1990-11-05

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Plamondon that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
["Mr. Speaker, the 1989 report of the Canadian Institute of Child Health cited preventable injuries as the leading cause of death for Canadian children between the ages of five and fourteen.\nAll members will agree that the health of our children is everyone's concern. All sectors of society must work to propose innovative ways to address the causes of these injuries.\nThe Sifton Safety Home, promoted by the London, Ontario, board of education is a good example. The concept encourages home safety and seeks to reduce or eliminate child injuries in the home.\nIn the safety home, children are accompanied by teachers and parents. They move from room to room and are encouraged to identify and recognize household dangers.\nFor the 3,000 children who will visit the safety home this year, the experience offers first-hand reinforcement of what to look for and not to do within the home.\nPrograms like The Sifton Safety Home, a private sector and public sector sponsored project for children's safety should be lauded. Hopefully, it will be expanded into a children and youth educational program in the future."]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite are a little perturbed. I suppose they expected to be up first. Not always, fellows.
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, as always, to get up in this House on debate on any bill and, in particular, Bill C-201, as put forward by the hon. member for Richelieu. It is my privilege because, in my capacity as associate labour critic, I have points to make on the bill, which proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and basically deals with the treatment of scabs and essential services. On the one hand, the bill would prohibit the hiring of scabs to replace employees of Crown corporations who are on strike or locked out and, on the other hand, the bill would ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a Crown corporation.
I share the sentiments of my colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who is the labour critic for Her Majesty's Official Opposition, that the anti-scab portion of this bill has certain merits. The treatment of workers who are locked out or on strike at a given company are, of course, severely undermined by the use of scabs. After all, when bargaining breaks down or when new contracts come up for renewal and workers exercise their right to strike, a right which has been long fought for, they are at a great disadvantage when scabs are hired to fill their jobs. In this respect, that portion of the bill which enshrines and upholds the rights of workers to strike, without interference by scabs, deserves support. Some portions of the bill are quite clear on this matter. Clause 90.2 declares:
For the duration of a strike or lockout-a Crown corporation is
prohibited from
(b) using-the services of a person not employed by the Crown corporation to discharge the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike-
-namely, a member of the union itself.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a caveat in the bill, signed at the end of clause 90.2, paragraph (c), by the use of the word "unless". While the bill is clear about its intention not to hire scabs to replace workers, it does permit the preservation of essential services which are ambiguous and not clearly spelled in the bill.
The member sponsoring the bill made this House aware that he was concerned about essential services and Canada Post, as many Canadians are, and the fact that Canada Post is one of the Crown corporations which experiences great difficulties with respect to the use of scabs during a strike or a lockout. However, although the bill may be designed to remedy certain problems associated with Canada Post, there are other Crown corporations which would be put at a clear disadvantage through this legislation. The part dealing with maintenance of essential services is one such contentious point.
The changes to the Canada Labour Code suggested in this bill are further complicated by the changes at Canada Post itself. Many of its services and the way it does business have been altered, and the day may come when a greater number of its services are contracted out. At least this is apparently the trend. As my

Private Members' Business
colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, so properly put it, and I quote from his remarks of the other day:
When you change the mandate and the reason why you came into
being, then you create difficulties for the union that is there.
Getting back to the point of essential services, the bill does not elaborate on what are considered essential services. There is a provision in the bill for the corporation and the union to agree to what are essential services but, apart from that, no definition is in place. The legislation would require that the two parties in the dispute would agree on a definition for essential services and would forward a list of those to the minister responsible for the Crown corporation. There the minister can keep tabs on essential services and can even decide, in conjunction with the cabinet, whether a strike is apprehended or in progress and can suspend the right to strike or order essential services to be maintained. Again, for the record, such essential services are not defined in the bill.
Shakespeare so often used the term "That's the rub". The executive powers conferred to ministers of the Crown responsible for particular Crown corporations are very broad. They would be able to order workers back to the job and put a stop to a particular labour force or union which has a legitimate grievance. The section in question, section 90.9 ordering the suspension of the right to strike, goes on to state that this may be done if the essential services provided for are insufficient and that the public health and safety are endangered.
I have two points: first, earlier in the bill the essential services are to be determined by the company and the union or by the union itself. Then we read that the minister responsible may determine the sufficiency of essential services and waive the right to strike. They are very broad powers indeed. Second, the part about public health or public safety being endangered is very unclear. Obviously this would relate to some sort of violence or confrontation, but I fail to understand how the situation of public health or safety would be remedied by ordering
the suspension of the right to strike, thereby aggravating the whole process.
In short, portions of this bill are effective and we can sympathize with the member who has put forward his arguments in Bill C-201. However, still others need further clarification, and therefore it must be referred back to committee for some serious detailed analysis.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-201, presented by the member for Richelieu. First I would like to make a few comments in regard to the anti-scab part of this bill. That part we support in our party whole-heartedly, because we know what goes on, on the picket line, when a unionized group goes out on strike. We know of the tragedies that happen.
If I may I would like to make reference to one very recent occurrence that is still very vivid in my own mind, what went on in my riding in the town of South Porcupine at Dome Mines, where we saw a very ugly and bitter strike, where we saw life-long friends become enemies, where we saw families being tom apart. Why? It was because there were scabs crossing the picket line. The company saw fit to bring in workers from outside the province to keep the mine going. It said that the miners had to have a mine left over to go to after the strike, so it had to keep the mine going, but it went beyond that. The company went into production. Another atrocity was that it brought in students and used the students as scabs, and some of them were injured.
We know on this same picket line one worker in particular was dragged some 50 feet by a car that decided to drive through the picket line. We know of others who were injured. We also know that there was some bitterness from the union side. It only aggravated the situation. There is a definite need for anti-scab legislation in this country, and I think this is a step in the right direction. I say that with a certain amount of reservation because of the second part of this bill, which I will be speaking on in a few moments.
We have similar legislation in Quebec. It is in the form of anti-scab legislation with a difference. The difference is that in Quebec there is a committee set up to decide
November 5, 1990

what is an essential service before the strikers go out and not decide it afterward as is suggested by this bill.
This bill in the second part gives the minister full authority to decide what is an essential service and what is not. Granted, there are certain sectors of these work places that do have essential services. There are certain areas that have to be maintained for the purposes of the workers having a job to come back to.
However, when we talk about essential service, we have to keep in mind that we are talking about services that would otherwise put the health and safety of Canadians in jeopardy. When I look at the list of corporations that I have, I wonder if we could say that the Federal Business Development Bank is an essential service when it comes to public health and safety.
We say that Lotto Canada comes under that jurisdiction. Can we say that the National Capital Commission comes under that jurisdiction? It certainly does not. Therefore I think we need further study of this bill. We must ensure that these kinds of questions are asked prior to this bill receiving Royal Assent. Further discussion is required on the whole matter.
I am suggesting that we intend to support this bill and send it to committee so that we can have further input into it and clean it up. There is no question that we need anti-scab legislation to protect workers who by law have been given the right to organize. They have been given the right to bargain and they have been given the right to go on strike, but they have not been given the right to stop someone from crossing the picket line and therefore jeopardizing the whole bargaining process.
What initiative is there for an employer to go back to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith when business can proceed as usual because scabs are being used? We must give workers the right to stop those scabs from crossing the picket line. The only way we are going to do that is with legislation like this bill, without the broad definition of the second part.
We need some form of mechanism which will ensure that employers will go to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith, knowing that if they do not they will not have business as usual.
In conclusion, I would strongly support the first part of this bill. I also strongly recommend that we have further input in the second part, which would give the minister
Private Members' Business
too broad a brush to decide what is an essential service and what is not.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the proposed legislation currently before this House, namely Bill C-201, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.
This bill is twofold in its purpose. If enacted, the legislation would prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of a Crown corporation who are on strike or locked out. It would also ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or lockout in a Crown corporation. While I acknowledge the concerns of the hon. member which gave rise to the introduction of the proposed legislation, my comments are directed more toward the approach which he has chosen to follow in introducing the bill before us. I would think that in considering possible amendments to existing legislation one might want to avoid disrupting the existing broad based framework for the sake of seeking to address an apparent specific and limited problem.
In this specific case, the hon. member is proposing amendments to Part I of the Canada Labour Code which would apply only to Crown corporations. Without, for the moment, debating the merits or weaknesses of the proposed amendments, let us look at the question of what one might view as a piecemeal approach to amending legislation.
Part I of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with industrial relations in the federal private sector jurisdiction and federal Crown corporations, is a balanced and comprehensive piece of legislation covering a broad spectrum of labour relations activities. These range from union certification and employer accreditation, through the collective bargaining process and the various stages of third party assistance available, to the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved and the extent of sanctions and prohibitions which may be applied in cases where it is judged that these established ground rules have been violated.
I am suggesting that it may be impractical for hon. members to consider specific changes to the Canada Labour Code dealing with the matters of replacement workers and essential services as applicable only to Crown corporations and in isolation from the remainder

Private Members' Business
of the provisions of the code and the federal jurisdiction universe to which it applies.
Having addressed what I view as the inappropriate nature of the legislative initiative which is before us, I would now like to focus on the specific issues which are dealt with through the proposed bill. The question of essential services and the public interest is a topic which has come before this House on a limited number of occasions, namely when hon. members have been asked to consider back to work legislation in the case of a work stoppage of major significance.
As indicated earlier, Part I of the Canada Labour Code provides the framework for the collective bargaining process and also prescribes the various forms of third party assistance which are available to employers and labour unions to assist in resolving their differences at the bargaining table.
The vast majority of labour disputes at the federal jurisdiction level are settled without resort to strike or lockout action on the part of the parties. However, situations do arise from time to time where parties are unable to reach a satisfactory settlement and a work stoppage results, causing significant disruption to the economy or compromising the health and safety of Canadians.
It is in cases such as these that the government, as the protector of the rights and interests of the public, must accept its responsibility and bring about an end to the work stoppage.
The point to be made here is that a strike or lockout is an economic weapon utilized within the bargaining process and brings with it certain inconveniences or discomforts for those citizens whose access to specific goods and/or services is affected. Each situation involving a work stoppage must be assessed on the basis of the degree of disruption which it poses for Canadians and the seriousness of such disruption: Does it represent a threat to the economic viability of the nation or threaten the health and safety of its citizens?
In the federal private sector the government has been under severe pressure from time to time to prohibit strikes in so-called essential services. I use the term so-called essential services, and I should perhaps offer a word of explanation so as not to sound somewhat cavalier.
If one were to attempt to define and list essential services in Canada, it would in my view call for much sober thought. The public's perception of essential services can be somewhat capricious and may be dependent upon its frustration of the moment at being considerably inconvenienced when deprived of a service or a product through strike action.
To illustrate this point, I might refer to a strike which occurred some years ago in the United Kingdom and which involved the people who were responsible for changing the bulbs in the traffic lights. If one were to sit down and list essential services, I hardly think that these individuals would come under this heading. However, as the strike progressed the traffic in London was slowly grinding to a halt. If this resulted in a paralysed city, I suppose such a service could then be considered essential.
Given that there is undoubtedly an area where the public rightfully is inclined to pressure government for restrictive legislation, we have nevertheless at the federal level opted not to seek legislation which prohibits strikes in our area of jurisdiction. Instead, this government has sought mechanisms to further improve the functioning of industrial relations and to assist the parties to negotiate meaningful agreements and improve their day-to-day relationships.
Our free collective bargaining system made operative through the Canada Labour Code assumes that parties to the collective bargaining process will come to the negotiating table with a spirit of determination, a commitment to make the process work, and a sense of compromise reflecting the necessary give and take of the collective bargaining process.
While not prohibiting the use of replacement workers in the event of a work stoppage, the Canadian Labour Code does strike a balance in providing the protection for those employees who are affected by strikes or lockouts. The code provides that workers involved in legal strike action cannot be permanently replaced and have preference over any one hired to replace them in returning to their job following the conclusion of the work stoppage.
In addition, the code prohibits an employer from suspending, discharging or imposing any financial or other penalty on an employee who refuses to perform

the work of another employee who participates in a legal work stoppage.
While the existing provisions may not satisfy the hon. member's concerns, they do provide Crown corporations an opportunity to continue functioning during a work stoppage, while at the same time they protect the rights of permanent employees who legally participate in such activities.
I would suggest that what the proposed legislation is doing is putting severe restrictions on the free collective bargaining process. As did its predecessor, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, the provisions of the Canada Labour Code passed by Parliament provide an appropriate framework for the functioning of the industrial relations systems within the federal jurisdiction and have served us well over the years.
I believe that the best form of collective bargaining exists when the parties themselves are faced with the task of reaching an acceptable and workable agreement. The more restrictions placed in the process, the less likely the parties will be prepared to make the necessary tradeoffs and compromises provided.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois are very proud to see this bill before the House today, and they are also extremely proud of the fact that one of their own members introduced this bill.
Amazingly, it takes something resembling a lottery for the House to consider one of the fundamental problems of any democratic country: the problem of civilized behaviour and discipline in relations between labour and capital.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to introduce certain democratic principles in our labour relations, principles that are known in many countries, and even in our own, in provinces like Quebec, for instance.
I heard previous speakers mention the need to maintain fairness and freedom in labour negotiations. That is what this bill tries to do. It is intended to ensure there is a balance between the various forces involved.
Mr. Speaker, I was there, front row centre, during a debate that almost shook Quebec to its foundations in the 1970s, in 1976-77, when the government at the time introduced anti-scab legislation. I can assure you that
Private Members' Business
the arguments we heard against that bill were far more forceful and impressive than those we are hearing today. People said we were headed for disaster, Mr. Speaker. They said Quebec would become a war zone if this bill was adopted; that it would cause fundamental injustice; that strikes would last much longer and that there would be no more free negotiations; and that the unions would have an unfair advantage, in a confrontation that is always difficult to control.
After a difficult, long drawn-out debate, the Quebec government managed to get the National Assembly to pass Bill 45 which became our anti-scab legislation. And now, 13 years later, we still have a system that is much stricter and far more controlled than what is being proposed here. And as for the disastrous consequences that were predicted, if we look at the statistics, we see that since the anti-scab bill was passed in Quebec, the average duration of labour disputes has been reduced by 35 per cent. That is something to consider.
The bill before the House today does not ask us to go out on a limb; it is not fraught with unknown perils; and no disaster lurks around the corner once the legislation is passed. On the contrary, just look at the situation in Quebec. Admitedly, Quebec has been a pioneer in Canada in social affairs and civilized employer-employee relations. The House would be ill-advised to ignore the fact that Quebec has taken the lead as a result of the social and economic renewal which swept through the province in the 1970s, particularly by restoring proper employer-employee balance. I fail to see why anyone would seek to mainatin the status quo in this field.
This insistence on reliving the violent incidents of the 1930s reflects a peculiar attitude. As you may recall, savage freedom prevailed at that time. As one would say in Quebec, might was right. Invariably the strongest was the winner, for he could hire more scabs and attract strikers by dangling before them untold opportunities for stable employment. Do Canadians really want to go through that again?
Let no one tell me this has not happened since then, for we saw that in 1986-87 in the case of the bus company Voyageur, we saw that in the case of the grain elevators, the 1986-87 postal strike and again today in the port of Montreal where, we are told, scabs are now involved in

November 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
an ongoing labour dispute. Is that the kind of labour relations the federal government is prepared to accept? Of course we did hear various arguments, such as: "Look, this is not going far enough, the minister wields too much power when it comes to defining essential services; this should be enlarged, covering government employees and all employers coming under a federal charter."
We agree of course, but we are only on second reading. Members who stand up to vote later today will be telling us whether, in principle, they agree or disagree that time has come to inject some civility into labour relations in Canada. And then if they want to move amendments, as we might ourselves, they will have an opportunity to appear before the legislative committee and propose any amendment they deem relevant or necessaiy. Should they feel dissatisfied about the way their proposed amendments have been dealt with on third reading they will still have the option to vote against the bill.
Claiming that one does not agree because the measure goes too far or nor far enough smacks of hypocrisy, because we all know that the parliamentary process gives us a further opportunity to do some fine tuning so the bill will more closely reflect our point of view. For now we are debating the principle and members will be asked whether they think Quebec was right 13 years ago to set up a tolerant system which restored real balance between opposing forces, which is exactly what they were, Mr. Speaker.
As management representative for many years I had to deal with strikes and I know very well that if we want to maintain proper balance between opposing parties there can be no question as to what is a strike and what is a lockout. Mr. Speaker, a labour dispute involving scabs simply cannot be called a strike, it is a subversive and hypocritical denial of the right to strike. One is either in favour of or against the right to strike-a basic right in social relations in this country. If you are in favour you do not want to lessen or indirectly undermine the worker's sacred right to strike, a right which Canadian employers have learned to live with.
Canada is not a Middle-Age country, Mr. Speaker. Employers have long since learned what a strike or a lockout is and they are quite prepared to negotiate.
Quebecers have been living in this enlightened labour climate for 13 years now, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that this House would be undignified if it were to refuse to bring the federal government into the democratic context of the 20th century.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join the debate on Bill C-201, a proposed amendment to the Canadian Labour Code which, if passed, would prohibit the hiring of replacement workers by a federal Crown corporation whose employees were on a legal strike or locked out by the employer. The bill also contains provisions which are intended to ensure that essential services are maintained in the event of a strike or a lockout in a Crown corporation.
I wish to commend the hon. member for Richelieu for the initiative which he has shown in bringing this particular subject to the attention of hon. members. There is no doubt that the employment of replacement workers during work stoppages is an issue which deserves careful consideration in this House. Whether or not the situation in federal Crown corporations dictates the need for legislation, such as is proposed in the bill, is a matter which individual members will have to weigh carefully based on the arguments put forward during the course of this debate.

As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, Quebec is the only province that has legislative provisions banning the hiring of scabs. The law was first adopted in 1977 and amended in 1983 so as to cover outside consultants and subcontractors.

Several jurisdictions, including the federal realm under Part I of the Canada Labour Code, protects an employee's right to return to work following a work stoppage, in preference to a person hired as a replacement, and prohibit the disciplining of an employee for having taken part in a legal work stoppage.
In Quebec, two objectives of the legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers were stated as the reduction of the incidence of violence in labour disputes and a decline in the duration of the work stoppage.

Private Members' Business
While the hon. member responsible for the introduction of this bill has suggested that there is evidence to indicate that the Quebec legislation has had the desired effects, much of the research to date has been proven inconclusive. Studies dealing with the question of violence associated with work stoppages have relied essentially on newspaper accounts and have not reached any definite conclusions with respect to the incidence of violence in situations where replacement workers were employed.
In the proposed Bill C-201, which would apply only to federal Crown corporations, essential service provisions would also be incorporated into Part I of the Canada Labour Code. The essential service issue in federal jurisdiction has been reviewed on several occasions. The code does not generally cover essential public services as defined by the International Labour Organization jurisprudence which would include fire, police and health protection. Beyond this strict definition of essential services, it would be difficult to envisage an administrative structure which could determine what is essential with respect, for example, to the operations of various Crown corporations such as the Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In effect, in these particular cases, the law would be providing for partial operation which is a different concept to that of essential services.
In its review of the question of essential service disputes some time ago, the Report of the Ihsk Force on Labour Relations chaired by H. D. Woods, outlined seven observations which it felt were fundamental to the determination of a scheme for containing such disputes. The task force suggested that: "It is extremely difficult to say with certainty or conviction in advance of actual events in what industry or service and at what time resort to economic sanctions ought to be curtailed." It went on to comment that "there can be no one policy of procedure that works with uniform success" and recommended that "flexibility of approach is essential lest the parties build the existing policy or procedure into their strategies." It concluded that circumstances may be expected to arise in the eventual course of industrial conflict in which disobedience and defiance of the law will not be forestalled by that law.
The task force conclusions remain valid, and I would suggest that the current provisions of the Canada Labour Code with regard to dispute resolution reflect the realities contained in these observations.
Again, I want to commend the member for Richelieu for bringing this to the attention of the House. It is something at which from time to time we are all obligated to look and I think this debate is most worth while.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to spend a few moments in addressing the bill before us this afternoon. I would like to compliment the member for Richelieu for bringing it forward.
For many years I think we were under the impression, and it appears to have been a false impression, that we had reached a more civilized level in industrial and labour relations than had been witnessed by some of the events of recent years.
The increasing amounts of money and time spent by many North American corporations on seminars for their staff, supervisors and personnel officers, runs into the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, has shocked those of us who, from time to time have been on the mailing lists of the corporations and companies that conduct these seminars on strike breaking and the hiring of replacement workers, to use a more polite phrase. We have been astounded at how little we seem to have learned over the years.
The concept of job ownership among the labour force is very deep. Working people in this country and particularly in certain parts of it, British Columbia, Quebec and northern Ontario, for instance, have always felt that it was their right to defend their their jobs with every bit as much reasonable force as this society expects people to use when their property or their home or their business is attacked.
We find the hiring of replacement workers or scabs or professional strike breakers on the increase. This is true not only in the private sector, but as we have seen, in the public sector, for example in the operation of Canada Post Corporation in the last few years. It is simply an invitation to violence which no civilized society can accept.

November 5, 1990
Private Members' Business
This bill is one small way, but a great start to put us on the path back towards more civilized relationships within industry, and more civilized relationships within society.
If I had more time, I would read some definitions of scabs and strike breakers and replacement workers that have been used from time to time simply to demonstrate to this House and to anybody who happens to be listening or reading the debates just how deeply some of those feelings are on the part of workers who see their jobs threatened by the use of scabs or replacement workers. It is important for us to understand the depths of those emotions so that we realize how important it is to adopt legislation along the lines now presented.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, and I think there are a few others, and perhaps even the author of the bill, believe that perhaps there is room for some refinement in the designation of what is an essential service. Is a definition which simply talks about the public health or public safety enough or is it too broad? Where are we going to restrict basic rights, which are as old as the Magna Carta? It said hundreds and hundreds of years ago that "no man shall be forced to build bridges". If they were not forced to build bridges, then I think it is entirely appropriate for us to believe today that the state, or any corporation, ought not to be taking measures to deny people the right to withhold their labour. It is a right which is as old as mankind itself. This proposal, which we welcome, is one which will introduce some civilization back into the workplace and back into industrial relations, and give us a chance to live harmoniously within this society.
We support the bill and look forward to seeing it in committee.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate today on Bill C-201, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. We have heard much about the intended purpose of the bill. We have also heard about some of the practical difficulties of implementing its provisions and about the implications for industrial relations in Crown corporations.
Hon. members who have spoken in debate have made a number of useful observations. Some of these remarks stand out as particularly relevant and, in my view, we
should want to bear some of these in mind as we come to a conclusion on the desirability of the bill.
One such argument was to the effect that the bill could give a relatively small bargaining unit of a multibargaining unit employer, the ability to halt an entire national transportation network. The example used was CNR, the Canadian National Railway. If a railway could not use other workers to do the work of a small unit of employees on strike, the enterprise would not be able to continue operating. This would be an intolerable situation and one would have to question how legislation could be passed that would allow it to happen.
Another potential problem is the impact Bill C-201 would have on multi-union bargaining structures. Labour and management in the railway industry have come together in large scale multi-unit, multi-company bargaining structures on occasions in the past. Such wider based negotiating arrangements have the advantage of limiting the number of potential strikes facing employers and unions during the bargaining round. However, under the proposed anti-replacement worker regime, the enhanced power given to individual unions would likely have a fragmenting effect, increasing conflict in the system and preventing the occurrence of such broad-based bargaining arrangements that have been attractive to both companies and unions.
There are also special competitive factors that certain Crown corporations face. Crown corporations such as CN Rail would find themselves under a significantly different legislative system than their major competitors. Canadian National would be prevented from replacing workers on strike while CP, for example, would be in a position to do so. Crown corporations, in effect, could be placed at a disadvantage operationally and at the bargaining table. In short, Crown corporations, relative to their private sector competitors, would be made less competitive.
The designation of essential services as proposed in the bill introduces its own unique difficulties. On one hand, single facility operations such as hospitals are adaptable to such arrangements. On the other hand, transportation systems that operate on a continuous basis and have national and international connections require the maintenance of a highly evolved system of human resources and equipment co-ordination. The minimum staff concept associated with single plant

operations would be extremely difficult to implement in a modern transportation system.
I mentioned that inequities would arise in the application of our labour relations laws as they apply to industries under the Canada Labour Code. I referred to CN Rail as the example. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is also a Crown corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.49 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Richelieu. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis, on a point of order.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Since this is a private member's bill, I hope the House will agree to let us vote row by row, according to the custom we adopted recently, instead of party by party. I ask this since it is a private member's bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do I have unanimous consent for taking the division row by row?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps I may remind hon. members that the first to vote will be those who are in favour of the motion. I will start by requesting those members in the rows to the right of the Chair to
Private Members' Business
rise, followed by members in the rows to the left of the Chair.
Subsequently, I will ask members in the rows to the right of the Chair who are opposed to the motion to rise, and I will conclude with those in the rows to the left of the Chair.


["Perhaps I may remind hon. members that the first to vote will be those who are in favour of the motion. I will start by requesting those members in the rows to the right of the Chair to\nPrivate Members' Business\nrise, followed by members in the rows to the left of the Chair.\nSubsequently, I will ask members in the rows to the right of the Chair who are opposed to the motion to rise, and I will conclude with those in the rows to the left of the Chair."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Laval-Est on a point of order.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise earlier, because I was late. I therefore preferred to remain seated. I want to put on the record that, had I been on time, I would have voted against this motion, even if the bill is commendable-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Vincent Della Noce: -because I suggest it is incomplete.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House for members to revert to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to now proceed to Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday hundreds of people congregated on a few acres of France that are forever Canada. They came to the lovely park land containing the Vimy Memorial.
Every November, crowds of French citizens join our own dignitaries and troops at a special service of remembrance to commemorate the 60,000 Canadians who were killed in the First World War.
The memorial itself stands on top of Vimy Ridge, the site of Canada's first and greatest victory. Our soldiers had been drawn from other armies to form the Canadian corps and attempted to take the heavily defended ridge. On April 9, 1917, they succeeded and won everlasting respect. My father was in that battle.
The French government graciously granted Canada some of that historic site in perpetuity. As I said, hundreds of French men, women and children went there yesterday and joined our ambassador to France, Mr. Claude Charland.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member's
time has expired.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I rise in my place to compliment the Prime Minister, but today I would like to commend him for the official apology rendered yesterday to the some 700 Canadian citizens of Italian origin who were interned during World War II.
Novembers, 1990


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sergio Marchi: Congratulations are also in order for the National Congress of Italian Canadians, particularly its outgoing president, Anna Maria Castrilli, for her perseverance in advancing this special cause.
The wounds borne by the former internees and their respective families were greatly soothed yesterday, soothed by words they longed to hear.
We in the Liberal Party welcome this progressive and just step. We share in the pride felt by the community. We urge the Prime Minister to bring the matter formally before the House of Commons in short order so we may successfully close this one chapter of the Canadian experience.
There will be those who say we cannot and should not take the responsibility to right the wrongs of our past. Why not? Is not our nation and people made stronger by such acts? This apology should not be interpreted as an act of weakness but rather as an initiative that reinforces people's belief in and commitment to Canada. It serves to remind all of us in this Parliament that the protection of basic human rights is something that we should be vigilant about every day.


ALBERTA WOMEN IN POLITICS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate former Senator Martha P. Bielish on the publication and distribution of the book that she commissioned entitled Alberta Women in Politics.
To quote the author, because of her lifelong involvement in politics and with women's organizations in the province, most notably the Alberta Women's Institute, the senator was acutely aware of the inaccessibility and lack of information on women who have contributed so much to Alberta's public life.
I must commend Mrs. Bielish's initiative as well as her dedication in working for equality. Education and information are crucial. As a former school teacher, she recognized and contributed to raise the awareness level of the plight of women and their goal of both gender and economic equality.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister Employment and Immigration to implement a simple solution to what has become a democratic nightmare, namely, to allow new parents simply to avail themselves of the new parental benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act as of January 1, 1990. She said no. Her refusal clearly shows how out of touch is the minister.
Reports from all over the country indicate the severe confusion taking place. New parents do not know what to do and, simply put, neither do the employment centres.
We ask again that the minister clarify the situation once and for all. It is bad enough she has taken away crucial benefits from working families during a recession by gutting the UI program. They should not be made to jump through a hoop to get what little benefits are left.


CITIZENS' FORUM ON CANADA'S FUTURE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Sir, speaking as one proud Canadian and as a former broadcaster, I am genuinely excited about the electronic process which is available to the 12-member Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future.
I know that our private broadcasters have always been very supportive of ways to help soothe the wounds and foster greater understanding between Canadians. Within some sort of realistic framework, they and the cable community channels could grasp this window of opportunity to provide up-link satellite feeds. It would enable the greatest possible participation by Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
It would be wonderful to watch simultaneous town hall meetings in, say, Dundas, Ontario; Whitehorse, Yukon; and Corner Brook, Newfoundland, with the commissioners located in Trois-Rivieres.
It can be done. Canada is an improbable nation. Keith Spicer and this commission face an improbable task, but our forefathers did it. In the name of our children, I feel a tingling sense of optimism that this citizens' forum will help keep Canadians united.

November 5, 1990


S. 0. 31   MEMBER FOR CHAMBLY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I was astonished when I read the statement made by the member for Chambly, a member of the New Democratic Party to the effect that he won't be speaking for his party when he declares himself in favour of sovereignty-association, although he doesn't agree with the definition of the PQ, and he is against Quebec's independence. Before his election, M. Ed-monston supported the Meech Lake Accord. Since his election, he has been against it. I wish to give a piece of advice to the member for Chambly, but not as member of the New Democratic Party: if a referendum is held, let his position be clear and unequivocal. I understand!


CHILD TAX CREDIT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defence of thousands of Canadian children, children who may not see the Christmas they were promised by this government.
The finance minister's press release on Bill C-86, the advanced child tax credit, confidently stated that his government would:
-expedite its consideration, so that prepayment of the-credit may be made in November.
November is here, but where is the bill? Questioned last week as to when it would be raised in the House, this government committed to nothing. Let me now urge the finance minister to re-read his own press release and to act and act now.
Low income families have made plans for their credit, taking the government's word that the cheque was as good as in the mail. I fear that children who can least afford it will be short-changed. Above all, I fear that in Canada the grinch who stole Christmas is not just a cartoon character; he is a minister of the Crown.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I also want to echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for York West and all members of Italian
descent who sit in this House. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada apologized to Canadians of Italian origin for the hardships caused by the government in office during World War II.
November 4 will be a historic day for people of the Italian community because justice was rendered at last.
After half a century of silence during which successive governments in turn failed to apologize for so unjustly incarcerating more than 700 Italian Canadians, most of whom lived in Montreal and Toronto, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, had the courage to re-open and correct a page of our history, an initiative which none of the previous governments ever did take.
Ever since I first entered politics, Mr. Speaker, I never thought I had made a bad choice when I ran under the Conservative Party banner.
Today I say publicly that I am proud to be a member of the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, all the more so because this was the outcome of an electoral commitment to Canadians of Italian origin and to the whole Italian community-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for York Centre.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are entitled to look to the national political parties as instruments of national unity. In times of regional tensions like today, parties are expected to offer support for unity, each working out its concept for binding our B country together.	B
In this connection, it has to be noted that members of fl the NDP seem to have developed two faces. Outside fl Quebec they present a face which continues to speak for fl a renewed and strengthened federalism. Inside Quebec, fl their sole MP, the member for Chambly, calls for a fl sovereign Quebec with an association in economic mat- fl ters with the rest of Canada.	B
We know this message is attractive right now to many Quebecers, but it does not square with the party's policy outside Quebec. This is not a contribution to national unity. The NDP two-faced policy is a disgrace.

November 5, 1990


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Senator Murray says that it is futile to examine native issues while the national unity debate is on. He says: "Wait until after the Spicer group reports in July of 1991". I think this is wrong-headed, and it could be disastrous for Canada and for native people. Things can be done, progress can be made parallel to Spicer.
I draw the government's attention to an eloquent speech by Roberta Jamieson, Ombudsman for Ontario and herself a native Canadian. Last September in Halifax she said: "The issues, native issues, should be resolved, not buried". All the provincial ombudsmen agreed with her proposal for a federal commissioner to mediate day-to-day issues regarding native people. This is positive.
I warn the government in my home province of British Columbia that the situation at the roadblock on the Duffy Lake Road, near Pemberton, is about to explode. We could see another Oka in British Columbia. Let us not see that. Let us move now on native issues.


COMMUNICATIONS ON THE LOWER NORTH SHORE
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, communications are extremely difficult year round on the lower north shore of the St. Lawrence River and in particular in the riding of Manicouagan.
The villages of Baie-Johan-Beetz, Kegaska, La Ro-maine, Harrington Harbour, La Tabatiere, Mutton Bay, Aylmer Sound and Tete-a-la-Baleine are served by seaplanes in summer and by skiplanes in winter.

In the fall and the spring these isolated villages are linked by helicopter with the closest airport.
The basic necessities required by the people of these communities are obtained at great cost to them. The time has come for our government, in co-operation with the provincial government and with the local municipal
authorities, to put in place the means to improve the transportation facilities on the lower north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


CRIME PREVENTION WEEK
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, as you know this is Crime Prevention Week in Canada. Police forces across this country have been fighting a tough war against the illegal drug trade on their streets and in their communities. Drugs have been cited as a major cause of violence and crime in Canada.
The federal government acquires large sums of money through its proceeds of crime legislation and through seizures of cash in drug investigations. It has the ability to redirect all or a part of these funds from drug seizures to local police forces to aid them in their difficult battle. Do not forget that it is these very police forces that often finance the investigations and put up the front money in these cases. This money often comes from municipal taxpayers.
I urge this government to begin sharing the seized proceeds of crime with other Canadian police forces on an equitable basis to maximize the effective use of resources and permit these police agencies to share in the assets that their work produces.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, last week in New Brunswick the Minister of Income Assistance announced that the Government of New Brunswick will exempt the goods and services tax credit from consideration as income so that those with lower incomes will benefit from the credit. In other words, in cases of need, there will be no erosion of assistance from the province of New Brunswick.
This is a positive move and the province should be congratulated for it. This virtually assures what we have been saying all along, that lower and modest income Canadians will be better off under the new system, the GST system.

November 5, 1990
Oral Questions


SOVEREIGNTY FOR QUEBEC
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Prime Minister tried to convince us that federalism made economic sense for Quebec. What does he take Quebecers for?
The existing federalist monetary policy is disastrous for Quebec. Hundreds of businesses are going bankrupt because of the exchange rate. The furniture industry is in crisis. Pratt & Whitney is laying off more than a thousand employees.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the federal regime breeds economic instability in Quebec. Only if it were sovereign could Quebec demand a monetary policy promoting economic stability and growth in the province. Therefore, only in sovereignty can Quebec find the assurance of stability and growth.


CHILD HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the 1989 report of the Canadian Institute of Child Health cited preventable injuries as the leading cause of death for Canadian children between the ages of five and fourteen.
All members will agree that the health of our children is everyone's concern. All sectors of society must work to propose innovative ways to address the causes of these injuries.
The Sifton Safety Home, promoted by the London, Ontario, board of education is a good example. The concept encourages home safety and seeks to reduce or eliminate child injuries in the home.
In the safety home, children are accompanied by teachers and parents. They move from room to room and are encouraged to identify and recognize household dangers.
For the 3,000 children who will visit the safety home this year, the experience offers first-hand reinforcement of what to look for and not to do within the home.
Programs like The Sifton Safety Home, a private sector and public sector sponsored project for children's safety should be lauded. Hopefully, it will be expanded into a children and youth educational program in the future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about the government's handling of the Rafferty-Alameda situation.
Last Thursday, the government's own lawyers went to court in Saskatchewan and asked the court to delay for six days, until this Wednesday, the government's request for an injunction to prevent the province of Saskatchewan from completing the Rafferty-Alameda project until there had first been a complete environmental assessment.
Now we learn that the federal Minister of the Environment has left the country and will not be back until the following week, November 13. This means he will not be available to be cross-examined on his affidavit. This means he will not be available to be a witness in the court proceedings that are starting, supposedly, next Wednesday.
In the light of these facts, how can the government be taken seriously when it says it wants to have the Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan issue an injunction to prevent the Rafferty project from going ahead and not being completed before there is an environmental assessment, when it has allowed a key witness to be out of the country for two weeks and to be out of reach of the court proceedings for that entire period?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there are several facts that the hon. member should be aware of, if indeed he is not.
Late last week the representatives of the Saskatchewan government filed very detailed and somewhat voluminous affidavits in the court prior to the hearing, which was scheduled for Thursday. As a result, the lawyers representing the Government of Canada quite appropri-

ately asked for enough time to file counter affidavits, which were filed by the deadline on Friday.
Those affidavits have now been filed before the court. They are available to the judge in question, and to all interested parties. The judge, and certainly the federal government is agreeable to this, has indicated that the hearings will proceed on this coming Wednesday without any delay. All of the evidence is now before the court. Our commitment to securing that injunction to stop work on Rafferty-Alameda is proceeding as scheduled. We are very hopeful that a decision will be reached on Wednesday or shortly thereafter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has failed to give any answer as to why the Minister of the Environment, a key witness in these proceedings, is going to be away, not until this coming Wednesday, but until the Tuesday of the following week, so that the province of Saskatchewan will be unable to cross-examine the minister on his affidavit, and so that he will not be there on Wednesday of this week to be a witness.
If the government is serious about this court action, why is it allowing the minister to be away? Is it not a fact that the government is just going through the motions and does not really want to have the court rule before the Rafferty project is completed?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, the critic for the New Democratic Party, the critic for the Liberal Party and another interested observer, a former minister in the previous government, are all attending a significantly important meeting in Geneva on climate change with respect to the emission of C02. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if the Minister of the Environment had not kept his obligation to attend that ministerial meeting, then the opposition would be on their feet accusing us of having failed in our international obligations.
The appropriate information is filed before the courts in the form of affidavits. The Government of Canada will be represented. The Minister of the Environment will be represented by the appropriate lawyers and the proceedings will occur this coming Wednesday as scheduled.
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the environment critic for the official opposition is not a witness in this case.


Mr. Gauthier:: Right.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The environment critic for the NDP is not a witness in this case, but the Minister of the Environment is and he cannot be a witness through his lawyer.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if it is so important for the minister to be at this conference which ends the 8th of November, why does the minister not come right back? Why is he going on to spend another five days not at this conference, but in London, England, briefing the High Commissioner on the Green Plan-something he has not done for this House-and meeting with environmental groups? Why is that more important than being physically present in Canada to testify on behalf of the federal government to get the injunction against Saskatchewan in the Rafferty-Alameda case? Why the extra five days? What is the explanation for that?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Leader of the Opposition really defies credulity, and it is an attempt to try and create an impression that is totally unjustifiable. The motion in front of the court in Saskatchewan is a motion for an equitable remedy for an injunction.
The evidence has been put before the court in the form of affidavits. It may or may not be the case, but there is no reason to believe that there will be motions to cross-examine on the affidavits. Those have not been put forward. It is not a trial. There is no viva voce evidence in this particular proceeding.
If for some reason the court should decide to grant a motion to cross-examine on the affidavits, it is quite feasible for the Minister of the Environment to return to Canada very quickly to meet that obligation. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that he would be required to do so, and it would be irresponsible of him to cancel this very significant international obligation on behalf of Canada in order to sit around wondering whether he would be called forward when it is highly unlikely that he will be.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the debate in this House over many weeks has centred around whether or not there was an informal agreement between the Minister of the Environment and the

Oral Questions
Premier of Saskatchewan. I have in my hand the affidavit of Ralph Pentland, Director of Water Planning and Management Branch saying: "When the minister and the premier joined the officials, including me, for lunch, the minister and the premier seemed to have reached some understanding for a course of action. The minister described the concept he and the premier had been discussing".
What were those understandings? What was the agreed on course of action? What was the concept, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and there are times in my political career-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual to have such unanimity of support in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I would have assumed, as a layperson, that one of the reasons we have a court system and appoint distinguished lawyers to be judges, is so we can take evidence of this nature, place it before the courts and let the courts decide.
We on this side of the House applied to the appropriate court in Saskatchewan to seek an injunction, because we believed that the agreement of January 26 had been broken. We have provided evidence of that fact to the court. The opposition to that request for an injunction has supplied its own evidence. But, surely, it is up to the courts, rather than the House of Commons, to decide how that hearing should proceed and what the results should be.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government are answerable to this House, not to the courts. This House wants some answers.
The minister's affidavit itself demonstrates clearly that over a period of weeks he was trying to bully the review panel into accepting-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. That is an accusation arising out of a court process. If this was a criminal case,
of course, none of these questions would be order. It is a civil case and what is in front of the court right now is a conflict between the various people who have filed affidavits.
The hon. member's question went to the government and said what has happened, and I allowed it. But I have to say that if by picking up one affidavit or another that is going to be the basis of a charge against a member, I do not think that is an appropriate question to ask.
Perhaps the hon. member can rephrase her question, but I do not want it to be repeated as it was put.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate for the House to be informed and I would hope the government would choose to respond-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker I am trying to point out to the House that under the circumstances and the content of the question that was put, I feel that it is inappropriate. The House is undoubtedly going to be informed when a judge makes a decision. When there is conflicting evidence in front of the court, it seems very difficult to ask the House, or a minister, to decide which affidavit ought to be accepted. That is clearly a task for the judge.
If the hon. member has a direct question which goes to the root of government policy or government action then, of course, it is acceptable. I would ask the hon. member to consider carefully the way she puts the question.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could simply ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment what was the concept Mr. Pentland was talking about? What was the understanding and what was the course of action agreed upon?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties, as you have already indicated, is that if hon. members stand in the House to read one of several somewhat conflicting affidavits, then we are at a bit of a disadvantage unless we are to take the House's time and read all the affidavits and place them before the House.
I would like to repeat what I said before. The fact is that this case is before the courts and it is up to the judge to make that judgment.
November 5, 1990

In response to the hon. member's question, let me also refer to another affidavit, which I am sure she has before her, even though she did not mention it, and that is of Norman Spector. He talked about the fact that Premier Devine visited with him and talked about a proposal. A proposal in my mind, again as a layperson, is very much different than an agreement.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In about a month, almost 16,000 more Canadian jobs have been lost. This weekend New Democratic leaders from across the country met to discuss the very serious state of the economy, and it is the same everywhere. Whether it is the family farm that is being devastated, fisheries, or the manufacturing sector, the economy is in big trouble.
The job losses mount each week with 310 jobs losses in Kamloops, 240 in Windsor, 370 in Brantford, 200 in McMasterville, 461 in Timmins, and so on. The list continues. These are people we are talking about and it is a very, very serious situation for Canadian families across the country.
There was a consensus by New Democratic leaders that a national crisis requires a national solution. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when will the Prime Minister be prepared to announce a first ministers' meeting on the economy so that all the provinces, territories, and the federal government can discuss this?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has commented on this, but I do want to say to the hon. member that I will be having a meeting with the finance ministers from the provinces. We have not set a specific date, but it is traditional at this time of year for us to get together to review the state of the economy, to review what policies might be put in place, both federally and provincially, and to consider this in the context of the budgets that will be forthcoming from all of our governments early in the New Year.
Oral Questions
At that time we will be able to address some of the concerns that she has very appropriately put before the House.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot wait. It is a national crisis. Surely, it is serious enough that Canadians every day lose jobs. They do not know how they are going to put food on the table. Economic indicators again today from Statistics Canada indicate that the economy is going down. Surely, this is an important enough situation for the Prime Minister himself to meet with the premiers and to address the situation. The Minister of Finance has repeatedly told us his plan to meet the needs of the international money markets. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the government's plan is to meet the real needs of Canadians, to do something about creating jobs, and to make the economy more healthy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have been quite clear what the plans, proposals, and strategies should be to address the current weakness in the economy.
We have indicated that as soon as we saw the weakness developing in the spring of this year, we could see a reduction in interest rates. That reduction has continued through. We have had about one and a half percentage points since the peak of interest rates in the spring of this year.
As the weakness in the economy continues and as we see a continuation in the easing of inflationary pressures, we should be able to see a continuation of that drop in interest rates.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He talks about addressing the inflation rate, but the government and the Minister of Finance are prepared to introduce the GST which, by the government's own admission, is going to increase inflation. From that we have to assume that the interest rates will go up again.
If the Minister of Finance is serious about the inflation rate and if he is serious about having lower interest rates and yet by introducing the GST is going to increase inflation, will the Minister of Finance withdraw the GST now and keep the interest rates down?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

November 5, 1990
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to the goods and services tax. I am sure she knows this, but I draw to her attention that the goods and services tax is going to lower the cost of new investment, new buildings, new plants, new equipment, and new technology. As that new technology, investment, plant, and equipment come on stream, jobs will be created in construction. The competitive position of the Canadian economy will be improved.
While my hon. friend is correct in that there will be a one-shot 1.25 per cent increase in the cost of living, the ongoing impact of the GST is to reduce the inflationary pressures. It will reduce the cost of production of businesses, whether agricultural, fishery, resource, manufacturing, or service sector businesses. So, in a very real way, it will reduce inflationary pressures on an ongoing basis.
The important point that I think I should address in the hon. member's question is the simple fact of the 1.25 per cent increase in the cost of living does not mean that interest rates will go up. What the Bank of Canada has said on an ongoing basis is that it will be looking at the underlying rate of inflation in the economy. If that continues to ease, as it has, then we will be able to see some reduction in interest rates.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The continuing growth in the federal deficit has not only led the government to borrow offshore, but it has drained domestic savings to the point where the private sector, too, must look abroad for its borrowings. As a result, Canadian funds in the form of dividends or interest payments are going abroad at an accelerating rate, pushing the current account deficit to record levels.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House what he plans to do to stem this increasing flow of Canadian wealth abroad?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the very clear direction that we have been following for the last six years is to get the federal government deficit down. We have been successful in getting the federal government deficit down against the opposition of the hon. member's party, not him, I might say, but all his colleagues in the House of Commons and
in the Senate today with the opposition to the GST. In every way that we have turned to get the deficit down, we have been met by opposition from the members opposite.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear the hon. members cheering that we are not getting the deficit down fast enough. They are doing this, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Roy MacLaren: The minister knows very well, Mr. Speaker, that the debt has more than doubled since his government came to office. The minister also knows very well that the deficit is at a very high level, near the record levels of the past years. The minister knows that as well as I do. The Minister of Finance also knows that Canada can attract foreign funds only if the Bank of Canada maintains its high interest rate policy. Yet, it is that very same policy which is sharply eroding business profits, causing unemployment, and hindering the essential investments in our future.
How does the Minister of Finance propose to correct Canada's growing foreign imbalance when his own policies are crippling our export industries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says we made no progress in getting the deficit down. I should remind him it was $38 billion in the last year of the government that he was a part of. In the last year, it was $28.9 billion. As a per cent of our economy, it has gone from 6.7 per cent to 3.1 per cent of our economy, so we are making very real progress.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What I would say to the hon. member is he cannot have it both ways. Every time we have brought out a budget to get the deficit down, each one of the items that we have proposed to use to get the deficit down, his party, his colleagues, have opposed.
I agree with him, we should be getting the deficit down. But if the Liberal Party would stop sucking and blowing, we might get some more progress here.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


THE CITIZENS' FORUM ON THE FUTURE OF CANADA
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, in this House, the Acting Prime Minister said that no more people could be added to the membership of the Citizens' Forum on the Future of Canada, chaired by Mr. Keith Spicer. There will be no room for francophones, for people north of the 60th Parallel, and for a wide spectrum of ethnic communities. Yesterday, before the National Convention of Italian Canadians in Toronto, the Prime Minister was saying and I quote: "That there was room for additional appointments".
Mr. Speaker, the question that arises today is this: Whom are we to believe? The Prime Minister, who says anything, anytime, to woo Canadians, or the former Secretary of State, who told us Friday that there was no room for additional people on that commission?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think that all members of the House would agree that the panel that forms the membership of this very important instrument is made up of very distinguished Canadians who represent all walks of life and, I think, represent a very good cross section.
What is important to recognize is that these individuals are not intended to act as representatives for any one specific group or another. They are part of a group which will facilitate and encourage dialogue and discussion so that a consensus can emerge.
What is most important is the facility to allow all Canadians, regardless of where they come from, regardless of who they are, regardless of what walk of life they are engaged in, and regardless of what ethnic composition they come from, to have a clear opportunity to come forth before this panel, represent their views, engage in the dialogue and allow themselves to be heard so that all Canadians can take advantage of it.
Oral Questions
I think that is the most important feature, and I regret that the hon. member has lost the thrust of this whole function.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has lost the question. It is a simple one.
Are there going to be additions? Yes or no.
No answer.
During a radio interview this weekend, Keith Spicer, the new chairman of the Citizen's Forum, said: "We will create a receptive climate in English Canada for the Quebec Belanger-Campeau commission's recommendations, especially if they are radical".
My question: Who gave chairman Spicer the new mandate to create a receptive climate in English Canada for the Belanger-Campeau commission's recommendations if they are radical, and do tell what this mandate means? Please do tell.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the mandate is pretty clear. I have it in my hand. It was tabled in the House of Commons last Thursday, and I ask the hon. member to re-read it.
Perhaps he will get an idea of what the mandate is all about. When he is suggesting that there should be additional members, how many members is he proposing? Does he want to expand it to 24, 50 or 100?


Mr. Speaker:: I must remind the House that it being three o'clock, we need the consent of the House to continue Question Period.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we started Question Period late today because of the intervening vote.
Usually, with these kinds of things we work them out in discussions with the opposition in advance.

November 5, 1990
Oral Questions
We had certain agreements as to what was going to occur this morning, and that turned out to be a surprise to us different than what we expected, which disappoints me.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, you can well understand that my cabinet colleagues will have commitments that they made and meetings they have to attend.
I have no problem agreeing to an extension of Question Period for the benefit of the opposition, if in turn it will acknowledge that some of my cabinet colleagues will have to leave. They may not be here for their questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has made it clear that we cannot continue without consent. Is there consent to continue?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PERSIAN GULF
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Canadians are very concerned about the extent to which our policies in the Persian Gulf are being driven not by our Canadian-UN peacekeeping role, but rather by election strategies in the White House.
I ask the minister to confirm that our squadron of CF-18s in the gulf has come under the effective tactical control not of Canadians but of a U.S. air combat director aboard a U.S. cruiser. Will the minister indicate what concrete efforts Canada is taking to bring all troops in the Persian Gulf under effective UN command and not under U.S. command?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, without for a moment agreeing with any of the premise of the hon. member's statement, the Canadian squadron of CF-18s is under a tactical control.
The hon. member should understand what that means. That means there is information fed through at least three separate vehicles to a controller. The command of the aircraft is strictly under the command of a Canadian.
Our allies who we work with in the gulf understand fully Canada's rules of engagement, and therefore they have been informed prior as to what commands Canadians can accept or reject.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, quite clearly it is the U.S. that is calling the shots in terms of tactical control.
My supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Ten days ago, the minister deeply alarmed Canadians with his dangerous sabre rattling talk of Canadians dying in a gulf war.
I want to ask the minister whether he now recognizes that as U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, has said: "War would be a bloody and costly effort. We ought to give all other options, including the embargo, a chance to work." Does the minister recognize and agree with that and, most important, will the minister now finally agree that no offensive military action should take place in the gulf without a clear United Nations mandate and, most important, without a full debate and vote of the Parliament of Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there is a curious irony that a party that is so deeply anti-American as the New Democratic Party is should find itself capable only of believing a proposition when it comes from the words of a United States senator.
Of course I support the view that was just quoted, by Senator Nunn. I have been saying that, as members of this government have, for some time. Indeed, the reason that we are there and the reason that we are making it clear that we ^intend to follow through on Canada's commitment with respect to sanctions and with respect to moving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait is precisely because we know that he does not believe paper tigers. We know that he will only take seriously the threat of action by Canada and by other nations if it is clear that we intend to follow through on the actions that we have forecast. Of course, we would prefer to do that through the United Nations.
That is why Canada has been working so very diligently, and with some substantial effect, to try to achieve unanimity within the United Nations. We are still doing that. We would prefer a United Nations command, but we do not want Saddam Hussein to believe that the world will simply walk away and there will be no carrying forward on the positions that have been taken in the

United Nations and elsewhere if, per chance, there is a veto by one nation, one member of the Security Council. We do not intend to have the broadly supported position of Canada on this question under-cut by a potential veto by some other country in the United Nations. Surely that is sensible.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same minister on the same subject. It is reported that Secretary of State Baker has been visiting a number of senior government officials in those countries which are participating in the multinational force to determine in fact if they are prepared to engage in offensive actions against the Iraqis in Kuwait.
I want to ask the Secretary of State if, in fact, he has had those consultations yet with Secretary Baker or are such consultations planned, and does the Secretary of State intend to make Canada's position clear, that we do not want to participate in any offensive action against the Iraqis and will give sanctions a proper and long-term opportunity to work their way out and force the Iraqis to withdraw without the use of force.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it may be some help if I quote the words of Mr. Baker as they appeared in the Sunday Gazette:
"The overall purpose of the trip is to discuss, with our coalition partners, strengthening the full range of measures that we have taken to isolate Saddam Hussein-and thereby to lay the foundation for the possible-execution of all options,"-
Certainly, from Canada's point of view, the option that we prefer is an option that demonstrates enough strength to Saddam Hussein that he, peacefully, leaves Kuwait. That is the purpose of our policy; that is the policy that we have been pursuing actively.
Is there consultation with the United States? Of course there is, as there is with the other countries, the broad array of countries, 25 of which have troops of one form or another in the region, a wide range of which are associated through the Security Council and other actions of the United Nations.
Will there be debate in this House? There was debate in this House. There was the recommendation from this House that the matter should be carried on to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. It was before that committee that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I
Oral Questions
appeared. We are prepared to come again. The Ambassador to the United Nations will be there. We certainly are going to take every step we can to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in the discussion of this issue. We have been doing that; we intend to continue to do that. We intend to have Canada meet its international obligations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we would still like to know whether in fact Canada has been directly engaged in this round of consultations with Secretary of State Baker because it seems that with the impending U.S. Congressional elections, that would be a very major turning point. Would the Secretary of State would answer that question?
I also wish he would respond to the plea that was contained in yesterday's Calgary Herald in a letter written by a Canadian nationalist who is being detained in Iraq who said that he feels betrayed because we have not sent a special envoy.
I ask the minister if the government has now decided whether to take some special actions, such as sending a delegation, or would it be asking the Secretary General of the UN whether he would undertake to go to Iraq and make the case to free the foreign nationals presently detained by the Iraqi government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am in regular touch with the foreign ministers of other countries which are involved in the large coalition of nations that want to have Saddam Hussein leave Kuwait.
Second, with respect to persons who are there against their will, we naturally want to have them freed. I have indicated privately to the hon. member, and I think publicly on other occasions, that there will not be an official mission on the part of Canada to seek the release of these persons because we think that would be used for propaganda purposes by the Saddam Hussein regime.
I am aware that there is consideration being given by some persons respecting unofficial trips. I think we would want to consider carefully whether public discussion of the possibility of unofficial envoys will speed up or slow up the return to Canada of Canadians who want to leave Iraq and cannot now.

November 5, 1990
Oral Questions CHILD TAX CREDIT


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the government House leader.
Given that there are only 49 days left until Christmas, and about 66,000 Canadian families which are expecting their child tax credits paid in advance as promised by the Minister of Finance, will he tell the House when he proposes to bring forward the legislation to authorize the advance payment of these child tax credits, given that the opposition is willing to expedite its passage?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there is an interest on the part of the opposition to expedite this piece of legislation, if not the rest of our legislative program. Certainly I am prepared to engage in those discussions.
I have one concern. It is something I would ask the hon. member to think about and perhaps come up with some suggestions. We can get it through this House all right with agreement on all sides, but what do we do with the other place, which is having difficulty even starting a debate on GST?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has forgotten that his party commands a plurality in that House. He had no trouble recently getting through legislation that cut back on social programs. Perhaps he is afraid that Trevor Eyton and the boys will not pass this one.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


John Paul Manley: Last week, we were trying to find out what the government proposed to do for the poor people of Canada in the face of the recession. Here is something they can do. Why will he not make a commitment to move forward on this legislation?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course we are committed to moving forward on this legislation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: The concern is not the senators in the plurality. It is Allan MacEachen, Royce Frith and his crowd that are holding things up over there.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Epp:: The place of the living dead.


Harvie Andre: The concern of the hon. member for low income Canadians receiving their cheques before Christmas is well placed. I hope he remembers that part of the GST package is to send before Christmas-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: -the sales tax rebates. I would hope their concern for these low income Canadians would extend to both the child tax credit and the GST tax rebate.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


RAFFERTY-ALAMEDA PROJECT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the very serious matter of the Rafferty-Alameda project.
The minister will know that the premier of Saskatchewan has sworn that he informed the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff and the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary about an agreement he concluded with the federal enviroiiment minister.
My question is this: Did Mr. Spector or the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary inform the Prime Minister that the premier of Saskatchewan felt that he had an agreement with the Minister of the Environment? Was the Prime Minister aware?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, again we are returning to the matter which was raised earlier in this House today with reSpect to a series of affidavits which have been filed before the court. It is the responsibility of that court to evaluate the material contained therein.
We assume that the court will reach its judgment on Wednesday, or shortly thereafter, in assessing the various affidavits.
The hon. member refers to the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff. Perhaps he might want to read that person's affidavit. He might want even to read it into the record of this House, because he will discover that the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff refers specifically to a proposal

which Premier Grant Devine had spoken of, but it does not in any way refer to an agreement.
Surely we are in a very real sense wasting the time of this House in discussing a matter that is properly before the courts in the province of Saskatchewan, and it will be concluded there.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is going to be very interesting to see if the judge indeed makes a decision as to who is not telling the truth here.
My real question is: Did the Prime Minister know? As well, in his affidavit, the Minister of the Environment admitted in several instances that he attempted to influence the panel. Under section 22(b) of the EARP guidelines it specifically states that the panel should be free of interference.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is that the actions of the minister are akin to jury tampering. Can this government assure us that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The hon. member may have his own opinion as to these entire proceedings but, as I had to say to another member earlier, those opinions cannot be by way of accusations in this House. If the hon. member wishes to put a question and make it a careful question that the government is in a position to respond to and does not stray into accusations and charges, then I will hear the hon. member.


Simon Leendert de Jong: If I may, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment, in his own affidavit, stated that he made several attempts to communicate with the panel and to get the panel to agree to certain timetables. This, we maintain, is contrary to the EARP guidelines.
My question therefore is as follows: Can this government assure us that the minister's resignation will be sought immediately, at least until this matter is cleared up?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi.


RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Repairs
Oral Questions
on the CN Franquet-Chapais railway line in Abitibi have been completed since June 29, 1990. Mining companies in Chapais and Chibougamau have asked CN management in Montreal to run ore shipments on this line right away.
Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Does the Minister think it is economically sound to keep shipping the ore via a 700-mile detour that is no longer necessary? If not, will the minister urge CN management to take action as requested by these mining companies, as soon as possible?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, CN has appealed the decision. There is a procedure that must be followed in such cases. I do not and I must not get involved in the daily operations of this Crown corportion.


QUEBEC'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. On the weekend, the Quebec wing of the Progressive Conservative Party approved a resolution recognizing Quebec's right to self-determination. This right forms the basis of a movement towards sovereignty that is taking place now in Quebec. My question is this: Does the government endorse this resolution by the party's Quebec wing?


An hon. member:: Very good question!


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! One moment please! This is not a question about government administration.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, on a supplementary.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. This is the fundamental issue on which the future of this country depends. Would the House of Commons not be interested in a fundamental right that will determine the future of Canada and Quebec, Mr. Speaker? This is an essential issue that will loom large in the background of all political parties in Canada and Quebec during the coming year. I think that-

Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member is right, but my task is quite clear. The question must be acceptable under the Standing Orders of the House, and that is my decision.

I have to advise hon. members that Question Period is concluded.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of an Australian parliamentary delegation led by Senator John Olsen.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, yesterday hundreds of people congregated on a few acres of France that are forever Canada. They came to the lovely park land containing the Vimy Memorial.
Every November, crowds of French citizens join our own dignitaries and troops at the special service of remembrance to commemorate the 60,000 Canadians who were killed in the First World War.
The memorial itself stands on top of Vimy Ridge, the site of Canada's first and greatest victory. Our soldiers had been drawn from armies to form the Canadian corps in an attempt to take the heavily defended ridge. On April 9, 1917 they succeeded and won everlasting respect. My father was in that battle.
The French government graciously granted Canada some of that historic site in perpetuity. As I said, hundreds of French men women and children went there yesterday and joined our ambassador to France, Mr. Claude Charland, in paying tribute to those Canadians who fell in the First World War.
Let Canadians do the same on Remembrance Day.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WHETHER QUESTION IN ORDER
Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege regarding what happened earlier when I put a question in this House.
There is a Constitution in this country and there are public statutes. There is a government, and within that government a department responsible for federal-provincial relations. This department is responsible for managing relations with members of the federation, and therefore one of the important questions, Mr. Speaker, is how relations between members of the federation and the central government are managed.
When a member of Parliament rises in the House to ask a minister of the Crown, a senior cabinet minister, and I am referring to the Deputy Prime Minister, to tell the country how he intends to subordinate the rights of nations to federal-provincial relations, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that directly concerns the House. If any question should concern this House above all others, it is democracy, the future of the people of Canada and the future of the people of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why statements made at a party convention about Quebec's right to self-determination are considered in such a restrictive light that a government is under no obligation to inform this House what it intends to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House are very clear. I am moved to observe that if the hon. member is so interested in the proceedings of the Quebec wing of the Progressive Conservative Party, he should ask himself why he was so quick to leave it.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to rise in this debate, because I wonder why our government or a minister of the Crown cannot answer this kind of question when in 1952, the Right Hon. Louis Saint-Laurent supported Resolution 673 at the United Nations which was precisely about the right of nations to self-determination. This position was again taken by the UN in 1960, in Resolution 1514, which was

at the time supported by the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in the past, similar questions were put to various ministers and those questions were answered.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question is an important one, and we on this side of the House would like to know, first of all, why a reply to the question was not allowed. The government may or may not answer a question. Although, this government doesn't make a habit of answering them, the question was put quite clearly. We fail to see why the hon. member did not receive a reply to his question. We would like to know why the Chair did not allow a reply, and we would like the government's opinion. Are they prepared to answer the question, yes or no? That's all.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am looking for the right citation in Beauchesne's. I just cannot put my finger on it at the moment.
Quite clearly the purposes of Question Period are to provide the opposition with an opportunity to obtain information about the actions, programs, or policies of the government. They have to do with the competence of the government.
Questions about what members of the government in their other capacity as members of a political party in discussion somewhere else are not relevant to the government. They simply are not, as provided in the rules, in Beauchesne's, about the purposes of Question Period.
Your Honour was exactly correct in suggesting that it is not proper to put to members of the government questions pertaining to discussions held that do not deal with the responsibilities of cabinet ministers under their Privy Council oath, do not deal with responsibilities of ministers in respect of their departments, do not deal with decisions or actions of the government, but in fact deal with the actions of a political party to which members of this government belong.
Privilege
Those are actions and decisions of the political party; they are not actions and decisions of this government. Hence they are not appropriate for Question Period.
As to the generalized supposition that these issues of constitutionality and so on are important to the country and should be debated in the House, indeed they are. There are all kinds of appropriate fora or occasions for the discussion and debate of such issues in this House.
Question Period is not the appropriate time. It is not provided under the rules that members of the government should be called to account and questioned about actions they participated in as members of a political party. It is simply not appropriate for Question Period.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, we were all very pleased to let the Prime Minister speak on the future of Canada. Now, a ministef of the Crown says that he does not have the right to answer the question put to him by another member regarding Quebec's ability to decide its own future, its self-determination, when it is clearly a legitimate question for the government. I am quite sure that the Quebec lieutenant of the Prime Minister would like, with unanimous consent, to clarify the matter. I am convinced he is willing to do so- I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, that when we were the gouvemment, we were asked questions on our policies, like the one regarding cruise missile testing. From time to time, political parties have messages for the government.
I would think that the question is in order, and that members of this House would be willing to set the rules aside in order to give the minister a chance to speak on this most important question for the people of Quebec. I would like to have unanimous consent for this. Are we ready to give it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East, with reference to my ruling of a few minutes ago, has asked if the House would give the unanimous consent for the minister to answer the question. Let me make it very clear: the hon. minister does not need unanimous consent to answer the question.

Privilege
What I was pointing out as your Speaker is that, as the question was framed, to my mind it was out of order. There are other ways to ask a question on the same subject matter. I have to interpret the rules. I was not saying that the minister could not answer it. I said that, as asked, I think it was out of order.
If the minister wants to answer it, that is up to the minister. If the House wants to revert to questions and the minister wishes to rise, then of course the Speaker is in the hands of the House.


Benoît Bouchard: If the House would allow me to answer the question put by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, I think that would help clarify the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unanimous consent is required to ask the question again but none is required to provide a reply.


Benoît Bouchard: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the resolution that was approved on the weekend, and I hope this will help-


An hon. member:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order!


Benoît Bouchard: You gave me permission to answer the question put by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. I would appreciate it if the hon. member from British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me. One moment, please!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am already on my feet!


Mr. Barrett:: Are we still in Question Period, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could explain to hon. members what has occurred. A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean concerning a question which he put in the Chamber. At that time I felt that the way the question was put did not accord with the rules. The hon. minister had every right to answer if he had wished to. I was not precluding him from answering.
Having listened carefully to the point of order that has been raised, I want to make it very clear that I did not preclude, nor would I ever presume to preclude, a minister answering a question if he wished.
The minister has indicated that he wishes to give a response to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. All I need is the consent of the House to revert back to questions, which is a procedural thing. I thought I had that consent and on that basis I represented the hon. minister. The hon. minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think my explanation regarding the resolution passed Saturday at Mont-Sainte-Anne will satisfy hon. members. The resolution proposed by representatives of the riding of Louis-Hebert recognized Quebec's right to self-determination.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Quebec Conservatives approved this resolution to the extent that it is already part of the United Nations Charter of which Canada is a signatory. This does not, and I am thinking particulary of the debate that is starting on the future of Canada and Quebec, in any way anticipate the decisions that will be made.
The convention in Quebec felt that one could hardly vote down this kind of resolution, just as the United Nations, were not thinking particularly of Quebec or Canada at the time they accepted theirs, did not anticipate the decisions or solutions Canada and Quebec will make or choose. We approved the resolution in a spirit of openness, and I think the question is a valid one and the answer remains valid, insofar as we are talking about self-determination which, once again, was approved by the UN Charter and applies to all peoples.
That being said, I think the question was in order, and we accepted it, but, I repeat, we did so considering the fact that at a time when Canada and Quebec are about to get involved in fundamental discussions on each other's future, we felt it was a valid question.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a decision made by the Quebec wing of the Progressive Conservative Party. That being said, I think the decision made in Quebec was an excellent one, and I want to congratulate my Conservative colleagues in Quebec for making that decision, Mr. Speaker.
November 5, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: The honorable member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a supplementary.


Lucien Bouchard: To start with, I wish to thank the minister for explaining to us the ins and outs of the resolution adopted by the Quebec caucus. My question to him is this: Can the government-since there is a government in front of us- through its minister, tell us if it accepts the principle that Quebec has the right to self-determination? That is my question, Mr. Speaker!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again to the member for Lac-Saint-Jean that-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was minister, he did not appreciate such outcries. I would hope that he will behave in the same manner now that he is across the way.
What I say to him is this: It is a resolution adopted by a wing of our party, the Conservative wing of the Conservative Party. Mr. Speaker, the government deals with recommendations the same way the Liberals and other parties do.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that under the circumstances hon. members would give the minister the courtesy of hearing his response. He is trying to make a very extensive response to a question which the House has consented to hear, when that would not ordinarily be the case. The hon. minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I think the debate is too serious and the matter too fundamental to be treated in a partisan way in the House of Commons. I am sure there are partisan intentions behind the question. At a time when we are discussing once again those fundamental issues, the Quebec wing of the Conservative party made a recommendation to the government which will deal with it according to the normal process. Therefore, because of the seriousness of the issue, I think we should avoid any partisanship, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I think you have ruled, and very rightly, that it was essential that the
Routine Proceedings
question put to the cabinet had to do with governing operations. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean rephrased his question which was then in order. He asked the minister whether the Tory government was willing as a matter of government policy, to accept the resolution passed by the Quebec Tory wing at their convention over the weekend. Now, the minister, and this explains my point of order, Mr. Speaker, in rising to answer a question which you had then ruled in order, took the oportunity to answer, not as a minister and member of the Canadian cabinet but strictly as a militant Tory politician from Quebec as if he had been dealing with this question at a political convention. Hence his answer was not in order since it did not give the government's real answer that is whether or not they accept as government this resolution passed by militants over the weekend.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The best solution might be for him to ask another question tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The public accounts committee's sixth report, which I have the honour to table today, deals with controls over grants administered by federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
The committee identified a number of procedures which, if adopted by grant-giving agencies, would improve controls and accountability for grants. For example, the committee recommended co-ordination of instalment payments with enhanced reporting and monitoring of grants where the size or the dollar value of the grant makes it cost-effective to do so.
Another major recommendation in the report dealt with the accountability of granting agencies for repeat funding of the same organization year after year and called for triennial reports to Parliament on recurring grants, justifying them in terms of competing demands

November 5, 1990
Routine Proceedings
for scarce resources, benefits to Canada and to the recipient.
The committee also recommended that resources be allocated to program evaluation and that unused portions of grants be recovered.
The government has been requested to table a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION TABLING OF TWO REPORTS BY THE CANADIAN DELEGATION
Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, two reports of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association: the report of the Canadian Delegation to the Debate on the parliamentary dimensions of the CSCE organized by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the report of the Canadian Delegation to the annual OECD Debate of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Those meetings were held in Strasbourg from September 26 to October 4, 1990.
Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of members of the House the parliamentary debate on security and co-operation in Europe because it is centred on the new Europe. I think that members should look at the report because it has dimensions for Canada's future involvement in the Europe that is forming, not only the 12 nations in the European family for economic reasons, but rather for reasons of security.
The debate centred upon the formation of a new body, the assembly of Europe. Members of this House should read with care and decide whether this House should become involved in the debate on the future of Europe and what Canada's role should be.
As I have said, all the countries in Europe unanimously wanted to model their new assembly of Europe on the Council of Europe's rules. Canada did not feel that this was the way to proceed. In fact, an assembly of Europe with responsibilities for the security of the new Europe
should be based on the rules that such an assembly of parliamentarians would like to bring into being.
I encourage members to read this report and come forward with suggestions as to whether this House should formally debate Canada's position in a new Europe because clearly it is starting to develop, and it should be done with care.


RACIAL TOLERANCE
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek consent to propose a motion which will be put without debate or amendment. The motion would be seconded by the member for Vancouver East and reads as follows:
That this House rejects any attempt to use our country as a platform from which to disseminate knowingly misleading, inaccurate and false statements about the Holocaust and Nazi prosecution of the Jews and other people before and during the Second World War and that this House deplores utterly and categorically all those who wish to spread a message of racial discrimination and hatred on the basis of colour, religion, ethnicity or culture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there consent regarding this motion put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville?


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that the government is happy to support the motion.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Thus, there is consent and the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to table before the House a petition certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36, stating that a tax on books, newspapers and magazines is positively regressive. These petitioners from my riding of Carleton-Gloucester and the Ottawa and Montreal area maintain that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of our democracy, education, culture and leisure activities. They suggest that a
November 5, 1990

productive society can only be negatively affected by such a provision aimed at taxing reading.
The undersigned humbly pray that Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status of the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST to be implemented January 1st, 1991, so that this government does not go down in history as the government that taxed reading.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to table a petition signed by a number of Canadians citizens who are against the imposition of the GST on books, newspapers and magazines. This measure is really a tax on reading.

These people ask Parliament to reject the GST on learning and reading and that it do so as soon as possible.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have risen many times before, to present a petition from people of my riding concerned with the goods and services tax.
In this petition, they state that the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay. They also state that the government has not addressed the unfair taxation system currently in place which permits wealthy individuals and corporations to pay little or no federal tax, while forcing lower and middle-income taxpayers to bear more of the national tax burden.
The petitioners call upon the government to reject the goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from coast to coast with
Routine Proceedings
regard to the goods and service tax, and most particularly with regard to the goods and services tax upon books.
The petitioners call upon Parliament, as do Canadians across the country, to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation.
If we are going to have this pernicious tax, at least let us make sure that books and newspapers remain free of it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have the duty to table a petition.
Governments in Canada have seen fit over the years to apply a zero rate tax on magazines, books, and publications such as newspapers. This Tory government now proposes to include them in the general tax of the GST.
These petitioners pray that the government will see fit not to tax books, not to tax learning and to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations as they apply to books, newspapers and publications which are culturally oriented.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present on behalf of numerous Canadians a petition which has been certified and which calls upon the government not to proceed with its pernicious and foolish goods and services tax which virtually all Canadians oppose.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions from people right across the country who complain and, indeed, criticize the government for the GST application to books.
The petitioners state that since Confederation, without hiatus, the practice of the government has been to apply a zero rate of tax to magazines, books and newspapers. The government now proposes to include it in the GST. The petitioners want the government to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in the tax-free status for the printed word by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians with regard to their opposition to the GST.
A virtual litany of frustration and despair among our Canadian people continues as day after day we seem to be knocking on a door that will go unanswered for some time with regard to this taxation.
The people of Canada are indeed frustrated. I would only hope that some place along the line the government will come to its senses and rescind the GST which was passed here in the House.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I stand with the rest of my colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 36, and bring to your attention that 86 per cent of Canadians do not agree with the imposition of the regressive and poorly-conceived goods and services tax, in particular as it applies to books, magazines, and newspapers.
These printed words are the corner-stone of democracy, education and culture. A literate and productive society cannot afford a tax on that kind of thinking which is food for the mind as it is food for the soul.
These people say it is hard to believe that the government has spread its net so wide as to trap the Bible and the Koran. The Prime Minister agrees that books should not be taxed and the Minister of Communications agrees that books should not be taxed. It is too bad that they cannot convince the Minister of Finance not to tax books, and believe and listen to the people of Canada.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people in several communities in the province of Ontario. They note that never since Confederation have we had tax on books, newspapers and magazines but this government is going to apply the GST to newspapers, magazines and books. It talks a lot about literacy, but obviously it has no commitment to it.
As a former educator, I think it is ridiculous that we cannot educate the front benches of the government because they are not listening. When students are not listening, they cannot be taught.
I hope there will be success in the days ahead to get this message through from the people who want uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as a corner-stone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society. We do not want the 7 per cent GST applied to it or to education in any way.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition signed by many individuals from Colchester County, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners are concerned about the huge increases in telecommunications fees for radio equipment that have been levied by the federal government. The fire departments are primarily non-profit organizations and this will cause many volunteer fire departments to have to defer, delay, or cancel the purchase of equipment that they use to protect both individual safety and that of property. They ask the government, in this particular instance, to exempt volunteer fire departments from this excessive fee structure.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting today to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition coming from Alberta and from western and eastern Ontario.
Again, we call on the Government of Canada to drop its plan to impose the GST on books. The petitioners submit that imposing a tax on books, newspapers and weeklies would be tremendously regressive.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to rise and submit before the House hundreds of names signed to petitions in the province of Ontario pleading with the government not to impose the GST on reading materials.
It should also be noted by the government that in the other place, there will be an amendment moved today to remove reading materials from the GST attack. The petitioners are asking that the government finally listen to Canadians from coast to coast.

If there is one area that should be tax-free, it should be educational and reading materials so that our youth and seniors across the land can at least be able to read and further themselves educationally.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of the great citizens of Kamloops who are still filled with despair that the government continues to proceed with this very cruel and punitive goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out a whole set of reasons why this is unfair. It discriminates against western Canadians, small businesses, and working people generally, and will cause an increased interest rate. They ask the government to pull the legislation and go back and attempt real tax reform.
On another matter, Mr. Speaker, like some of my other colleagues, I have petitions signed by individuals again from a variety of places in Canada who are distressed that the government sees fit to tax children's story books. I think we are the only country in the world that will actually do that, if the goods and services tax becomes a reality, taxing children's reading.
I think we all appreciate that, particularly at this time of year when we want to buy books and encourage young people to read, we do not want the government imposing a special tax on literature.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition of over 2,000 signatures from across Ontario.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to develop and adopt a comprehensive agricultural policy for Canada that will ensure the preservation of the Canadian farm family and will guarantee the future of a viable and self-sustaining agricultural industry in Canada.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have here a petition signed by a good many constituents of the electoral riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, especially residents of Hawkesbury, a
Routine Proceedings
locality which you and all other parliamentarians know well. The people of Hawkesbury in my riding ask the House to urge the government to drop the tax on goods and services, this harmful tax which will hamper the Canadian economy and which will apply to books.
As their spokesman I congratulate the people of Hawkesbury, Alexandria, L'Orignal, Lancaster, and other Glengarry-Prescott-Russell communities for signing this petition.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise to present a petition. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is a little concerned about the time this is taking today, but I am sure that a lot of his constituents have been sending him petitions signed against the goods and services tax. He does not rise to table those, and neither does the Minister of Transport. I am sorry they do not, because I am sure their constituents would be delighted to have petitions of this kind filed.
For their benefit, I will tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that these petitioners are opposed to the goods and services tax, because it imposes a tax on the printed word. As the hon. member for Kamloops says, it is going to be applied to children's books. It is going to be applied to Bibles and religious works. It is going to be applied to every kind of publication.
These Canadians, like so many millions of others, are opposed to this tax and call upon Parliament to reject it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary will know that I have raised with him, both privately and in the House, on a number of occasions the fact that one question which has been on

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
the Order Paper for approximately six months has not been answered.
I know that the parliamentary secretary has sent the question back because the staff who were dealing with the question were apparently not able to provide a satisfactory answer to him and therefore it would not have been satisfactory to me either.
Has the parliamentary secretary succeeded in convincing those who prepare the answer for that question that they should provide an adequate answer forthwith so that he can table it in the House, the way I am sure he would want to do?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will check on it and get back to the hon. member.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is in attendance. We are anxious, of course, to begin discussion on Bill C-81, an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods at the second reading stage.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, I think we have a near crisis occurring in the country and I want to raise it with my hon. friend as a point of order. We are well aware that in September notices went out to an excess of 60,000 low-income families that child tax credits would be in the mail by mid-November.
Bill C-86 was that legislation and was tabled on October 11-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I do not think that this is a proper matter for a point of order according to our Standing Orders. So, we revert to the Orders of the Day.
Before beginning debate, I must inform you, pursuant to Standing Order 38, that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. La-porte)-Agriculture; the hon. member for Scarborough
West (Mr. Wappel)-Monetary Policy; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins)-Trade.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-81, an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin second reading debate on the International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act.
The purpose of this bill is to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods thus allowing departments, departmental corporations, and agent Crown corporations to benefit from its provisions. It does so by resorting to the usual practice of giving force of law to the convention which is reproduced in a schedule to the act.
A convention on contracts for the international sale of goods applies to transactions involving the sale of goods for business use between parties whose place of businesses are located in different contracting states.
It establishes a uniform system of rules for the international sale of goods and gives access to legal rules that are compatible with Canadian law.
Implementation of this convention by the International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act will permit federal entities to enjoy the three principal benefits of the convention, facilitation of trade, a greater degree of legal certainty in international sales contracts, and greater equity between the parties to an international sales contract.
Federal implementing legislation ensures that all federal entities will be uniformly covered by the regime of the convention.


November 5, 1990

There are now 28 contracting states to the convention, some of which like the United States, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, China, are among our largest trading partners. Thus, the adoption of federal implementing legislation will enable federal entities to avail themselves of the benefits of the regime established under the convention in a large number of transactions.
The convention facilitates trade by providing parties to a contract for the international sale of goods with a uniform system of rights, but it also preserves their freedom to contract by allowing them to derogate from the convention by means of an express clause.
Legal certainty. Contracts for the international sale of goods naturally give rise to many problems in private international law, for example, determining which law governs the contracts, or which court has jurisdiction. These issues must often be resolved by the courts and the resulting litigation can involve considerable expense in lawyers fees and other legal costs, not to mention needless delays.
Trade is particularly sensitive to any uncertainty, especially legal uncertainty. The rights of the parties must be clearly defined to foster an equitable transaction. It is difficult to define these rights if there is any uncertainty as to which law will apply. With the increase of international commercial transactions, the convention on contracts for the international sale of goods is an indispensable benefit to international trade because it creates a system of legal rules which clearly set out the rights of the parties involved. The system of rules is compatible with Canadian law and replaces the application of the law of other contracting states whose rules may be unfamiliar or even unfavourable to us.
The equity between trading partners. In an international sales transaction, each party to the contract often prefers to have the transaction governed by the law of its own country, something the weaker trading partner may find difficult to obtain. Usually the party with the stronger negotiating position can ensure that the contract is governed by the law of its country. The convention offers a more acceptable option because it allows the parties to have the contract governed by a uniform and neutral system of legal rules. Thus, the convention provides a means of reducing the inequality between the parties.
Government Orders
The convention on contracts for the international sale of goods was submitted to the provinces and their reaction has been very positive. Eight provinces, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia, as well as the Northwest Territories have already passed implementing legislation.
The Department of Justice has consulted members of Canada's business community and the Canadian Bar Association with regard to the convention and their reaction as well has been very positive. The businesses and corporations consulted pointed to the greater legal certainty associated with international sales of goods under the convention, the advantages of a uniform neutral system that preserves their freedom of contract and the compatibility of the convention with Canadian law.
The convention's underlying principles of law are similar to and compatible with those of Canadian law. Several Canadian experts have examined the questions and have made a comparative analysis of the convention and Canadian trade law under both civil and common law. They conclude that the convention is compatible with our law.
I am pleased to support this bill and would ask the support of the House.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to support this bill on second reading. I think that the aim of this bill is very good, in fact very much needed.
As the member for Niagara Falls has stated, it is an act to implement the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. It is something that has been needed for a long time. I think that the aims of this bill are not only important for Canada but important world-wide. The member for Niagara Falls said that it is going to give greater equity to the smaller nations in trading with larger nations. That is something that we as Canadians have to look to and have to be very cognizant of.
If we are going to be trading on a world-wide market, we are going to have to not only be cognizant of the needs of Canadians, but also the smaller countries as well. There is a great tendency today by the larger countries to ignore the smaller trading partners. That is going to do a tremendous amount of damage to international trade in the not too distant future, because what is

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
happening is that the smaller countries are being absolutely, completely covered by the sheer bulk of red tape and financial power of the larger countries.
If we are not taking this into consideration, then we are going to make it very difficult for the smaller countries to trade at all. If we do not have trading partners, then we of course cannot trade. That is sort of self-explanatory, I would think. I do not think that even this government would question that.
I see that the Minister of Transport even understands it, which I think is very important. I know I have got through and that it is going to be generally understood at that point.
I want to say that we have to look at this on a world-wide basis. If we become too greedy and too possessive of the points of international trade, then we are going to very well kill the whole concept with respect to a great many of our would-be trading partners.
We, of course, as the member has said, are very interested in having the legal security and framework because this convention is quite in line with Canadian legal principles, which I think is very important.
I have one concern I would like to address before I recommend that this bill be accepted on second reading. I would caution the government on the cavalier way in which it is treating this bill. This bill, as the member for Niagara Falls has said, is tremendously important. It seems to be axiomatic, that is it is in the interest of Canada and its trading partners that this convention pass. The member said that 28 countries have ratified this bill.
If Canada is to maintain a leadership role in international trade, if we are to personify the trust that smaller countries want to have in their trading partners, then we have to be a little faster off the mark than we have been with regard to ratifying this convention.
We are going to be presumably number 29, if not farther down the list of countries ratifying this convention. That does not speak well for Canada. That does not speak well for a country that has always expressed an interest in the welfare of the Third World, of the poorer countries. We have gone out of our way to trade and offer funding through CIDA and other agencies to help
these smaller countries. We were able to trade with them in the interest of Canada and, of course, in the interest of these other countries as well.
We have been reluctant, it seems, to push this bill through. We have been reluctant to adopt the concept. We very well might have been laudatory of the concept in the United Nations, but after the music dies down, Canada seems to sort of sneak out the side door and cannot be found to pick up the tab or to endorse what it is that needs to be endorsed.
If this continually happens-and unfortunately we find that this is becoming something that is happening all too often-then Canada is going to lose its status, even more than it has in the international community. We will have no one to blame but ourselves. We are bringing this on ourselves. At the very best we are going to be number 29 in ratifying this cqntract. We are, one of the most highly industrialized nations in the world; one of the proponents of international trade, far above most of the other members of the United Nations. We have been a complete and utter leader in the bolstering of international trade and in safeguarding the interests of the Third World nations, and here we are lucky to be even 30th in endorsing this convention.
Eight provinces have already endorsed this convention. One territory has endorsed it, and we are now here in Parliament today being faced with this after a long, long delay. It is frankly embarrassing that this is only coming to the attention of the House at this particular time.
I do not want to take a great deal of time in debating this further. We in this party are most interested in having this bill sent to committee stage. I would hereby endorse second reading so that we can get on with this bill and discuss it in committee as quickly as possible. I ask the government to push it through, as quickly as it possibly can, its remaining stages.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in the government's opening remarks on this bill there were three points that it wished to make in putting the bill forward. TWo of them are ones that I will address my comments to.
One of course is the facilitation of trade, and the other one is greater equity in trade, that is equity between
November 5, 1990

Government Orders
different levels of partners, some more powerful than others, in a sense the administrative structure to facilitate that greater trade. I want to put it in the context, from the abstract to the reality in practice, of this particular bill in relationship, first, to the European Community and, second, to our own relationships internationally that have changed dramatically because of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I want to focus first on the changing impact relative to this uniform system that will be altered in 1992 by the culmination of the European Community. It is commonly suggested by the government and other spokespersons for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that we will be in a position, accompanying this particular legislation, to be equal partners and facilitate greater trade on an equal basis so that "a stronger nation will not overcome a weaker nation", to quote the words of the hon. member.
The government likes to refer to the European Community as the model where this facilitating can take place. What the government neglects to mention is that in 1989 the European Commissioners of Social Affairs and Employment published a Charter of Fundamental Social Rights. My colleague spoke of the uniform system of rights related to this bill. This charter was intended to protect 322 million European Community citizens from any potential negative effects of the European Community becoming a single, internal market by December 31, 1992.
Mr. Speaker, you may well ask: What does this particular charter on rights, related to the government's opening statement, has to do with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement? It certainly has in the context of the opening statement by the member about facilitating greater trade between partners of not equal strength. One of the ways of overcoming the disparity of not having equal strength is a charter accompanying the bureaucratic process that guarantees the following: first, equal treatment for men and women, a principle designed to avoid the distortions which could interfere with free competition; second, social security of migrants which facilitates the free movement of workers; and, third, vocational training, with general principles serving as guidelines for national policies.
It goes on through this document, which has been prepared by the Library of Parliament and its research department, in an excellent, detailed manner showing how important it is that this kind of parallel agreement be made available when new trading blocs come together under this legislation.
As my colleague in the Liberal Party so correctly pointed out, it was long in coming forth in this House as a priority. As a matter of fact it is almost a shame that it has crowded out an even more important piece of legislation, that is the one dealing with the 60,000 Canadian families who were informed that they would be receiving their child tax credit this month. The government has not yet brought forward that piece of legislation.
That is by the by, but I wanted to comment on the valid and important point made by my Liberal colleague. In terms of describing the timing and the fact that the provinces had already caught up to this legislation before the government had, the fact is that the people out there are waiting for the tax credits. They are still being left behind, but the provinces, are leading again. That is by the by, as I say.
Turning to the main subject, this document that was produced by the Library of Parliament is a non-partisan document available to every member. Its application to this particular debate is all the more interesting, particularly when the government was forthcoming today in describing part of this bill, through the member who spoke, as a uniform system of rights.
We were told, on this process of a uniform system of rights in which this legislation embodies essentially legislative structures, that in further dealings by this government, particularly with the free trade agreement with the United States, that there would be some uniformity in terms of rights with that agreement.
We find that that is not the case. Indeed, the existing legislation signed by this government and the United States, and the forthcoming negotiations between the United States and Mexico in which this government wants to get involved, may be a violation of the very legislation that we have in front of us.
How can that be the case, Mr. Speaker? I submit that the case can be made on this basis.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders


Ross Belsher: Hey, you're reaching.


David Barrett: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am perfectly relating my comments to what the member said. He gave the three principles, and I am dealing with those principles particularly in relation to the greater equity of trade.
On the basis of the greater equity of trade, if we look forward to this kind of charter in the European Community, there was an impression left, perhaps falsely or unwisely by this government, that the same kind of protections would be available in a Canada-U.S. agreement and perhaps would even be the subject of further discussion under the UN charter of the trade deal among Mexico, Canada and the United States.
I ask these questions: Is there any protection in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that compares at all with the social dimension in the EC? Not one whit. Yet, some spokespersons for the government-too long a list for me to name-go around in public exposing themselves to the default in the agreement that indeed there is no social charter, and the promises made by the Prime Minister for the kind of equality in terms of the best social programs were never entrenched in legislation.
I know that that comes as a shock to you, Mr. Speaker. We even had the de Grandpre commission give a report. That commission was required to give a report by this government, with the aura that out of its report greater dimensions of services would be available for anyone who was displaced in this new trading bloc.
What happened to the de Grandpre report? Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? We in this House were all told, as we debated this bill, that the de Grandpre report would establish for Canada and the United States all of the mechanism necessary as the best international program in dealing with people who suffer because of new trading blocs. We are debating this dimension of the trading blocs, yet every one of the suggestions in the de Grandpre report, every demand for some equality based on the argument that went on, has been left out.
We have this pious statement by the government that we are now moving, as the government spokesperson said, to a uniform system of rights. I took notes of what he said. He read his speech. He also said facilitation of
trade and greater equity in trade. Reading the bill is one thing, but hearing the words of that speaker is another. When I heard what he was saying, I knew very well that the government was hoping for a quiet afternoon to allow this bill to go through, without looking exactly at its own obligation under this bill.
I would like to pose this question to you, Mr. Speaker, because you understand this more clearly than anyone else in this Chamber. I have your rapt attention in this regard. Should another member wish to listen to what our conversation is, I hope these pearls of wisdom do not fall on empty ground. Having said that, as we move toward a trilateral discussion between Mexico, Canada and the United States, the whole motive behind the move is for a low wage partner. The Government of Canada is pandering to the large corporations that want us Canadians to lose jobs to low-paying wages in Mexico.
If the government were serious about this matter, it would not in any way threaten any Canadian jobs with unfair competition with low cost Mexican labour. It would say under this bill that it intends to facilitate and guarantee that we will play on a level playing field, but not at all. Even under this bill there is no attempt to protect Canadian jobs, working standards, the environment, or health.


Ross Belsher: Have you read the bill, Davey?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the member asks if I have read the bill. I have studied this bill in depth. I was shocked and disappointed that there was not even a response or a nod from the fact that the Liberal Party spokesman was right on the ball in terms of the time delay.
I am extending the Liberal Party's argument by saying not only is there a time delay, but there is a work delayby this government as it continues to sell our Canadian working men and women in free trade agreements and trilateral talks it may take with Mexico. It is a denial of the existence of this bill to have some equity that that member spoke about.
How can you have equity if you have agreed, on the one hand, to a free trade agreement that destroys Canadian jobs? How can you have equity, on the other hand, if you agree to trilateral talks with Mexico and try to compete with the Maquiladora program where Mexican workers are paid $3.61 a day for jobs that are
November 5, 1990

available in Canada, which we are losing, at $10 and $12 an hour.
While this bill is a bureaucratic movement toward greater facilitation of exchange of regulations and rules between international countries on the UN agenda, it denies the existence in Canada of any standards whatsoever that are comparable to the European Common Market.
If the government were serious about this bill, it would bring in a social charter and a job guarantee charter like the European Community has. I do not think it is fair. I think it is unfortunate. Frankly it borders on false that this government puts forward the argument that there are the same kind of components in the free trade agreement that exists in the European Community and that this bill will be dealing with the facilitation of trade-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a requirement in this House that the speaker address the bill and address the matter before the House. There is nothing in this bill dealing with labour or anything of that nature. This is a bill that facilitates a convention of the United Nations and creates an International Sales of Goods Act.
This member completely misunderstands the total concept of the bill and is leading the House on a great goose chase. He must be ruled out of order or be required at least to address the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, inviting him again to stick to the subject matter of the bill before the House.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to be embarrassed by the interjection of that member. He obviously has not read the bill. He has not studied exactly what the government's position is on this bill, and for his edification, I would like to repeat exactly the words out of the mouth of the government's spokesperson. I have been precise in confining myself to those specific areas because I took the notes from his speech.
Government Orders
I repeat, for the edification of that unfortunate member who found it necessary to reveal that he did not know what he was talking about by interjecting-I repeat, for his information, should he care to listen. The speaker who introduced the government's position on this bill gave three specific areas, two of which I am dealing with in precise detail. Time does not permit me to deal with the third one because to analyse that would take another day and a half.


Rob Nicholson: With unanimous consent.


David Barrett: Plus the time available to me is limited. But I have to educate the government again on what it said. I repeat three areas which the member mentioned, the first being the facilitation of trade.


Rob Nicholson: Right on.


David Barrett: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? I wish he would convey that through the Chair to the member who so rudely interrupted. Number three was the greater equity in trade. Right on, right on in parliamentary terms.
If I can continue with my elucidation related to those particular two points, then we will- No, Mr. Speaker, the interjection was hallucination. This is elucidation, and that is the difference.
This government has hallucinated on trade agreements. That is correct.


An hon. member:: It hallucinates on everything.


David Barrett: It is because of that that we are now faced with the horrendous loss of 160,000 jobs under the free trade agreement, and the government thinks that it will clean it up with this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
Time permits me only a brief moment to elucidate. Again I come to the question of the Mexico-Canada-U.S. agreement on facilitating greater trade. I use the words of the very member himself, who said it was the weaker nations against the strong. Does the member suggest in any way that he will protect Canadian workers from a Maquiladora program where Mexicans are being paid $3.61 for a full day's work while the rate here in Canada would be $10 to $12 an hour? Is there any way through the bureaucratic structure that he wishes to put up that workers in this country who have lost their jobs in the face of the kind of appeal that the Maquiladora program has to Canadian manufacturers by saying come to Mexico and we will save you $25,000 per year per worker? Where is the equity in that? To quote the

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
member's own words: "How does that facilitate fair trade?"
This government has embarked upon a bureaucratic appeal through this legislation by appearing to be wonderfully universal, caring to be part of the marching system, moving forward to protect workers all over the world, and at the same time selling out Canadian jobs in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement of which it wants to be part. Now, explain that to me, Mr. Speaker, and I do not need to go over the de Grandpre commission again. We all know that the government ignored that.
The de Grandpre commission, my friend, was the commission promised during the heat of an election campaign. It was not called a forum in those days, it was called a commission. It was to bring together the best possible alternatives for the damage done by the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The de Grandpre report was filed in this House.


Mr. Stupich:: It was a farce.


David Barrett: It was a farce my colleague said, and my colleague has a background of deep commitment to public service as a community religious spokesperson. As a religious spokesperson, he finds it very difficult to use stronger language than a farce, but, when he is moved to call it a farce, you know it is a damn mess.
If the European Community is to be used as the model by this government, and if we have the minister of trade who I find interestingly-well, I cannot comment that way, I will leave those remarks-


An hon. member:: Go on.


David Barrett: No, no, I will not do that.


An hon. member:: Ambiguous.


David Barrett: Ambiguous. That is a good word. The government talks about its commitment to facilitating greater trade, and it talks about its argument, as it did in the opening statement, about uniform system of rights. It also bragged when it signed the free trade agreement that it would have the best possible social structures going, but they do not compare to the European market.
Every time the government says the free trade agreement is the same as the European Community, it is not
telling the truth. That is the government not telling the truth. Some spokespersons who have the government line are confined to that description.
There is nothing in there for full and better employment. There is nothing in there for improved living and working conditions, and nothing in there for the participation of workers and social partners. The whole social fund remodel in 1972 and 1984 is available to provide private and public bodies with the aid of recruiting or employing young people for vocational training.
That is part of the model, Mr. Speaker. It is not addressed by this government in accepting the UN convention. It is not what took place, and yet the European Community has entrenched this in legislation for the protection of working people whether they come from low wage-countries into the partnership or not.
They do not remain low wage-partners. Unlike bringing Mexico into competition with Canada, what we should be doing is following the European model and insisting that we do not go down to Mexican wages, but that Mexican wages come up to Canadian standards so that we can compete fairly.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Barrett: My colleague from the Liberal Party was quite precise in his criticism-and validly taken-when he said the government had delayed bringing in this bill. What is the motivation for the delay? I am glad that my colleague from the Liberal Party made this point. The more the government delayed in bringing this debate forward, the more time that passed before there would be the awareness of the fact that there are no standards like the member suggested there are, in hope that it would lull the Canadian people into believing that the kind of trade practices it has are the same as elsewhere in the world.
They are not. I am indebted to my Liberal colleague for pointing that out because this government has rolled over and played dead to the corporate sector. It has sold out Canadian working men and women and-indeed, Mr. Speaker, a shock for you I know-small Canadian businessmen in this country who have either gone bankrupt or been forced to close down in face of the unwarranted competition, first from the free trade agreement, and now from the Maquiladora program in Mexico.

To refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, the Maquiladora program is the free trade zone in Mexico that will be covered by this bill which allows workers to work at jobs for $3.61 for a whole day.


Rob Nicholson: Nonsense.


David Barrett: Nonsense? Is my dear friend denying that the whole direction of the continuation of Canada's desire to participate in the U.S.-Mexico talks is an attempt to give Canadian branch plant economies with U.S. dominated corporations capital greater access into the Maquiladora program and limit jobs here in Canada?
Is the member not aware of the fact that 160,000 jobs have been lost because of the cupidity or the stupidity of this government in not demanding the same kind of standards that exist in the European Community?


Philip Derek Lewis: Cupidity?


Sheila Maureen Copps: They may be a lot of things, but cupids ain't one of them.


David Barrett: You are right. Cupid ain't one of them. Cupids are hard for a lot of us at our age to appeal to, Mr. Speaker, but Cupid certainly was not at the table when these guys were taken for a little love walk by the Americans, and now by the Mexican talk.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They're stupid.


David Barrett: I do not want to call them stupid. That is an interjection. That is unfair. I deny that I would endorse their approach as being stupid. However, there are some people in this House who could make a stronger argument than I can on this very point and define it as stupid. Far be it for me to inhibit their definition. If they feel strongly that it is stupid, I can understand the passion in their definition.
Can you give me a better word, Mr. Speaker, that permits me to explain to the Canadian people why we must lose jobs in Canada to the Maquiladora program, why plants like Gillette, like Toro and others must close in face of an agreement that has sold out Canadian businesses and Canadian working men and women and is competing with low cost in the horizon wages from Mexico? Why? Who are they serving? What masters are dictating the sinister proposals behind this almost innocent afternoon of debate around this bill that has been
Government Orders
stalled before it was brought forward, as the point made by my colleague.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: U.S. administration and big business.


David Barrett: U.S. administration and big business, even they are not responsible for interrupting the potential call in this House of tax credit legislation for the 60,000 people who are waiting for the government to fulfil that promise, but that is an aside, Mr. Speaker, because I was rudely interrupted. Perhaps I was not rudely interrupted, but wisely interrupted.
Here is the point that I make, Mr. Speaker. This government has made no effort whatsoever to protect working men and women, as the European Community has, on a level playing field based on the words of that member, to fit with a uniform system of rights. On the contrary, the government's introductory remarks deny the existence of uniform rights. All that this government is concerned about is allowing labour to be used as a commodity at a low price level to compete with Mexican workers who will be exploited by American capital.
This is the continentalist's dream and they are trying to hide it in this legislation. The continentalist's dream is having U.S. capital, Canadian resources and cheap Mexican labour. Is this the way for us to go? It has simply nothing to do with the European Community because the European Community has specifically entrenched rights in legislation that will be passed in the year 1992.
If this government were serious about the definition given by my colleague and using his words again, the uniform system of rights, let us have an assurance from the government that it will, as an addendum to the existing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, pass an exact replica of the rights that are enjoyed by low wage areas in Europe. They should be covered by this bill on the same basis.
It is not fair to Canadians to have this government allow itself to be propelled by some bureaucratic myth that somehow by us passing this bill in the House, that all of the shortcomings of this government in its trade negotiations will be corrected. They will not be. As a consequence, in my very brief time, I am making an appeal to understand exactly that this government is trying to give the impression, while it is late in catching up with the modem bureaucratic strictures needed to deal with international trade under the United Nations,

Government Orders
that they in no way compare to what exists in trading blocs anywhere else.
What brought us to this situation? I do not want to go through a lamentable history of the sell-out of this country by this government in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It is important to note that because of that sell-out, in spite of the valiant efforts of both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties in the last election, and I must say with the loss now of the former leader of the Liberal Party, we do not know where the Liberals stand on Canada-U.S.-Mexico talks. We do not know-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where does Ed Broadbent stand?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, now that they have a new trade critic in the House, I would love to hear that trade critic say: "I support John Turner's position, and I too am opposed to Canada-U.S.-Mexico talks". We have not heard that yet.


An hon. member:: No.


David Barrett: No, we have not heard that yet. We finally got a half answer on the GST, but we do not have an answer yet on the Mexico deal. They are already committed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The honorable member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is an experienced parlementarian and a colourful speaker, but I wish to remind him that Bill C-81 is entitled An Act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. I would therefore appreciate if he would get back to the subject matter of the debate. I thank him in advance for his co-operation.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for redirecting my focus to the specific comments made by the member. I did stray a bit and I thank you for that.
Now that I have dealt with number one, the facilitation of trade, I want to deal with number three because I will not have the time to deal with point number two that the member made.
Point number three that the member made was with regard to greater equity in trade, equity between large countries and small countries. This is a very important point because, as we are on the brink of the government
desperately trying to get into a new trading bloc, we are also dealing with legislation to bring about greater equity in dealing with the bureaucracy of those kinds of trading blocs. What does that mean for us? It means, before the House committee's work has even been completed on examining whether or not we should participate in that new trading bloc, that the government has already said: "We are going to go in anyway."
How can the hon. member come into the House and say, with passion and with conviction, that the purpose of the bill and the federal government's support is for greater equity in trade? It does not make sense. As I said earlier and I am compelled to repeat, the third point is a continuation of the sellout of Canadian jobs.
I put this question to the member who I assume will close the debate. Is it the normal procedure that government members will get up and answer the questions?


Rob Nicholson: At third reading.


David Barrett: Okay. I want to thank the hon. member for his help.
There are a number of questions that I put to the government. In the definition of greater equity and trade, would the government be prepared to tell us whether or not it intends to ensure that models such as the European Community will be used in the same manner in any future trade dealings, in following through with the UN commitments under this particular bill? Is the government prepared to recognize that the European Community, which it holds out as an example in terms of establishing a trading bloc, has basic standards about workers sharing in equal rights?
In this debate, is the government prepared to lay out to us, in its movement to become governed under the United Nations regulations, whether or not it will argue for the position of complete access by Mexican labour into the United States and Canada? Freedom of movement is the key. We need to know, under the UN agreements that we will be signing after this legislation passes, whether or not the government will be excluding freedom of movement. Is it indeed the case that they are just exploiting working people and competing with those low-paid working people against Canadian jobs? That is a question that is valid here and valid for the Canadian people who are watching this debate who with the time,
November 5, 1990

energy, love, and care in raising children in the country and with the hope of better education, better economic opportunity. They want to know that those jobs that are promised out there will be made available. There may be bureaucratic coverage under this legislation, but government policy will deny that there is any real equality.
Why does the member come into the House and say "a uniform system of rights, equity between trading partners, and greater equity in trade" when the government has already displayed that it does not give a fig about equity for Canadian workers? That is confusing to me and the 160,000 Canadians who have lost their jobs because the government's policies are also confused by the definition given by that member. It is small comfort to say that the government is now catching up with the UN Conventions, when the workers in the country have lost their jobs, their security and, in many cases, their homes.
I do not think this bill should go by quickly. It is important that we have detailed debate. It is important that we have in-depth answers and explanations for a government that seems-if I may use the expression-hell bent for leather to sell the countiy out in trilateral discussions with Mexico and the United States.
I refer particularly to a learned argument written in a document called International Comparative Law Quarterly. The first article in International Comparative Law Quarterly in January 1989, Part I, Volume 38, deals exclusively with this bill. It is entitled: "The Vienna Sales Convention 1980 in The Hague, Uniform Laws on International Sale of Goods-A Comparative Analysis". This analysis was prepared by a graduate of Harvard Business School. If anybody wants a copy of this learned article, I will make it available to them.
Again, I am being precise and reflecting my comments on this bill in a clearly defined way. I refer to page 7, (d), the application of the Convention to International Contracts of Sale of Goods. Nothing could more clearly be related to the bill.
Government Orders
The opening paragraph states: "The UN sales convention as stated in article 1(1) applies to contracts for the sale of goods between parties whose places are in different states". Related to that in the different states is the question of equality raised by my colleague. Again, the government does not address equality. It does not address the imbalance of trade. It does not address within this structure how it intends to accomplish what he says the government wants to do in support of this bill.
The problem has been that the government has been really out of order in debating this bill and its opening remarks. All it has done is make general comments about sales contracts, without any definition of how it intends to protect Canadians in those specific sales contracts, for example, the free trade agreement between the United States and Canada, and the continuation of the policy announced by the government that it wishes to participate in Mexico-Canada talks.
What is the position on those sales contracts in competing interests of Canadian and Mexican oil in the U.S. market? What will be the position of Hibernia, for example, under this? There will be $2.7 billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money going to the Mobil Oil Corporation in the biggest corporate welfare bum rip-off in the history of the country and, under this bill or contract, not a drop of that oil will be refined in Canada. That is a shocker. The people of Newfoundland think they are going to get thousands of jobs. The people of Canada are putting up the billions of dollars and the government says that it is concerned about those people. I say this: Give the $2.7 billion to the Government of Newfoundland and let it determine what is best under this bill for the working men and women of that province.
Do you think it is going to do that, Mr. Speaker? Don't nod your head, Mr. Speaker, because you are neutral. I will tell you this. I am not surprised that not a word has come out of the government's mouth on this bill on that particular hand-out.
It is a cheeky-mannered government that we are dealing with. For any large corporation that wants money we will guarantee its sales contracts. If ordinary working people want a hand or anything such as that, nothing doing.

Government Orders
Why is there not a section in here when referring to the protection of rights similar to the further research done in our own Library? There is the question of improved living and working conditions. Why was the government not able to define in this particular discussion of the bill why there is no statement, even in writing?
Two minutes, Mr. Speaker? Regrettably so much of my time was taken up by interjections and the interference by the government. Nonetheless, I will press on.
Improving living and working conditions for the workers, participation of workers and social partners, proposed social charter, the right of freedom of movement, employment remuneration-all this means is that, if communities are going to be competing fairly, they should be paying the same basic wages, no matter where one lives or how one makes one's living. That is not going to happen when we compete with Mexico, and it is not going to be covered in this kind of bureaucratic nonsense.
I may go on and point out the specific section of this document prepared by the researchers in our library who refer to the improvement of living and working conditions, the right to social production, the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining. Trade union organizers in Mexico are subject to massive human rights violations. This was raised in the committee and there was not one objection from the government.
I thank you for your admonition that I have one more minute to go, Mr. Speaker. I have a great deal more to say and I look forward to the discussion in committee.
Let me conclude in my last minute of this very important debate. Even though this is a sleepy Monday afternoon and, indeed, the first chance we have to debate this bill, I was disappointed in the government for not saying that, in terms of the defining the equality of rights for people, it would define for Canadian workers the equality of rights that are absolutely necessary and that are being destroyed by the free trade agreement with the United States, and that are being further eroded by the mindless commitment of the government to have us competing with cheap Mexican labour with no protection of standards, access to health care, or environmental conditions.
I am disappointed in the government. I am not disappointed in the bill. Only if the government would commit itself to the philosophy of the bill would I feel much better.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we are debating this bill this afternoon has to do with what we, on this side of the House, feel we ought to be debating instead of this bill. That is the bill which would facilitate the sending out the early payment of the child tax credit.
If I remember the figures correctly, some 66,000 Canadian families, who have been told by the government that they will receive this payment, are now having some anxiety as to whether or not they will, thanks to the uncertainty which seems to exist on the other side of the House with respect to bringing forward the bill. The government should not let events which are happening in the other Chamber stand in the way of having the bill expedited quickly through this Chamber. Commitments have been made by both opposition parties, as far as I know, and-


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, but you never keep your commitments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I hear from the hon. member, formerly the government House leader, that we do not keep our commitments. It is a strange comment to be coming from a government that has brought nothing but chaos to opposition-government relations. Nevertheless, if he is so sure of that, I say to the hon. member, try us, bring forward the bill and we will make a liar out of him.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What we would like to see is that particular legislation brought forward, but the government has chosen not to do that. It has brought forward this particular bill.
We see here an opportunity to debate the nature of international regulation of trade. The bill only deals with one aspect of it. It is an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts on the International Sale of Goods. Basically, it is a bill which deals with the protection of buyers and sellers.
The point that the member before me was making, which I presume others may well want to make as well, is that too much of the international regulations which exist now for the regulation of international trade have
November 5, 1990

only to do with the protection of buyers and sellers. They have only to do with the protection of people who are owners and there is very little protection, if any, at the international or global level, having to do with the protection of workers.
Where we have seen such international agreements, particularly those into which Canada has entered such as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we have seen very little protection for workers as opposed to protection for buyers and sellers, the government is now contemplating entering into a further free trade agreement, in this case a three-way free trade agreement with Mexico which we believe would put Canadian workers at even more risk than they are at now as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It is not often that we get a chance to debate trade in this House. Unfortunately, the debate about the government's position on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade talks has been happening only in committee and in the media and wherever else concerned members have been able to raise the profile of that issue.
We have not had a chance to debate it here in the House. I think that this bill provides us with an opportunity to talk about the international regulation of trade and the unfortunate trend in the world today of moving toward regional trading blocs, perhaps even hemispheric trading blocs.
I had the opportunity to attend an external affairs committee meeting recently at which we had one of the key academic supporters present. That is, academic supporters of a Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement. He told the committee that he saw this as the precursor of one more step toward a hemispheric free trade agreement, in which Canada would not only be in a free trade arrangement with Mexico, but with all the countries of Central and South America.


Philip Derek Lewis: That would be awful.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I hear someone across the way saying that would be awful. What is awful about it is that we have no indication from this government or from the United States Government or for that matter, as far as I know, from the Mexican Government, that they see the competition which would be brought in by any free
Government Orders
trade agreement, as competition that needs to exist in the context of some social base.
The member who spoke before me referred to this social charter that is to come into effect with the full integration of the European communities' economy in 1992. What we see is an acknowledgement of the fact that if one is going to have a truly level playing field, along with economic integration and unfettered competition, then one must have an agreement between countries as to what the floor is with respect to social standards.
As Europe moves toward the single market of 1992, they are coming to an agreement. Having already broken through the conceptual barrier of saying there should be a social charter, they are coming to an agreement on what the basic income standards should be, basic pension legislation, basic labour legislation and beyond the social charter of what their common environmental standards will be. This is the sort of thing which we do not have in the context of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It is the kind of thing which we certainly will not have in any Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. It is the kind of thing we do not have in any form of any multilateral trading context now through the GATT or anything else.
What we are saying and have constantly been saying since the beginning of the NDP Party comes out of a conviction that the marketplace itself, without these kinds of agreements about social standards, delivers only misery, if it is allowed to work itself out without these kinds of checks by government on what the private sector is allowed to pay people and the various other regulations that I have talked about.
There is a curious irony in the argument. In a way, we are saying that if there is going to be economic integration, there has to be a harmonization of sorts. Yet, harmonization is the very thing that we worried about in the debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We worried about it then and we worry about it still in the context of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. If there were to be harmonization of social or environmental or whatever standards in the context of a Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, given the asymmetry of the relationship between Canada and the United States and the size of America compared to the size of Canada, we think the likelihood would be a harmonization down toward American social standards. In the context of a Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, it would be harmonization even further downward. This is quite different

Government Orders
from what is happening in Europe where you see harmonization happening upward because the most powerful countries in Europe economically are countries with strong social democratic traditions, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, et cetera.
That is happening there because the stronger countries economically are also the most progressive. Then you have this harmonization upward. In the context of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the stronger nation economically happens to be the least progressive of the two countries involved and so the harmonization can be expected to go the other way.
We have not even got to that point here in our relationship with the United States. We have not got to the point of talking about harmonization as obviously it is a dilemma for those of us who are against the free trade agreement. We maintain especially, as we look to Europe, that you cannot have free and unfettered competition without a socially just basis for that competition, and yet at the same time we see that if such an attempt were made in the context of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement that harmonization might actually lead to less social justice rather than more social justice. Even if it represented some sort of conceptual victory, the real nuts and bolts of the thing would be that Canadian men and women would be worse off rather than better off if they were led into a process by which the labour laws and the income legislation of Georgia became the model for Canadian social standards.
One other thing I would like to speak about this afternoon in the context of this Bill C-81, where we are talking about the international regulation of trade, in this case having to do with the protection of buyers and sellers in international contracts, is whether or not in the mind of our neighbour to the south trade is to be regulated by the international community at all.
One thing we found out in the last week or so was that they are fully prepared to contemplate saying to companies which are located in Canada that they cannot trade with Cuba. If they are American in origin and their headquarters is in the United States of America, Washington would like to apply this sort of extraterritorial power over them and forbid them from trading with Cuba, which has been designated by the United States as
a country that American companies should not trade with.
There is nothing terribly new in this, Mr. Speaker, but what is new about it is that in this day and age one would think they would have more sense than to try and impose that kind of regulation on American companies, and particularly those that are operating out of Canada.
That obviously affects a lot of companies in Canada, given the high percentage of foreign ownership, particularly American ownership here in Canada. That affects a lot of Canadian companies.
I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated that he regards this as an unwarranted intrusion into Canadian sovereignty. I encourage the government to use as strong language as possible to send as strong a message as possible to Washington and to President Bush that this kind of interference in Canadian trade and sovereignty will simply not be tolerated.
I have done two things so far. I have talked about the social charter in Europe and the way in which what is being done there is so different from the kind of new trading arrangements that this government has already entered into with the United States and seems to be on the verge of entering into with Mexico. Second, I talked about the whole question of trade with Cuba and the way in which our neighbour to the south has tried to exert its will over international trade in this case rather than respecting the role of the international community.
Third, I would like to talk about the way in which all international trade is distorted at the present time by the whole question of the debt crisis and the way in which countries are not truly free to trade as they would and to trade in what they would because of the debt crisis. Many countries are forced by the current international financial system which has existed for a long time, basically since the Second World War, to devote all their energies and indeed much of their land to the growing of cash crops to produce hard currency, to buy things in the international marketplace. The problem now is that they are not even able to buy things in the international marketplace. They have to devote all that money that they earn through these cash crops, which were destructive enough in themselves, simply to pay the interest on their debts, so they are not going anywhere. They are having all the disadvantages of having turned over their local economies to the growing of cash crops without the

advantages of having the hard currency to buy the things that they are not able to make in their own country. They are getting it both ways at this time.
I think if the government was serious about really creating a healthy, multilateral global trading context, it would get serious about the debt crisis and serious about the recommendations of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, which made a number of very good recommendations in this regard to which the government has not responded.


Rob Nicholson: I see you haven't read the bill either.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have looked through the bill. There is not much to talk about. It is a Geneva convention with respect to the protection of buyers and sellers. What is really at issue here politically is whether we should be debating this at all or whether we should be debating the legislation that would facilitate the payment of those child tax credits.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to step into the discussion here for a moment by way of a point of order to indicate to the House that there have been discussions among the parties and the party leadership last week that today we would deal with Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73, which was the intention that I was operating on.
I want to indicate to the House, Mr. Speaker, that we are quite happy if the members want to proceed with Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73. We are happy to bring in Bill C-86, the child tax credits, immediately after that. We are prepared to co-operate in every way that we can to push it through as expeditiously and as favourably as we can.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is interesting. The Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader is correct. He says there was an intention of proceeding with Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73 for today. That was the government's intention and we said, that is fine, but we just realized over the weekend that 60,000-plus low-income families were promised a child tax credit by mid-November.
Government Orders
I have looked ahead on what the government has informed us in terms of the business of the next few days and it is not on that list. I want to ask my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, if he is saying that an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, an act regarding port wardens, and an act dissolving and privatizing Crown corporations are more important than the child tax credit legislation? I want to say that I do not think it is more important.
I want to say to the parliamentary secretary, to facilitate the passage of Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73,1 will on behalf of my party say yes, we will facilitate the passage of that legislation if the government now, this moment this afternoon-we have plenty of time left-introduces Bill C-86 so we can say to the low income families of this country yes, we are concerned that in the pre-Christmas period when people are putting aside money for snow outfits and snow clothing for the children, making pre-Christmas plans, that we might-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I hesitate to recognize the parliamentary secretary because the House is not the place for House leaders to negotiate. I would be inclined to urge the House leaders to meet outside the House so we might go on with the debate. However the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader may have something more to say.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, indeed Bill C-86 is very important. I am sure all of us in this House agree. What is important is I gave my word, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, to the other members in this House that we would proceed with Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73 today.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared at this moment to ask you if there is unanimous consent of the House to proceed with Bill C-81, Bill C-82, and Bill C-73 and immediately thereafter to deal with Bill C-86 in all stages. I can assure you that we on this side are prepared to give that unanimous consent at this moment.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I heard your comments a moment ago, when you said that House leaders should negotiate outside this House. Traditionally, House leaders meet regularly, especially on Tuesday, to decide on the business of the House for the following days.
I must point out that we were not told last week that the government intended to call Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (child tax credit), for discussion this week. However, we noticed some interest in the general public and, as the Official Opposition, we say that if the governement wishes to give some good news and to do its job seriously, we agree to consider Bill C-86 and pass it as quickly as possible.
We have members who wish to speak on Bills C-81, C-82 and C-73, but, Mr. Speaker, if the government commit itself without prejudice to starting debate on second reading of Bill C-86 later today, we have no objection.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, because I had assumed that we would agree. I intend to seek unanimous consent now, without any further interruption, to go directly to Bill C-86, the child tax credit, because we feel this-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order! Order, please. I feel compelled to ask the House leaders, if they so wish, to meet outside the House. As far as I am concerned, I have no choice but to recognize again the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona on current business, that is Bill C-81.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my words this afternoon have moved the leaders of the House to action and that they will be meeting. Perhaps, after having listened to my admonitions, they will come to some kind of arrangement.
I note, on the main point, that we should this afternoon be dealing with Bill C-86. My House leader sought
unanimous consent to do right away and that was denied. A very curious argument was offered by the Liberal House leader, that he had Liberals who wanted to speak on this particular bill. We have had two NDP speakers in a row and no Liberals rose.


An hon. member:: That's right.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I find it very curious indeed. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am asking for the co-operation of the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona. Would he, please, be relevant, that is deal with Bill C-81.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or disorder, because the member is looking for disorder here; he is imputing motives.
Debate started on Bill C-81 this afternoon. We participated in it. We have given our undertaking that we would look at Bill C-81 today and, if possible, Bill C-82 and, if possible, Bill C-73.
I am saying that by unanimous consent we can do anything in this House, but the member for Kamloops cannot move a bill that does not belong to him. It belongs to the government, and I am asking the government, if it feels so disposed to bring in Bill C-86, to do so. We will give it our unanimous consent to bring it in; but I am saying that the member for Kamloops cannot bring in that bill. He is politicizing or he is participating in something which we never do in this House, that is partisan politics.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order. Heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, that we might have some politics in the House of Commons of Canada.
I want to make it perfectly clear-and perhaps there has been some misunderstanding-I am well aware, unfortunately, that the New Democratic Party is unable to bring forward this legislation on this child tax credit.
Just to make the point very clear, I would like to seek, through you, Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent to revert now to the consideration of Bill C-86 in an effort to move this legislation forward expeditiously.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble with anybody asking for unanimous consent. However, as you will recall, I asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the bills we had agreed to, with the full understanding of the members of the House-they were put on the Order Paper today: Bill C-81, Bill C-82, and Bill C-73-and then proceeding with Bill C-86.
Mr. Speaker, if you would like to put that consent motion to the House, we are happy to offer our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: If I understand correctly, the parliamentary secretary is seeking the unanimous consent of the House to proceed to consideration of Bills C-82 and C-73.
However, the Chair cannot ask for consent until the House has disposed of Bill C-81. This means I must recognize again the hon. member for Winnipeg Transco-na so that the House, if it so desires, can dispose of Bill C-81. The hon. member has a few minutes left.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we are making progress. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader wants us to move expeditiously on Bill C-81, Bill C-82, and Bill C-73. Then we will discuss Bill C-86 and pass it, presumably.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a proposal through you to the House, particularly to my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, and the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier that we seek unanimous consent to deal today with the stage before us of Bill C-81, the stage before us of Bill C-82, the stage before us of Bill C-73, and all stages of Bill C-86.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House agree with the proposal by the hon. member for Kamloops to dispose today of the second reading stages of Bills C-81, C-82, C-73?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think all this negotiating is rather amusing, Mr. Speaker! I
Government Orders
don't know what kind of arrangement the NDP has with the government, so that I can anticipate decisions which have yet to be made. We are nobody's fool, Mr. Speaker! Bill C-81 is still being debated by the NDP which is trying to use it as a play to make the House proceed with something else. I am quite willing for us to adopt Bill C-81, C-82 and C-73, and even C-86, if necessary, but we have only one and a half hours left, Mr. Speaker! If the New Democrats keep talking the way they usually do, we won't be able to finish before 7 p.m., Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I hope hon. members will be co-operative. If I may make a suggestion, I would advise the three parliamentary House leaders to meet as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the Chair has no choice but to recognize again the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I noticed with interest that you sought unanimous consent to the proposal put forward by my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. I am asking that you do the same now for my suggestion, and that the unanimous consent be that today, before the end of the parliamentary sitting, we deal with Bill C-81 at second reading, Bill C-82 at second reading, Bill C-73 at second reading, and all stages of Bill C-86. That is what I am seeking unanimous consent and agreement to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to make this quite clear, because the proposal seems rather broad and somewhat vague. We have before the House a motion asking the House to agree to adopt four bills during today's sitting, if I am not mistaken.
Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lapierre:: I don't agree!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In that case, I again recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that you have not requested unanimous consent yet and that I have the privilege of denying it. However, as a sign of our willingness to contribute to the good cause of helping Canadian families, especially in Quebec, and in a spirit of co-operation that I wish were a two-way street for the leaders of the other parties-I would like them to remember this gesture of support in other circumstances-I will also give consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So, to make sure it is clear to everyone, is there unanimous consent for the approval at all stages of bills C-81, C-82, C-73 and C-86?


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Attention, please! I believe I worded the question incorrectly. Is there unanimous consent for adopting today bills C-81, C-82 and C-73 at second reading and bill C-86 at all stages?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. opposition House leader has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on the proposal of the government, that motion will not be debated. It will be agreed unanimously if the government is willing to put it and to adopt the motion in order to pass Bills C-81, C-82, C-73 and C-86 today.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, maybe a bit of clarity might help.
First, this is my understanding of what we are agreeing to: that before seven o'clock this evening when the House rises we would complete the second reading of Bill C-81; we would complete second reading of Bill C-82; we would complete second reading of Bill C-73; and then we would deal with Bill C-86 in all stages.
That is very clear to all the members, and that is certainly what we all agree to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So, is the House giving its unanimous consent to the proposal put forward by the House leader for the government?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That motion is agreed to and becomes and order of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has the floor again on Bill C-81.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my goal, having been accomplished, I have nothing more to say.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Are there other hon. members wishing to speak on Bill C-81?


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-82, an act to amend an act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and an act to amend and consolidate the acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal, and to validate certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
:


hhhh
November 5, 1990


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House and to speak to the bill presently before us, that is an act governing the port warden of the port of Montreal and the act governing the port warden of the port of Quebec.
The goal of the bill is to increase the efficiency of the administration of the port wardens by the Board of Trade of Montreal and la Chambre de Commerce de Quebec. It will also remove archaic features of the legislation, which date back to 1882 for the port of Montreal and 1871 for the port of Quebec.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the port wardens at the port of Montreal and the port of Quebec are unique in Canada. Their individual legislation and responsibilities which link them to the Board of Trade of Montreal and la Chambre de Commerce de Quebec, pre-date Confederation.
The port wardens fulfil an important role. Their duties include inspecting all cargoes of grain, mineral concentrates, timber stored on deck and explosives. They also ensure that a ship meets the necessary safety requirements and is loaded in accordance with Canadian safety regulations.
The Board of Trade of Montreal and la Chambre de Commerce de Quebec are empowered under their respective legislations of 1881 and 1871 to establish tariffs of fees for these services.
The legislation requires that the tariffs of fees cover the costs of the port wardens' offices and that the moneys collected may only be used for the purposes of these offices. These tariffs of fees currently require approval by the Governor in Council before coming into force, and in past years have remained in force for long periods of time.
However, in today's fast-moving maritime commercial world and with rapidly fluctuating costs, the Board of Trade and la Chambre de Commerce now find it necessary to adjust the tariffs of fees, often at short notice, in order to meet the costs of the port wardens' offices for providing their services to the shipping industry.
Forecasting ship demands, and hence forecasting the revenues necessaiy to cover the costs of the port war-
Govemment Orders
dens' services is difficult. Recognizing the longer timeframe required for government approvals, it is the government's intention to remove from the legislation the requirement for Governor in Council approval. Safeguards for government and the shipping industry to ensure the high level of service at appropriate costs will be maintained.
The primary objective of the bill, therefore, is to provide the Board of Trade and la Chambre de Commerce with the authority to approve tariffs of fees and put these into effect. We are confident that greater efficiency will be achieved in the administration of the offices of the port wardens at Montreal and Quebec and continued excellent service to the shipping industry will be assured.
The federal government will retain its over-all responsibility for appointing the port wardens, and auditing the financial management of their offices. The shipping industry and the Canadian Coast Guard will continue to have representation on technical committees of the Board of Trade and Chambre de Commerce responsible for the duties of the port wardens, and recommending tariffs of fees. Users will be consulted and informed of tariffs of fees changes by the Board of Trade and la Chambre de Commerce through the process of pre-publication in the Canada Gazette and local newspapers.
Before establishing tariffs of fees, la Chambre de Commerce and the Board of Trade presently undertake consultations with users of the ports on the fairness of these fees in relation to the value of the service and the responsibility vested in the port wardens for safety of the ships, cargo and crew. There is general satisfaction among users regarding the quality and nature of the service provided by the port wardens at these harbours. This same effective and harmonious relationship will continue.
Mr. Speaker, the second objective of this bill is essentially a housekeeping amendment. It will remove archaic features of the original legislation that fixed payments and charges for services of the ports wardens in the legislation itself. These charges were appropriate many years ago but are no longer valid in meeting present day costs of doing business. For example, the legislation required the payment of one-quarter of a cent per head of livestock and even a fee not exceeding two cents per barrel on all ashes shipped from the port.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
I might also add that on all sheep and pigs shipped from the port there was a fee not exceeding one-quarter of one cent per head.
These housekeeping amendments will also validate tariffs of fees and charges fixed in later years which could not conform to these archaic provisions.
The over-all results of these amendments will be to make the operations of the port wardens more effective and responsive to modern day shipping at the local level, while maintaining the government's responsibility for the safety of commercial navigation.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will find that this bill can receive timely approval in order to modernize this small but important part of the daily business of these two ports.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place on behalf of my Liberal colleagues to speak on Bill C-82, which as the parliamentary secretary to the minister just enunciated, is a housekeeping bill that essentially permits the port wardens at the ports of Montreal and Quebec City to establish the tariffs of fees charged to shipping companies for services rendered.
It used to be that the government, through an Order in Council, allotted these fees. As well, the legislation before us removes the ceiling from the fees that were charged the various shipping companies for a variety of services.
For instance, section 10 of the act is to provide for the appointment of a port warden for the harbour of Quebec. It says that the person assisting the port warden and the survey of damaged vessels shall be paid a maximum fee of $5 for services rendered.
Obviously a good case and a good argument can be made that it is time those fees enter the 20th century.
The concept of the port warden, however, is one that goes back to an old adage of the British system. In fact, I believe that the only port wardens in the country are those currently in Quebec City and Montreal.
Essentially, the wardens at the present moment and as contemplated in this bill, are employees of the local boards of trade. The boards of trade are made up of representatives from the various shipping entities.
As I see it there are three responsibilities for the port warden: first, his role to survey the port authority; second, to act as an ombudsman in dealing with dispute and hopefully tendering resolutions to those disputes; and third, to collect all fees and charges for those services.
In 1989, for example, the board of trade in the metropolitan city of Quebec City collected some $65,000 in that fiscal year for the various services rendered. From that amount, the salary of the port warden and for the chairman of the board of trade are paid.
It is important to suggest that the port wardens will still continue to be appointed by the federal government, and that in fact, while the port warden will respond and report directly to the board of trade, these port wardens have to make an annual submission of the audit independently of those services during that year.
I believe that it would be fair to say that the fees have to be modernized. Judging from the antiquated levels of these fees, we can expect tremendous increases of anywhere up to 500 to 1,000 per cent. While we are speaking of relatively small amounts when it come to the various shipping entities, I think there is no doubt that this will add a further cost to the shipping entities who use the port facilities.
I believe it would be fair to say that if the fees were in isolation I do not believe it would be a big, serious problem for most shipping companies. I think it is going to be compounded possibly by the fees that may be charged in connection with the Coast Guard, for instance. Some shipping companies now get services from the Coast Guard. They may be asked in the coming year, depending on the consultations of my good friend, the minister, to pay additional fees for the use of the Coast Guard services.
It is part of the government's cost recovery program. It may anticipate revenues of upwards of $25 million. Over half of those revenues, namely $14 million, could possibly be raised in the province of Quebec at the two ports of which we speak today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can see the added burden on shipping companies. As well, the report submitted to the minister concerning preventive medicine and shipping spills obviously will add another investment layer to the shipping entities themselves with respect to having the ultimate respect for the environment. There are going to be a series of possible increases to the various shipping entities. The government should be accountable as protector of that industry, and be able to intervene
November 5, 1990

somehow and somewhere if in fact those fees that now will not have a ceiling under this legislation and will be provided for by an independent body, namely the board of trade, that there needs to be some kind of accountability.
The shipping industry is going through some very rough waters indeed. Shipping is down in many parts of the country. Ports Canada includes basically the administration of seven autonomous ports: Halifax, Montreal, Quebec Prince Rupert, Saint John, St. John's and Vancouver. Under the Ports Canada Corporation, there is an additional seven regional divisional ports. Ports Canada reports shipping activity declined nearly 7 per cent in 1989 from the year earlier, representing some 174 million tonnes of cargo less being shipped this year than last year. Eighty-three per cent was handled by the seven port corporations and 17 per cent by the Canada Ports Corporation, i.e., the seven divisional ports. The total tonnage in the berths of the seven port corporations was down again by 8 per cent. In the seven smaller Canada Ports Corporation berths, the total tonnage was down by 9 per cent. Coal shipments were down 2.5 per cent; grain was down 26 per cent to 19.2 million tonnes; containerized traffic was down from 12.5 to slightly over 12.3 million tonnes from the previous year.
In Montreal, one of the ports being debated this afternoon, the 1989 total volume was 20.4 million tonnes, down from 22 million tonnes in 1988. Similar percentage decreases were also experienced by the port of Quebec City, where it was down to 15.7 million tonnes from 18 million tonnes.
These statistics are tabled with Your Honour to show that the shipping industry is not going through good times. We have seen the situation on land in terms of transportation. We know what has happened to our rail infrastructure. We know what is happening in the airline industry. We know about the 3,000 Canadians laid off by Air Canada and Worldways and other companies. We know about the open skies concept. What we should not do is also undermine the shipping industry, an industry that has shown health and diversity. In fact, it has scared
Government Orders
away the Americans from competing with us head to head because they have too much respect for us.
The Americans were very quick to try to compete with us in the trucking industry. They did and they hurt us. Now they wish to compete with us head to head in the air. That is why we are entering the open skies arrangement favoured by this government.
When we talk about increasing and modernizing fees for the shipping industry, we should keep in mind the delicate nature of the business. We should not try to put people out of business, but try to give them an infrastructure to facilitate growth and dynamism so they will not only flourish, but the jobs in the industry will increase so that Canadian families across the country, particularly in the cities surrounding these seven major ports may continue to have a vibrant livelihood.
We look forward to moving this bill into committee stage where we can pursue a number of areas where we can, while modernizing these fees, also continue to have a responsibility and an accountability so that those fees being charged are clearly going to be in the interest of the shipping entities in the shipping companies so that they may continue to work.
The other points I would like to raise are, perhaps in committee, in terms of if a shipping company feels that the fees are too exorbitant, what is the appeal mechanism? Now that we are giving more autonomy to the boards of trade and the various wardens, what is the role of the Canadian government vis-a-vis a complaint coming from a shipping company in terms of the fees charged.
We may also contemplate-and I say this to the minister and his parliamentary secretary-we know now that the ports must submit a yearly audit. We may now be suggesting that we are giving more autonomy to have a more comprehensive report. Rather than getting a simple audit with numbers on a piece of paper that sometimes do not mean very much, we may want to expand the comprehensiveness of that type of report.
We also may engage the boards of trade. Now that they will be directing the shots, we may also have the boards of trade enter into a closer working relationship with the Government of Canada. Once again, while we appoint the wardens, I think we ought to be responsible in terms of the fees discharged to the shipping industry.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
With those brief words, because I know the House has much work to be completed before 7 p.m., we give this bill its blessing at this stage. We look forward to crossing the t's and dotting the i's at committee where, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I will raise a number of thoughts to be further amplified at that time.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to make a few brief remarks with respect to this bill. Bill C-82 is a bill which touches on a topic that should be a matter of thorough public scrutiny, and that is the accountability of our ports.
Canada is, after all, a trading nation and, with so much of our economic health riding on trade, our country's ports assume a special importance. Too often, their operations are shrouded in secrecy. Some pretty questionable activities are carried on under that shroud. Lifting that veil, ensuring the fullest transparency that can be practically attained in a competitive environment, should be a key goal of any administration genuinely committed to open government.
The legislation is acceptable to my New Democratic colleagues and, as far as it goes, it is a good bill. There are aspects of it that we find particularly worthy of support. It allows for public input through notification in the Canada Gazette. It keeps ultimate authority in the hands of the government and port wardens who must still submit annual independent audits to the government.
In a narrow sense the legislation is aimed at accountability, accountability to market forces and the shipping industry. That is good, because there are other areas where accountability is sorely needed.
Canada's ports are exempt from access to information requirements. Supposedly, this is to protect the competitive position of the ports. Perhaps it is also to save the government and its pals from embarrassment.
Earlier this year we had a glimpse of the kind of excess, exorbitance and extravagance that hides behind this mask, revealed by the Leader of my party, the member for Yukon, along with The Globe and Mail.
The manager of the Port of Montreal earns some $130,000 a year. Perhaps that is not entirely out of line, but look at last year's perks as reported in The Globe and Mail earlier this year: the use of two drivers and two cars;
an annual allowance of $6,600 for his own car; a $15,000 membership at the Mount Royal Golf Club; two season's tickets to the Montreal Canadiens games, plus play-off tickets; and four season's tickets to the Expos, at a cost of $6,857. Also, he had 10 tickets at $500 each to a gala concert of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra.
In 1988, the corporation's entertainment budget was over $327,000, twice the amount of 1985. There was almost $11,000 for a party at the Westin and over $42,000 for liquor, flowers, cigars and a category called "other". The port spent over $63,000 in gourmet catering for parties on board the Maisonneuve, officially a port tugboat but whose real use is entertaining. That's entertainment, Mr. Speaker. That is also unquestionable waste.
What was the explanation for this? It was indicated that those galas and baseball games are hard work. It has been explained by the manager of the port corporation that reports of lavish expenditures come from envious blue-collar workers.
Let me recite his exact words from The Globe and Mail article:
The clerks are mad because they haven't been invited on the boat.
If it bugs people, let them be bugged.
After having said that the port has to entertain if it is to compete, he concludes by saying:
And those turkeys have the gall to complain.
That attitude, Mr. Speaker, provides new insight into the poisoned labour relations atmosphere at the port. No wonder.
Those turkeys are working people. Like Canadians everywhere, they have not seen their entertainment budget double in the past four years. They have seen services from the government slashed. They have seen post offices closed, the CBC savaged, VIA Rail gutted, and the GST looming on the horizon.
No, Mr. Speaker, workers have not been invited on the boat. They are right to be mad, because the government's belief in restraint and cutbacks ends when it comes to the life-styles to which their cronies have become accustomed.
We need answers. We need accountability, and we need openness. We need to be able to unravel situations like the one that rose in 1984 when the port hired
November 5, 1990

Senator Guy Charbonneau's company to advise them on where to buy new insurance policies. Two months later, most of the port's insurance business went to Pratte-Morrissette Inc., whose board is headed by Senator Guy Charbonneau. Surprise of surprises! It kept the business for the next five years. Canadians only found out about this cosy relationship six years later, in June of this year.
Here is another case that members will be interested in. Maurice Mayer received a commission of at least $225,000 for buying land for the Montreal Ports Corporation. Mr. Mayer is a real estate broker, a senior Tory fund-raiser, and a friend of the Prime Minister's.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Rodney Edward Laporte: His name was proposed by another well known Conservative, and a director of the port corporation, Andre Gingras. What makes things interesting here, Mr. Speaker, is that Gingras and Mayer were business partners at the time, negotiating a $10.4 million federal government lease for an office building they owned with three other partners. Those other partners were all Tories.
Incidentally, the public works minister at the time, Roch LaSalle, overrode the objections of senior public servants and directed bureaucrats to help the partners win the lease. But that is another barrel and another bunch of pork.
Mayer's contract with the Port of Montreal came in December, 1986. We found out about this in June.
If we are to understand what is happening and if we are to satisfy ourselves that nothing is wrong, then we must have that openness. There is a need for some kind of glasnost through the entire port regime.
There is a perfect example in the case of Canada Ports Corporation. At last year's annual general meeting, most of the board members spent around $4,000 mainly in the dining room and lounge. There are meals and entertainment at exclusive private clubs. Board members get paid for participating in conference calls. Four calls equals one day's work or $300.
Students of the government's record will probably not be surprised to learn that most of the board members are quite well connected to a particular party, the Conserva-
Govemment Orders
tive Party. We had to find this information out through the Canadian Press.
Pork-barrelling is not unique to Canada Ports Corporation, of course. The vice-chairman of Montreal Ports Corporation is a former Tory candidate in Westmount and board member, Peter Ohrt, is a former staffer in the Prime Minister's office.
That is all well and good. Perhaps these people are the best qualified and their party affiliation is a mere accident. But it does raise questions, and those questions can only be satisfied in the full light of an accountable and open system.
The recent controversy surrounding Peter Lush and the Hamilton Harbour Commission is also instructive, and not just for the question of whether there was any wrong-doing. The government did nothing to facilitate the flow of information. It stonewalled on questions of conflict of interest. Later, by boycotting a transport committee meeting, it blocked the inquiry into the affair.
And if, as the hon. transport minister has maintained, Mr. Lush has done nothing wrong and was an innocent victim of half truths and innuendo, then the government has only itself to blame for allowing the closed door nature of the commission to make complete information an impossibility.
Secrecy and unaccountability are the parents of waste and extravagance. They tempt people to cut comers, skirt the rules, and carve off a little bit more than perhaps they should be carving off. Now, more than ever, government has not only to be open and honest, but must appear to be open and honest.
It is no coincidence that Canadians are cynical about elected politicians and appointed officials. There is an increasing feeling out there that the government of the country is not ran for the benefit of its citizens, but for the enrichment of a privileged few. That belief is reinforced every time Canadians see tax reform that benefit the wealthy, instead of working people. It is driven home every time the government knuckles under to its big business friends and waters down badly needed environmental policies. And it is confirmed in an era of cut-backs and belt-tightening, an era of sacrifice, an era of hardship and every time we find out about appointed officials living high on the hog.

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
There are now more food banks in the country than there are McDonald's restaurants. Child poverty is a shameful, widespread reality in every part of the country. Yet, the government cannot understand why people are hungry and are being left off that boat in the Montreal harbour. The fact is that that boat in the Montreal harbour is our boat. It is our port. It is our government. It is our country, whether the members opposite want to listen or not.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order! I would ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for his co-operation so that we can get back to the matter under consideration.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that Liberals and Conservatives, when in power, have forgotten about the price we pay in this country for many of the items that their friends seem to enjoy. It is Canadians who pay for this. It is time to take the boat back and it is time to take our country back.
With that in mind, the New Democrats will examine this bill in committee to see whether or not it enhances accountability and whether or not it can be improved to make the operations of these two ports more transparent, while keeping in mind the needs of any competitive corporation. Bill C-82 is not the beginning of open, democratic society, but there are issues which it raises which must be raised and must be pursued. We welcome the opportunity to deal with those issues and we look forward to sending this bill to committee.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will try to apply the test of relevance, but I must say that, having just heard the protestations of my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party while he was throwing all politicians into the same bad hamper vis-a-vis the public trust, I have to say that a lot of us were shaking our heads on the weekend when we read about an NDP member who is using his immunity as a member of Parliament to avoid paying leadership debts. Frankly, for a party which prides itself in being so open with the public trust, I have to shake my head and ask myself why it is proceeding in that fashion. That does not meet the test of relevance, but I thought it bore speaking about
because, frankly, I did agree with some of the points that were made by my hon. colleague in the NDP.
In examining the issue of Bill C-82, one can look at it in its narrow form.
[Translation\
As a microcosm, we can say that we should have made some changes ages ago precisely to up-date the system now in place, particularly in the St. Lawrence river and the St. Lawrence Seaway. But at the same time, it gives the government the opportunity to review the policies on all the ports, including the Port of Hamilton.

I could not see Bill C-82 pass second reading without asking the government, in its wisdom, in looking at the very specific amendments dealing with the issues of fees and the composition of the ports of Montreal and Quebec, why it was not taking the wider vision of restructuring and revamping the system of regulation over all our federal harbours. If you look at the fiasco of the Hamilton Harbour over the last couple of months, it is clear that the current system is wanting.
The Minister of Transport is no doubt aware, in a non-partisan way, because I know how non-partisan he wants to be on this issue, of the fact that several weeks ago the city of Hamilton passed a unanimous resolution, supported by so-called members of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP, and, I suspect, some other political affiliations. That particular resolution which followed a resolution, which was sent to the Hon. Minister of Transport as of March 20 of this year, from the city of Hamilton went directly to the Prime Minister's office. It called upon the Prime Minister to hold a full public inquiry, among other things, into the issue of the Lush affair. That letter went out to the Hon. Prime Minister of Canada in early October and for (he record-


An hon. member:: That is not related to the bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It relates to the bill because the bill deals with the provision of a port warden for the Harbour of Quebec and an act to amend and consolidate the acts arising out of the office of port warden for the Harbour of Montreal. I am suggesting that instead of coming in with the small step to clean up a particular situation in Montreal and Quebec, what the government should do is
November 5, 1990

issue comprehensive legislation to restructure the way we do business in the harbours of this country.
Clearly, when we heard the previous speaker speak about allegations of conflict of interest, we are at an all-time low ebb in terms of public trust. It is not simply a Tory problem. It is a problem that faces all politicians. One of the reasons for that is because there is a public perception, buttressed by situations such as the Lush affair, that certain friends of the government have an undue opportunity to profit from their inside activities or insider information in, among other things, the workings of our ports and harbours.
You heard the previous speaker speak about real estate transactions in the city of Montreal that dealt with the previous Minister of Public Works and how that impacted on the ports in Montreal and in other places. I suggest that that problem is not unique to that particular port but, rather, is a potential problem in harbour commissions across this country.
If you read the letter that went to the Prime Minister on October 10, it is not a Liberal plot to raise the issue. It is an all-party unanimous resolution of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Hamilton unanimously adopting the following resolution:
That, consistent with the resolution adopted by Hamilton City
Council at its meeting held 1990 March 13 -
The details of which went to the Minister of Transport in March, 1990.
-the following resolution be forwarded to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada:
(a) That City Council call upon the Federal Government to revisit the recommendations made by the City's "Task Force to Review the Mandate and Structure of the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners dated January 1989" with - .


Philip Derek Lewis: Not a chance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not a chance? Not a chance, the Minister of Transport said. He has not even had the courtesy, via the Prime Minister, to reply to a unanimous resolution of the Corporation of the City of Hamilton. Yet, we hear the minister from his seat saying "not a chance".


Philip Derek Lewis: I already reviewed that last year. You should catch up.
Government Orders


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have been in touch with the mayor's office as late as five o'clock this afternoon. The Prime Minister has not responded to their letter.
Clearly, the resolution's call for the review of the mandate and structure of the Hamilton Harbour Commission dated Januaiy, 1989:
That the Federal Government undertake to immediately fill the vacancy on the Hamilton Harbour Commission-.
And, I might add with a Hamiltonian, or somebody who represents the interests of Hamilton. He will remember that when his colleague, the former Associate Minister of Transport, was pushing so hard for the nomination of Peter Lush that she went against all political advice from all sources in the city of Hamilton. The situation has created a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of Hamiltonians when our interests are not being represented on a commission that is supposed to speak, in part, for the people of Hamilton.
Furthermore, they ask that a consultation occur with the city of Hamilton before the new position is filled on that particular commission. Third, and most important:
That an open public inquiry be undertaken to ensure that any sale of land with specific reference to the 1987 sale by J.I. Case Canada to the Hamilton Harbour Commission in which Mr. P. Lush declared a conflict of interest complied in all respects with the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act-which reads in part:
"The Corporation shall not have any transaction of any pecuniary nature, either in buying or selling, with any member thereof, directly or indirectly."
and further, that Hamilton City Council request an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada to discuss and review harbour issues and concerns, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all local MPs, and that all local MP's including Shirley Martin, Geoff Scott and Bill Kempling-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order! I noted that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East had promised to keep her remarks relevant and I urge her to return to the issue under discussion, namely the Montreal and Quebec harbours.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that while we are dealing with a particular harbour, nothing prevents the government from taking action on other harbours at the same time. If the government had had the courage to follow the recommendations as unanimously tabled by all political parties on the Hamilton City Council, they would have introduced an omnibus bill to correct the

Government Orders
outstanding problems in the Montreal and Quebec harbours while demonstrating at the same time that Parliament is in the process of cleaning up the Department of Transport.


Ross Belsher: Speak to what it is.


Philip Derek Lewis: It has no relevance whatsoever.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about a bill which deals with ports and harbours of Canada. I am sorry if it hurts the hon. members that a unanimous resolution of the city of Hamilton does not seek relevance in the record, but clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is part of the over-all government policy of ports and harbours.
I have every right as a member from the Hamilton area to raise in the House relevant issues, asking the Minister of Transport why he has not broadened the horizons of the port bill, C-82, which is currently before the House. It has much relevance and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you examine all of the-


Philip Derek Lewis: It has no relevance.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Transport does not have the guts to stand up in the House and make the comments that he is making from his seat, I would ask him to stand up and speak to the issue. I want to know why-


Philip Derek Lewis: The member wants it on the record. The member's debate is completely irrelevant. Therefore, it is on the record.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The member continues to shout from his seat that he has no intention of changing the mandate of the Harbour Commission as requested by Hamilton City Council unanimously. He refuses to answer why the Prime Minister has not even bothered to reply to a city council unanimous resolution, and he further refuses to answer to the people of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Hamilton and appreciate the efforts she is making to refer to her riding of Hamilton East, but I must emphasize the fact that her remarks must be relevant and deal with the Quebec and Montreal harbours. She could also mention the possibility
that this bill may apply to other harbours everywhere in Canada.
Therefore, I seek the co-operation of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that as we are dealing with harbours, all those speaking in the debate may refer to harbours in general. This bill affects a number of harbours such as those in Montreal and Quebec City, but I see no reason why I should limit my comments to these two harbours. All harbours have problems. My hon. friend of the New Democratic Party referred earlier to the conflict of interest problems involving the Montreal harbour. I suggest that this is not only a problem which affects Montreal, but is at the heart of the National Harbour Board system as demonstrated very clearly here in this House over the past month and about which the municipal council of Hamilton is demanding a reply for the government. Therefore, should the Minister of Transport introduce other bills dealing with harbours, I should be most anxious to participate in their discussion.
I read the agenda but did not see any other instrument aimed at broadening the policy of the Minister of Transports concerning ports. I do not see why I would not be entitled to deal with problems which are not peculiar to the port of Hamilton but which relate as well to potential conflicts of interest in Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto and in a number of other sectors where a commision is established to extend certain privileges to certain individuals who can normally or generally be considered to be friends of the government. I would therefore suggest that evidence of relevancy is there for anyone to see.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that following the resolution adopted by the Hamilton municipal council I wrote a letter dated October 19 in which I asked for a response from the Prime Minister at the earliest time.

I asked for a follow-up to the unanimous resolution of the Hamilton city council. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on October 19 in which I asked him for a very speedy answer to the legitimate concerns of the people of Hamilton as they concern the disposition of lands, and

in particular authority relating to harbours, ports and harbour commissions.
Clearly, the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore the legitimate request of the city council of Hamilton, and the Minister of Transport shouting from his seat basically indicated to the House that he had no intention of acting on the legitimate requests of the city of Hamilton.
All we are asking for is a fair public hearing so that we can restore public faith in the process. If we cannot get the fair hearing outside the House of Commons-surely this place is a relevant place to get that kind of hearing- once again,-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Again I regret to interrupt the hon. member but parliamentary tradition is that we should refrain from referring to the presence or absence of a colleague. Again I would urge the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and stick to the subject matter of the bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You may have misunderstood what I said. I did not refer to the presence or absence of anyone. I said he was not prepared to deal with this issue. He was in the House, he was shouting insults all the time, but he was not prepared to talk about the issue. That is the point I was trying to make.
Still, Mr. Speaker, I think I got my message across and I hope the Minister of Transport will show a bit of leadership with respect to this bill, precisely to show Canadian taxpayers that he is careful when he spends their tax dollars.

All I want-my colleague the member for Hamilton West intends to pursue this issue with me as well as the member for Hamilton Mountain-is some simple taxpayers' justice. We want the taxpayers' money to be respected, and we want to make sure that when the government is moving with a new bill, it puts in place the guidelines, and in particular the audit and the instruments that are necessary to protect the taxpayers of Canada, and protect the integrity of the system.
We would like to see that done through this bill, and in expanded form. In particular, we would like to see an omnibus bill to clean up the mess that currently is
Government Orders
characterized by, among other things, the Peter Lush affair and the Hamilton Harbour Commission.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis that Bill C-73, an act to provide for the dissolution or transfer of certain Crown corporations and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take very much time, but I want to be on record in support of the excellent statements that have been made against the privatization of a number of the corporations on the minister's list and included in this bill.
We have made the case from our point of view that as Toronto members-and I am referring here to speeches made by Toronto members-it does no service to the citizens of Toronto to dissolve the Toronto Harbourfront Corporation. Harbourfront has proven its value, and that goes without saying, but, more than that, it is an important window for the Government of Canada into the city of Toronto.
I know the argument: Why is the federal government taking care of parks? Why isn't that done by the provinces? Why isn't that done by the municipalities? In other words: "Why", the Tories ask, "should the federal government be doing something that other levels of government can do?"

November 5, 1990
Government Orders
In a minute or two I want to explore that argument because I think it explains why this country is going down the drain. It explains why Canadian people are losing the sense that this country stands for anything. The federal government is searching through its inventory, looking on every shelf and in every cupboard, for things it can get rid of. Whether by deregulation, whether by turning them over to the provinces, whether by shutting them down, whether by giving them to the Americans, one way or another the federal government seems to be determined to go out of business.
Canadians notice that. In various parts of our country people are starting to see their region as being much more important and much more meaningful than the national government. To a point, regional governments are important and regional issues or regional values mean something. However, if the federal government is going to take the attitude that it should turn over and get out of everything that it can based on some ideology, that philosophy taken to its end is going to cost us our country.
The minister responsible for privatization is in the House. I certainly appreciate that, because very often ministers of this government are not here when their bills are being considered in the House. I want to thank him for coming to listen to this debate. I want him also to reconsider the kind of wholesale approach that the government is taking to operations that can be disposed of.
I want to remind him, for example, that university education could be described as a provincial matter. Research and development could be described as something that the federal government should get out of because other levels of government, when we read the BNA Act, may be able to make a larger claim to do it. Medicare is another example of a program that would never have been implemented if a Conservative government with the philosophy of this government had been around. Why should they take it on, they would say, when provincial governments are doing it already?


Mr. McDermid:: Who brought in hospitalization?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I want to give one final example, an example that I have had considerable experience with, and that is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Here is a national institution, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not provided for in the BNA Act. Policing is not
listed under one of the federal powers. I am worried that, with the approach that this government is taking toward getting out of everything and getting rid of everything, we can see an institution like the Royal Canadian Mounted Police privatized and turned over-


John Horton McDermid: Who tried to take the "Royal" out of it? Pierre Trudeau.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is no evidence of that at all. We would be out of business.
What we need is a government that will recognize that if this country is to be held together it has to be held together by human will, by people wanting to do certain things together, by developing an agenda, and by developing shared values. If those shared values and that shared agenda are just cutting up and disposing, turning over to the Americans or the provinces or the private sector or deregulating, if that is the agenda, then this country is going to evaporate. I would like to warn the government that it is set on that course. While I rise to talk about Harbourfront, one small example, it is part of a pattern that is very disturbing and the fulfilment of which can lead to the end of this country.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer because there were some accusations made in the House last Friday and again today on what is happening at Harbourfront in Toronto.
I want to make it very clear that back in the early seventies, when the federal government got involved in cleaning up the Toronto Harbourfront, it made a commitment at that time that it was going to do that and then return the Harbourfront to the citizens of Toronto. That was the commitment that was made at that time.
The Crombie commission has come forward with a very good report. It was very well received by the city and citizens of Toronto. He is also working on a much broader waterfront review on behalf of the provincial government of province of Ontario.
The Harbourfront claims that have been going around of hon. members of the Liberal Party are factually and totally incorrect. The Harbourfront Corporation provides excellent programming for the city of Toronto and will continue to provide that excellent programming. The parks will be returned to the city of Toronto, a

commitment that was not made by our government but was made by the Liberal government in the early seventies. That is exactly what it said it was going to do. That is exactly what this government is doing: assuring that programming is going to continue there, assuring that the parks are going to be for the people of Toronto and attempting to get the buildings that were scheduled to go on the waterfront, off the waterfront.
That is what this is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting rid of Harbourfront, as was mentioned by a number of metro Toronto members on the Liberal side who did not know what they were talking about at the time. They obviously have not read the David Crombie report and its recommendations. They have not seen the subsequent report that came from the provincial government, referred to as the Allen report.
The hon. member, who I know has not read either one, should have taken time to understand exactly what the Government of Canada was doing with Harbourfront. In fact, it is ensuring its longevity in providing excellent programming for the citizens of Toronto. That is what this is all about. He should not be standing here spouting off this nonsense about the privatization of Harbourfront. He should get his facts right before he stands up in this House and makes statements that are totally inaccurate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said one thing that I have to tell him I agree with. I have not read the Ontario government's report on the Crombie report, but I have read the Crombie report. I would like to give the minister some news. I do not agree with it. That is why we are standing up opposing a recommendation that the federal government abandon Harbourfront.
I would like to challenge the minister on the commitment which he says he has given to see that programming is maintained at Harbourfront. Where is that commitment given? It is certainly not in the bill. How do we know-


John Horton McDermid: It was just given.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The minister may feel that statements by ministers are the same thing as appropriations and commitments. I will tell him that they are not. If he were prepared to stand, give that kind of commitment, put it
Government Orders
in writing and put it as a legally binding undertaking, I would at least concede to him that he was assuring that the Harbourfront, although it would lose the federal contact that I think is so important, programming itself would continue.
I want to tell the minister something else. When he says that the citizens are so happy to get it back, it happens that I was at city hall in the city of Toronto when it was debated about whether they wanted it back, whether they could afford to take it back. It is a very controversial question. They do not look on this as a gift from the federal government. They look at it as a commitment to come up themselves with $150 million to try to maintain programming to which the minister says he is prepared to make a commitment.
The minister will never persuade me that somehow or other Canada benefits from turning this project over to the city, but he could persuade me that Harbourfront will survive by bringing forward an amendment which only the government can do, because it involves an appropriation of funds, to assure that the new Harbourfront in the hands of the city of Toronto will continue to be supported.

That is a commitment I would be ready to recognize as a real commitment from the Government of Canada. But I can see the minister in ten, five or three years' time when he is back in the private sector, as he surely will be. Let us say it is a commitment of the government. A commitment from a junior minister in the House of Commons is not good enough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Other questions and comments? The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first I congratulate my hon. colleague from York Centre on his excellent speech. I am sure all hon. members will agree that seldom has such wisdom been heard in this House. I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is as worried as I am about this government's attempts and attacks on the instruments of national unity that we have in this country.

Government Orders
I read this bill and I see various institutions being dismantled, the Livestock Feed Board being one of them, and of course we have talked about Harbourfront. I am worried about the privatization of rural post offices in Canada. I am worried about the post office buildings in this country. There used to be the flag of Canada on a government building in rural communities right across the country, and now we see those buildings being sold to the private sector and the flag of Canada being removed. On the logo of Canada Post Corporation the word "Canada" no longer appears. We see "mail", the logo, and "poste".
I am very much worried about that because yes, this country was built with private sector initiative, but with government encouragement as well. We have seen these instruments of national unity that have been dismantled by this government, some of them described in this bill, and the post offices and several others that have been privatized by other bills brought to the attention of this House by the member for Brampton, the minister of selling everything off.
Would my colleague agree that indeed this is very much cause for concern, that this government needs to be reminded that it is a custodian of the property of the taxpayers of Canada and that the property of the taxpayers is not just there for it to sell off as quickly as it can just because it has an ideological bent to do so?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, as you might have expected, I agree with everything that my hon. colleague has said, except the very generous phrase that he awarded to me for my very modest intervention. I feel that he has been very accurately describing the implications of this bill.
I think it is significant and worth noting, because it is always characteristic of this member for Prescott-Glengarry-Russell, that he touched on concerns not only of the city of Toronto and other parts of the country but particularly those, as he always does, that affect so closely his own constituency, an interest that he has tended and taken to heart with such sincerity and such dedication for so long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments are now over. Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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

Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child tax credit), be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak briefly to the second reading of Bill C-86, which implements important changes to the child tax credit bill.
It is intended to provide further assistance to families with low and modest incomes who have three or more children. The change was announced first by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech in February and is part of our government's continuing effort to ease the situation of those most in need. This important principle is one of the bases of our economic policies. Since the beginning of our term of office, we have acted to assist those Canadians whose situation called for action.
Our reform of the income tax system, for example, was intended, in part, to assist lower-income families. As well, I would point to the important role of the GST tax credit in the reform of the sales tax system. That credit also was to ensure that families with incomes below $30,000 would be better off than before. So under sales tax reform, three-quarters of all families headed by seniors or single parents will have more after-tax income than before. Unfortunately, I have to point out that that is still being held up in the Senate and it may be some time before those children actually receive those dollars. The proposal in Bill C-86 will raise the income ceiling
November 5, 1990

with respect to prepayment of the refundable child tax credit.
In 1988, the law was amended to produce the present arrangement. Under this arrangement, there is prepayment of up to two-thirds of the estimated refundable child tax credit, if the family's income does not exceed two-thirds of the family income ceiling for the credit itself. This situation, however, does not make adequate allowance for those families with three or more children whose incomes fall in a zone between two-thirds of the limit and the income ceiling. The budget proposal made in February and the current bill rectifies that situation. By raising the income ceiling for prepayment to 100 per cent of the family income ceiling for those families with three or more children, the government is recognizing the special needs of such families. This is particularly helpful at the normal time the prepayment is received, for this always comes in the winter season, when families have real need for those dollars.
It is estimated that 70,000 families with an estimated 236,000 children will benefit from this change. After the change is made, some 730,000 families in total will qualify for the prepayment. I should also point out that does not involve an increase in government expenditure, rather it is an increase of approximately $30 million by paying the families earlier than they would otherwise have received the money.
I should also point out that subsequent to the process in the House today, where we expect it will go through all stages and then, of course, it has to receive, and I hope it will receive, speedy assent in the Senate. Then it will require Royal Assent. Subsequent to that the government will make all efforts to get these cheques out as expeditiously as possible. It may require up to two weeks.
I think it is appropriate at this time when there has been such a focus on the children of Canada, especially the children from lower income families, that this House deal with this bill as quickly as possible.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in support of Bill C-86, and I want to first pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Ottawa South who brought this matter today to the government's attention.
Government Orders
Over this past weekend I was in my riding and I received many phone calls from single parents across my riding who were really frightened when they heard that these cheques were not coming up. One young woman, quoted in the Halifax Chronicle Herald said: "Had I known that this was going to happen, I would have made some arrangements over my bills because I had to have some money left for Christmas. Without this child tax credit, I will have no money to give my children any Christmas".
So, Mr. Speaker, it think it particularly relevant-


An hon. member:: The GST-


Mary Catherine Clancy: In the unlikely event that the GST will pass-that my colleague from Ottawa South when bringing this forward this afternoon, I think did a great service to those people across the country who are in desperate need of these cheques. To see this coming through today is something that has been long overdue. It should have gone through before, but I guess we can say thank God, it is happening today.


Sheila Finestone: Better late than never.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Better late than never, as my colleague, the hon. member for Mount Royal has stated.
Mr. Speaker, this will be a great relief-provided we get this through with all possible speed-to parents across Canada, and in particular, single parents, the vast majority of whom are women. So, Mr. Speaker, we certainly support this. We support it going through with all due haste and going through this afternoon.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to support Bill C-86 and to offer the support of my caucus on this bill.
This bill will allow an estimated 66,000 additional families with a total of 230,000 children to benefit from the advanced payment of the child tax credit. The measure does not involve any increased cost to the government. It simply is a matter of when these families are paid this credit.
The bill must be passed as quickly as possible for several reasons. This was a measure that was promised in the 1990 budget. It was a promise that was affirmed in a letter to thousands of Canadians in September, telling those families to expect prepayment this month and it was reaffirmed by a press release issued by the finance minister on October 11 of this year. The promised date was November. I am pleased that the government listened today. I am pleased that the government lis-

Government Orders
tened to my House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, who made representations to the House leader of the Tory caucus. I am pleased that the government listened to my statement today in members' statements and have moved to expedite Bill C-86.
The purpose of prepayment is to allow poor families to receive money when it is most needed, not only to celebrate the holidays but also to buy very necessary warm clothing and footwear for their children.
Many of those who received word in September that they would be getting this prepayment in November have already'made plans for this money. Newspapers and television programs across the country have been documenting stories over the weekend of families that were very, very concerned when it appeared that the government was not moving forward on this issue. We have heard through the media from a number of Canadians just how this impacted on them personally.
There was the story of a mother of five in Ontario who earns a paltry $19,000 a year. Her quote was that she wants "the politicians to get off their butts and do something". Well, I am really pleased that we are doing that here today.
There is a woman in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia. She claimed that the credit was meant to be Christmas for her kids. As a single mother of three she was very angry when it appeared that it was not going to be moved on. Again, I would like to pay credit to my House leader, the hon. member for Kamloops who urged the government to act. I am pleased the government listened today and we were able to force the government to move on this bill.
We hope that these families will receive their cheques this month, otherwise these families that I speak of and countless other families across Canada will be forced to spend their Christmas season in desolation and also will be unable to supply their children with the very necessary warm winter clothing that children in our country need.
I sincerely hope that Canadians will receive this in the next month. This bill is a small step in alleviating the poverty of children in our country. It simply means that
payment of the child tax credit will be paid before Christmas instead of in the spring.
We know that child poverty is the national shame of Canada. Statistics talk about the poverty of children in this country. Nine hundred and thirteen thousand children under the age of 16, one in six Canadian children, live below the poverty line. Of these children, 55 per cent are from two-parent families, 39 per cent are children in one-parent families headed by a woman. Sixty-four point five per cent of children who are being raised by a single mother are poor. Also, 28.4 per cent of children in families headed by a single father are living in poverty. Half of all of the poor children in Canada live in families where the head of the family works full-time or part-time. Fifty-one per cent of native children live below the poverty line in this country. That is a shocking statistic.
In 1986, 49,000 children were in the care of the child welfare systems in Canada. According to agencies in various communities between 54 per cent and 75 per cent of these children come from low-income families. About 40 per cent of children and youth in the care of the child welfare system have experienced abuse or neglect. Numerous studies have established that link, that correlation, between adverse economic conditions and child abuse.
According to a 1980 report, native children accounted for more than 20 per cent of the children in substitute care in Canada, although they represent only 2 per cent of Canada's children. Forty per cent of the users of the food banks are children. Twenty per cent of those food bank recipients are under the age of five years.
Although there are 625 McDonald's restaurants in Canada, there are 1,100 food banks and soup kitchens in this country. In my province of British Columbia, over 20 per cent of the children in that province are living below the poverty line.
I will just conclude with a couple of comments. There is a difference in the threshold that was announced in the budget, the cut-off for the families that will receive this aid. In the budget it was set at one level, but now, when it comes before the House in Bill C-86, the threshold is at a lower level, and I wonder why that happened.

For the first time I believe the government is recognizing the needs of larger families with low incomes and has developed a policy to assist them with the tax system. As I said earlier, it will not cost the government any money. It just means that these families will get the money during the season when it is most needed by them.
I want to thank the government and the Official Opposition for moving together. I think this is an example of how the House can co-operate on very needed legislation and I am pleased to take part in that today.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
On Clause 1
Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I only have one question, of course, providing that the answer will be to the satisfaction of the opposition.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can consult with the officials and confirm that under no situation, with the passage of this bill, and in the unlikely event that the GST is adopted, will anyone making this salary or less be the loser under the GST? In other words, can the parliamentary secretary tell us if the amount of the child tax credit will suffice so that no one loses money after the GST within the tax bracket mentioned in the bill?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, I may need to get some clarification, but my understanding of what the hon. member is asking is two separate things. We have the goods and services tax with the rebates that come from that and now we have the child tax credit. This bill deals strictly with families with three or more children and whose income is equal to or less than the amount of $24,000 and some.
These are two separate issues. One is the goods and services tax which we could go into, but I think it would be inappropriate.
Government Orders


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the rebate of one is included in the other legislation. It is clearly insufficient. The Canadian National Council on Welfare and many others have already indicated to us that the rebate available under the GST is insufficient to cover the losses that poor families will suffer.
I am asking the parliamentary secretary about the losses that families will incur-and we all know they are there-as various groups, including the National Council on Welfare, have indicated there will be. Now we have this additional tax credit. Even with the combination of these two things, the tax credit plus the rebate under the GST, there will still be large numbers of people who will be financial losers under the GST, particularly at the lower tax bracket. Will he confirm to us that this is so?


Dave Worthy: Mr. Chairman, obviously I cannot confirm that. In fact, I would very much like it if we had time to go into a very healthy debate about just exactly the opposite premise.
All indications that the government has had is that people, especially in the income area of $24,000 and under, will benefit from the GST. There are some families, depending on their spending patterns, who could be exceptions. No one can tell exactly how people will spend their money, but all the studies to which I or the government have had access would indicate it is actually the opposite and contrary to what the hon. member has indicated. The families with children in the situation which we are discussing in this bill will, in fact, be better off under GST than they are.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Any further comments?


Some hon. members:: No.

Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-86, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (Child Tax Credit) be concurred in.

Adjournment Debate


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do want to co-operate, but I do hope that perhaps the person seconding the bill at report stage would be present in the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: that Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (child tax credit), be read the third time and passed.


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


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to speak during third reading of this bill, an act to amend the Income Thx Act (child tax credit).
It is most appropriate that I speak because only yesterday in my constituency I heard of a family that was definitely in need of this type of credit.
I was worried why it took such a long time, since it was first announced in February, to table the motion on October 11. Be that as it may, I am still pleased that the amendment has come. Now we can see the passage of this bill.
I certainly support the amendment applicable to 1990 and subsequent years which, for families having three or more children eligible for the prepayment of the credit, will increase the pre-limit income ceiling from two-thirds of the family income ceiling for the credit itself to 100 per cent of that amount.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I think a lot of poor families will thank the House of Commons.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words.
I think all the children in Canada who are going to benefit from this bill would wish me to thank all members of the House who have made it possible to put this through in such quick order today. I do hope that it
will see speedy passage through the Senate and that the children and their families who will benefit will do so well before Christmas when they can, in fact, see the benefits of these dollars.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very substantial progress that has been made today-three government bills have received second reading and another has been passed through all stages-could the government House leader perhaps advise us what the business will be tomorrow? We have completed almost everything he announced for tomorrow. Could he inform us what it is we are going to debate in the House tomorrow?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to call tomorrow the bill dealing with Trust and Loan Companies Act. It is Bill C-83. That will be for tomorrow morning.
Tomorrow afternoon, perhaps we could deal with Bill C-85 or Bill C-40.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1985 the Conservative government promised farmers across the country and people in all rural communities that we would have a permanent agricultural policy. That was some five years ago. It is now 1990, almost 1991, and we are still waiting for that permanent program.
Last December, the present Minister of Agriculture established a number of task forces to review the
November 5, 1990

agricultural situation that would suggest directions in policy. Those task forces have been meeting. There have been reports that have been filed, and the minister had promised that legislation would be in place for the 1991-1992 crop year. As of today, however, there has not been a bill presented or placed before this House. There are all sorts of housekeeping bills that have been coming before the House. This very important legislation, which requires strong debate and an in-depth view, has not been presented before this House.
The government has in the past bragged that it has spent billions and billions on agriculture, and that is true. Those billions that it has spent over the last few years have not been an investment that has been in the best interest of farmers. This money has not been in the best interest of urban dwellers and of taxpayers. We still have, despite the money that has been put into agriculture, people who are leaving the farm every year. Bankruptcies have increased considerably. We have a problem in rural Canada. In Saskatchewan, in 1985, when the government first promised to introduce legislation, we had over 65,000 farmers. We are now below 60,000. We are losing over 1,000 farmers a year in Saskatchewan alone.
The problem is serious and the situation is desperate. Throughout rural Canada, communities are suffering, jobs are being lost and businesses are closing because the agricultural economic base is disappearing. For a long time communities have been shrinking. Now they are starting to collapse. Since World War II, successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments have failed to pay attention to this most important issue, an issue which affects the largest portion of this country. It is the future and welfare of rural Canadians.
The question I am asking is very simple and straightforward. When is this government going to introduce legislation to deal with the agricultural crisis in this country? It has promised legislation but it has not introduced it. In western Canada, we have had one of the best crops in decades. Some farmers tell me it is the best crop they have ever had. They have grain on the ground but they cannot sell it. The prices are extremely low if they do sell it.
Adjournment Debate
The government has promised legislation. When bills are introduced in this House, it is going to require that they be analysed and debated. I hope the government is not planning to introduce legislation next spring and then tell the opposition to pass it right away. That would certainly be unfair. That happened with the cash advance payments. It was introduced in September and the government said it was the New Democrats who were holding up the legislation and if this bill could pass, farmers could get payment. That is extremely unfair and undemocratic. This issue is too important for that sort of attitude.
I ask the government this: When will we be receiving some legislation in front of this House and what will be the objectives of this legislation? Is it to help farming families survive? Is it to help agri-business? Is it to help the Cargills of this world? When will we get legislation and what will be the objective of this legislation when we get it?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true that the farmers are faced with an ironic situation because of the near record crop that has been produced in all parts of Canada. Prices have plunged as world supplies have been there, distorting the export subsidy and distorting our prices very much.
There is one thing I have to say. When farmers called on this government to help, the government was there to help them. It did answer that call.
Earlier this year, on October 13, the Minister of Agriculture announced a one year program of the reintroduction of the interest free cash advances on undelivered grain. That is going to help many producers.
That provides $50,000 interest free, plus, if they require further dollars than that and qualify for it, they are able to get additional dollars to help their cash flow.
Even that amount is going to greatly enhance the cash flow of many of our farmers. It is going to provide for this program upwards of $1.4 billion to be advanced interest free, which is a total cost of about $95 million. Of course, we all know how those programs are going to be administered through the various groups, whether they be in western Canada or in other parts of the provinces

Adjournment Debate
where we do not have the Western Grain Stabilization Board and so on.
Mr. Speaker, the programs that we are working on are co-operative programs worked out by the federal government, provincial governments and the producers of those commodities. Many of those commodities are having a desperate time surviving today.
That is the only way that we can provide the long term solutions that are required. We cannot come in with ad hoc programs. We have tried that. We know that the 1980s have been very different from other years because of the situation changing throughout the world with the United States and European Community paying massive export subsidies that have damaged our markets. It lowered the world grain price and it has made it very difficult for us to compete against the treasuries of those other countries, as well as for our farmers competing against other farmers who are producing food for the world.
The first program that we hope to have in place is the grains and oilseeds safety nets. We have a committee of farmers and various officials working on a program. We know the ministers of agriculture are meeting later this month. We know it is going to take the co-operation of the provincial governments, along with the federal government, and the producers to come up with the long term solution to what we have today. Governments do not have the answer to all of these things, but by working together we know that will happen. We believe that will give us a long term viability and the security that is necessary.
I want to say again that the practices of the United States and the European Community have hurt our farmers tremendously because of the drastic fall in international grain prices. The only way we can combat this is to work through GATT for a reduction of those world subsidies where we can compete fairly.
Our farmers are the best in the world. They have a quality product and it will compete for quality, but you just cannot compete with the treasuries of these countries.
We believe that by working through GATT, along with the safety net and various other programs that we hope to have in place for the 1991 crop, will be the answer to a lot of our problems.


MONETARY POLICY
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in connection with a question I asked the Minister of National Revenue on September 26 of this year concerning the proposed goods and services tax. In fact, it had to do with asking the minister whether he had instructed businesses to begin advance collection of the GST.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to expand on the question and perhaps hear the parliamentary secretary's response.
First, may I say that in answer to my question, the hon. minister began with what he thought was a put-down, when he said and I quote:
If the hon. member would welcome the invitation that I gave him
for a briefing, I would be very happy to let him know the rules of

I would like to begin by saying that virtually at the moment that I was appointed the official opposition critic for revenue by our leader, I contacted the department and asked for an opportunity to have a briefing.
The members of the department took some time in order to get themselves together so that they could all be present at the briefing they intended to give me. I was ready, willing and able to attend at any time. It was due to the inability of the departments to get all the department heads together quickly that we were unable to have a briefing at the time that I put this question forward.
I want to make it quite clear that I at all times was very happy to accept the invitation of the minister, and that he knew, or should have known, that the delay in the briefing was due to the fact that his departmental officials could not get together. May I say in passing that the briefing was excellent and that I thanked his officials for the briefing.
To the specific question, what prompted the question was a call from a constituent, Charles Angus, who lives on Clapperton Avenue in my riding. He had received an invoice from the T. Eaton Co. The invoice is dated July 31 of this year. Enclosed in it is the following statement and I quote: "Dear Customer: The federal government has defined extended warranty policies as a taxable GST service". Here is the important part: "As of September 1, 1990, regulations require that we collect this 7 per cent tax on that portion of your policy that is in effect in
November 5, 1990

1991". There is an invoice and on the invoice, which is dated July 31, there is a charge of $3.26 for the GST.
This legislation has not even passed the Senate. In July of this year, there was no possibility that the GST was law. There were no regulations which indicated that Eaton's would have to collect this money. Yet the customer was billed and requested to pay the GST.
I did have the opportunity to review Hansard for October 30 when the hon. parliamentary secretary answered a question from my colleague, the member for Dartmouth, and purported to answer my question at the same time. He brought to light that on August 9 of this year the minister had sent out a press release advising businesses of certain things. It is very interesting what was advised. The release stated that businesses supplying goods and services to be delivered after 1990 will be accountable effective January 1,1991, for the proposed 7 per cent GST on advance payments made between September 1, 1990, and January 1, 1991. What the heck does that mean?
Obviously to Eaton's it meant that they had better start charging and collecting the GST effective September 1. Was Eaton's alone? Of course it was not alone because on August 14 the Canadian Bar Association, of which I am proud to be a member, sent me an invoice. That was five days after this marvellous press release sent out by the department. That invoice, August 14 mind you, asks me to pay $13.65 in GST.
Of course, I have not paid it. I have paid my dues but not the GST because, as we know from the minister, there is absolutely no legal requirement for me to pay the GST. Does that help the consumer? Does that help the Canadian populace? I do not know.
I am also a member of the Canadian Automobile Association. We have heard how frequently it has been stated that the GST is such a visible tax, so I looked up the definition of "visible" in the Oxford English Dictionary. It says: 'that can be seen by the eye; within the range of wave lengths to which the eye is sensitive; that can be perceived or ascertained; apparent or open". I am looking at my invoice from the Canadian Automobile Association. They want $81.25 for my membership dues which includes the GST, but there is nothing on this invoice that tells me how much of that $81.25 is GST,
Adjournment Debate
although they clearly say that part of it is. So much for visible.
What are businesses doing? They are caught between a rock and a hard place. If they do not collect the tax, they are going to be liable for it anyway. If they do collect the tax, they are doing something that is in effect illegal because there is nothing upon which to base the collection. This was vividly demonstrated last Friday when some elderly constituents of mine called to say that they had attempted to make funeral arrangements for themselves. The funeral home had stated that they would have to prepay the GST. When the constituent refused, the funeral home said: "Very well, no contract. We will not sell you the prepaid services unless you pay the GST". He said: "Fine, I will pay the GST but if it does not pass, give me a refund". They said: "We will give you a refund". He said: "Of course, you will give us interest" and they said: "Not necessarily". We were not talking about a small amount of money because the prepaid GST on that amount was $1,300.
The point of my remarks is that this government, through that ambiguous press release of August 9, 1990 and through its policy of washing its hands of disputes between consumers and business, has set business against consumers because the consumer cannot win against the T. Eaton Company or cannot win against the business that will not give services if the GST is not prepaid.
The question simply was: Why has the government washed its hands and set the consumer adrift?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I realize that, as the hon. member said at the beginning of his question, he read what I said on October 30, when I was answering another question. At the time, I mentioned that my detailed response would interest both the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Scarborough. I think the hon. member for Dartmouth, considering his gesture at the end of my speech, seemed quite satisfied with my explanation.
The problems the hon. member mentioned are ones that I have experienced personally, and I did not relish the experience!
However, I would like to say to the hon. member that even if his party is against the GST, the real problem today, and he knows this as well as I do, is the other

November 5, 1990
Adjournment Debate
place. We hope all these problems will be dealt with, otherwise we will have our own problems with respect to our own spending in our day-to-day lives. As my wife told me not long ago, we just paid for our alarm system. The cost is spread over a period from September 1990 to September 1991, and not only were we charged the tax before 1991, but we were charged for 12 months, although the tax will not be in effect until January 1991, if then.
The problem we have today, although we tried not to get involved in any more of that unfortunately with everthing that is happening, there is a real problem.

I would like to say to my hon. colleague that he can always read what I said. I will repeat it for the people who are listening. I would like to have on record again that the collection of GST for transactions straddling the transition date is strictly voluntary. Both have to agree, the consumer and the business involved.
This is what I did with all my people. We came to an agreement. Sometimes I got myself mad at my friend who charged me for 12 months of alarm service when he should charge me for 8 months. It is eight-twelfths of the invoice.
At the beginning it is a problem, but I think with the good faith of two persons an arrangement can always be negotiated. They must know that this is only on a voluntary basis. No one should charge. It is very clear.
I want my hon. colleague to read exactly what I said, as reported at pages 14918 and 14919 of Hansard for October 30. I presume that he and his colleague were asking for the same answers.
Even, to go through it briefly, I know that sometimes the consumer and the person in business were not present at the meetings. I know they did not always understand, but I do not blame them. It is new. I said to my people that it was new and that they would get used to it.
In the meantime, let us hope that the other chamber will make it easy for everyone.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, on October 19,1 asked two questions in the House with regard to the economy of eastern Ontario.
One of the questions dealt squarely with the plight of the town of Renfrew which has lost a total of 1,667 jobs, a total of eight industries, and a reduction in others in the last couple of years. One of them goes back even beyond that, but it has been a constant ever since Mitel closed. The Government of Canada allowed the sale of Mitel to a British firm. It allowed that business to buy 51 per cent of the Canadian company, and it closed down the firm with 550 employees. Since then others have followed.
I was particularly concerned with the answer that the Minister for Science gave me that day; he was standing in for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. He as much as said that I should be out looking for industry instead of asking questions in the House.
Over the past year or longer I have been working with the mayor of Renfrew, with the council, and with the industrial commission. I have had meetings with government departments in Ottawa, with many people, and with industries that we invited in to join us. I have been to Queen's Park in Toronto and met there. I have been south of the border to meet with people and I have travelled around this country.
I want to say to the minister for science that he had better give a more intelligent answer than that. He had better do his homework before he insults a member of this House who is doing his homework. I sometimes wonder why he was a president of a university when he stands in the House and acts the way he does.
Last summer, the hon. member for Stormont-Dun-das, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and myself raised these issues of eastern Ontario. We held a news conference in which we provided accurate figures. However, for some strange reason the Minister of Supply and Services, who is supposed to be the fighter for eastern Ontario, stood and said afterward: "Well, the Liberal members have blown the economic situation in eastern Ontario out of proportion". Then he accused the Liberals of manufacturing figures.
November 5, 1990

I have the figures right here that we used in that press conference last summer. Do you know where they come from, Mr. Speaker? They come from his own government's Department of Employment and Immigration.
The minister went on to say: "They are not adding up the pluses". You bet we are. Down in the right-hand column of this report from the employment office in our area are the minuses of jobs that were lost and the pluses of those that were created. The bottom line adds up to 1,667 in the town of Renfrew alone. Surely that deserves more than a smart aleck answer from a minister on the benches opposite.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am not one to be up in the House shouting and screaming about things all the time. Things have to be pretty bad before I do. I do my homework before I get up, and I expect others to do theirs.
The other question I raised was on the forest industry, particularly in Ontario. It is really being hurt by the 15 per cent export tax, high interest rates, and the artificially high Canadian dollar.
I have talked to people all summer long, last spring, and this fall. It is sad what is happening out there. The bank realizes that the forest industry is weak, so what does it do? The banks and the trust companies throw their demand for the repayment of their loans on the desks. People are selling $80,000 pieces of equipment for $40,000 in order to get the bank off their back. They are selling $40,000 worth of equipment for $20,000.
If this keeps up the forest industry in this country is going to be absolutely devastated. It is time the government considered some kind of moratorium to protect our small business and sectors of industry in this country if we are ever to have anything left after this recession is over.
The Minister for International Trade promised us he was going to introduce an adjustment assistance program in this House in order to help those who were hurt by free trade.
The government will argue that the forest industry was not hurt by free trade, that it was not mentioned in there. However, the forest industry in this country knows that they were the scapegoats of the free trade signing
Adjournment Debate
between the United States and Canada. It was Pat Carney, then Minister for International Trade, who signed to allow the Americans to charge a 15 per cent duty or tax on Canadian softwood lumber going into the United States.
Eventually the government decided to collect it itself, against our own softwood lumber people. Then the American banks lent money to their own industries, and along the northern part of the United States they built up their mills. They have a better product now than they had before and can compete better with us. Our own people are hurting badly as a result of this polity.
The lumber industry in this country feels that it was the scapegoat in order for this government to get its free trade agreement. Pat Carney, the Minister for International Trade at the time, has since been rewarded with an appointment to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you can understand why I was really angry about this whole matter.
I am just going to put one more quote on record and then I will be finished. It is from Sinclair Stevens and deals with the negotiations which went on with regard to Mitel plant in Renfrew when it was about to be sold to a British firm. He had this to say as a reply in this House:
I pointed out, and will point out once again for the Hon. Member, that Mitel was in difficult financial straits. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. This company has offered to put into Mitel over $300 million of fresh equity, which will at least ensure that 2,500 Canadian jobs, and 5,000, including international jobs will be preserved. I am on the side of the workers of Mitel, and I think it is time that the Hon. Member got on the side of the workers of Mitel as well.
That came from the benches of this government. Today we do not have a single employee left out of 550 in that plant. In fact, Archives Canada has taken it over for a storage place, a brand new plant that cost $30 million.
I am calling on the government to bring forward an economic plan for eastern Ontario. We are absolutely serious about this matter. We are absolutely honest about doing it, because something has to be done to protect those people out there whose lives are really being destroyed economically.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend will not mind my doing this, but I would like to acknowledge first three very important visitors from

Adjournment Debate
Alberta who are visiting Ottawa this week: Mr. A1 Bray, Superintendent of the Alberta Treasury branches, Mr. Chip Collins, Special Adviser to the Alberta Treasurer and Special Adviser to the Superintendent of the Alberta Treasury branches, and Mr. Vic Neufeld, Chief Inspector of the Alberta Treasury branches, who are down here visiting our fair city from our fair province of Alberta.
I would like to reply to my hon. friend. I recognize- and he should also recognize it-that with the free trade agreement restructuring of the Canadian economy is taking place. There are going to be some disruptions because of this restructuring. He should know also that we cannot continue, as we tried to do in the past, to surround Canada with an artificial border, because we are going global in trade and there is going to be some restructuring. He should understand that.
The other thing I would like to remind him about is that above all I and members of Parliament particularly from western Canada would understand very clearly the kind of thing he is talking about in terms of unemployment. The National Energy Program was brought in and the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax imposed on the province of Alberta and the other western provinces by that government allowed interest rates to go up to over 22 per cent or 24 per cent. Believe me, I understand, as do members of Parliament and the people of western Canada, what can happen, not because of a restructuring and allowing a free economy to go but when we saw the kinds of things that happened with the National Energy Program which wreaked havoc on the provinces and put a lot of people out of work. We remember this very clearly.
I want to get into the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber. This was done, with the support of the vast majority of producing provinces, to avoid the imposition by the United States of a countervailing duty and keep funds that may have been transferred to the U.S. and Canada. When the government negotiated the memorandum of understanding, this government never intended it to be a permanent measures and the Americans were so notified of this fact.
Since signing the memorandum of understanding in December, 1986, we have negotiated an exemption from the export charged for the Atlantic provinces. As a result
of negotiations following the implementation of replacement measures by British Columbia, that province is no longer subject to the charge. British Columbia accounts for over 60 per cent of production and over 70 per cent of exports of softwood lumber to the U.S.
I am also pleased to note that as a result of negotiations completed last week between the Government of Canada and the United States, in which the province of Quebec participated, we were successful in lowering the rate payable on exports of softwood lumber from Quebec to 6.2 per cent as of November 1, 1990. The rate before November 1 had been 8 per cent as a result of earlier negotiations that had lowered the rate from 15 per cent. The current 6.2 per cent export charge will be further reduced to 3.1 per cent on November 1, 1991 and from November 1, 1992 to October 31, 1994 the export charge will be 3 per cent.
Accordingly, less than 25 per cent of softwood lumber exports from Canada are currently subject to an export charge.
We are, however, aware of the difficult times facing the Canadian forest industry as a result of a number of factors including: the availability of quality timber, changed economic conditions such as the slowing housing market and the increased value of the Canadian dollar, as well as the export charge on softwood lumber. As a result of the changing economic circumstances, federal officials have been working with their provincial counterparts and industry representatives in developing and examining our options with regard to the MOU.
The importance of provincial consultations cannot be over-stated. While there is no question that the federal government is responsible for trade policy, the management of the forest is a provincial responsibility. Any actions that Canada takes with regard to the MOU must be developed in full consultation with the provinces and with industry.
The Minister for International Trade has discussed this issue with provincial trade ministers and our options and strategy will continue to be discussed. The views of all provinces will be considered before any action is taken. Achieving a strong federal-provincial-industry consensus on the issue is critical.

In summary, we are examining our options, doing our homework, and consulting with industry and the provinces. The government is committed to seeking a permanent solution to this long standing trade irritant and will do so when a consensus for action is reached between all stake holders.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 6, 1990