions, something that is not required by Parliament. However, I went through this exercise because I respect my employees and I want them to have a say in their working conditions, and I want those working conditions to be respected. I have to be able to negotiate these working conditions with my employees, including whether or not they are allowed to smoke and whether or not they want to smoke in the office. This Bill would deny me the right to sit down with my employees and discuss whether they want to restrict smoking in the office. In that case, the Bill is a threat, not only to the freedom of my employees but also to my own freedom as an employer to create in my office an atmosphere where we work as a team and respect each other's freedom. That is why I have a problem with this Bill.
Now, someone might say to me, "Well, yes, it is only a paragraph and we could exclude all MPs' offices; that would solve the problem." No, Mr. Speaker, that would not solve the problem because I feel that if a bill were to exclude MPs, it would not be fair for me to rise in the House and support a bill that excludes me, that gives me freedoms that I would not allow, for example, to the library staff, to the committee staff, to civil servants in general, etc., namely all those covered by this Bill. I find that would be unfair.
Non-smokers' Health Act
So it shows the flaws that exist in this Bill, unfortunately. We must deal with the problem, this very important problem of smoke, which affects those around the smoker, it has been pointed out, and solve it.
But unfortunately, this Bill goes further. To solve a health problem, it will create legal problems, it will create problems for working conditions and employee-employer relations. It will also disturb the very special atmosphere that develops in an MP's office, where all the staff must work as a team to serve the constituents who elected us, their Members of Parliament, to serve them not only at some hours of the day, but to be available and to be ready to meet their needs at any time. We all have emergency answering services so that when our constituents call our offices, they do not go unanswered.
So I could not tell a constituent that he or she cannot speak to a certain member of my staff because that person is then in the smoking lounge. That would bother me a lot. I would prefer to continue running our offices with respect for our employees.
I understand very well that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) does not appreciate that I refer to the respect for employees, because she finds it very difficult to respect anyone, including herself. But I insist just the same, Mr. Speaker, that a legislation that would be enacted by the House, by elected representatives who must at all times meet the needs of the Canadian people, should not include provisions that affect the service we may offer our constituents, that might affect the atmosphere and work conditions, the spirit of co-operation that must and does exist in our offices, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise we could not serve our constituents.
Therefore, I would suggest that we continue with the Government's legislation, which itself raises some problems, but I believe it certainly would be easier to iron out those problems than the ones which are so evident in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, indeed I find that this Bill very well reflects a certain philosophy that is apparent in every question raised by the Hon. Member, a tone of authority that calls for unquestioned obedience. When she wants to solve a problem, she throws a very wide net that will create other problems while attempting to solve the problem at hand. I believe this is evident in the wording of the legislation, especially the clause I read earlier: "An employee may, because of the nature of the employee's duties, be required by an employer to perform his or her duties from time to time in a designated smoking room."
This means a "designated smoking room" could be a small box no larger than this, and I would have to tell my legislative assistant, who is now looking at the Abortion Act, a very, very sensitive subject Mr. Speaker, who is preparing a very sensible document on the matter and who suddenly would want to smoke, relax a bit because he works long hours, he works over weekends and all that on very sensitive matters, I would have to tell him: You cannot relax now, or then you will have to go to the smoking room to continue your work because I cannot

April 22, 1988
Non-smokers' Health Act
afford that you stop for 15 ou 20 minutes since the legislation must be ready.
So, we must face reality. We must tell that person to take with him or her all the big books and the Statutes of Canada- because somebody working on legislation like the new abortion law must do very extensive research in very big books-and go right away to the designated area and stay there as long as he or she wants to smoke. It means that he or she is going to stay in the smoking area for 30 seconds because that's all the time he or she can stay away from work. If this person stays in the designated area for quite some time, she must interrupt her work and that's why I object to this Bill.
In addition, I think that subjecting railway companies and airlines to a bill intended to protect people's health against smokers amounts to using Parliament's authority to tell all those companies with their own authority to implement our decisions because some Hon. Member of Parliament somewhere decided that it was the way to do things.
I think it is the wrong approach to the problem. I would rather have a government bill. We put forward Bill C-51 and we should proceed with it instead of this one which, in my opinion, has major shortcomings.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to take that opportunity to speak to that subject, and I shall try not to be political on an issue of such a vital importance for the health of Canadian men and women because the resolution under consideration could reduce by 35,000 the number of people who die each year in Canada because of tobacco.
One must admit that those 35,000 deaths if we are to believe experts, is quite a high price to pay and for two reasons. First, it means that we lose a segment of our population, often the most active one, at an age where it could achieve a lot for the country. And second the use of tobacco is very costly for our health care system and it accounts for an enormous part of our medical expenses.
Costs are also incurred as a result for example of fires either in our communities or in our forests and so on and also as a result of traffic accidents. When will we know the exact number of accidents caused by someone who dropped or lighted a cigarette while driving?
So all these costs are difficult to assess, but nonetheless they are important costs.
There is also a cost attached to non-smokers environment. Those who decided to quit smoking at some point in their life are innocent victims of smokers. That is also a cost.
The physical well being of people can be a cost. I was a smoker for some time and since I quit, I think I am in a better physical condition, which enables me to be more of a fighter in the House of Commons, or at least to have a very positive attitude towards what the socialists say. If I was less fit, I
would be less able to defend our country against socialist policies, if we can describe them as such.
Furthermore, smoking reduces productivity. People working in an office who smoke ... It is unfortunate to have to say that, Mr. Speaker, to the leader of the socialist party who secretly smokes cigars, Havana cigars, communist cigars he can afford because he lives in a wealthy country.
I beg my colleague to try and convince her leader to stop smoking. It is not nice. It is not nice either to develop secret policies. Her leader should perhaps emulate the leader of the Liberal Party: I hear he does not smoke. I am sure that the leader of my party does not. Now, conditions could perhaps be first improved within the socialist party. On one hand, this could affect the Communist economy of Havana, because the leader is smoking Havana cigars on the sly. This is how moreover he wants to develop his policies. Whether he speaks about NATO, economy, income tax, the Meech Lake agreement, there is always, Mr. Speaker, the image of the leader who acts secretly with a gang of extremists, etc.
As a result of all those considerations, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that my Governement has tabled a Bill to control the negative effects of tobacco, that is Bill C-51, the Tobbacco Products Control Act. And for the benefit of Canadians, I could state some of its highlights. The purpose of this legislation is to prohibit or to regulate the advertising of tobacco products.
So, with that Bill, it will now be prohibited to use billboards to promote smoking and that prohibition would be in effect as of January 1991.
Second, advertisement at the place of business of a retailer will be prohibited as of January 1993. The value of the sponsoring agreements using the brand name of a tobacco product shall not exceed the level of support agreed to in 1987.
Most other types of advertising and promotion will be prohibited from January 1st 1988 onward. Warnings on the health effects of tobacco and information on its toxic constituents must be printed on cigarette packages.
There is also a provision to require that health warnings be put inside packages. Finally, according to existing legislation and consultative process, various measures are already in effect to limit tobacco use to smoking rooms or areas, or to prohibit smoking in certain places.
I also want to mention the policies of this Government, including the Treasury Board policy that limits tobacco use to certain areas since October 1st, 1987. Aside from a few exceptions, it will be forbidden to smoke in all Public Service offices beginning January 1st, 1989. I hope that those rules will also apply to the socialist leader who likes to sneak a smoke. I hope that he will abide by Public Service rules, that he will object to the importation of cigars from communist countries, namely Cuba, for which he pays with capitalist money, Mr. Speaker.
April 22, 1988

Finally, in 1987, the Labour Department asked employers to take steps to restrict the use of tobacco in the workplace. Many, such as Air Canada and Petro-Canada have already done so. Air Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that corporation which is bound to become very profitable over the next few years because we as a Party have decided to privatise it in the best interests of Canadian consumers and producers.


An Hon. Member:: Capitalist!


Gabriel Fontaine: Thank you! I love being called a capitalist, Mr. Speaker, and I see that my socialist colleague from across the way is probably unhappy with the fact that I said that his leader puffed in private and probably without the knowledge of the Hon. Member who tabled this legislation on smoking. This is why I am always happy to hear his remarks about capitalism, to which, by the way, he owes his good living. I am sure he is very happy to get a good salary as an MP because of capitalist companies that can afford to pay a group of marginal people like the members of his party. They can make a good living in our rich and capitalist society. As a matter of fact, I don't know why they did not choose to live in a place where there are lots of Communists and where the political system is compatible with their ideology. Still, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his remarks, Mr. Speaker, he is most welcome.
I would like to speak now of the position of the House of Commons with respect to smoking. We know that the Speaker of the Senate and the Parliamentary Librarian have both asked their officers to propose options in order to implement a Parliamentary policy similar to that of the Public Service. In that case, the socialist leader would have no way out. He is here on Parliament Hill and he will have to abide by the rules, at least I hope he will.
Mr. Speaker, these were a few comments and I thank you for signalling that I have two minutes left. I will not speak any more of the leader of the Socialist party who is perhaps hiding in the lobby to smoke his Havana cigars, because my time is running out.
For the time being, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that our Bill C-51 duly takes into consideration the interest and health of all Canadians; it takes into account the quality of life of Canadians, a quality of life that we, the Conservative Party, have continued to improve. We have continued to increase the standard of living of Canadians, and that is something on which we all agree. That is why we have introduced in the House our Bill prohibiting the advertising and promotion of tobacco, and I am talking only to this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I am in favour of the Bill. I am in favour of the amendment that we are supposed to be speaking to. I want to indicate to you that any
Non-smokers' Health Act
attempt by the Government to speak on this issue in the guise of friendly or otherwise remarks will be considered by all Canadians for what it is, a deliberate attempt to stall this Bill. Shame on the Tories!


Alan Redway: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that a comment of that sort could be considered a threat to Members of this House and I would ask you to rule on that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair considers it a matter for debate.


Gabriel Fontaine: A point of order, Mr. Speaker,


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, should the remarks which were obviously directed to me by the Liberal Member on the other side be considered a threat to my rights as a parliamentarian, for I have no intention of standing still while someone challenges my right as an elected Member, my right as representative of the riding of Levis, and my right to speak . . .


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member, but the Chair does not consider that a threat. The Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise).


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on this side of the House I think that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) are almost unacceptable, considering it was this Government which brought in parliamentary reform to enable Members of the House to air their views on various bills. For the benefit of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the parliamentray reform does not apply exclusively to Members of the Opposition but to Government Members as well. Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the short remarks of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell...


Don Boudria: You could have fooled me!


Richard Grisé: -and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have every right to be heard when I rise in this House.
What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, is that each and every member of this House, no matter what legislation is being considered, has the right to represent his or her riding and constituents. Also, each member of this House has the right to speak out. There are no first class and second class members in this House, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell should take this into account and try to remember that he is no different from his colleagues in this House.
Personally, I want to deal with Bill C-204 because when the health of Canadian men and women is at stake, the issue is

April 22, 1988
Non-smokers' Health Act
always vital and should not be taken lightly. Each and every member of this House has the right to deal with the issue of his or her choise. Today, Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to speak on Bill C-204.
Indeed, the fewer possible smokers there are in this country, the better it is for the health of all Canadians. As a former smoker, Mr. Speaker, I know. I stopped smoking seven years ago and now I feel much better physically. To stop smoking is a very positive step for Canadian men and women to take and to those who have never smoked, 1 say: Hear hear! Now, Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware that there are Canadian men and women who are still smoking.
Getting back to Bill C-204, Section 3 reads as follows:
Every employer shall provide a smoke-free environment where all employees
may perform the duties that are directly or indirectly related to their
employment.
How are we to define, in this case, the term "smoke-free"? Are we only talking about smoke? If there is a smoking room on one floor, will absolutely all the smoke generated in that room stay there? Can we be sure that some of that smoke will not spread through the building or into adjacent offices? Have we set up systems or devices to check constantly and systematically the quantity of smoke in the air? Is there an alarm system which will trigger a buzzer or start a fan when a particular level of smoke in the air is reached or exceeded?
And, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about the House of Commons and Members' offices where a designated smoking room is provided, I wonder, if I understand correctly the purpose of this Bill, whether this will not be extended to our riding offices, because they are, after all, an extension of the offices of Members of the House of Commons. The rent for a riding office is paid by the House of Commons. Employees who work for a Member in the riding office are paid by the House of Commons of Canada. Should this legislation apply to them as well? Considering that a riding office is often far less spacious than an office in one of the departments here in Ottawa or in the Parliament Buildings, how can we provide a smoking room inside a riding office? Will we have to rent another building or rent space in the building next door if we don't have enough room? Will we have to find another space and let our employees go there when they want to smoke during the day?
Mr. Speaker, I realize our Government is concerned about the health of Canadians, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has, through Bill C-51, launched a national anti-smoking program, headed by representatives of the federal and provincial Governments and our national health care agencies. As part of this program, federal funding for promotional and educational activities are being increased.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Levis (Mr. Fontaine) was quoting Air Canada earlier as an example-and I applaud its initiative to prohibit smoking during flights lasting less than two hours. Even on more popular routes like Montreal-Toronto, we now have non-smoking flights. That initiative is
quite commendable and it is in that spirit that the Conservative Government wants to implement legislation aimed at protecting Canadians' health and welfare, but we must still allow Canadians who, for very personal reasons of course, decide to keep on smoking to . . . Are we going to treat these Canadians as second-class citizens? As an ex-smoker, I know how one tends to smoke more in a stressful situation; so are we going to ask those people, when they are working on very important matters, to leave everything there and get out of the room to smoke? I agree that filling one's lungs with smoke is not very healthy, but these people have a need to smoke.
Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating that my time has expired. I understand very well the purpose of Bill C-204, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should first consider Bill C-51 which was introduced in the House by this Government.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak on Motion Nos. 1 and 2 before us at report stage. I will preface this with the remark that if there are two Members of this House who are more guilty of speaking on and on and on whenever the occasion arises, it is the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). These two Members go on and on and on at all times when the Government is trying to get through very important legislation critical to the well-being of Canada. For them to say on this occasion that anyone who wants to speak at report stage or third reading of this particular Bill is somehow frustrating the great wishes of Canada, I cannot understand that rationale whatsoever.
I wish that the hon. proposer of the motions with which we are dealing, namely, Motion Nos. 1 and 2, had taken some time to explain what these amendments are all about. The Member brushed them off as mere technicalities. It took me considerable time to read through them, referring backward and forward to the Bill to find out exactly what they were about. The first one is to add words in the definition section. In talking about designated smoking rooms, it said initially that a designated smoking room means (a) for an office building constructed prior to January, 1990, an enclosed space" et cetera. Now we have added the words "for an office building or other enclosed work space". I guess that is a necessary amendment if you read it in reference to Clause 4 of the Bill, to which I will speak a little later.
When we start telling people what they can do, where, and where they cannot do a certain thing we get ourselves into trouble and problems start to arise. What exactly is meant by an enclosed work space? I think we all understand what we mean by an office. But what do we mean by an enclosed work space? A workshop would obviously be one. Whether you would want to ban smoking in all workshops, I do not know. But there are the marginal cases.
April 22, 1988

During this winter, Mr. Speaker, you as well as other Members must have seen the stone masons who work on the Parliament Buildings. These are people who would obviously be covered by this Bill. During the summer they can work outside and presumably they would be able to smoke as much they wanted as they work on Parliament's stone work. In winter when the temperatures are a little colder and the weather sometimes inclement, a structure is erected made of scaffolding and two-by-fours. It is enclosed with plywood or canvas. The stone masons work in what might be described under this Bill, were it to become law, as an enclosed work space. This illustrates the difficulties we get into when we try to be so precise. I do not think that I would want to tell a stone mason, who is legally smoking at his work in June or July, that he should not be able to smoke when doing the same work in October or November. That deals with the amendments contemplated in Motion No. 1.
I understand that Motion No. 2 is being dealt with at the same time and I have a few comments with respect to Motion No. 2, which seeks to amend Clause 4. This would add the word "enclosed" between the words "other" and "work". The present clause reads "No person shall smoke in any office or other work space provided by an employer, outside of the designated smoking room or designated smoking area". I am certainly in favour of this proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, because, of course, work space could be, unless you add that adjective, an open field. Surely it was not the intention, even of the Hon. Member from Broadview-Greenwood, to stop people working in the fields of the Experimental Farm from smoking. I do not think that was the case at all. I am entirely in favour of adding the word "enclosed" before work space in Clause No. 4.
In discussing this matter there is one other point I want to make. It is an important point because it has constitutional implications for the part of the country that I represent.
You, Sir, are undoubtedly aware of a court ruling made several years ago that said that a municipal undertaking in the Northwest Territories was to be designated as an undertaking or business under the definition of Section 2 of the Canada Labour Code. There is a long story behind this as to why it came about, but for certain reasons under the Canada Labour Code municipal operations within the Territories were deemed to be federal work or a federal undertaking. Of course, this Bill would apply, pursuant to paragraph 2(c), to all federal works and undertakings. Therefore, because of that court ruling it would presumably apply to municipal undertakings in the Northwest Territories. I think if this Bill became law we would have to look at a further amendment to restrict that.
I do not think it is correct that we should legislate here with respect to whether somebody can smoke in a municipal garage in Fort Smith. There may be good arguments as to whether somebody should be allowed to smoke there or not, but it is not really the duty or the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada to say so. It would obviously be something which should be done by municipal by-law. Those are some of the
Non-smokers' Health Act
concerns that I have with the first two motions put before us today at the report stage debate.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-204, I find that there are many incongruances as I have read the Bill and as I have heard different speakers from both sides of the House. Members have been addressing an issue of great importance to Canadians who are affected by pollutants and smoke, in particular.
Smoking has been with us since the time of Sir Walter Raleigh.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Really?


William Lesick: Really.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is only 400 years. It is a short episode in the life of our humanity.


William Lesick: It has been something we have grown up with and smoking has been part of our culture and how we have lived.


Michael Morris Cassidy: So was opium. Do you want to bring back opium?


William Lesick: Smoking has been part of what we have always felt as a right that we have had, the same as other things, for example, driving vehicles and horses. They cause pollution as well, as do certain pieces of machinery. There are pollutants all over the place.
It is not only smoke that causes a great deal of trouble for certain people who have problems with breathing or have chest problems. We find in the last 50 years particularly, with the mechanization and the manufacturing of so many different types of chemicals, that there are a great number of problems for the people around the whole world.
There are over 100 million people in China, and they have a great habit of smoking. Nearly one billion of the people of China are good smokers, it seems.
When I was in Africa, there was a great deal of smoking. Almost everyone there smoked, and there were seven of us on the parliamentary committee, including Hon. Members from the other side, who somehow did not smoke. However, all the folks there did.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Do you want their life expectancy?


William Lesick: We find that this is quite common in many countries throughout the world.
Some eight weeks ago, we were at Gaza and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was there with us. We were in a hospital and a doctor was telling us of the deep-seated problems that have been occurring there because of the difficulties between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This

April 22, 1988
Non-smokers' Health Act
doctor who was speaking to us was a volunteer. He was receiving a minimum amount of money just to pay his expenses.
As this doctor was talking to us, he was smoking. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood was somewhat incensed by this and, in a somewhat forceful tone, told the doctor that he had better stop smoking because it was not good. Of course, this embarrassed the good doctor who was saving the lives of dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians who were in that hospital.
I suppose that when one is under a great deal of pressure, one may take up drinking, smoking or some other bad habits that some of us would frown upon. Of course, the good doctor put out the cigarette by smashing it on the floor. Therefore, peace was restored within the hospital room.
We are trying to purify ourselves so much these days by trying to keep out pollutants. There are now buildings that are completely sealed and air is circulated throughout these buildings. We are finding that more and more people in that atmosphere are getting sick. The air is circulated but no fresh air tends to come in from outdoors.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's one reason smoking needs to be banned. They are recycling the smoke.


William Lesick: Therefore, we have a greater and greater problem. Even though there is no smoking there, the air is being recirculated.


Michael Morris Cassidy: They have the smoke from 10 years ago still circulating around.


William Lesick: The germs are going from one person to another. There are more colds and more people who are not well in that atmosphere.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just like the Hon. Member's argument.


William Lesick: This Bill provides that we cannot smoke in a so-called enclosed space. What is an enclosed space? I remember driving to the City of Edmonton early one morning. I looked over Edmonton and saw a brown cloud of pollution over the city. This could conceivably be called an enclosed space. As I saw this from a distance, I thought that surely Edmonton seemed to have a cap on it, a cap of pollution, of dirt, a cap of a greyish colour. Under this Bill, could we smoke in Edmonton if it tends to be an enclosed space?
This Bill does have excellent intentions. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood has excellent intentions, and certainly the Bill is for the benefit of people who have health problems-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You're damning it with faint praise.


William Lesick: Despite that, we have to be sure. We have to respect all the people and ensure that they can be free to smoke if they wish to smoke.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's what your colleagues said about child labour laws. We would still have child labour today if that argument would be followed.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I am having to speak louder and louder because of the problems that seem to be coming from across the way.
I would like to continue, if I may, to deal with this enclosed work space and the cloud over Edmonton. I know what it is like to work in a space where there is an excessive amount of smoking. I work as a volunteer at bingos. It seems that bingo players love to do two things. They love to play bingo and most of them love to smoke. By the time I get home after four hours of working there, I can smell smoke on my clothing.
Of course, anyone who is affected by smoke should not work in a place like that, in this workplace or this place of fun, frolic and enjoyment. There is a problem, and the Bill has good intentions. However, it is flawed in that it does not allow enough latitude for those who wish to smoke. I would like to respect smokers, even though I personally am not a smoker.
The Government has also brought in a Bill covering much of what Bill C-204 covers, but it has more latitude. The many areas of great concern that have been expressed to me and to many other Members of Parliament about smoking are addressed by the government Bill which allows freedom for smokers yet protects the lives of non-smokers.
In conclusion, as much as I believe that Bill C-204 has good intentions, I would urge that this Bill not be passed at this time. The Government has introduced a tobacco products control Act which will cover the concerns of non-smokers and those who are affected by smoke while still respecting those who wish to smoke.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Morris Cassidy: For shame.


John Raymond Ellis: If the Member with the enlarged facial aperture would be quiet, we could get on with this.
I support Bill C-204, but I have been around this House longer than many, though not all, who are in the Chamber this afternoon. I have put Private Members' Bills before the House and have watched them talked out by government Members. I have watched responsible Governments, shortly thereafter, bring in Bills containing the essence of my Bills and do a good job. That is the way this House works. That is the way it has worked for over 100 years. That is the way it will continue to work.
I support the Bill and I would like to see the contents of the Bill become legislation-you are telling me that it is three o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant
April 22, 1988

Non-smokers' Health Act
to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of	[Translation]
the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.	It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until
next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 25, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers