1988-08-12

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I want to make several preliminary remarks. [Translation]
I am very sorry, but we still do not have the French version and the problem is due to translation, because last night, the Speaker and the Clerks of the House had to work very late; this was necessary considering the number of amendments submitted. I hope that Hon. Members will understand the situation.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On a matter of fundamental principle, I recognize that the Clerks of the House worked very late because there were amendments, some one hundred tabled by Members, but I believe that it is right for this
Parliament to work with documents in both official languages. Besides, we recently passed Bill C-72, which requires of the Government that any document tabled in the House be in both official languages. It is hard for some unilingual Members to follow the debate. I understand that we have simultaneous translation, but it is still unfair for these Members to have to deal with a document that is only in English, when we know very well that they would understand better and perhaps follow the proceedings better if the material were in French.
I suggest that the Chair wait a few more minutes for a translation to be available for all Members so that here in this House, we can maintain the fundamental principle and work in English or in French with documents available to all.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my voice to that of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). This is an important debate, and your ruling will be of utmost importance in the way the deliberations of this House will transpire over the next few days. I think it is only appropriate that we have the document before us in both of Canada's official languages.
May I suggest, since you indicated the translated version will be here shortly, that we recess for a few moments while awaiting the document so that we can begin properly and appropriately, reading from the transcript of your ruling in either of Canada's official languages.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I am naturally in your hands, as are other Members. The provision of draft rulings in both official languages is a convenience for the House. I think it would be in order for you simply to have read your ruling into the record without the provision of draft copies.
We can, however, do one of two things. One might suggest that you read the first two paragraphs of your ruling. I think the essence is that Motions Nos. 1,61 and 65 are in order and will be debated together, and go from there.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Minister of State but until the Chair gives a ruling I do not think we should be discussing the copy which has been extended to House Leaders, of course, as a matter of courtesy. I will hear the Hon. Minister further.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I suggest we recess the House until a copy of the provisional ruling in both official

August 12, 1988
languages, as far as the Table has got, is available to all Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I told the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that copies would be available soon. It might not be quite as soon as I thought a few moments ago. Would the House allow me to consult with my officers for just a moment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the House Leaders and we think in view of the circumstances and in view of the importance of the matter before the Chair, and our wish to have every Member of the House in a position to understand your ruling in both official languages, that it would be appropriate to suspend the sitting until 11 a.m. and then commence the normal Statements by Members followed by Question Period. If the ruling is ready, once Orders of the Day are called after Routine Proceedings we could perhaps be in a position then to receive your ruling in both official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the co-operation of Members. First, let me say this. There are 102 motions that were received by six o'clock last night. I repeat, 102 motions. I also point out that a great many people worked well beyond midnight last night to prepare at least part of the ruling on these amendments in order to try to meet the exigencies of today.
I also point out that it was not possible to have in place translators after midnight last night. This is nobody's fault. It is just a fact of life. I have to say that until early this morning the document was not completely finished in any event.
I should also add that I will have to make a further ruling on other amendments which we have not been able to consider. I see some sympathy expressed by House Leaders and I appreciate that also.
I thank the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) after consultation with the House Leaders for his suggestion. I think that perhaps is an appropriate way to deal with the matter. We may not by noon have the entire ruling fully translated, but we will have enough of it translated to get started on the debate.

I want to say that I greatly appreciate the statement by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). There is a problem, but the principle is not at issue today, not at all. So I would ask for the cooperation of all Members, especially the francophones.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: The sitting is adjourned until eleven o'clock. We will resume for Question Period at that time, followed by Routine Proceedings. I will then return with the ruling.
At 10.19 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 11 a.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, last week the Friends of the Oldman River laid charges against the Province of Alberta for violating Section 33 of the federal Fisheries Act because construction of a dam on the Oldman River would destroy habitat for brown, brook and cutthroat trout. These fish are of great value to Alberta's tourism and recreation industry.
In addition, the proposed reservoir would flood Indian burial sites, ancient inscriptions carved in stone and ceremonial grounds of the Peigan Indians. Damming one of the only undammed rivers left in southern Alberta would destroy the ecology and native lifestyle of the area for the sake of irrigation for some 300 land owners. It simply does not make sense.
We urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to prosecute the Government of Alberta on the charges laid by the Friends of the Oldman River, and to subject the Oldman Dam project to the federal environmental assessment and review process. The Oldman River is a treasure worth saving in its pristine beauty.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Andrzej Gwiazda, Vice-Chairman of the Polish trade union movement Solidarity, and his spouse Joanna, are presently visiting Canada. Mr. and Mrs. Gwiazda, along with other Solidarity leaders such as Lech Walesa, Anna Walentynowicz, Alina Pinkowsa and Bohdan Lis, began a heroic struggle for the advancement of fundamental human rights in Poland which resulted in the establishment in 1980 of Solidarity, the first free and democratic trade union behind the Iron Curtain.
Despite years of imprisonment, Andrzej and Joanna Gwiazda carry on their courageous work for Solidarity's goal; that the state should serve man and not rule over him, and remind us that the struggle for justice and freedom continues in Poland. I call upon all Members of the House to join with me in welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Gwiazda to Canada and in expressing our admiration for their tremendous contribution to the cause of freedom and fundamental human rights.
August 12, 1988



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal peoples of Canada have good reason to be suspicious of the Conservative Party's agenda. Buffalo Jump of the 1980s is without doubt the political agenda of this Government.
Add to this the press release of August 2, from the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight). The headline reads: "Amendment to Indian Act Removes 'Death Rule' ". That statement is false. There is no Bill before Parliament and no such amendment has been passed. In fact, even today the Minister's office refuses to provide a copy of the proposal.
This same Minister has Bill C-122 before the legislative committee. This is legislation designed to cut the statutory powers of Indian by-laws. This legislation is unanimously opposed by the chiefs of the First Nations.
Add to this the illegitimate withholding of Bill C-123 on minors' trusts and estates, a Bill completed and to have been reported to Parliament over two weeks ago from the legislative committee. Add to this the improper and illegitimate withholding of the report of the Standing Committee on Bill C-31, a report required by statute to be reported forthwith, and still withheld by the Conservatives from Parliament and the public, a report completed some two months ago. The Minister and his minions abuse the truth, this House, and the First Nations by such actions.



NATIONAL ART GALLERY


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I read on the front page of The Ottawa Citizen that, believe it or not, pornographic videos were being shown under the guise of so-called art at the new National Art Gallery. One video, according to the article, showed a close-up of male genitals and intercourse between males as well as other homosexual acts.
The assistant curator of film and video was quoted as saying that the work being shown is unquestionably art. The curator says they explore the difficult questions of our time: sexual identity and the role of the media in our lives.
With such comments as this, is it any wonder some people in the art community have successfully persuaded the Justice Department officials to deep-six the Government's pornography Bill, Bill C-54, in spite of overwhelming public support and mail to the Justice Department? How much garbage such as these videos is society to tolerate in the name of so-called art?



FAMILY VIOLENCE


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I almost gagged when I read the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his maiden speech to Parliament on a Bill before the House. He took credit for everything. The things he took credit for were incredible.
What the Prime Minister did not tell the Canadian people and particularly the women of Canada is why it is that under his Government in 1986, we saw for the first time the wage gap between men and women actually getting wider. Why is it that he has introduced a program to assist victims of family violence which will not create a single second-stage house across Canada?
Why is it that in my own community of Hamilton the women's organizations are actually going begging for funds to keep five apartments open for women who have been battered? A woman with five children who will be homeless and out on the street cannot qualify for that program because the Government does not believe in second-stage housing.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) himself said that he could not philosophically support second-stage housing. The women of Canada will not be bought by these ridiculous statements.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, environmental hypersensitivity is a condition resulting from the inability of the immune system to cope with everyday normal exposure to such things as food, water, mould or dust. The medical treatment for this condition often requires expensive home modifications, and changes in diet and lifestyle.
The Income Tax Act allows only prescriptions dispensed by a licensed pharmacist to be deducted as medical expenses. Special environmental prescriptions are usually not available in a pharmacy. It is time that the Government amended the Income Tax Act to provide equal tax treatment for Canadians who require environmental medical prescriptions.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, farming is a gamble and a worry. If it is not the grasshoppers, it is the stink bugs; if it is not drought, it is early frost; if the crops are good,

August 12, 1988
the price is low; if the yields are high, the elevators are jammed; when the granaries are empty, the prices go up; when the grain bins are full, there is a strike at the coast and demurrage costs eat up the profits; when a bountiful crop ready for harvest brings hope, there is a sudden hail storm.
If a farmer trades in an old tractor for a new one, he is taxed because the machine company paid him "too much" for the used machine; when prospects look good and land is purchased with a loan, interest rates rise; when the farmer cannot pay back the loan, the financiers take his land; when he crawls from the soil he loves, Revenue Canada charges him taxes on a capital gain. Is it not a wonder that we have any farmers at all left on the land?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's vendetta against John Quigley continues with full vengeance. Last year the Government fired him because he advised me and other Members of Parliament that the Immigration Department was inviting known criminals to apply for refugee asylum. He was subsequently reinstated following an order by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
Now, after failing to learn from this lesson, the Government again fired Mr. Quigley, who is the president of his union local, on the allegation that he used a government telephone for union business. This latest move is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to get Mr. Quigley at any cost, over any possible excuse.
Rather than utilizing its energies to carry on a petty, vindictive and needless battle with one employee, the Minister should concentrate on vastly improving her Government's management of Canada's immigration policy. The Government looked bad the first time it fired Mr. Quigley and now it looks pathetic. It has opted for the gutter when the high road was clearly available.
I call upon the Minister of Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) and the Government to bring this sad affair to a satisfactory end by reinstating Mr. Quigley.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the House aware of yet another set of financial pressures being placed on rural communities. The banks are now telling rural automobile dealerships to get bigger or get out. Most banks are beginning a policy of providing credit for floor stock only if it exceeds $2 million. Smaller inventories are apparently of little or no interest to the banks. Some banks even have a policy of not financing dealerships at all if they are located in rural communities.
Banks do not seem to realize that cutting car and truck dealerships in small towns means the demise of a very necessary transportation service for all rural residents. New vehicles and repairs to older ones are a necessary part of viable communities.
Cutting back on dealerships by imposing preconceived size and volume requirements on credit eligibility reduces the investment potential for all aspects of the small-town rural community and only adds to the devaluation of existing rural assets and loans. I call on the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) to make that point with Canada's banking system.



CARTOGRAPHY


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed being present yesterday when the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) announced a $ 16-million program to computerize mapping in Canada. Known as the Geographic Information Systems, or GIS, the computerized maps will not only revolutionize the way in which geographic information is produced and stored, they will revolutionize the uses to which maps can be applied.
Canada has taken the lead in developing state-of-the-art computerized mapping techniques. By becoming leaders in GIS technology, we can also service and train customers around the world. It will provide us with enormous advantages in managing and developing our own natural resources.
This is a first step in a national program that will result in GIS expertise becoming world-class. It will mean high-technology jobs for Canadians. It will mean the development of key industries. It will mean increased trade in goods and services. We are poised to make our Geographic Information Services the most advanced in the world.
August 12, 1988



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Elouse some of the findings of a recent survey of the population over 65.
Sixty-one per cent of senior citizens are physically fit and are not under any functional constraints. This means they do not require more than the usual health care and social services. In Quebec, 90 per cent of senior citizens stated they preferred to live on their own instead of moving to a senior citizens' home.
Eighty-five per cent of Quebecers think that governments and employers should take advantage of the knowledge and skills of senior citizens who are able to work, and 42 per cent think they should receive a salary in that case.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore invite governments to set aside more money in their budgets to promote the independence of our senior citizens and set up job creation programs that would take advantage of the experience and skills of senior citizens.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, when is the king of patronage going to muster the courage to call a general election? It seems the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is getting cold feet. He knows, given the opportunity, the people of Canada will reject free trade, reject the Conservative Party, and reject the Prime Minister.
Four years ago, during the 1984 election campaign, the Prime Minister made a lot of promises. Over the last four years we have seen a lot of broken promises. The people of Canada want an opportunity to turf out the Government. They know they were lied to and hoodwinked in that election campaign.
The Prime Minister does not have the courage to call an election because he has personality problems. As a headline said yesterday, "PC grass roots jittery about PM's credibility". This is what a Conservative riding president had to say about the Prime Minister:
Probably the most prevalent issue I hear is "I don't like Mulroney".
The people of Canada do not like Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John V. Nunziata: They want to defeat him. Let us go to the polls.
5. O. 21 TRADE



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM THERMOS BOTTLE INDUSTRY

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from a company in my riding which I would like to share with Members of the House of Commons:
"Dear Mrs. Browes
As one of the original Golden Mile industries, Canadian Thermos Products has been manufacturing in Scarborough since 1950.
In August, we will be producing for the United States market all of their Thermos glass vacuum bottles, coffee carafes and workers' lunch kits. The result will be a nearly 100 per cent increase in our Scarborough production.
More importantly, this will create at least 60 new permanent jobs in addition to the current 102.
Although Thermos is committed to moving production to Canada, Free Trade is nevertheless important to our company. The duty on our products entering the United States is 9 per cent, equal to or higher than that on competing products from Europe, Brazil and the Far East. The elimination of this duty under the Free Trade Agreement would lead to a larger market share for our Canadian-made products in the U.S., and consequently increased employment.
We applaud the reasoned approach that the Government of Canada has pursued in both the Free Trade Agreement and the GATT negotiations."
Mr. Speaker, this is good news for the people of Scarborough.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the head of the grain handlers' union in Thunder Bay has called the grain scene there the worst since the 1960s. The drought, which will reduce farmers' income on the Prairies, threatens long lay-offs for grain handlers, railway workers, seafarers, and grain commission employees in Thunder Bay and other ports on the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Those involved in the grain trade in Thunder Bay and throughout the Seaway need action from the federal Government. I call on the Government to take the following actions: to ensure that a fair share of wheat exports moves through Thunder Bay and the Seaway; reduce the variable entrance requirements for persons laid off in the grain trade so they are eligible for unemployment insurance after ten weeks of employment; review operations under the Western Grain Transportation Act in order to make them more sensitive to the actual cost of moving grain to export ports.
Workers in the grain trade need action from the federal Government and I call on it to take that action now.

August 12, 1988
Oral Questions



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) announced in Valleyfield that he would build a bridge so that construction could start on Highway 30 on Montreal's south shore.
Mr. Speaker, for twenty years, business people, mayors and MPs have been asking for this highway which is vital to the development of the south shore. Only a Progressive Conservative Government could understand, being prepared to do everything in its power to strengthen the economy and increase employment. Highway 30 is vital to the development of Montreal's south shore, and I am proud I helped to make this dream come true.



HOUSING


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, a poll released this week indicates that only 38 per cent of Ontarians believe that it is possible for young couples to own a home. This is indeed a sad indicator. Under the false guise of Tory economic recovery, the dreams of so many young Canadians have disappeared. One in two Canadians favour a return to the RHOSP program which was eliminated by Tory cut-backs. Two in three Canadians want a mortgage deduction policy to help finance a new home. Yet the Conservative Government has not shown any leadership on these initiatives.
Other solutions to the Toronto housing crisis have fallen on deaf ears as the Government has ignored many proposals. It is readily evident that during the past four years Conservative economic policy has benefited the haves while leaving the have nots at the wayside on the road to prosperity.
With respect to the housing crisis gripping Metropolitan Toronto, the Tories' answer has been a tale of two cities. It is time the Government moves on the affordable housing crisis facing Metropolitan Toronto and other major urban centres before they become the exclusive backyard of the well-to-do.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Petroleum Monitoring Agency issued a very disturbing report on the declining state of Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry. It points out that since 1987, there has been a more than 5 per cent drop in Canadian ownership. In contradiction to the Government's stated policy of achieving 50 per cent Canadian ownership, the figures are going the other way.
In light of these very alarming figures from its own agency, which basically say the Government is presiding over the sell-off of Canadian companies, assets and resources in the energy sector, what is the Government going to do finally to put some teeth in its control and protection of Canadian assets and resources?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's allegations are unfounded and untrue. Investment Canada has a different view of the situation. It really depends upon the classification of Husky. Clearly, Investment Canada considers Husky a Canadian controlled public company. When that is considered, the Hon. Member's figures are blown out of the water.
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency uses a potential control test, whereas Investment Canada uses a present control test. I think the two different agencies come at this from different ends and I would prefer to rely upon the approach taken by Investment Canada.
Given that, what has happened during the course of the last few years since this Government has taken office is that we have seen a strengthening of the petroleum industry. We overcame the devastation inflicted upon the industry as a result of the National Energy Program.
I think the Hon. Member would clearly recognize the difficulties that Dome became involved in as a direct result of the policies of the previous Government. He should not take any solace from that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know how credible Investment Canada is. It has received applications for 443 acquisitions and takeovers and has approved 443 acquisitions and takeovers. This amounts to a sell-off of $36 billion worth of Canadian assets since the agency came into being.


PROPOSED SALE OF TEXACO CANADA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the Deputy Prime Minister repudiates his own Government's Petroleum Monitoring Agency. It is telling the truth and describing the way things
August 12, 1988

are. That is the problem. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister this question.
Texaco Canada is now up for sale. The Petroleum Monitoring Agency says Bow Valley, which is foreign controlled, and Husky which is foreign controlled, are now major bidders for that company. Given that, what steps is the Government going to take to ensure that Texaco Canada will not add further to the decline in Canadian ownership by being sold to foreign owned companies?


Mr. McDermid:: Who owns it now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not need any lectures from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry about telling the truth. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press article of August 9 which outlines the reasons why his Leader and himself should start telling the truth when it comes to talking about the trade deal. The Member may want to read that because it is very good food for thought.
If the Hon. Member is asking the Government to reinstitute the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which contributed to the devastation of the energy sector, the answer is no. We have been encouraging investment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stand up for Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know the Hon. Member from Winnipeg does not really give a hoot about the energy sector, but there are some Members in this House who do.
As I said earlier, there has been a strengthening in this sector and that has been good for the creation of jobs and good for the stimulation of the economy in all regions of Canada. The Texaco issue will be examined in due course if an application is made to Investment Canada. It will be considered in the appropriate manner consistent with the policies and guidelines laid down by Investment Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister wants to place so much faith in the Free Press editorial he should take note of what is in the paper today, that is, that the Liberals are leading in the city of Winnipeg at 45 per cent and his own Party is at 24 per cent. Under those circumstances the Free Press can keep writing all the editorials it wants because our percentages keep going up and the Conservatives' keep going down.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct another serious question to the Deputy Prime Minister and would like to get a serious answer in response.
Under the proposed trade agreement the Government has changed the threshold to weaken further the control over
Oral Questions
foreign investment. The U.S. legislation carries with it new negotiating directions to the United States administration to reduce further the grandfathering of investment in energy and other forms of resources.
Is the Government not basically covertly endorsing, not the sale of Canada's resources but the sale of Canada's ownership of its resources? Are we not really selling the country out by your policies in energy, oil, gas and resources? Are we not seeing the sell-out of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask Hon. Members to put their questions through the Chair. The Hon. Minister.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is another indication of why the Winnipeg Free Press titled its editorial "Tell the people the truth". The editorial writer said, "John Turner should tell the people the truth".


Lloyd Axworthy: That's why we are at 45 per cent in the city of Winnipeg. That's why you will not have a Tory Member left in the city of Winnipeg.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry should be telling the people the truth and not distorting the truth as he has done in this question and many other questions in relation to investment.
The Hon. Member should understand that the purpose of the free trade agreement-


Mr. Boudria:: Where are you going to run, Mike?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Members do not want an answer to the question. The Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry has said time and time again that we should not be proceeding with the free trade deal but should be working through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. He should understand that GATT is addressing the question of investment and the question of trade in services. The things we have done in the free trade agreement with the United States are very consistent with the things he is going to be proposing that we do with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Member should get a bit more consistency and less distortion into his questions.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-TARIFF REDUCTIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Speaking of telling the truth, for the past year the Government has been telling Canadians that they as consumers will benefit from the full reduction in tariffs with the United States which the Government says will come from its trade deal with that country.

August 12, 1988
Oral Questions
Yet for the past year the Government has had in its possession a secret Finance Department study which makes clear that Canadian consumers would not benefit from reductions in tariffs unless wholesalers and retailers passed along those reductions and lower prices, something which has not necessarily happened at all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is really startling.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Why has the Government been telling Canadians that the benefits of these tariff reductions will definitely go to them when it knew that this was not necessarily going to be the case? Why will the Government not call an election right away to give Canadians a chance to decide whether they want to have a trade deal from which they will not benefit in spite of the claims of the Government that they will?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the light has gone on.


An Hon. Member:: But nobody is home.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The House Leader of the Liberal Party has suddenly realized that there is a marketplace, that retailers and wholesalers are allowed-can you believe it-to set their own prices in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Finance Department study is not a secret study, it has been made public. The Finance Department study says that on a conservative basis there will be a reduction in prices of a certain amount. I do not have that figure off the top of my head but I think it is something in the order of 4 or 5 per cent.
There will be a reduction in prices of 4 to 5 per cent assuming that the market-place does not pass on the full amount of the reduction. However, if the wholesalers and retailers do pass on the full amount there will be an even greater reduction in prices over and above the 4 or 5 per cent about which I have just spoken.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, why does the Government not confirm that it can give Canadian consumers no guarantees whatsoever that they will benefit one bit from any reduction of tariffs that will come about from its trade deal? Is the Government not, through the Minister of Finance, admitting today that it is leaving what will happen to consumers up to the wholesale and retail sectors and that the Government does not care about what they do?
Why does the Government not admit this right now and confirm that as far as the Government is concerned there will really be no benefit for consumers and that the Government does not really care about that because it cannot guarantee consumers one cent of benefit from its trade deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anyone in this world can guarantee things for Canadians, whether prices or even whether the Member for Windsor West is going to get re-elected. We cannot guarantee that. We are going to work like hell to make sure it does not happen.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You know what is going to happen to him, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will not see you at next year's Christmas party.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, since I answered the first question I have received a copy of the Economic Assessment. This is the so-called secret study to which the Member for Windsor West referred. If he would read the material that comes out from the Government he might be able to ask more reasonable questions.
In this document it says quite clearly that the cost of consumer goods imported from the United States could be reduced by about 5 per cent on average. I have said that that is based on conservative assumptions.


Don Boudria: That is what is wrong with them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the retailers and wholesalers pass on the full savings we will see those cost savings increase more than the 5 per cent indicated there.
As a final point, Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand all this fear, this horror, of free trade. Seventy-five per cent of the goods which are imported into Canada from the United States now are free of tariffs.


EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this question with the Minister further. He suggested that his report is the secret study. Of course what we are talking about is the memo of December 16 that was released to Canadian Press under Freedom of Information.
That memorandum said that consumers would not get the full benefit of tariff reductions. Why has the Minister not let Canadians know of this conclusion? Why has he kept it secret? Why has he misled consumers about the gains they might get?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand why the Hon. Member is so upset about this point. We have made a conservative judgment of some economic analysis. We could have put in that the full reduction of prices would be passed on to the consumer. Then the Hon. Member would be standing up to say that we exaggerated the impact of the free trade agreement, that we were leading the consumer down the garden path. That is not the case. We are saying that this is the conservative judgment
August 12, 1988

we have made, that only 5 per cent will be there. It could be more.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member that if there is a greater degree of competition, as will come from the free trade agreement, possibly we will see a greater increase in the price reductions as a result of the free trade agreement. Nothing is hidden whatsoever.


DEPARTMENT'S STUDY
Steven W. Langdon: In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely that misleading approach which the Government has taken in another one of its propaganda documents, the one talking about Canadian consumers and the benefits they will get from the trade deal. It says precisely: "Retailers will pass on to consumers the price reductions resulting from the elimination of tariffs under the agreement". That comes directly from the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Ministry's study which was issued after that December 16 memorandum.
Why is the Government, at taxpayers' expense, putting out misleading propaganda which is telling consumers something that is not true?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I think this is total distortion of what we are trying to do. In the analysis that we have provided on the free trade agreement we have said that there will be a reduction, in our judgment, of 5 per cent on the price of consumer goods. That takes into account a judgment that we have made that the full savings would not be passed on to consumers. However, if the full savings are passed on to consumers, then that 5 per cent will be a larger number. Surely that is not distorting or misleading the consumer.
As I said in my previous answer, if we had not made that more conservative assumption the Hon. Member would be standing up and saying, in a voice of feigned outrage, that we have been exaggerating the impact of the free trade agreement. This has been a conservative, realistic approach to the effects of the free trade agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, but it is not the approach that was taken by the Government's own study from another Department, which was misleading and classifies absolutely as false propaganda.


POSITION OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF QUEBEC
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Does the Government now agree with the National Federation of Consumers' Associations of Quebec that there will be very few benefits for consumers as a result of this agreement?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Read Steven's householder for a change.


An Hon. Member:: Why do you not shut up for a change, Sheila?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, now for Steven's householder.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that Hon. Members refrain from remarks when questions are being asked-


Some Hon. Members:: Table the householder.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that both sides exercise the courtesies that are expected.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just made references to statements of the Government being misleading. Let me read from his householder in which there is a statement that I think is totally misleading. Referring to the free trade agreement it says: "it will let American companies turn our health care system in a for-profit direction that will hurt patients and nurses". That is absolutely false. It is garbage.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-South Weston.


INQUESTS INTO TORONTO DEATHS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the operation of half-way houses in Canada, particularly in Metro Toronto.
Recently two innocent people, Tema Conter and William Woods, were murdered by two inmates released to Montgomery House, a privately run half-way house in Toronto.
Provincial inquests are scheduled to begin in late September, early October. It now appears that the federal Government intends to challenge the jurisdiction of these inquests. Why does the Government intend to obstruct and delay these investigations? Is it not because they will embarrass the Government right in the middle of a general election campaign?
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows, as he indicated, that these inquests have been scheduled for September 21 and October 6. The federal Government is

August 12, 1988
Oral Questions
committed to full co-operation with both of these inquests. There is no intention whatsoever to interfere in the operation of these inquests.


REFORM OF PAROLE SYSTEM LEGISLATION-TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Government does not intend to challenge the jurisdiction of the coroner. Canadians generally are fed up with the present parole system. They are afraid of dangerous inmates being released to half-way houses without proper supervision.
Two months ago the Solicitor General announced proposals to reform the parole system in Canada. He promised us legislation within a matter of weeks. That was two months ago. When does the Government intend to follow through on the commitment of the Solicitor General to introduce legislation to reform the criminal justice system, in particular the parole system in Canada?
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has taken the initiative of making changes to the parole system. He went across the country and listened to various groups. It is a position that is taking time to have public input. We hope to have a Bill prepared and presented to the House very soon.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the issue of redress for Japanese-Canadians which the Deputy Prime Minister knows very well is a matter of honour, national and personal.
In his answers to my questions yesterday the Prime Minister suggested that the Government is dealing with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. However, the President of the NAJC tells me this morning that there are no meetings scheduled to discuss redress.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister, who is managing the politics of multiculturalism for the Government, have any plans to arrange serious and substantial discussions on redress with the National Association of Japanese Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to manage the politics of multiculturalism. It is being handled very well by the Minister responsible for multiculturalism. I think he is doing an excellent job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can assure the Hon. Member that he is seized with this very sensitive and important issue and I think the Prime Minister indicated yesterday the sincerity of the Government in trying to deal with this issue. I can tell the Hon. Member, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, that we hope to have a resolution to this matter in the very near future.


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister who is certainly involved in trying to recognize the needs of multiculturalism. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take the kind of action this Government has not seen anyone else take to break the log-jam and get action on individual compensation for Japanese-Canadian survivors? There has to be action of that sort if there is going to be any kind of resolution.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's personal commitment and involvement in this matter are pretty clear from the answers he gave in the House yesterday. The Minister for Multiculturalism has met on occasions with the leaders of the Japanese community. I am not aware if there has been any further meeting scheduled, but there are recommendations that are currently being considered. I can say that to the Hon. Member. I am sure when those recommendations will be considered and acted upon, further discussions will take place, but I can assure the Hon. Member that progress is being made.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-STOCK SAVINGS PLANS
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am concerned about an issue raised yesterday by the Leader of the Official Opposition concerning the ability of the Quebec Government or, indeed, any provincial Government, to operate or establish new stock savings plans once the free trade agreement is in force. Could the Minister tell the House whether the free trade agreement prevents-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who wrote that, Jim?


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: -Quebec, or, indeed, any province from encouraging people to invest in their economy through stock savings plans, or from implementing other professional measures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my response yesterday was specifically related to stock
August 12, 1988

savings plans by the federal Government, but I can broaden that answer to say that the free trade agreement does not-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fontana has the answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Member for Hamilton East does not want to listen to an answer to clarify a complete misunderstanding of her Leader on this issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fontana will give you the answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Her Leader yesterday had not read, had not understood the free trade agreement-


John V. Nunziata: Ask John Crosbie.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ask Crosbie.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If he had, he would have known that the free trade agreement does not apply in any way to portfolio investments as set out in Section 1601 (2)(b), Section 1609(1) or Section 1602, all of which restrict the free trade agreement. It does not apply in any way to portfolio investments, which is the focus of stock savings plans that have been introduced by the provincial governments in our country.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised in the last election campaign that he would propose a Bill giving public servants certain political rights. Why did the Government yesterday not keep its promise? Why did it scuttle a very reasonable Bill which was agreed to by all members of a legislative committee of this House? Why did the Prime Minister not keep his commitment to public servants by clarifying the situation, by placing a Bill before this House? What is the Government doing about this? Why did the Prime Minister not keep his promise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is keeping his promise. He is prepared to fulfil his promise. The Government is prepared to act on this issue as was indicated in the House yesterday. I know the Hon. Member is very responsible on this particular issue. I think he recognizes very clearly the delicate balance which has to be maintained between political freedom and the importance of maintaining an impartial Public Service. It is within that context that we would want to see a measure proceed.
What was attempted by Members on this side of the House was to clarify some areas of the Private Member's Bill that required clarification. I regret that we were not able to deal with this more fully, but I can assure the Hon. Member of our
Oral Questions
commitment to provide the kind of political freedom and justice that was alluded to during the course of the last election campaign, but also bearing in mind-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why do not you keep your promise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal which has to be taken into consideration as well. I would hope that the Hon. Member would take that into consideration. I can advise him that we will be drafting a Bill and it will be accompanied by a statement which will, hopefully, clarify this issue.


BILL C-273-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government, letting a few Members do its dirty work, literally strangled a Private Member's Bill that was intended to confirm and specify the political rights of public employees.
Why did the Government table amendments in the House yesterday which had the effect of killing Bill C-273? Why is the Government now hurriedly telling us it will keep its promise, when it failed to table any legislation in the past four years? Backbenchers had to do it instead. Why did the Government not have the courage to stand up and keep its promise to federal public servants?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were fair, and I think he is a fair individual and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and if he had looked at the amendments and examined them closely-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sixteen was not allowed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -he would have found that most of them were technical in nature and most of them would have made the Bill more workable and would have, I think, achieved the purpose which all of us in this House want to achieve.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I will write you a letter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is really unfortunate the Hon. Member wants to make this a partisan issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: False. Always falsehoods.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You made it a partisan issue. You did it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would have hoped that through the cooperation, good will and understanding of all Members of this House, we could have reached a workable compromise which would have maintained that delicate balance which I think we all want to achieve in order to ensure the impartiality of the Public Service is preserved. That is precisely what Members on this side were attempting to do. I would hope that the Hon. Member might reconsider that.

August 12, 1988
Oral Questions REVENUE CANADA


CALCULATION OF FARM MACHINERY TRADE IN PRICES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, during Question Period, outlined what seems to me to be a new government policy. He said: "This Government permits wholesalers and retailers to set their own prices".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member can put his question.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that this is government policy


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Isn't that NDP policy, too?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Now that this is the government's new policy-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Wait for it!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


An Hon. Member:: Try again!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that this seems to be the Government's new policy, with respect to Revenue Canada's attempts to set trade-in values on farm tractors and combines three or four years after the deal, to rewrite the contract, to set the trade-in price for the retailer, does this mean that the Government is going to drop that stupid, regressive policy and allow those deals to stand?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the NDP to the real world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They have never understood the workings of the market-place. But I think the Hon. Member, if he reflects on where he buys his gasoline, sometimes might be able to get it at a penny or two less a litre somewhere else.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Not much less!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Sometimes there is a clearance sale around the end of the year. Sometimes even where he buys his tractor or his combines, maybe he would see there would be a little bit of competition there.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Come off it!


Mr. Manly:: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know the NDP does not like this. I know that the NDP would like to be able to control all the big levers of pricing, but there is this thing called the market-place which operates very well and very effectively.


Mr. Angus:: You missed the point, Mike.


Ms. Mitchell:: Why do you not listen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hope the NDP would adopt this in their thinking.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT CEASE PRACTICE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question would be to inform the Minister that his Department, under his ministry, the Revenue Department, has been doing precisely what he is claiming the NDP does, and it is his Government that has been doing it. We have been asking for the last six months for the Government to cease and desist. Will he now do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You would not know a farm tractor if it ran over you.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: And you look like one did!


An Hon. Member:: Would you know one?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We used to make them in Brantford until you came to power.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Let us hear the answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Sometime, Mr. Speaker, I am going to invite the Member for Brant up to my little farm north of Toronto.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What are you raising, fish?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has asked a serious question in relation to trade-in values on tractors, combines and other implements. He knows full well that the Department of National Revenue is looking at them on an individual, case-by-case basis. In the case of substantial write-ups, the Department has taken action. But it is being done on a case-by-case basis where there are instances of some shading in the tax rules.
:



August 12, 1988


DISASTERS
[Stage Direction]
1985 GANDER AIR CRASH-HEALTH OF PERSONS WHO WORKED AT SITE OF ACCIDENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Gander air crash. I will ask my first question of the Minister of National Health And Welfare.
The Minister of Health will know of the problems experienced by a number of Transport Canada workers, search and rescue workers, members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and members of the RCMP who responded to the crash of the Arrow jet in December of 1985 which killed 256 people all of whom were American.
Will the Minister initiate immediately an independent medical examination of each person who worked at the crash site in order to determine what kind of health problems they have been suffering? We know of at least 24 workers who are suffering from various diseases such as rare blood disorders which are usually caused by the ingestion of toxic fumes.
Will the Minister order an independent medical inquiry? Will he do it now in the way the Public Service Alliance of Canada has been asking since yesterday?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, and just for the record, I should indicate to the Hon. Member that staff members of the Department of National Health and Welfare-and I have the names of the doctors and officials if Members of the House would like to know them-did work with employees who had been at the crash site immediately after the crash took place. The examinations were completed within two months after the incident. As well, instructions were given to medical staff for further follow-up.
I would say to the Hon. Member as well that National Health and Welfare is prepared to do whatever further testing or work is required. What we need is a formal request which might have taken place already-


Don Boudria: From whom?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I said that it might have taken place as of yesterday. If we have not received a formal request, then obviously the testing cannot take place. As soon as there is a formal request we will take that action.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I take it that that formal request the Minister is talking about would be from the Public Service Alliance. I hope that that is the case.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL-HEALTH TESTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. He will know that there were health tests done on Armed Forces personnel who participated in the work at the crash site and not on the other
Oral Questions
personnel who were there. Could the Associate Minister tell us what prompted his Department to carry out these tests? Why were only Armed Forces personnel involved? Why were the other people who worked at the crash site not tested as well?
Will the Minister and the Government order an independent commission of inquiry into the whole mess concerning the Gander air crash?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that Transport Canada and the Department of National Health and Welfare have primary responsibility in respect to any action or any testing to be done. The Department of National Defence has been co-operating fully.
What I say to the Hon. Member is what I said in my first answer. We have done testing. We have had people working with both medical staffs and the people involved.
Additionally, in view of the new allegations, statements or claims made yesterday, we are fully prepared to do further testing and to do whatever is medically necessary. The Department of National Defence, Transport Canada, the Department of National Health and Welfare or other agencies would be involved and willing to do that work.
As I said, when the Hon. Member talked about a formal request I meant a formal request from the public service union or from other bodies such as that.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is obvious from the analysis done by Angus Reid that people who live in our cities are less than enamoured with the current Government of Canada.
In the House on a number of occasions I have asked the Minister of Finance if he would be prepared to enter into a program with the provinces and the municipalities to rebuild our crumbling cities. I want to ask it once again. Will the Government now consider assisting the municipalities in a very expensive proposition to rebuild our sewers, roads, our bridges and parks? Will he consider that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is ignoring the responsibility for this particular issue. What we have been doing in our four years in office was rebuilding the economy, putting it into a stronger and more solid position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 12, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is reflected by our ability to create the environment for the jobs that have been generated in the private sector. We will continue to do that. However, we still have some very serious financial problems which we are continuing to deal with, ones to which we are committed.
I know that members of the NDP could not care less about that element of government policy. All they want to do is spend, spend, spend-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ACTION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must recognize that his Government is making some financial decisions for expenditures such as on nuclear submarines. That money could be better used assisting our municipalities, as the Government has assisted Halifax in terms of its sewage treatment facility, to give our cities the financial ability to clean up the environmental problems that are created by poor sewer systems, leaded pipes, and crumbling roads.
Will the Minister and the Government reconsider and agree to work with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the provinces, and the cities to rebuild our communities?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is another question of half truths and things that are bordering on dishonesty.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister's response is also bordering on what is acceptable. I would ask the Minister to give his answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just remove the rhetoric and talk facts. The NDP's proposals on defence call for a $1.9 billion increase in spending over and above what has been talked about in the nuclear submarine proposal.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Nonsense.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Brant knows that that is the truth because that is the statement that he himself has made.
It is not a question of nuclear subs versus infrastructure. It is a question of who is responsible for doing the job.
I have said many, many times that I would like to see this work done but those responsible for it are the provinces and the municipalities. If they feel as strongly about it as the Hon. Member implies they do, then they should start getting on with the job themselves. That is where the responsibility lies. If we start spending money in all sorts of areas of provincial and municipal responsibility they will not like that. They will also
see the deficit go up. That will lead to higher interest rates and a slow-down in economic activity. That is precisely the direction that we are trying to avoid as a government.


HOUSING
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. Back on June 2, the President of the Treasury Board stated in this House that the Department and, in particular, the Bureau of Real Property Management in the Department, was giving serious consideration to releasing federally owned surplus lands for badly needed affordable housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area.
Now, some two and a half months have passed. When are we going to have a decision on this? Is everybody in the Department away on vacation? When can we expect some action?


An Hon. Member:: When the election gets called.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Hon. Member on June 27, there is an ongoing study with respect to surplus lands in the city of Toronto. My friend, as I have indicated to him on that date, will know that this Government has a policy of selling off surplus lands and making the best use of the land that the Government owns.
In keeping with that policy and in keeping with the efforts of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we are reviewing the land, and as soon as we have a comprehensive plan in place, that will be announced.


CHILD CARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and it concerns the speech given yesterday by the Prime Minister, parading his social policy, which contained a number of mistruths and fabrications.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 12, 1988


Mr. Speaker:: I think that my admonition of a few minutes ago has to apply to both sides. The Eton. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in his maiden speech on a Bill the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "The Child Care Act is about protecting children". The Prime Minister should know that there is absolutely nothing in this Act that protects children, because there are no national standards and no national objectives. I would like to ask who wrote this speech and why does the Prime Minister insist on being a phoney before the women of Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's intervention in the debate on child care was timely. He put forward the views of the Government on child care. He put forward a national strategy on child care. He talked about the 200,000 new spaces for the children of Canada. He talked about the tax breaks for parents, which obviously the Liberals and the NDP are against.


An Hon. Member:: He talked about everything.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He also put on the record the Government's advances on family violence. He put on the record what the Government had done about child sexual abuse. He put on the record the drug strategy. Do you remember when the Liberals said that there was no problem? He put on the record the issue of drinking and driving, especially for teens. He put on the record the policies-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the record speaks for itself, and the women of Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The women of Canada know a phoney-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was a phoney statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask the Hon. Member to put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is this. Can the Minister or any Member on the government side show me a single section of
Oral Questions
the Act which deals with protecting children? It is not there. That is a national responsibility, and I would like to ask the Minister why the national Government refuses to protect children in the national Child Care Act?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the national Child Care Act does protect children. It provides 200,000 spaces. It doubles the number of spaces. The Liberals spent, at best, $40 million to $50 million a year on child care. They did not protect children. They did not care. They are great on rhetoric, but they do not care.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I might comment that both the question and the answer were probably anticipated debate, but I was very generous with both the Minister and the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Burnaby. These will be the last two questions.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, who is responsible for the operations of Elections Canada. It concerns the ruthless and dictatorial attempts by the Liberal Party of Canada to deny a Mr. William Dery an opportunity to be nominated as a Liberal candidate in the riding of Saint-Laurent, Quebec, where he lives. Will the President of the Privy Council look into whether or not the statement by the Member for Laval-des-Rapides, saying "he will not get any nomination in this particular riding I will assure you" could in any way be in breach of the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The NDP do not even have conventions. Pope Broadbent anoints his NDP candidates.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that that question may or may not be welcomed by some Members in the Chamber, but I think that I have to apply the procedural stricture, that unless the Hon. Member can show that the question has something to do with the administration of Government, it is out of order. I will give the Hon. Member another chance.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the President of the Privy Council is concerned that elections be conducted in a democratic manner. I want to ask him whether in fact he is prepared to look into this question and determine whether this attempt to muzzle and deny access to the electoral process is in

August 12, 1988
Privilege
fact in breach of either the Charter of Rights or the Canada Elections Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find this to be a very serious situation particularly when it is occurring in a Party which has as its slogan "Let the people decide".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise that that terminates Question Period. I wish to advise Hon. Members that at this time I wish to give a ruling with respect to a question of privilege that was raised some days ago. I want also to indicate to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) that I will hear the Hon. Member on a question of privilege, and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). We will then go to Routine Proceedings.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday, July 14, 1988 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue claimed that her privileges as a member had been breached in relation to a press release prepared by the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the contents of which were subsequently published in the weekly newspaper "le Dimanche Outaouais". The press release, dated July 6, 1988, which was delivered to the Hon. Member's office on July 7, 1988, dealt with the strike of the federal Government language teachers and a demonstration in support of the teachers organized to take place on the 6th of July, 1988 at the Hon. Member's riding office. The press release, copies of which have been supplied to the Chair, states that the Hon. Member has not supported the teachers in their negotiations with the Treasury Board.
The Hon. Member explained that she had indeed supported the teachers' cause and had told them that she would intervene on their behalf with the President of the Treasury Board regarding their demands for preparation time and language of negotiations. The Hon. Member went on to assert that the information contained in the press release is false and that its distribution and subsequent publication in a local newspaper constitute an attempt to intimidate her as a Member of Parliament in the exercise of her duties and as such represents a breach of privilege.
The Hon. Member may indeed have a legitimate grievance and can certainly dispute the facts as they are reported. The
issue which the Chair must precisely decide is whether the preparation and publication of this information about a Member of Parliament constitutes a prima facie question of privilege in the traditional sense. Past precedents are highly restrictive in this regard and generally require that clear evidence of obstruction of interference with Member in the exercise of his or her duty be demonstrated in order to form the basis for a claim of a breach of privilege.
Speaker Jerome, in dealing with a similar case on June 23, 1977 ruled that " ... the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is enjoyed by every citizen before our courts". He went on to add that "As elected people we can and do expect to be the targets of attack. "When those attacks seem offensive I think it is appropriate the Hon. Member is offered the courtesy of the House to extend to his hon. colleagues an explanation of the circumstances". He concluded that " ... when these matters do take place, if they go beyond the point of being offensive to the point of being defamatory in a legal sense, certainly members ought to and will I am sure pursue matters through the courts."
Past Speakers have consistently argued that freedom of the press is one of the fundamental rights of our society which ought to be interfered with only if it is clearly in contempt of the House. Members who have complaints about reporting of their positions or activities should seek remedy in the courts.
In the case raised by the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mme Mailly), I must rule that the matter does not constitute a question of privilege but that she may avail herself of the appropriate legal procedures if she feels that her personal reputation has suffered damage. I thank the Honourable Member for raising this issue and trust that this ruling has been helpful to her and to other Honourable Members.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your customary kindness and competence and also for pointing out that, although this was not a question of privilege in the traditional sense because my privileges were not breached, the former Speaker Jerome said that when statements were made that might damage the reputation of a Member, the Member in question ought to pursue the matter through the courts. I think that is an indication this matter was serious and important enough to warrant your attention.
I deplore the fact that the Public Service Alliance acted so irresponsibly in this campaign, but I am also very glad, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement was finally signed and that the teachers obtained the guarantees they sought for course preparation time. I am simply very sorry the union resorted to methods that are unacceptable in a civilized society like ours.

August 12, 1988


PRESS RELEASE OF MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to a statement dated August 2, 1988, by and over the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). The statement I bring to your attention and to the attention of the House as a question of privilege is that at the top of the communique, a press release, we find:
Amendment to Indian Act removes death rule.
If you give me a moment, Mr. Speaker, I will explain to you why I do not think this is simply a matter of literary latitude by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and why it is unacceptable and constitutes a question of privilege.
First, the statement is false. There is no Bill before the House. There is no Bill in the hands of the opposition Parties. The first line of the statement states:
Bill McKnight, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has
received all-Party support to amend a section of the Indian Act referred to as
the death rule.
This morning I again got in touch with the Minister's office and was denied once more the opportunity to see the wording proposed to amend the Indian Act. This is crucial because this House gave the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs a statutory responsibility, not just a reference but a statutory responsibility, to produce for Parliament a report on the impact of Bill C-31, which came as a result of the Lovelace case at the United Nations. This was a reference that placed certain pressures on Canada and on this Parliament to act. The Minister in this press release describes the death rule as a technical error found in the 1985 Indian Act amendments known as Bill C-31.
Over the last 10 days I have been contacted by a number of groups and individuals who believed as a result of this press release that an amendment, a change, had in fact occurred. There are thousands of women and their children who are presently denied reinstatement as status Indians in Canada as a result of this so-called technical error. They, Mr. Speaker, are being denied certain rights and privileges provided by Bill C-31. For example, medical and dental care, educational benefits, the right to be on band membership codes and to live at home in their own home communities. There are thousands of them. If this were simply a communique that had gone out which had had broad literary latitude, I would not have raised the matter. The fact is that the opening line is simply false. It says, "Amendment to Indian Act removes death rule". There is no Bill. No Bill has been passed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is certainly no privilege here.


James Ross Fulton: Since 1 am the spokesperson for my Party on aboriginal matters in Canada and since a false impression has been created right across Canada by this press release, I
Privilege
believe it affects my privileges both as the spokesperson on aboriginal affairs and as a Member of Parliament who deals with this issue on a regular basis. If you find there is a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the necessary motion to have it dealt with.
The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) does not seem to think this is particularly serious. I think it is when a Minister of the Crown puts out a press release that is false. Anyone who can read knows that this press release is false. First, the headline is false. Second, the statement made within it that the opposition Parties had given all-Party support to an amendment we have never seen is categorically false. For him to imply to the First Nations, the first citizens and to the media of this country that what he has obtained is factual when it is not is false. The Minister has abused my privileges and he has abused the First Nations.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with care to the Hon. Member for Skeena. I will reserve and ask him if he could assist the Chair by sending a copy of the press release to my office.


OFFICIAL REPORT-DELAY IN PUBLICATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on behalf of all Members of the House. We all appreciate the tremendous job which the Hansard reporters do and all of the people involved in preparing Hansard for Members of Parliament and for all those interested in being aware of the proceedings of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: My comments in no way are to be a reflection on the tremendous work done by all of those participating in the Hansard process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I particularly appreciate the fact that the House of Commons sits until ten o'clock in the evenings now as a result of extended hours. At about noon today we received yesterday's Hansard, which I think is quite a remarkable feat when you consider these sittings have been going on day after day all summer long. I simply draw to your attention a very serious problem. One of the uses Hansard is put to, particularly by Members of Parliament both in opposition and in government, is that in the late evening we review thoroughly what has gone on in the House of Commons and review carefully statements made by individual Members as well as statements made, perhaps more important, by members of the Cabinet. This enables us to raise, if necessary and appropriate, responsible questions in Question Period.
I simply want to draw to the attention of the House the difficulty this poses on Fridays. When we do not receive Hansard for obvious reasons until noon on Friday, recognizing

August 12, 1988
Tabling of Documents
that Question Period begins at eleven o'clock on Friday, it is impossible for Members of Parliament to be aware of comments made by people like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or Cabinet Ministers during the previous day's proceedings. That therefore makes it difficult or impossible for us to use the appropriate quotes in questioning.
I read with interest, as have other Members, the speech made by the Prime Minister. A whole set of questions ought to have been raised today in Question Period, but without the transcript of the proceedings being available prior to Question Period, it was impossible to ask those questions.
I wanted to raise this matter, focusing on the comments of the Prime Minister yesterday, at the first and earliest opportunity. It affects the privileges of all Members of the House in that it hinders our ability to do our jobs effectively. If Question Period is the time of the day when the Government is to be held accountable, and if we have an obligation under the traditions of this House to ask appropriate questions at the earliest opportunity, we must have an earlier reading of Hansard on Friday. I am simply flagging this issue in the hopes that one way or another, this can be remedied in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his intervention. I am not sure that it is a question of privilege. However, I see by indications from other Hon. Members in the Chamber that it is a problem.
The Chair has heard the Hon. Member with considerable concern and I will take some steps to see if there is something that can be done to get Hansard available for all Hon. Members on both sides of the House a little earlier. However, I do thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap for his very generous acknowledgement that our Hansard team is working pretty hard these days. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter, and I will see if there is something that can be done to correct the situation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, is it not possible, given the time constraints of Hansard and the difficulties involved, for Members who are really interested to go up and review the audio tapes? I think that that is available to Hon. Members, and in fact I have done that in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I do not think that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was suggesting that there are not other ways to possibly cover the debates of the day before. There are, of course. The Hon. Member's suggestion is one, and I would invite Hon. Members to see what arrangements might be made. However, before I indicate that all Hon. Members can avail themselves of the "blues" of statements by other Hon. Members, I think some consideration should be given to what is the policy of Hansard there.
As well, it is obvious that with the electronic recordings and television recordings, it is possible, if there is some specific
matter, to draw back through the Oasis system the actual television review. However, I do not think that that is what the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was getting at. In those cases that can be done, but the Hon. Member was talking about the fundamental convenience of having Hansard in time for Hon. Members to use it as a reference for the work they have to do.
I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I do not want to make a blanket ruling on what is available to Hon. Members, but Hon. Members might make inquiries of the Hansard office.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might take this opportunity to address a question to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) concerning Government business. It is a matter which relates to legislation which has been promised for some time in the area of-


Mr. Speaker:: I have a bit of difficulty with this. If the Hon. Minister wishes to respond, he can indicate so, but there is a time for these kinds of questions and it is Thursday afternoon. I am in the hands of the House, of course, but I think the Hon. Member is out of order. I have to say to the Hon. Member for Burnaby that there is no consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-5100 to 3325102 inclusive, 332-5104 to 332-5110 inclusive, 332-5151, 332-5157, 332-5184 to 332-5186 inclusive, 332-5188 to 3325207 inclusive, 332-5211, 332-5214, 332-5221, 332-5223, 3325224, 332-5228, 332-5230, 332-5231, 332-5240 and 332-5245 to 332-5248 inclusive.
While I have the floor, I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
August 12, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that, through no fault of anyone's, we are still without full translation of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
ruling I would have preferred to have given earlier today. However, I have adjusted the ruling and I am now prepared to proceed with some of the amendments.

As I said in the House this morning, I had the opportunity to review in part most of the hundred motions entered on the Order Paper. In view of what the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) said, I decided to postpone my final decision. In the mean time, for the purposes of the debate, the House can proceed to consider Motions Nos. 1, 61 and 65 together. Then the House can debate Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8 together, followed by Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. I hope to be able to provide a final decision early next week.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
That Clause 2 be amended by adding immediately after line 21 at page 2 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"

Motion No. 61
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 60 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 52 the following:
""Canada"means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"

Motion No. 65
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 76 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 62 the following:
"and "Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-130 in its interpretation clause tells a very interesting story. The Government has been careful and precise in giving a definition of what is the United States, its territory and its rights and its powers. However, it has forgotten Canada. That tells one something. I do not think that in this respect we can refer to Freudian slips or slight sins of omission. The fact of the matter is that this Bill which introduces a very important and historic agreement is very careful to give a definition of what United States jurisdiction and territory may be but it has neglected to deal with our own country. I am afraid that that in itself leaves a very large story to be told.

August 12, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Why is it important in a practical sense? If one reads the interpretation clause one will see that it states that "the United States" means the customs territory of the United States, including the 50 states, foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico, and "any areas beyond the territorial sea of the United States within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, the United States may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and the natural resources thereof."
I hearken Hon. Members back to the very famous Polar Sea incident when the United States refused to recognize the Canadian right to exercise territorial jurisdictions in those areas. It said that that is an international area and not ours. I would also point to the present dispute in the Beaufort Sea in which the Department of the Interior of the United States is in fact giving out at the present time licences to U.S. companies to start drilling in territory which Canada claims to be its own. Therefore it is very important that Canada ensure that the assertion of our right to exercise jurisdiction in these territories is clear, unmistakable and beyond challenge, at least in order to defend our position. In Bill C-130 the Government of Canada has been very clear to ensure that the rights of the United States be recognized but it does not give any credence or even acknowledge that Canada exists in that sense.
What are the reasons? We spoke to officials of the trade negotiating office which put the Bill together. They said: "Everyone knows what Canada is anyway". The Americans do not know. The Americans do not know because they challenged us in the Polar Sea incident. They are challenging us again today in the Beaufort Sea. The French do not know because they are challenging our fishing rights off Newfoundland. We are still under harassment by the U.S. Government in the famous Georges Bank case even though there was a court case which gave us clear jurisdiction. This demonstrates that many other countries either will not see or are not prepared to acknowledge our rights in these areas. Thus it is not fair to say that everyone knows what is Canada. It is very important that Canada assert what is our position.
We were then told: "We did not have to do that because the term Canada is not used in the Bill". I thought that that was an interesting comment so I went in and did a little checking. In fact, I found out that on virtually every page-for example, page 2, line 13; page 2, line 15; page 2, line 19; page 2, line 22-the word "Canada" is used. It is used on almost every page of the Bill. It would seem to me that under those circumstances we must define it because it has a very precise and important legal definition.
We were told that we do not have to recognize it because there is a definition of Canada in the agreement. That is correct. If there was a reason for putting a definition of the United States in our Bill, then why did we forget Canada? Why was it important to ensure that the full jurisdictional rights of the United States be recognized in our Bill but we
glossed over in a cavalier fashion-perhaps it was an honest mistake-what our territory, jurisdictions and rights will be? That creates a major problem since the United States still refuses to formally recognize laws made by other countries with respect to extraterritorial jurisdiction beyond its own territorial seas. That has been a clear statement of U.S. policy for decades.
With respect to the Polar Sea incident the Americans said: "We are moving through international waters and not Canadian waters". By accepting this definition can Hon. Members imagine what will happen when we get into questions of allocating resources? What would happen if under energy provisions a claim were made by Canada with respect to where the proper sharing of oil and gas should occur and the Americans were to say: "From which territory?". We would say: "Will it be from the Beaufort Sea which the United States claims is theirs?" Will we say no, that area belongs to us?, The Americans would come back to say: "We are sorry, in your own legislation you have given us that jurisdiction but you have not given it to yourself'.
I submit to the House that this is an important amendment, and one I expect the Government to accept. Even if it believes that it is an omission, then surely to goodness it is crucial that we clarify that point and not make ourselves vulnerable to future challenges over disputed territories and have our own case weakened substantially. In an area in which we are defining these particular rights vis-a-vis the United States we have forgotten a very important component-our own country. It will be interesting to hear from representatives of the Government with respect to why it was more important for the Government to recognize U.S. jurisdiction over extraterritorial seas and seabeds and not recognize Canadian rights in the same respect.
One could interpret it to mean this. The Government did not want to incorporate language that might engage it in a dispute with the United States. Once again, as we have seen with respect to every step and stage of the Bill, the Government is trying to pacify, trying to downplay and to cover up, not get our American friends mad at us. That has been the standard operating procedure in this agreement. The consequence that we have seen time and time again is that we end up selling ourselves short. We end up surrendering certain parts of our sovereignty, certain parts of our rights and our jurisdiction.
I submit that this amendment to the interpretation part of the Bill plays an important role. It will have a very significant impact on the interpretation of the agreement if and when or ever it comes about. Surely, if the precedent set within this very important international statement by the Government that we are forgoing our own clear assertion of our extraterritorial rights in key areas of the Arctic, fishing rights, and others, is not corrected I believe it could become a legal precedent to be used against us not just by the United States but by many other countries. If we are not prepared to assert those rights in this crucial document, does that mean in fact
August 12, 1988

that we are not prepared to defend those rights? That is the reason for this amendment.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start in this historic debate by first saying that I think the amendments which have been brought forward by my friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) are sensible and straightforward. It is something that I hope the Government will look at with care and will accept.
I think, at the start of this discussion, at the report stage of the Bill and on this first amendment, that one should also put certain points on the record. One should, for instance, impress heavily on the record the fact that in the legislative committee, where where this and other amendments were considered, a major fight was fought to see to it that across this country people would have a chance to be able to make presentations to this committee. I found it unfortunate that that was not accepted by the committee itself. I found, too, as I looked at the legislation which was in front of us, that the more groups we heard from, the more groups that spoke to us, the more the gaps came out in this Bill. We saw areas, from water to environmental concerns, to our territorial concerns, which had been considered but were not considered in this Bill.
We also felt that there was a certain degree within the committee itself of avoiding what was the major question which came before us again and again as groups called, and still call, for an election in this country, to see to it that they have a say in what happens to them and to their country in the future. Therefore, we have put forward a number of amendments. We have put forward amendments which take, for instance, the United States law and recognize some of the points which are made within that law, which make the United States law supreme over the agreement itself. We were not prepared, in our discussions in committee, to do that, and I deeply regret that because it means that United States law will dominate this agreement.
We were not prepared to respond to United States moves which have been put before us in their legislation, as to how they were prepared to move on subsidies. We felt that it was necessary, in a Bill from this House, to take the same position. We felt that provincial rights should be discussed, protected and safeguarded in this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Concerning auto performance requirements, automobiles are very important to my constituency, but they have been desperately important to the whole revival of the economy of Canada throughout this past five years. That revival, I think, requires us to keep our freedom of action with respect to the auto sector.
It is also crucial that we maintain our concern and our control with respect to energy policy. There are parts of this
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Bill which are before us, to which we will be moving amendments which will very clearly take away the power of Canada to shape its energy policy in the future, while leaving the United States with the power to do so through its federal energy regulatory commission.
We also have a desperate need to look into the human casualties of this trade Bill, and there will be human casualties. The Government likes to talk of human casualties being very minimal. I guess, as one who has looked at adjustment restructuring throughout the world, this kind of major industrial restructuring, agricultural restructuring, social restructuring, services restructuring, is going to bring us, as a country, a lot of human casualties, who will have to be something that we respond to with humanity, with care, with passion.
So I am pleased to see this debate start today. I am pleased to see it start with this particular set of amendments, which set out for all of us to recognize that where we should start from is our definition of Canada, our territorial definition, of course, but also our definition of what we want to see for the future of Canada. Do we want to see a direction which takes us into closer and closer integration with the United States? Do we want to see a future where our children consider themselves essentially Americans? Is that what we want to see? I do not think so. I do not think so and I do not think that this House of Commons should therefore support great parts of this Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: That is why we have moved these amendments. I also feel-and I say this with the greatest possible sincerity that I can muster-that it is absolutely ludicrous to make a major change in the future of our country, a fundamental shift which Canadians have fought in my constituency since the war of 1812, without their being able to have a say through an election, to see to it that there is a chance for them to shape the future of this country.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: We, therefore, will support these amendments. We will support other amendments, but above all, we will fight as hard as we possibly can fight to see to it that this Bill does not go through this House of Commons, that it is stopped, and that this Government is forced to go to the people and to let the people have their say, to let the people of Canada make the final decision on this crucial issue to the future of our country.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the set of amendments moved by my colleague, our trade critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
When you ask Canadians, as many polls have attempted to do over the course of the last few months, about whether you

August 12, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
are in favour or opposed to free trade or whether Canadians ought to have a decision before this deal becomes officially ratified, one of the areas of concern that crosses over provincial and regional lines, economic and social lines, is the question of sovereignty. It is the question of the ability of the people of this youthful, energetic and dynamic country to decide for themselves what directions and aspirations they want to set forth.
As we start off this very important and historic debate for all Canadians, these amendments speak to a fundamental deficiency that I think is symbolic of the Government's entire initiative on the free trade front. When you stop and read Bill C-130, you find that the Government set forth to define what is meant in clear terms by this agreement. It defined what is meant by the word "commission", it defined what is meant by the word "Minister", and it defined what is meant by the word "prescribe", and finally it defined what "the United States" means. As was outlined very ably and articulately by our trade spokesperson, our Canadian Government forgot to define what it means to live in this country through the omission of stating very categorically and clearly what it is we define our Canadian territory to be. It would seem to me that, in a Bill of this magnitude, the Government would at least start from a point of strength, from a point of departure that would put clearly on paper and in writing our undisputed rights and territory as a nation, rather than allowing those very definitions to be interpreted by the Americans, or any other country, as they see fit.
Is it any wonder when you talk about sovereignty that Canadians begin to worry, that they begin to think of themselves as second-class citizens in the face of the Americans? Is it any wonder, when you ask Canadians, who do you think got the better end of the deal, who do you think the better negotiators were, who do you think gave up the most, or who do you think wanted this deal the most, they answer that across the bargaining table the Americans were clearly the victors?
This trade deal starts off by not defining and not recognizing what we as a country and as Canadians have every right to put on the record categorically and clearly, what we think this territory is all about that speaks to the sovereignty of this nation.
The Member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry moments ago pointed out the whole question and experience of the Polar Sea incident, the ridicule that Canadians felt as the American vessel went through our waters. Then, to add insult to injury, the Americans said they did not have to check with us and they did not have to get prior approval. What did we do about it? What about the insult Newfoundlanders felt when the Canadian Government put out a colour-coded map for our young students and had the Province of Newfoundland coloured under the United States of America. Those are the symbolic gestures that raise the concern and aspirations of Canadians.
Every Canadian wants to have a brighter economic future. Every Canadian is worried about future generations enjoying a lifestyle that we in this Chamber and our ridings are fortunate to share. They are not willing to do that at the cost of the inherent value of being Canadian and the inherent feeling of being in control of one's own destiny, in feeling the pride that comes with being the architects of our own decisions and ultimately in designing our future as we see fit. Therefore, it is very appropriate indeed that the Liberal Party, in the first seconds of this very important debate, in the opening lines of the free trade legislation that we are studying, is trying to amend and encourage the Government of Canada to recognize what is ours.
Let us recognize in the opening lines of our free trade legislation, or the Mulroney-Reagan trade legislation, what is indeed ours in a proud, profound and categorical manner. That is what our amendments strive to do. They do not strive to do the impossible, but what is expected of any national, sovereign government of the people. If the Conservative Government cannot muster the fortitude to send a signal to the Americans and to the world stating what is clearly ours, then they really do not deserve the opportunity of being at the head of the ship of state. They ought to stand up and be pro-Canadian. They ought to stand up and define what is ours, discuss the vision for those two countries, and then let the people decide which vision they want to embrace.
Very fundamentally and very early on, the Government has taken the time to define everything else, but it has left out our own country, Canada. We think that is very symbolic of what is troubling in this legislation. We are asking the House and, more important, the Government to recognize that deficiency, to recognize that fallacy, to recognize the ridicule and the embarrassment for any Canadian who happens to pick up this piece of legislation and recognizes that the Government has taken the time to define what is the United States of America but has forgotten to define, promote and defend what is clearly ours and what makes up this country.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the first grouping of these amendments, which I am very happy to support.
In this first grouping we are dealing with the fact that the Tories lack any definition of Canada. When I say that, I do not simply refer to Bill C-130. The Conservative Party today, unlike the traditional Conservative Party, does not seem to have a very clear understanding of what Canada is all about. If it did have, it would not have entered into this trade agreement in the first place. The Conservative Party does not recognize that historically Canada has had a different tradition of government involvement in the economy, in culture and in social affairs than has the United States. The United States generally has followed the dictum, I believe, of Thomas Jefferson, a great American. He said that government is best which governs least. Canadians, because of our history and
August 12, 1988

geography, have had to take a different approach. It has resulted in a different kind of society, a more caring kind of society, and now that is all being jettisoned.
Being a member of the legislative committee on Bill C-130 was instructive of the refusal of the Conservative members to look at this situation in any kind of total way. Instead, they focused very narrowly on the Bill itself. There was no possibility for the committee to travel to hear Canadians in their local settings saying how they saw this agreement changing their lives for the worse or how they saw the selling out of the future for their children and their grandchildren. Any hearings held had to be in the rather ornate setting of the Railway Committee Room, pretty far removed from the everyday lives of most Canadians.
Hundreds of organizations and groups from across Canada had wanted to be heard, but because of the time constraints the Government put on this legislation in trying to ram it through, they were not heard. Those who were heard were not able to be heard on the substance of the issue itself. They could not talk about the agreement with any hope of having the Government listen to them.


John Horton McDermid: Come on, Jim.


James Douglas Manly: Not with any hope of having the Government listen to them. The agreement was not a part of the hearings. People could make representations on the agreement, but the agreement was closed. It was not possible to make any amendments to the agreement, and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows that because he emphasized that time after time in the hearings.
The agreement was something that we could talk about, but it was not something that could be changed. It was cast in stone. The point that needs to be recognized is that when committee hearings-


John Horton McDermid: Be honest.


James Douglas Manly: I am being honest. Why does the Hon. Member not be honest?
When the committee travelled across Canada for a very brief whistle-stop tour last fall, it dealt only with the principles of the agreement. The text was not yet available. The final agreement was signed on January 2 without the Canadian people having had an opportunity to deal with it.


Mr. Dick:: Two and a half years.


James Douglas Manly: Not with the text. Now all we are able to deal with is this Bill that implements the agreement, not the agreement itself.
I think it is important that we should pay some attention to what some of the witnesses said, not just those witnesses who
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
were opposed to the agreement but some of those who supported it as well. For example, Mr. Powe, the Vice President of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, said before the committee:
"-they must always look at how favourable a climate there is between the
two countries in terms of the legislative framework and the tax structure,
which is extremely important."
I stated:
"It would be important for Canada to keep its tax measures somewhat in line with those of the United States. "
Mr. Powe answered:
"Very much so."
It is this kind of concern we have. We are concerned that Canadian tax policies will be harmonized with those of the United States. This is something that the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association agreed would have to take place if we were going to be able to compete. It is this sort of thing that will make it very difficult for us to maintain our social programs such as medicare. It will make it almost impossible for us to introduce new social programs.
When the Hon. Donald Macdonald appeared before the committee, we were talking about services. I see that Mr. Macdonald, a prominent Liberal who is supporting the trade agreement, has gone to his reward. At the committee, I said:
"But the right of establishment is the key to this whole issue."
He said:
"It is certainly one of the keys. The right of establishment, and you are established there, the right to be treated in exactly the same way as the local business. This is the concept of national treatment in article 111 of GATT. Traditionally, of course, this has been applied to products; it is now also going to be applied to the service sector."
I asked:
"Would it be fair to say that the United States is much more of a serviceexporting economy at present than Canada?"
He said:
"There is no doubt that they regard this as one of their advantages. On the other hand, there are Canadian service industries that have had very considerable success in their market."
I asked:
"Which Canadian service industries?"
Listen to the answer, Mr. Speaker. He said:
"The Reichmann family, for example, has engaged in major developments on Manhattan Island.
They are not taking down Canadian money, they are not taking down Canadian blocks of cement; they are taking down the ability as developers. They are taking those services into that market."
Our new High Commissioner to Great Britain has said that this agreement is basically designed for people like the Reichmanns. It is not designed to be of benefit to the average Canadian and it will not be of benefit to the average American. It will be of benefit to multinational corporations on both sides of the border.

August 12, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We need a definition of Canada that is not only written into this legislation but is one that members of the Conservative Party have in their hearts and minds. We need a definition of Canada that will look at Canada as a nation that has developed in a distinct, separate way from that of the United States, a nation that has a contribution to make to our world and that is being foreclosed by this trade agreement.
I urge all Hon. Members to support this grouping of amendments moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Even more than that, I think we have to move to give the people of Canada a chance to make their voices heard in this issue and to decide whether they want Canada to remain as a distinct society, or do they want to see our tax laws and eventually our social programs merged with those of the United States so that we will in fact become the 52nd or the 53rd state.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is very peculiar that on a Friday afternoon, when dealing with such an important amendment, the Government would be silent. There have already been four speakers, and I am the fifth, who have spoken on this amendment, which is of significance for reasons that have been explained and which I will explain as well. However, the Government is silent, and that is very peculiar.
Has the Government decided that it has a sufficient majority and that it is so drunk with arrogance that it does not have to reply?


Paul Wyatt Dick: We know what a filibuster is.


Mr. Caccia:: If the Government had replied to the first speaker, perhaps we would have already moved to another amendment. However, we are still waiting to be enlightened by the Government on this matter.
It might be interesting for those who do not have the text of the Bill before them to know that in the interpretation of Bill C-130, there is a very thorough definition of the United States. It reads:
"United States" means
(a)	the customs territory of the United States, including the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
(b)	the foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico, and
(c)	any areas beyond the territorial sea of the United States within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, the United States may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and the natural resources thereof."
One would then want to know where Canada fits into this agreement. This amendment is being put forward because the United States is mentioned many times in the Bill and is defined. Canada, however, is mentioned many times in the Bill but is not defined. Therefore, it a very legitimate amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). He is asking the Government and the backbenchers on the government side why it is that Canada is not
included in the interpretation of this Bill. Why is there this imbalance? This is what we cannot understand.
I am the fifth speaker on this amendment. The Government has been silent. I would hope that the Government would find the courage and the intellectual pride to give us an explanation as to why a definition of Canada is missing. This is an international trade agreement, with emphasis on the word "international". This is why in the interpretation there is a definition of one of the two parties to the agreement. Why is the other missing? We invite the Government to reply. Give us an explanation. Why does the Bill go on at great length defining the United States but not Canada? Not at all.
These are not rhetorical questions. They relate to the very substance of the Bill. They refer to the international incidents the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry referred to some 40 minutes ago. Yet all we have is silence.
Evidently the Government is embarrassed. Evidently it does not have a good answer. Evidently it feels that when it comes to the vote, it has the majority to steamroller us regardless of whether or not it gives us an answer. That would be most unfortunate. I hope the Government has enough pride in and respect for this institution to get up very soon today and give us an answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that no Member on the government side has an answer to the fundamental question posed here today. Where is the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the definition of Canada? I would be very happy to allow Members on the government side, so few in number though they may be, who are interested in this issue-


John Horton McDermid: Look around you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -tell us as to why it is there is no definition of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down and I will tell you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister responsible, who never even read the document, would probably stand up and say "trust me". We heard that before. We heard that about senior citizens' pensions.
As was pointed out by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), what happened there in the first year of the Government's mandate when sovereignty was threatened by the Polar Sea was that you had the Prime Minister on the one hand saying it was not an incursion, and on the other hand you had the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) saying it was. They were playing ping pong on the issue. The American Congress must have been laughing. They must have had a big chuckle because they know that if Canada brings forward enabling legislation which does not define what Canada is, then obviously the territorial
August 12, 1988

dispute over the Beaufort, the George's Bank, and the dispute involving the Polar Sea in the Arctic will all go in their favour.
The legislation defines the United States but it does not define what is Canada. I would like to put forward the proposition, bizarre though it may seem, that the reason the Government failed to include a definition of Canada is that it does not understand the fundamentals of this country, territorially, geographically or spiritually.
What happened when the Americans came into Canadian waters on the Polar Sea, uninvited? Did the Prime Minister stand up and fight for Canada? Did the Secretary of State for External Affairs say to the U.S. President that you are uninvited, unwelcome, and you had better clear out of our territory? The only person who was charged as a result of that incident was the pilot of a small Canadian plane hired by the Council of Canadians who actually flew over the Polar Sea and dropped a Canadian flag on the deck. He did that so the Americans would know that in this country we understand what a territorial border means and we respect that.
The Prime Minister of Canada, kneeling as he usually does, to the President, did not say a thing to the Americans. Neither did the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, a charge of dropping a dangerous object was laid against the pilot who flew that plane. That dangerous object was a Canadian flag. That pilot was charged with dropping a dangerous object on a boat which should not have been in Canadian waters in the first place.
That is why, in the context of this enabling legislation, we do not take the words of the Parliamentary Secretary who says "trust me", or the words of the Prime Minister who said that seniors citizens' pensions will never be touched. They are a sacred trust. We know what the words of the Government mean. They mean very little, and that is why we need a definition in law so our resources are protected both onshore and offshore. We will then be able to tell future trespassers on Canadian territory that by our law they have violated the agreement.
Yet the Canadian Government, in an obtuse, maniacal way, is trying to thrust a Bill on the Canadian people that will do nothing more than attempt to save the Prime Minister's political hide. Let's face it, the article in yesterday's Citizen was quite true. His own Party thinks the Prime Minister has a severe image problem with the public. He has a personality problem. People do not trust him. How is he going to be able to pull this one out of the bag? He has only one hope. He has to convince the Canadian public that somehow the trade deal is more important than his own character flaws. Unfortunately, he is afraid to see the trade deal illuminated in all its pieces, including a very fundamental lack of a definition of Canada. He is afraid to let the Canadian public see the details of the Bill and the agreement.
Today we saw the secret memorandum which was kept in the Ministry of Finance which basically told consumers that the people who may benefit from these-
Business of the House


John Horton McDermid: When are you going to start telling the truth for a change?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -alleged tariff reductions, 20 per cent though they may be, may be the retailers or wholesalers but it will not flow through to consumers. The Parliamentary Secretary is very anxious to speak from his seat, but unfortunately he has refused to give the Canadian people an opportunity to review this document in detail.
We believe this amendment is fundamental. We believe the definition of Canada with respect to asserting its territorial sovereignty is critical. That is why we feel this is a very supportable amendment. Certainly it will at least begin to put some flesh on the bones of legislation which is literally on the way to selling out Canada.
1 hope the Hon. Member stands up and speaks, but I do not take the word of a Government and Prime Minister which has given us four years of broken promises. I want to see it in law. Any person in this Chamber who has practised law will know-[DOT]


John Horton McDermid: Have you?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -that if it is not in the law, all the alleged good intentions of politicians and others mean absolutely nothing.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why would the Government bring forward legislation that defines U.S. territory but not Canada? It is because the Government does not understand what Canada is all about. It does not understand what Canadians are all about. It is up to the Opposition through the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to move this amendment in order finally to put a definition of Canada in this Bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions between the Parties, and we appreciate their co-operation on this matter. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to the Government calling Bill C-145 and dealing with it in all stages without debate today and then immediately proceeding to Private Members' Hour.
Bill C-145 is an Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the Quebec Provincial Court, Court of the Sessions of the Peace and Youth Court as the Court of Quebec. The Bill stands in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's proposal?

August 12, 1988
Court of Quebec


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Official Opposition was indeed consulted and that we have given our approval to the proposed procedure and that we will join the Government in passing Bill C-145.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, we, too, agree to this process and believe that this legislation will in fact improve the administration of justice in Quebec. For that reason we are prepared to facilitate passage of the Bill.


QUEBEC COURTS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-145, an Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the Quebec Provincial Court, Court of the Sessions of the Peace and Youth Court as the Court of Quebec, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the Chair.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North) moved:: That Bill C-264 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11 to 15 at
page 1 and lines 1 to 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ited pursuant to the Narcotic Control Act, controlled pursuant to Part III of the Food and Drugs Act or restricted pursuant to Part IV of the Food and Drugs Act;
"illicit drug use" means the importation, exportation, cultivation, sale or possession of a narcotic, drug or other substance contrary to the Narcotic Control Act or Part III or IV of the Food and Drugs Act or a regulation made thereunder;
"instrument for illicit drug use" means anything designed primarily or intended under the circumstances for consuming or to facilitate the consumption of an illicit drug, but does not include a "device" as that term is defined in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act";
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak briefly on this very important Bill and the amendment which I tabled two days ago. I want to explain some of the reasons why this amendment was tabled and why this Bill is very important.
We debate things like child care in this House. We speak about doubling the number of spaces to look after the needs of the young people in our nation. Since 1984 we have reduced youth unemployment by six points. We have just debated for an hour the free trade agreement to ensure continued prosperity for the youth of the nation.
However, we abdicate our responsibility and duty by allowing contradictory messages to be sent to the youth of the nation by allowing head shops or drug paraphernalia outlets to sell their products, such as hookah pipes to the youth, the most important resource that we have in Canada.
A couple of associations objected to the Bill as it was worded and that is why I tabled amendments. The Canadian Pharmaceutical Association was concerned that under this Bill, as it was reported from committee, drug stores could be convicted of selling or giving hypodermic needles and syringes to diabetics. The Canadian Medical Association was concerned that if these hypodermic needles and syringes were obtained by someone claiming to be a diabetic who was actually a drug addict, it could promote the spread of AIDS.
Therefore, I believed it was necessary to move an amendment covering illicit drugs, illicit drug use, and instruments for illicit drug use. The first section of the amendment would add to the definition of illicit drug the category of controlled drugs regulated under Part III of the Food and Drugs Act. Controlled drugs include amphetamines and barbiturates. The Bill reported out of committee would have dealt only with narcotic drugs and restricted drugs. Any drug paraphernalia associated with controlled drugs would not have been regulated.
The second part of the amendment is technical in nature. On June 23 the legislative committee amended the definition of "illicit drugs" by adding the phrase "used in a manner contradictory to the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act". The committee accepted this amendment to respond to concerns from the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association regarding the application of the Bill to needles and syringes.
August 12, 1988

There were drafting problems, and this brought about the second part of the amendment.
The third part of the amendment has to do with instruments for illicit drug use. This amendment is designed to exempt medical devices which are subject to control by Health and Welfare under the Food and Drug Act from inclusion in this Bill. There was no evidence offered during meetings of the legislative committee to support the contention that medical devices such as needles and syringes are a problem in promoting illegal drug use. The Bill as reported by the committee would make it an offence for any group, which would include public health offices, to operate needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of AIDS. I have, therefore, submitted these amendments.
I went to the library and got the Act respecting food, drugs, cosmetics, therapeutics and so on. "Device" is defined as:
"Any\article, instrument, apparatus or contrivance, including any component, part or accessory thereof, manufactured, sold or represented for use in
(a)	the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or the symptoms thereof, in man or animal,
(b)	restoring, correcting or modifying a body function or the body structure of man or animal,
(c)	the diagnosis of pregnancy in humans or animals, or
(d)	the care of humans or animals during pregnancy and at and after birth of the offspring, including care of the offspring,
and includes a contraceptive device but does not include a drug;"
These are worth-while amendments and I request that every Member of the House support the Bill, not because I have brought it forward, but because we are sending a contradictory message to the youth of today. There are approximately 1,000 head shops across Canada, 27 on Yonge Street alone. These unscrupulous people set up head shops next to video arcades, where many youth of our nation tend to congregate, and sell this drug apparatus.
Cocaine is an illegal substance in Canada today yet the youth of our nation can walk in and buy a cocaine free-basing kit to make crack. It seems absolutely ridiculous.
I have asked for a legal opinion on the constitutionality of Bill C-264. I will willing to table a report to Charles Robert. It states:
This opinion has been discussed with Marcel Pelletier who agrees that Bill C-264 could probably withstand a constitutional challenge.
It also states:
"I trust that this opinion is satisfactory for the committee's purposes. While Bill C-264 would appear to be constitutionally valid for the reasons given herein, I cannot guarantee that a court would not come to a different conclusion based on a particular set of facts before it. Still, having taken into account what I believe to be the relevant considerations, the committee should feel sufficiently secure on the constitutional question to proceed as it wishes."
Illicit Drugs Promotion
I have been given the assurance that the Liberal Party would support a Bill such as this. I believe any thinking Member would support a Bill such as this.
Many statements have been made in debate on this Bill to the effect that we might have to eliminate the writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle about Sherlock Holmes because Sherlock Holmes was a cocaine addict. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We are talking about eliminating magazines like High Times, a magazine which promotes the use of drugs to the youth of our nation. Why should we be sitting in the House debating child care, free trade agreements and trying to make opportunities for the youth of this nation when the moral fibre of our youth is being decayed? I urge speedy passage of this Bill and look for the co-operation of every Member of the House.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief submissions with regard to this piece of this legislation. As a representative of the Liberal Party I participated in the committee deliberations with regard to this Bill. I indicated at committee that the Liberal Party is prepared to support this private Member's initiative. I hope that the Hon. Member has the support and endorsation of his colleagues on the government side.
This legislation is a small step in the right direction. In my view, drug abuse is a national tragedy deserving of national consideration. It is not a problem that is unique to metropolitan Toronto, Montreal or any major urban centre in Canada. Drug abuse is a problem in every community in the country.
The people who are harmed the most are young people. They are exposed to drugs at a very early age. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to do what we can to try to curb and eliminate to the largest extent possible illicit drugs in Canada.
One has to recognize that it is not the young people who import narcotics into Canada. It is not the young people who are primarily responsible for the trafficking of narcotics in Canada. They are adults. Any national drug strategy ought to include very serious and strict measures to curb the importation and distribution of narcotics.
This legislation would deal with drug paraphernalia which, as the Hon. Member indicated, is sold in head shops across the country. He indicated that there were approximately 1,000 of these outlets in Canada. We heard evidence from representatives of different police forces. We heard evidence from the drug enforcement section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They indicated as well that it was a step in the right direction. They feel that this legislation will at least stop the promotion of the use of illicit drugs in Canada.
As I was indicating, this is only a small step. There was a study done by the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare which reported to the House. The committee

August 12, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
looked into the problem of drug abuse in Canada. It concluded that alcohol is also a drug that ought to be considered in dealing with substance abuse. Many recommendations were made in that particular report, one of which particularly addressed drug paraphernalia.
In my view, what is also needed is a government initiative similar to the initiative taken in the United States, where they refer to it as zero tolerance. In other words, no amount of illicit narcotics, however small, will be an excuse before some very serious and far-reaching penalties are imposed. For example, if a single marijuana cigarette is found in a vehicle attempting to cross the border, then that particular vehicle ought to be impounded.
It seems to me that if we are truly serious about combating drug abuse in Canada, we can talk all we want as politicians and parliamentarians, but we in Canada should adopt a similar strategy of zero tolerance. In other words, if narcotics are found in a vehicle, then that vehicle ought to be impounded.
It seems strange that in the Province of Ontario, if one fishes out of season or hunts out of season and is caught, one is required to forfeit fishing gear, the trailer and all the fishing equipment that is used. There is public harm done when one fishes or hunts out of season, but it does not compare to the public harm that is done when people distribute and are in possession of narcotics.
Another major step that should be taken by this Parliament is the implementation of criminal legislation that will come down heavy on those who choose as a profession or as a way of making money the importation, distribution and trafficking of illicit drugs. If drugs are found on their person or in their possession, if they are convicted of a criminal offence, there should be forfeiture.
This Government has taken certain initiatives with respect to the profits of crime. In other words, those who profit from crime, those who profit from the drug trade, should not be allowed to reap the benefits of their illegal activity. If someone is convicted of trafficking in narcotics, why should the profits made as a result of that particular criminal activity not be seized and forfeited to the Crown? However, in my view, the initiative taken by the Government does not go far enough.
I believe the New Democratic Party expressed reservations about this particular government initiative in terms of the requirement of the major banks to report large transactions. In the United States there is a more stringent requirement. Banks and other financial institutions are required to report transactions, to track down and trace, as the Hon. Member put it, "black" money, that is money obtained by criminal activity. However, here in Canada, for some reason, the banks objected to this particular proposal. They felt it was an invasion of one's privacy. They thought it should be done voluntarily and they should not be required to report to the Government the
unusual movement of money within their institutions. So if the Government is serious, it should move in that direction as well.
Let me conclude in the same way that I began. Drug abuse in Canada is a national problem. It is a national tragedy. The Government must take unequivocal and specific action to ensure that we do as much as humanly possible to eliminate the illicit use of drugs in Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on the amendment before the House. We are now at report stage of Bill C-264, presented in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner). I want to make it very clear that we support the amendment, which would in fact ensure that concerns expressed both by the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association are addressed.
In the Bill, as originally presented to the House, the sale of needles and syringes would be illegal. The Canadian Medical Association pointed out that this would cause major problems for diabetics and other patients requiring needles and syringes for self or home treatment. They also noted that the restricted access resulting from this legislation would result in more extensive sharing of syringes and needles among drug abusers, thereby increasing their risk of both hepatitis and AIDS infection. So to the extent it deals with this concern of the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, we support the amendment.
I just have a few brief words on the legislation itself. Members will know that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs reported to this House in September of 1987 on the whole question of booze, pills and dope. It made a number of recommendations in this respect. One of the recommendations was in the area of drug paraphernalia and so-called "head shops". I think it is important to read into the record the recommendation that was made by the standing committee. It recommended that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), in co-operative efforts with his provincial counterparts, develop legislation to close head shops, commercial enterprises whose principal business is the sale of drug paraphernalia and items which describe their use and which advocate the use of illicit drugs.
Following that recommendation, the Government responded officially and announced the establishment of an interdepartmental working group to look into all aspects of this problem. Officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of National Health and Welfare were included in this interdepartmental working group. The mandate of the group was to consult with interested parties, including provincial Governments, and to review developments in the United States and other jurisdictions.
The mandate of this interdepartmental working committee is very important. I would suggest that its consultation with parties interested in this area and, particularly, its consultation
August 12, 1988

with provincial Governments, is very important. Its examination of the history of similar legislation in the United States and elsewhere is also very important.
I suggest it is only appropriate that this House respect the work of that important interdepartmental working committee. For that reason, I suggest that to move ahead at this point, today, with the legislation, improved though it may be by passage of the amendment which is now before the House, would in fact preclude the very important study which is being done by the interdepartmental working group. I believe we should recognize the important work that is being done. This is a sensitive and important question. There are a number of areas of concern with respect to the whole question of drug abuse and the very serious inadequacies of the Government's response in the area of alcohol and drug abuse, particularly in terms of rehabilitation and education programs. That is an area about which we, as New Democrats, feel very strongly.
We believe as well that there has to be a careful examination of the legislation to ensure that it does in fact comply in all respects with the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I note in particular the provisions with respect to literature. I know this will not be the only opportunity in which this House will have the occasion to discuss this legislation. As I understand it, it will in fact, under the rules, come back before the House. Let us hope that the interdepartmental working committee which is addressing this question seriously will examine the important issues surrounding it and will report back to the Government and that following that report, we can then examine the legislation, giving it the care it obviously deserves.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak strongly in favour of passing the Bill today and to say that I think we owe an enormous vote of thanks to parents, legislators, store owners, victims of all manner of crimes, Canadians generally, and to the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) for bringing this measure along. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, between 1980 and 1983 I tried to get a similar Bill through but was not successful. I can only pay the utmost respect to my colleague for having persevered and pushed this Bill through to the point at which it is now.
I understand that Assistant Commissioner Heaton of the RCMP told the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare that closing head shops-and we heard earlier there were thousands of them across Canada-would be the single biggest factor in combating the drug trade. I understand that head shops have been abolished in approximately 40 States in the United States and that young people are now coming to Canada where the paraphernalia can be bought freely and taking it back to the United States.
I was extremely disappointed to hear the spokesman for the New Democratic Party indicate that those Members will attempt to talk the Bill out today. I very much hope that this will not be done by other Members in the House for many
Illicit Drugs Promotion
reasons. I would indicate to Members of the New Democratic Party that if they do talk the Bill out, everyone watching this debate or reading about it, will know-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Let's have the question now.


Mr. Keeper:: Why do you raise that prospect?


David Kilgour: At 3 p.m. we will know whether or not members of the New Democratic Party will talk this Bill out. If they do I can assure them I will do everything I can to make it an election issue in the upcoming election.


Cyril Keeper: Why do you not deal with the substance of the Bill instead of throwing around accusations?


David Kilgour: My friend from Burnaby objects to the possible censorship aspects of the Bill. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North dealt with that. If my friend from the NDP is suggesting that magazines such as "High Times", "How to Cheat Your Drug Dealer", and "How to Make Money in Dealing in Drugs" are the kind of titles he is worried about, then I do not think his constituents share his view.
The Bill has had amendments made to it which will make it a better Bill. It deserves the support of all Members from all sides of the House. I give full credit to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) for his contribution to the debate. I believe his Party has indicated that it will support the Bill.
The drug problem has been called an epidemic in this country. I know that Hon. Members will say that the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona used to be a drug prosecutor. I also indicate that I have defended people charged with drug offences. I would like to give an example of a client that I once defended on a heroin charge. This is a matter of public record since he said it in court. He began his day every morning at 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. by getting up and going around and breaking into apartments. In this case it was in Winnipeg. He did that until 2 p.m., by which time he would have raised enough money to buy his two caps of heroin. He would arrange to deliver the money to his dealer. He would take his two caps of heroin and get high, have dinner and go to bed. He would wake up the next day and do the same thing. He would do this seven days a week.
A study done in Philadelphia showed that about 200 drug addicts-that few-over a 10-year period committed something in the order of half a million crimes in the City of Philadelphia. If that is the type of thing that the Hon. Member for Burnaby-


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let us make it abundantly clear that the New Democratic Party does not advocate that. Possibly the Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) does. The absolutely misleading presentation by this Member is completely-

August 12, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would say that that is a point of debate. If the Hon. Member wishes to express it in debate, that is fine. The Hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona has the floor.


Raymond John Skelly: If he would use it properly maybe we would all benefit from it.


David Kilgour: The people of Canada will know and judge whether Members opposite calling for more study and for more interdepartmental committees-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The previous speaker's information and presentation is absolutely incorrect. The Government is calling for more study and wishes to present that study-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: That's wrong!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That, too, is debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona has the floor.


Raymond John Skelly: You are full of hops.


David Kilgour: The Hon. Member for sunglasses tells me that I am full of hops.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My riding is Comox-Powell River.


David Kilgour: The point in this debate is not hops. It is coke, crack and heroin. It is all manner of narcotic drugs which, as I was indicating, have caused in one city alone half a million crimes in a 10-year period. As someone who used to be a prosecutor in Vancouver, I assure the Hon. Member that they have caused a great many crimes of violence, crimes of property-all kinds of tragic crimes in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.


Raymond John Skelly: Maybe we are talking about the quality of prosecution and not the relevant issues of this particular Bill.


David Kilgour: Let me say to you, Sir, or to anyone who might be watching this debate or reporting on it that if the five other members of the New Democratic Party who are sitting in the House when I sit down talk about this Bill beyond the next 25 minutes-


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know why the Hon. Member does not deal with the substance of the Bill. Why does he not tell us what he thinks about the issue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak this afternoon. There will still be plenty of time.


Cyril Keeper: Restrain this man and tell him to stick to the truth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona has the floor.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, let the people of Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Regina note if these Members get up to talk this Bill out. If this Bill is not passed today-


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member continues to accuse us of doing things which we have no intention of doing. He is not dealing with the substance of the amendment. What is wrong with him?


Raymond John Skelly: He is talking the Bill out.


David Kilgour: Let the people know that we have 20 minutes and if the four of them get up to talk this Bill out it will drop to the bottom of the list. There will then be 11 matters ahead of it before we can vote on it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have two points to raise. First, at this point, as I understand it, we are debating an amendment. I would ask the Speaker to restrict the scope of debate to the substance of the amendment. Second, we are prepared to vote now on this amendment. It is the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona who appears to want to continue the debate. Let us get on with the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona knows what the amendment is. I would appreciate very much if he would carry on with his debate.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to sit down and vote on the amendment. I hope very much that I am in error when I am told that the New Democratic Party will talk this Bill out. I am delighted to say that I support the amendment. The reasons have been given very capably by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North. I will now sit down.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of the Bill proposed by my colleague from Mississauga North. I am also pleased to support the amendment that is offered to the Bill. I want to indicate that I would have supported this Bill with or without the amendment that has been proposed.
If this Bill can, and I believe it can, in some small measure contribute toward the lowering of drug abuse in our society, then we should congratulate the Hon. Member for Mississauga North and all others who support it. I know that my colleague from York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was the only opposition Member who participated in the committee process on this Bill. As a matter of fact, one Party did not participate in the debate at the committee level at all.


Mr. Della  Noce@: What was the Party?


Don Boudria: An Hon. Member asks me what is the name of that Party.
August 12, 1988


John V. Nunziata: The NDP boycotted the committee.


Don Boudria: I have to say that it was the New Democratic Party.
Nevertheless, without prolonging this debate any further, I want to indicate to the House that on behalf of my colleague from York South-Weston and myself we are prepared, if it is required, not only to adopt the Bill now but to give unanimous consent to move immediately to third reading so that we can pass it in all stages and so that it can be sent to the Senate this very afternoon.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m., Monday, August 15, 1988.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make it abundantly clear for the record that it was members of the New Democratic Party who stopped this Bill from becoming law. They could have given their consent to this Bill to become law this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 3 p.m., pursuant to Order made Monday, June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, August 15, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House for just a moment before we proceed. As Hon. Members will know, following the calling of Orders of the Day I will be making a ruling as to at least some of the amendments that were filed. I want to delay for just a moment until a copy of that can be delivered to the House Leaders. I think that we have copies at this moment. I will just wait a moment. Orders of the Day.

The French version will be available soon.