May 29, 1984

?

Mr. Stark@

Yes.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink
PC

Allan Bruce McKinnon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. McKinnon:

What level was the Russian who told you they would conduct a referendum in their country?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink
?

Mr. Stark@

In new York I met with two representatives; the ambassador and one other. In Canada, I have discussed this with Ambassador Alexander Yakovlev at the Soviet Embassy and with the ambassadors of other Warsaw Pact nations. We had a representative of the Soviet Union at our conference last November on a panel with an American who said-stressing that they do not need a referendum in their country. He said publicly that they would support it in the UN and conduct it in their country. As I mentioned earlier, it would be a very inefficient, in fact, misleading initiative unless we were sure the Soviet nations would also participate. Frankly, we would have folded up the organization, Operation Dismantle, in 1979 had we not had an indication that the Soviets would participate.

Everyone knows that the Soviets did not participate and are not going to participate. The final proof of that might be a news item in The Globe and Mail dated May 23, and I quote:

Soviet dissident jailed for circulating petition

A member of an unofficial Moscow peace group has been jailed for 15 days for collecting 300 signatures on a petition calling for improved U.S.-Soviet relations, dissident sources said yesterday. Alexander Rubchenko, a 24-year-old artist, was sentenced Monday on charges of hooliganism. He was one of four members of the "Group of Trust" picked up on Friday. The others were released after police warned them they will be ordered to live away from Moscow if they petition people again. One member of the group said they will continue collecting signatures.

Therefore, this is going to be a one-sided effort if it ever did come to pass that we would declare ourselves to be a nuclear free zone, and convince other states to do likewise. So that I do not get accused of talking out this Bill, I will draw my remarks to a conclusion before six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink
LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink
LIB

William Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the time is about ended for this debate. However, I would like to go on record as saying that I support in principle what the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has been trying to say. Unfortunately, the Bill is substantially the same as the Bill we had last week, namely, Bill C-204. However, there are a couple of differences in the Bill and I suppose you might say that Bill C-203 does in effect improve Bill C-204. In any event, I believe the topic we are discussing, that is, the motion for a world referendum-

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink
?

@Acting Speaker

Order, please. I sincerely regret to interrupt the Hon. Member-

-but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS
Subtopic:   NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Sub-subtopic:   ADVISABILITY OF DECLARING CANADA A NUCLEAR ARMS FREE
Permalink

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.


CRIMINAL CODE-PRESENTATION OF OBSCENITY AMENDMENT

NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, on April 18 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) to consider taking out of the Criminal Code amendments in Bill C-19 the clauses on obscenity and bring them into the House for swift passage. I raised this because we know that obscenity is getting worse, pornography is growing, it is getting more violent and the police are saying that they are helpless to do anything about it. We have had examples in Toronto of stores selling video tapes, including very violent ones, to children. I do not want to get into the argument as to whether "snuff' movies, which have been reported to be sold, are real or not. Certainly we know that the violence is bad enough.

However, the Minister was very complacent. He said there are many parts of the Criminal Code which are of the utmost urgency. We need all of that Bill, not just parts of it. Well, there are other parts of Bill C-19 I would like to see passed as well. But certainly one of the most important must be the obscenity section. I remind the House that the Minister has had an entire year. He brought in draft legislation to this effect last June, yet we have not actually had any debate on the Bill. He is not moving ahead on this specific and very important part, nor is he moving ahead on the other parts of Bill C-19.

I am wondering whether the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan) is more interested in publicity for his Liberal Party leadership campaign than in concrete improvements or in amendments to the Criminal Code.

Two committees and one subcommittee are now considering that issue, but the Bill in question, Bill C-19, remains on the Order Paper and has not come up for debate. The Bill was given first reading in January, but since then the Government has not even set a single day aside for debate. In the meantime, pornography problems are growing worse. Yesterday, a representative of the Reseau d'action et d'information pour les femmes tabled before the subcommittee a brief describing his attempts to file a complaint against pornographic magazines in Quebec, and I had an opportunity to examine magazines depicting very violent scenes.

The police in Quebec have refused to act on those complaints because of loopholes in the existing legislation. It is quite obvious that legislative amendments have become neces-

.

*

May 29, 1984

sary. Those examples include pictures of naked and tied up women with a knife or a razor close to them. According to the present legislation, that is not obscene because no men are seen in the picture. In another example, a woman is shown fully dressed, but on her hands and knees and held on a leash like a dog. That is degradation, of course, but it is not obscene!

The debate on pornography has recently taken a very constructive turn, in my opinion. In its brief to the subcommittee, a delegation of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women has called for legal protection on grounds of the right to equality or non discrimination. Those women have told us that it is a human right to be represented as a human being, and that it would be a breach of that right to be shown as a dog or a vile being without self-respect who agrees to be tortured or enjoys vulgarities. I would suggest that the links between pornographic and real violence are strong enough to justify legislative amendments, particularly more severe sanctions. According to that line of reasoning, there is no need to establish such links to justify stronger legislation. The right to equality, human rights, call for that kind of protection.

The obscenity provisions brought forward in this legislation, which we have not debated, do go in the right direction and deal with degradation, and we need them, but I believe there is one thing that is wrong with the Minister's proposal. It would seem to be a loophole on account of the expectation that all provinces have censorship laws. This is a provision to require the permission of the Attorney General to prosecute when a film or video cassette has gone through a provincial classification censorship board.

However, not all provinces have censorship. The Province of Manitoba does not. It only has classification. Quebec, in effect, does not censor films or cassettes. This would impede prosecution for films or cassettes which could be extremely pornographic. I do not think that is a step in the right direction.

To conclude, I would ask the Minister again to move quickly on this issue. The problems are important. If he is really serious about dealing with violent pornography, we do not want more press conferences or promises, we want to get legislation in the House and have it passed.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL CODE-PRESENTATION OF OBSCENITY AMENDMENT
Permalink
LIB

Arthur Allister MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. A1 MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):

Mr. Speaker, in response to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), I just want to point out that the subject matter of Bill C-19, the omnibus Criminal Code amendments Bill, is before the House Leaders at this time. They will be deciding if there can be an agreement between them about how to deal with this Bill. I would not want to prejudice those negotiations at this time by any remarks I might make.

Adjournment Debate

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   CRIMINAL CODE-PRESENTATION OF OBSCENITY AMENDMENT
Permalink

TRADE-BEEF IMPORTS FROM COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES. (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY

PC

Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond in the adjournment debate this evening with respect to my question to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Regan) which I posed last May 24, which appears at page 4010 of Hansard. At that time, the matter concerned beef imports into Canada from the European Common Market.

I want to take a moment to thank the Minister for International Trade, even though he is not in the House, for what I would call his careful answer on this subject at that time. I would point out as well that he was previously briefed several weeks ago by myself during a meeting of the External Affairs Committee when the Minister was a witness and I was on the committee.

I will give the Minister credit for a much better response last week in the House than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) provided on this same beef import issue when it was raised just one day earlier, on May 23, by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). On that occasion the Minister of Agriculture deliberately avoided the beef import issue and instead gave us all a sermon on the benefits of marketing boards with supply management powers for our Canadian beef cattle industry. That subject was not the issue at all.

My personal concern about this matter is that we in Canada are the only country in the world with an established and significant beef cattle industry of our own that imposes no meaningful restraints on subsidized foreign beef exports. Our only practical limitation on this matter is our global beef quota of 145.1 million pounds under our Beef Import Act plus the companion Guaranteed Minimum Access, generally known as the GMA under the GATT Agreement.

Canada's total beef cattle industry is presently very upset and angry over the dramatic increase in European Common Market exports to Canada from countries such as the Irish Republic, Denmark, Holland, West Germany and possibly others. Such imported beef is presently entering Canada with export subsidies of 50 cents per pound or higher. That is in Canadian currency, paid for by the exporting country within the Common Market. We are understandably concerned about that huge stockpile of over 600,000 tonnes presently in storage in the common market.

I was particularly pleased with the Minister's response to my supplementary question when he extended a personal invitation in this House for me to visit with him in his office to discuss this issue later that same day. I was pleased to accept that invitation. I am sure the ensuing session was well worth while to both of us. As a result of that excellent private meeting, I would seriously suggest that the Minister for International Trade has received some inaccurate background information from his advisory staff on two items.

May 29, 1984

Adjournment Debate

First, the Minister seems to feel that while our total beef imports may have changed as to their country of origin, the general total level of imports had not increased and was not excessive. This is certainly not the case. Our traditional imports from Australia and New Zealand have dropped somewhat, it is true, but this drop off has been replaced with huge amounts from the Common Market, all with export subsidies.

The second item that needs comment and correction is that the Minister seems to have been advised that Canada's global import quota of 145.1 million pounds will not be filled during the 1984 calendar year. Therefore, there should be no serious reason for our Canadian concerns. This is certainly not the case. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has monitored these imports from all countries very carefully. The Association does this year by year. It is a very good source of information on this type of statistic. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association has always done this as a service for Canada's beef cattle producers and the total industry.

The CCA's considered opinion is that our global quota could be filled as early as August or September of this year, after which we can expect our live cow prices to drop rather sharply as a result of being forced onto the United States market in larger and larger numbers at that time of year. It is important to note that I think the Minister has the best of intentions. That was obvious to me when we had our private conversation. I think, however, he has not been properly advised, at least along those two lines. Admittedly it is difficult to keep on top of the pounds of imported beef coming into Canada. But this can be done. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association over the years has done a superb job of monitoring the numbers. Most of the figures come from the Government of Canada, from Statistics Canada. It is a matter of the Minister taking the time to assess the total situation and get a variety of expert opinions. That is available.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   TRADE-BEEF IMPORTS FROM COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES. (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink
LIB

William Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) does make some very telling points. It is accurate to state that imports of beef into Canada have increased greatly when measured on a year over year basis. The information I have indicates that imports from all sources during the first four months of this year were 45.2 million pounds compared with 36.7 million pounds during the same months last year.

The Government shares the Canadian Cattlemen's concern about the rapid increase of subsidized beef imports into Canada from the European community. Since the beginning of the year, officials of the Department of External Affairs, in consultation with those from other Departments, have been monitoring and evaluating the situation closely in view of the potential destabilizing effect such imports could have on Canadian markets and trade patterns.

Strong representations have been made to the European Economic Community, urging it to cease the undercutting of the Canadian market. Canadian representatives to the GATT

have also raised the issue. Although Canada has not received a formal response, I am informed that on May 12, 1984, the European Community reduced its export refund by 6.6 per cent. This is welcome, but the European Economic Community needs to do more. Canadian officials shall be raising this issue again with the European Economic Community next week on June 7 and June 8 in the regular review of Canada-European Economic Community problems.

Moreover, I believe that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is preparing a submission requesting the application of countervailing duties on imports of Irish beef products. This submission will provide the Government the opportunity to evaluate if the industry is suffering injury due to these imports. Should this prove to be the case, appropriate action, consistent with Canadian law and our GATT obligations, will be taken.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   TRADE-BEEF IMPORTS FROM COMMON MARKET COUNTRIES. (B) GOVERNMENT POLICY
Permalink

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MACDONALD COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY. (B) GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

PC

Thomas Edward Siddon

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to elaborate upon the questions which I asked on April 17 in the House of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston), as reported at page 3136 of Hansard. At that time I was disturbed by the interim report of the Macdonald Commission which failed to recognize the importance of the new technologies that are now transforming global economies from one end of the planet to another. This represents a significant challenge to Canada. I must clarify that I am talking about the challenge to use technology to increase the wealth and income to be extracted from our traditional strong suits-our resource-based industries and our manufacturing enterprises. I am not just talking about high technology or micro-electronics in a narrow sense, but the equalization process which is under way in the world and the transformation of the economies of all nations this challenge is presenting.

I expressed my concern about the report of the Macdonald Commission entitled "Challenges and Choices" which left the impression that Canada perhaps had a choice as to whether or not it should increase its commitment to technological advancement, as if we could stand idly by and watch these rapid transformations occurring throughout the world and not become involved by way of a major change or shift in the priorities of our nation and of the federal Government, particularly.

The approach taken by the Macdonald Commission, in not coming up with specific proposals or a categorical position on the issue, not only flies in the face of the facts as they reveal themselves around the world but seems contrary to the submission of the Minister of State for Science and Technology to the Macdonald Commission last October, wherein he included a call for a major increase in Canada's commitment to research and development. At that time he stated that the Government's target would be 1.5 per cent of Gross National Product being invested in research and development by 1985.

May 29, 1984

On April 17,1 sought the Minister's assurance that he stood by his earlier commitment and asked whether he was happy with the ambivalent approach of the Macdonald Commission to technology. What 1 received back was worse than ambivalence. Specifically I asked the Minister:

-does he still support his submission to the Commission where he said that Canada must raise its commitment to research and development in a major way-

He said, and I repeat, "that Canada must raise its commitment to research and development in a major way." His contradictory answer to the question was: "clearly I stand behind the submission I made to the Macdonald Commission." He went on to indicate:

-the Government's commitment to research and development has been consistent ... and has not decreased-

Is his statement that Canada's commitment to science and technology has not decreased the same as his earlier one that Canada should raise in a major way its national investment in research and development?

The Minister's answer shows that the Government has had no serious intention of increasing its expenditure on and encouragement of research and development, despite its longstanding pledge, going back several years, to raise this investment to 1.5 per cent of GNP by 1985. Indeed, if we go back to 1968 at about the time the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office, Canada was spending 1.5 per cent of its GNP on research and development. In the intervening decade or more, our investment in research declined in a rather drastic way.

This tendency has continued as confirmed by Statistics Canada's annual science bulletin which was issued just a few weeks prior to the Macdonald report. The Stats Can report released a couple of months ago said that Canada's investment in research and development had dropped from 1.29 per cent of GNP to 1.28 per cent in 1983 and will drop further to 1.24 per cent in the present financial year. This means that the Government has failed miserably in its attempt-if there has been any attempt at all-to meet its modest goal of spending

1.5 per cent of GNP on research by 1985. The amount of 1.5 per cent of GNP equates to about $6 billion. That is less than one-third of what we pay in this country merely to service our national debt. It is an investment which absolutely must be made by the nation.

The Minister did not dispute the fact that statistically our commitment to research had declined. In fact, he confirmed it with his attempt at excuse-making. Specifically I asked the

Adjournment Debate

Minister, "Does the Mnister have an explanation as to why in the two years he has been Minister of State for Science and Technology Canada's investment in research and development has dropped-?"

The Minister gave two strangely incongruous reasons for this decline. First he said, "That is one of the outcomes of any recession", implying that national incomes had dropped and therefore we spent less. In the same answer he said that this occurred because of the economic growth during the period. To my naive way of thinking, those two statements appear to be totally contradictory.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MACDONALD COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY. (B) GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Permalink
LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MACDONALD COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY. (B) GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Permalink
LIB

Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology)

Liberal

Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House this evening to answer the question put by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) concerning the federal Government's commitments to research and technology.

I am pleased with this opportunity to address the House this evening regarding the federal Government's support for research and development and technological growth in Canada. I have no reason to doubt the seriousness of this Government's commitment to increasing research and development, and I can give an example to prove it.

Since the Government set its objectives for research and development spending, gross national expenditures in those areas have increased substantially. In 1979, gross expenditures for research and development represented 1.02 per cent of GNP. The latest figures provided by Statistics Canada show that in 1982, gross expenditures in those areas accounted for 1.29 per cent of GNP and it is expected this will be 1.28 per cent for 1983.

The ratio of these gross expenditures to GNP for the last two years is not as high as expected, mainly because Statistics Canada's previous assessments of GNP were very conservative. Our present economic growth is far more dynamic than was forecast, and consequently, if we express research and development as a percentage of today's expanding economy, it has not expanded to the same extent. Furthermore, some R and D expenditures planned for 1983 did not take place, especially in the sector where spending by the oil and natural gas industry has dropped compared with previous forecasts.

May 29, 1984

Adjournment Debate

Mr. Speaker, I could say more on the subject, but since I have only three minutes, I shall simply add that as far as technological development is concerned, I can assure you that the Government's commitment to investing in research and development is both substantial and sustained, and those must be my last words since my time has expired.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MACDONALD COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY. (B) GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Permalink
LIB

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

At 6.26 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 30, 1984

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MACDONALD COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGY. (B) GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Permalink

May 29, 1984