1986-05-23

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: The
day before yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Government released part of the studies on the negative and positive consequences of the free trade negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, the document reveals that one of the consequences would be the loss of 131,000 jobs over the next ten years.
The consequences would be negative over the next ten years, particularly in Quebec, owing to the province's industrial structure and the fact that the Government would stand to lose $3.5 billion in revenue which it would have to offset through higher income taxes.
But what is most scandalous about these documents is that the Government has chosen to suppress and hide some of the significant information which Canadians have the right to know.
Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House of Commons ought to demand that the Government table these documents and let Canadians know exactly what the positive and negative consequences might be.
Mr. Speaker, it is nonsense to claim that the Government, anxious to withhold information on the negotiations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The sixty seconds have expired.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the softly-softly, quietly-quietly, and completely
inappropriately named constructive engagement approach has not worked with South Africa. There can no longer be any doubt that Mr. Botha intends to defend the racist system of apartheid at all costs. The Commonwealth could receive no clearer message than was provided this week with the attacks on Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Botswana, and the promise of further action.
Canada and all Commonwealth countries must act now with strong measures that will leave Mr. Botha with little doubt that freedom-loving people will no longer tolerate his racist regime. If the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) fine words of last October are to mean anything, in the face of Britain's obstinate refusal to act Canada must provide the leadership necessary for the Commonwealth to develop a timely and forceful response, even if without Great Britain.


INSURANCE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty some companies and public sector organizations are having in obtaining liability insurance is by no means unique to Fraser Valley East. Many organizations throughout the country appear to be having similar problems. Possible solutions most frequently mentioned to alleviate these problems are Government actions to limit court awards, to control premium rates, and to enter into the reinsurance or insurance business directly.
Many people look to the federal Government to take action on this serious problem. However, due to constitutional decisions, the role of the federal Government in the regulation of insurance is limited to establishing financial and solvency standards for federally incorporated or registered companies. Matters such as contract provisions, their interpretation, and regulation of premium rates fall under provincial jurisdiction. I urge the federal Government to continue its co-ordinating role in bringing together the provincial Governments in order to deal with this important issue.

May 23, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, our farmers have been faced with major problems for many years. However, since the election of our Government, they have regained confidence in the future and they are looking forward to the coming crop year with unprecedented optimism.
They are right to be optimistic as our Government continues to take action to put back the farm sector back on a solid base. This week, the Farm Credit Corporation announced the second reduction of its interest rates in two months.
Farmers in Canada and the Beauce can now benefit from five-year fixed term loans at a rate of 10.75 per cent. For ten-year fixed term loans, the rate has been reduced from 11.5 to 11 per cent. Finally, shared risk mortgage rates have also been reduced.
Mr. Speaker, many Beauce farmers have told me that this Government has done more to help farmers in 20 months than the previous Liberal Government had done in 20 years. We shall continue to work tirelessly for our farmers. The Conservatives view agriculture as a priority in Canada.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation just announced a further reduction in its mortgage rate. For the second time in less than two months these rates have been cut back as a direct result of the Government's economic policies. Under the Commodity-Based Loan Program, the rate on partially indexed loans will be reduced from 8 3/4 per cent to 8 1/2 per cent. On fully indexed loans the rate will remain at 6 per cent. Farm syndicate loans are available at 10.75 per cent instead of 11 per cent.
Earlier this month the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) again confirmed the Government's commitment to agriculture with his announcement on immediate aid to farmers. At the same time we are world leaders in working toward long-term solutions to the international farm crisis. This Government has done more for farmers in 20 months than the previous Government did in 20 years, and we will continue to work for our farmers for many years to come.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is important to put on record the fact that two days ago the president of a plating firm in North York was sentenced to a year in jail for dumping toxic chemicals and warned he will face a penitentiary term unless he moves immediately to stop polluting the Metropolitan Toronto sewer system. In convicting Jetco and its President, Keith Alexander, Mr. Justice Montgomery said he was issuing a clear message to this and other polluters-clean up or close up. Judge Montgomery fined Jetco $200,000 and said that, in addition to the one-year term, Mr. Alexander will face an additional month of imprisonment for every day he delays a decision to undertake a major works program to comply with the law and the order of the court, to a maximum of 15 months.
Noting evidence that Jetco had already been fined $97,950 for 69 convictions of breaking Metro's anti-pollution by-law, Judge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the sixty-eighth anniversary of Canadian women winning the federal vote. This anniversary of women's suffrage is a time to celebrate women's achievements, it is also a time to reflect on the progress our society has made toward the goal of equality between men and women.
There have been some improvements in the status of women and Canadian women are proud of their accomplishments. Women fought for and won the equality provisions in the Charter of Rights. Women have emerged as a driving force in the creation of jobs in the small business sector. Women now occupy positions of influence in the professions and politics.
However, these gains will remain symbolic as long as average Canadian women continue to face inequality in their daily lives. Parliament must pursue the principle and the promise of equality vigorously. There can be no further delay, there must be action for equality now. One challenge that all three Parties must meet is to elect more women to Canadian Legislatures.
May 23, 1986


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, the Special Committee on Acid Rain heard the evidence of Mr. Paul Hansen, Environment Canada acid rain advisor who also works for the Isaak Walton League, one of the most respected environmental groups in the United States.
Before the Members of the Committee, Mr. Hansen stated that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had done a lot to make the issue of acid rain progress politically in the United States. He also added that the battle against acid rain will be won only when American public opinion realizes the seriousness of the problem.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask that, during the coming summer season all Canadians who visit the United States or who receive American tourists tell our southern neighbors about our concerns in this regard and point out that their intervention is essential if we want to win this fight and improve the quality of life for the citizens of both countries.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Canada announced another reduction in its bank rate. Today the rate fell by 16 basis points and is now fixed at 8.43 per cent. This represents a drop of nearly 4 per cent since the election of our Government roughly 20 months ago.
Events are now unfolding as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said they would. Interest rates are down, unemployment is down, the dollar is strengthening, and the economic outlook for Canada has not been this good in years. Yesterday's further drop in interest rates will be welcomed by the business community, by consumers, and by Governments, all of whom have seen their borrowing costs reduced dramatically since the election of our Government in September, 1984.
The Opposition doomsters and gloomsters can holler and criticize to their hearts' content. The Canadian public has shown more sense and has chosen to participate in this recovery rather than wallow in criticism and faultfinding, as do the Liberals and the NDP.


EXTERNAL AID
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in Ottawa this Sunday, under the aegis of UNICEF, a special run will take place. A Race Against Time/Sport Aid will raise money which will go to organizations involved in African relief. One-shot deals to relieve African famine are not enough. We need to have long-term plans which we can work out with the people concerned in Africa.
I hope Members of this House will agree to sponsor one of the many runners and will pledge some money here on the Hill. The organizers of the race will select a young student for Members who will carry their pledges through the course. If Members are on the Hill this Sunday morning at 11 a.m., they can then pick a winner and run the race. If not they can join the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) and sponsor her racer. Members may join her on Monday at three o'clock after Question Period, with that student.


PHARMACISTS QUIT SELLING TOBACCO AND CIGARETTES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one more example of co-operation between the private sector and our Government. In line with the concern expressed by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), some well-advised business people from the Quebec city area, more specifically one of our oldest pharmaceutical supply distribution companies, have decided to stop selling cigarettes and tobacco.
Our Government has stated emphatically everywhere, supported by many Canadians, that tobacco use is detrimental to health. Our initiative will benefit the Canadian public generally, Mr. Speaker. It will reduce the costs incurred for hospitalization later on and help us reduce the deficit we have inherited from the Liberals.
We are a multifaceted Government: no area escapes our scrutiny. This is the way we are planning to overcome the Liberals' stagnation. I say thank you to the corporations which trust and support us. Our congratulations to the Brunet pharmacies in the Quebec city area.

May 23, 1986
Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when public consciousness around the world has been dramatically alerted to the hazards of nuclear power generation Atomic Eneregy of Canada has been promoting the use, particularly in small northern communities, of its Slowpoke reactor energy system.
John Hilborn, designer of the original Slowpoke, speaking at a 1981 meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Society, said the following:
It is now well known that people will accept frequent, small disasters more readily than rare catastrophes.
In line with this twisted reasoning, AECL is now attempting to flog the Slowpoke energy system, with reactors some 100 to
1,000	times the size of the prototype model, as able to operate for weeks at a time without human supervision.
The sheer idiocy of even considering the commercial operation of such generating reactors, with fallible pumps, valves, and plumbing, without constant human monitoring and attendance, shows how far AECL officials have divorced themselves from reality in their desperate scramble to market their wares without concern for public safety.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. PIERRE LORRAIN, SPEAKER OF QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to recognize the presence in our gallery today of Hon. Pierre Lorrain, Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ZIMBABWEAN MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Comrade Dr. Dzingai Mutumbuka, Minister of Education for Zimbabwe.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, this situation is utterly ridiculous. At the very beginning of trade talks with the United States, the Prime Minister's friend, President Reagan, by his own act and his own hand, imposes a 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles from Canada. This is putting $250 million worth of exports and perhaps thousands of jobs in British Columbia in jeopardy. Will the Prime Minister tell us, in view of his relationship, whether he had advance notice of this action by the President and, if so, what steps were taken to head it off? If he did not, how can that be explained?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the action announced by the U.S. administration is, in our judgment, unfair and unjustified. The action taken by the administration is at variance with all the undertakings provided by President Reagan at Quebec City and in Washington. As my hon. friend knows, I have tried to place Canadian-American relations on a friendly footing and I will tell my hon. friend that actions like this make it extremely difficult for anyone, including Canadians, to be friends with the Americans from time to time.


REQUEST THAT FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister's response. Now I suggest that that rhetoric has to be backed up by some action. Surely the immediate retaliatory action would be to suspend the bilateral negotiations until this tariff is removed. Would the Prime Minister not agree that that would be the appropriate remedy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, I do not, Mr. Speaker. That would be an action inspired by petulance. This is too serious a matter to respond in that way. I have conveyed to the President of the United States the view of our Government, and I am sure of all Canadians, that the action he has taken is pure protectionism, exactly the thing that he undertook to fight against in Washington and Quebec City, and in all his statements affecting Canada.
It is bizarre that this action should have been taken as we are honestly and openly trying to initiate what could possibly be the elimination of tariff barriers between our countries with a view to bringing about mutual benefits for both our nations. Therefore, this action by the United States of America is very, very inappropriate and totally inconsistent with what the President and the administration have said vis-a-vis Canada. We will provide an appropriate response.
May 23, 1986


Donald James Johnston: It is not pure petulance to take steps to protect the interests of the Province of British Columbia.


EFFECT ON BRITISH COLUMBIA
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not agree that, if this action remains in place, British Columbia will become the artificial lamb on the altar of free trade in these negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there will be no "lambs", artificial or sacrificial, on the table of any negotiations. In point of fact it is our hope that the broader bilateral table of negotiations will allow both sides to conduct themselves in a non-protectionist mode.
My hon. friend is aware of the grievous pressures which have been building up in Washington, a vote yesterday in the House, debilitating protectionist initiatives by the droves, by the dozens down there, many of them designed to hit other countries but specifically impacting negatively upon Canada and Canadian jobs. It is because this kind of action can have such a damaging effect in British Columbia and elsewhere that we have initiated a broader scope negotiation designed to free both countries from these kinds of incidents which impact so unfavourably on both of us.
I can tell my hon. friend that we are examining very carefully all actions designed to help British Columbia and Canada which can be taken in this area.


FREE-TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Following the conference held in Halifax last November, a press release was issued by the Prime Minister's Office indicating that the Ministers had agreed to implement, within 90 days, the principle of full provincial participation in the process of free-trade talks. It will soon be 180 days since the conference was held. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why the federal-provincial conference, called as a result of pressure by the provincial Premiers, is 90 days late, and why the federal Government has allowed negotiations with the United States to begin, without first deciding on the formula or mechanism for full provincial participation in the negotiating process?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has been following developments with respect to federal-provincial consultations on international trade, he must be aware that there have been five meetings of officials of the various governments, where considerable progress was made and a substantial consensus was reached on the approach to these negotiations and on certain substantive issues. There will be a meeting between the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers, because we have now reached the point where we believe that a
Oral Questions
discussion with the Premiers is likely to result, for the first time in Canada's history, in an effective mechanism for full provincial participation in a negotiating process.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming long.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT BEGAN NEGOTIATIONS WITHOUT PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCES AND WHETHER CONTRIBUTION OF FRANCOPHONES WILL BE INCREASED
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, since, according to the studies that have been tabled, free trade may prove to be a disaster for Quebec as far as jobs are concerned, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House why, in that case, the Government has started negotiations without having either Quebec or the other provinces at the negotiating table or involving them in the process, and when he is going to meet the commitment he made to increasing francophone participation on the federal negotiating team?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the studies published by the Canadian Government have clearly shown that various results are possible with these negotiations. We have indicated that if there were to be a loss of Canadian jobs, no agreement will be signed by the Canadian Government. We are here to ensure that we will have a situation where, first of all, Canada is protected against actions such as the recent action taken by the President of the United States, and second, where we can provide the basis for a flourishing economy and provide job security for all Canadians, in Quebec and elsewhere.


IMPOSITION OF DUTY BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It goes back to the incredible decision made by President Reagan himself to sacrifice some 4,000 jobs in British Columbia as a result of an unfair duty imposed by the President himself. Considering that the duty had nothing to do with unfair trade practices and that it was imposed by the President himself, and having nothing to do with Congress, is the President not sending a clear message to the Prime Minister, namely, where Americans cannot compete with Canadians, then Canadians will not be allowed by the Americans to have access to their market?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would not disagree with that construction.


REQUEST THAT FREE TRADE TALKS BE DISCONTINUED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister, perhaps belatedly, now sees that the Americans are tough bargainers and have been

May 23, 1986
Oral Questions
getting away with much too much in the past year in dealing with the present Government of Canada.
Is the Prime Minister now inclined to agree that the position taken by President Reagan is in fact a complete denial of all the promises that he has made to the Prime Minister which will result in the loss of 4,000 jobs, according to industry spokespersons in British Columbia with whom I spoke this morning? Will he not get on the phone today to the President and, in firm but minimal language in terms of rhetoric, say to the President: "We will not continue with free trade talks as long as this kind of hypocritical action remains in place"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not learn belatedly that the Americans are tough bargainers. I have known all my life that the Americans are tough bargainers. We finally have a Government in Canada which is a tough bargainer itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We know that. I have said many times that I expected all kinds of difficulties to emerge during the life of these negotiations. With SI50 billion of commerce back and forth every year it could not be otherwise. We will have difficulties from the beginning to the end. The easy thing would have been not to initiate these kinds of negotiations. The difficult thing is to embark upon this kind of challenging negotiation which will have its pitfalls and its disappointments, to be sure. I agree with my hon. friend that this one today is an unfavourable signal.
This morning I sent back a clear, direct signal to the President of the United States in regard to the deep concern and the unacceptability of this action to the Government of Canada, as did the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm the same in a telephone call which he had with Mr. Shultz a few minutes ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S MESSAGE TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to get it clearly from the Prime Minister. Is he telling the House that he spoke directly to the President of the United States? Did he make it clear in that conversation that he regarded this decision by the President of the United States himself to be totally inconsistent with what he had promised he would do? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the President's reply was? Did the President of the United States say, yes, he was mistaken and he would take corrective action consistent with his public commitment to free trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this morning, after meeting with the Archbishop in regard to the South African initiative, I immediately conveyed our views to President Reagan. The Secretary of State for
External Affairs spoke directly with Secretary Shultz. We have conveyed our views, and we will be doing so again. We hope that we will be able to take some actions ourselves.
I wish to point out to my friend that the easy thing-and this is not to diminish in any way my disappointment as a Canadian in regard to how this action affects us as it does-is to ask whether this kind of action would affect a Third World country and whether protectionism itself is designed to debilitate economic progress. Protectionism is the refuge of someone who does not ultimately believe in free and freer trade.


Mr. Deans:: Are you surprised?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We believe that freer trade will bring about greater economic opportunities, which is why we will resist this type of protectionism. We will try to prepare an appropriate response for the American administration which will convince them of the folly of this kind of action directed either against a great friend such as Canada or anyone else. This kind of thing is bad news.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, bearing in mind that the Government seems to want to persist in carrying out these negotiations in spite of the American President's blow to the B.C. lumber industry.
The Minister has often claimed that the Auto Pact will not be on the free trade negotiating table, yet yesterday he stated: "We have not released documents that might help the United States in these negotiations". If the Auto Pact is not on the negotiating table, then why has the Government blanked out page after page in the findings and conclusions of its study on the Auto Pact?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to find out precisely why those paragraphs were omitted. I cannot recall them precisely. I cannot confirm whether or not they related to the Auto Pact. I can repeat the position of the Government of Canada which is that we have in the Auto Pact an arrangement that works and we see no reason to change it.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF FULL STUDY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the study in question is entitled "The Automotive Agreement in a Canada-United States Comprehensive Trade Arrangement". Will the Secretary of State undertake to release all the information in those blank pages? The people in the auto industry have a right to know what is on those pages. Will he not agree to this so that we can make sure that those workers will not be sacrificed as the Government seems to be on the verge of
May 23, 1986

sacrificing workers in the British Columbia forest products industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Hon. Member two assurances. One is that an arrangement will not be entered into between Canada and the United States that will cause Canadians to lose jobs. The second undertaking I will enter into is that I will not be publishing in the House of Commons information which, if it went into the hands of the Americans, would damage the case of Canada.
I read today in The New York Times that the colleague of the Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, is in active collusion with Members of the United States Congress who are trying to stop the passage of an acid rain Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe that kind of conduct to be inappropriate to Members of the House-


Ian Deans: You can't say that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric is getting somewhat excessive, I must say. When an Hon. Member is accused of being in active collusion, that is certainly a most unusual way of putting a point of view.
Let me ask the Prime Minister a question about what is now happening. Given yesterday's decision by the President of the United States, is it not now necessary to get a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous statement from the U.S. President with regard to what he stands for, and if Mr. Murphy, his chief negotiator, speaks for him when he refuses to accept Canada's position that our social policies are not on the negotiating table?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canada's policies are not on the negotiating table. My hon. friend knows that, the House knows that, and the country knows that. We do not have to return to that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Murphy doesn't know that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, then, I give you the responsibility of educating Mr. Murphy.


John Edward Broadbent: That's your job.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is not my job. My job is to state exactly what I have stated on behalf of the people of Canada which is that the social programs of this country are not on the table, Murphy or no Murphy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is it not also the job of the Prime Minister to make sure that, before negotiations start, the people with whom we are negotiating understand and accept that those policies are not on the negotiating table?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I am surprised that my hon. friend, who has the same kind of background as I and who is not unfamiliar with negotiating, would make that kind of an assumption.


Ian Deans: You don't sit down and negotiate with someone who disagrees profoundly with your view.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is a school of thought. I am not in any way surprised that the negotiator from the other side would, at the beginning of the negotiations, throw out opinions or-


Ian Deans: In the context of what he did yesterday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or make statements such as that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can simply tell my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions and answers should be questions and answers and not discussion.


Ian Deans: Given that Reagan has lied, given that Reagan has lied to us all the way through-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-N ipissing-Pembroke


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. On January 27 the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote a letter stating the following:
Canada's first priority in relation to chemical weapons continues to be to pursue actively at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva the conclusion of a complete and verifiable ban on all chemical weapons.
At a NATO meeting in Europe yesterday the Minister of National Defence went along enthusiastically, we are told, with a U.S. plan to resume production of chemical weapons. How can the Minister of National Defence have taken such a decision with no debate in the House and no discussion in committee, at a time when it flies in the face of the responsible decision taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to pursue the chemical weapons issue actively at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva?

May 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the position of this Government on chemical weapons is exactly the same as the position of the previous Government. We fully endorse the position taken in 1970 that Canada will not have chemical weapons, will not use chemical weapons, will not produce them, and will not keep them in store. That remains our position. We adopted that position after the position adopted in 1969 by the United States unilaterally to stop the production of new chemical weapons. In the meantime the Soviets continued with production and have built up their chemical capabilities.
In order to maintain the deterrence which is what NATO is all about-to avoid war-it is deemed prudent by all NATO countries that the U.S. increase or modernize its chemical capability for the maintenance of that deterrence and peace. There is no inconsistency at all. We are carrying on the policies of the previous Government which were endorsed by the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons. That was a policy of the previous Government as well. Since the Government has failed to bring forward a White Paper on defence policy, will the Associate Minister of National Defence commit himself and the Government to a debate in the House on such major international issues as this one so that Canadians may learn what is going on?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there has been some very significant reforms of the rules of the House. There are all kinds of opposition days available, and there are opportunities in committee. I would welcome a debate on defence at any time. If the Hon. Member would approach his House Leader or the members of his Party who deal with these matters, I am sure he would find co-operation on our side. The resistance to which the Hon. Member refers is fictitious.


U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHINGLES AND SHAKES- CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister used very frank and tough words about Mr. Reagan's decisions. I have to ask how we are to continue to negotiate free trade with the United States in good faith based on Mr. Reagan's promises when the U.S.
President has reversed himself so fundamentally on those promises in the decision he has made?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is highly regrettable that the U.S. Administration should have decided to take the kind of action that was announced late yesterday by the President, because this action is a complete reversal of the policy announced previously in Quebec City and Washington by President Reagan.
That being considered, we intend to look at all the options available to the Canadian Government in the circumstances, and we shall advise our colleagues at the appropriate time. Quite frankly, I must admit that the isolated action announced yesterday by President Reagan is a reversal of all the commitments and measures announced by the U.S. Administration with respect to the Canada-U.S. bilateral trade talks.


REQUEST FOR DISCONTINUANCE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is not just an isolated example. In fact it is an example of a constant pattern this week of American aggressiveness with respect to our trade position.

And that being considered, I want to ask the Prime Minister: Is it not necessary to do something here in Canada, not just talk but take specific action, such as telling the President: We cannot continue these free trade talks when this kind of decision is being made?
[DOT] (U40)


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows that in point of fact this is essentially an isolated action vis-a-vis Canada undertaken by the administration. I think he is aware of the fact that there is in the neighbourhood of a $150 billion to $175 billion, and growing, trade deficit in the United States. President Reagan is indeed a free trader, a defender of free trade down there. He is under enormous pressure and attack every day. It is particularly disconcerting that protectionism appears to have become an issue on which the Democratic Party, or many members of the Democratic Party, will choose to take a stand. Notwithstanding that set of circumstances, this action taken by the President against Canada, for whatever reason, is unjustified and unacceptable and will not be accepted by the Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 23, 1986


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the hardships suffered across Canada, and in view of the reported suicide of a 32-year army veteran who cited the unemployment insurance changes as one of the reasons for this unfortunate act, would the Prime Minister now agree that the time has come, and the only solution is, to revoke the unfair and cruel changes in respect of unemployment insurance which his Government has brought in?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very sad story, but is it directly related to a Government policy? This has not been proven. In any case, I will take the question as notice and advise my hon. colleague accordingly.
However, I think everyone is aware that the decision was announced in November 1984 and was not implemented until January 1986, and that the policy was referred to the Forget Commission which will be submitting a report to the Government. We shall see what transpires at that time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister, because he and his Government changed the legislation in the Budget of the Minister of Finance.


REQUEST THAT CHANGES BE SUSPENDED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Given that in the suicide note the unfortunate veteran asked his wife to fight like hell to get changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I want to ask the Prime Minister the following question in all sincerity. Until the Forget Commission comes out with its final report, will he agree in the interim, over the next number of months, to revoke the unfair changes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course I deeply regret any loss of life for whatever reason and would not care to comment beyond that, as my hon. friend will understand. The Government, in co-operation with the Forget Commission, is doing what it believes is appropriate. With regard to any loss of life, obviously my hon. friend would not want to tie it into any action taken by any Government anywhere.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When will the
Oral Questions
Minister introduce changes to the Canada Pension Plan contribution rate, as recommended by the Chief Actuary of Canada and as agreed to by the provinces last December?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is in the process of being prepared. I would hope that we would be in a position to table it in the House sometime in the middle of June.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why has Canada so enthusiastically supported U.S. plans to produce new chemical weapons? Why has Canada not joined the six NATO countries which have expressed serious reservations about these plans to produce new chemical weapons, or the seventh, Italy, which also has reservations about them? Why have we been so enthusiastic?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it would leave an impression that is contrary to the facts if we suggested that Canada was enthusiastic about the failure of the world to come to agreement on a means to control and eliminate the use of chemical weapons. Canada is working very hard in various committees, particularly in the Committee on Disarmament, to try to move forward an agreement which will be binding upon everyone and accepted by everyone. The difficulty we now face is that for more than the last decade the United States has refrained from the production of chemical weapons, but the Soviet Union has not. That leads to a situation which can be very destabilizing. Obviously the preferred solution of Canada would have been an agreement. In order to reach an agreement, we require some reasonableness on the Soviet side with regard to verification. That has not occurred.


Pauline Jewett: I disagree. That is not the problem.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, basically the Minister is saying that the talks are momentarily stalled so let us keep them permanently stalled; that is what he is saying by his enthusiastic support for chemical weapons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: Given what the Government has said about its arms control objectives, including a global ban on chemical weapons, how can we believe anything the Government says about its objectives when its actions so belie its words?

May 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member is entitled to say whatever she believes. I think upon reflection she would find it rather extreme to suggest that I enthusiastically support the use of chemical weapons, and I would hope she might reconsider that statement. She is quite right in one part of what she said. We are looking for a global ban. In order to get a global ban there has to be a system of verification which will work in the Soviet Union. If the events at Chernobyl showed us anything, they showed us how deeply ingrained in the Soviet character is an insistence upon secrecy. That is the problem with verification. We would be fools if we turned a blind eye to that reality.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONED UNITED STATES PRESIDENT ON SUBJECT OF LUMBER INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has spoken personally to the American President, his friend Mr. Reagan, about his decision of yesterday to take action to protect the American lumber industry, which will have disastrous effects on the Canadian industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I did not talk to the American President this morning, that I immediately sent an urgent message and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken to Mr. Schultz. I think that this is the second time I mention it.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister not believe, in view of the urgency of the situation, that he should speak personally to the American President? Second, can the Prime Minister explain how it is that he has not yet been advised about the changes in the American policy even though he himself has given up everything to negotiate free trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is ridiculous. It is a vulgar and inaccurate statement which should be withdrawn. The fact is that the negotiation process undertaken for Canada not only protects completely the rights and jurisdiction of Canada, but also puts us in a position of strength compared with our counterparts and that this will enable us to make an agreement which will favour both sides.
I know-


Jean-Claude Malépart: The other side is not keeping its commitment!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know. If my colleague asks me whether the statement or action of yesterday ... and we had apprehended all sorts of initiatives of this type because of the enormous pressures put on the American Congress.
However, if my colleague is asking whether this action contradicts the statements made by the President of the United States, the answer is yes.


Jean-Claude Malépart: He has betrayed you!


FINANCE
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the burden which small oil companies are required to shoulder by paying the PGRT. Is there any relief in sight for them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that there was an announcement on April 30 to the effect that the PGRT credit for small producers would be increased from $500,000 to $2 million. We are proposing to broaden that to include the royalty treatment for people from $10,000 to $40,000, a comparable increase which will be made concurrent with the change in the PGRT credit for small producers.


U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I will try to be as fair as I can in presenting the question.


Mr. Gormley:: The NDP fair? That doesn't fit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Prime Minister has given so much to the Americans, from the dropping of the National Energy Program to the changing of FIRA. What can I tell my constituents in British Columbia, many of whom will lose their jobs as a result of this action by President Reagan yesterday? What do I tell them that Canada got in return?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me just deal with the premise that Canada gave so much-the NEP and FIRA. The NEP and FIRA were
May 23, 1986

debilitating Canada. We got rid of them, not to do a favour to the United States but to do a favour to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to specific industries, we will take the action which is appropriate and persuade the United States administration that its kind of action, isolated though it has been with regard to the Hon. Member's constituents and perhaps others, is unacceptable. This is at variance with every statement that the President of the United States has made with regard to undertakings given on behalf of his administration to the Government of Canada. This is unacceptable. We hope to persuade and convince the Americans that it is in their interest not to proceed with these kinds of unacceptable measures affecting the interests of Canada directly and unfairly.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will remind the Prime Minister that it was he who put all his eggs in the American basket.


PRIME MINISTER'S CONTACTS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he was in touch with President Reagan before this morning, as he was asked to be by Canadian industry? Was he in touch with his friend, President Reagan, before today to tell the President not to take this kind of action? Did he do that on behalf of Canadian workers and business?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I signed the document at Quebec. The President gave further undertakings in Washington in March. This is exactly the antithesis of what we discussed at Tokyo.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The man can't be trusted.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is exactly the case that Canada has been making.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What's your influence then?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "What's your influence?".


Some Hon. Members:: None.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sure that when an action like this takes place it is as dispiriting to the Hon. Member as it is disappointing to every Member of the House. One must realize the context in which it takes place, which does not make it any more acceptable. These are pressures that the President is under and we feel that he ought not to have responded to those pressures-


Mr. Ouellet:: You're even scared to call him personally.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -because they contribute to the growth of protectionism which hurts us all.
Oral Questions
My hon. friend said that we put our eggs in the American basket. We did no such thing. We put our eggs in the Canadian basket-


André Ouellet: They're all broken.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and we are ready to make fair and honourable deals with anybody, including the Americans, who will increase prosperity in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN FOOD CHAIN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister well knows, Canadians are preoccupied by learning that traces of dioxins, dibenzofurans, and other toxic materials are being found in food and the food chain. In light of the recent study which has just been published, what plans does the Minister now have to intensify research on toxic substances so as to protect public health?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the protection of public health, and with specific reference to the Toronto study to which the Hon. Member refers, there is no doubt that a number of points on the very complex issue have to be raised in an attempt to answer the Member.
First, there are two regulations under the Food and Drug Act, which I will not list for the Hon. Member, which pertain primarily to dioxins in fish. We have been considering whether those regulations can be extended to include other foods. Second, with the type of sensing equipment that has been developed we are finding trace dioxin levels which previously hereto could not be found or traced.
The third point I would make, without trying to deprecate the report, is that foods were tested which were not washed. Therefore, they were testing trace elements which appeared as dust on the surface of the food without having washed it first. Obviously, common public health for everyone would indicate that food should be washed first.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister ensure that the information known to his Department will be made public on this specific matter which is so delicate, in view of the fact that his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, stopped the circulation of a publication called Storm Warning which was produced by the Department of the Environment on the very same subject?

May 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look at the specific request. However, the general principle on which I function, which applied to radioactivity in Chernobyl, is that if we have information which should be given to the public to reassure them that their food is safe and their health is not in jeopardy, it will be made available as quickly, fully, and expansively as possible. I will check the specifics, but that is the general principle by which I am guided.

[ Translation]


BENEFITS OF FREE TRADE FOR BOTH NEGOTIATING PARTIES
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With respect to the Canada-U.S. bilateral trade negotiations, and keeping in mind Quebec's industrial and manufacturing structures, did the Minister make sure that Quebecers too will benefit from these agreements, notwithstanding the statements made by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides who keeps saying that Quebecers lack entrepreneurial skills?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member who is as intent as we are on holding negotiations which might be of significant benefit to the people of Quebec. We have set up a consultation process with business circles, unions and other Canadians to make sure that the particular viewpoints of each industry and each region of the country can be readily accessible to our negotiators.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I have before me a confidential transcript of a SIRC hearing at which an officer of CSIS reveals for the first time that CSIS tape records, secretly and without consent, all voluntary interviews with civil servants seeking security clearance. Will the Prime Minister immediately order a full investigation into the nature and extent of this reprehensible taping of thousands of federal public servants without their knowledge or consent?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Solicitor General I will have to take notice of the Hon. Member's statement and have the matter checked into.


REQUEST THAT TAPE RECORDING OF INTERVIEWS BE HALTED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, this secret taping is a major assault on the privacy of all federal civil servants. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that pending the inquiry which I have sought there will be an immediate order issued to CSIS to end forthwith this secret taping of federal public servants seeking security clearances?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would be more convincing if he made his charges in a more measured way. These allegations will have to be checked into. If the Member was really concerned about the matter he would have given some notice so it could have been checked into before he asked the question. However, I will see that the matter is looked into.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister promised open government he forgot to tell yet another Minister, the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I direct my question. The Canadian Advance Technology Association has told the Science and Technology Committee that Revenue Canada is preparing guidelines which may seriously handicap research in Canada. Why has the Minister followed a secret process in preparing the guidelines? Why has he excluded industry representatives from the committees which are drafting those guidelines?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend opposite that this allegation is speculative on his part. If there is any substance to it, I will get back to him and report in due course.


ASSOCIATION'S REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DRAFT GUIDELINES
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Association is far from speculative. Will the Minister accept the request of the Association to publish these draft guidelines for comment and feedback from the industry? This would respect the Government's own guidelines as far as publication of regulations are concerned.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will take this as a representation from my hon. friend and consider it in due course.
May 23, 1986


THE LATE DAVID COOK
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a point of order from the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, by now Members of the House will be aware of the death of Mr. David Cook, one of our long-time committee clerks. We extend our sincerest sympathy to his family.


Mr. Speaker:: l think the House would want to know that I have expressed condolences on behalf of the entire House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition associate ourselves with the expression of sympathy concerning the late Mr. Cook.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, this is a matter which has received, as you indicated, the sympathy of all Members of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader what business he intends to call for next week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, today is of course an allotted day. On Monday I want to proceed with Bill C-94, legislation concerning the Atlantic Accord. I hope it will receive expeditious treatment on second reading. I want to thank the House for the manner in which it has dealt with business in the course of the last few days. I hope we can continue that with this particular Bill so it can receive the attention in committee that it deserves.
Following that will be C-98 concerning duties relief. At three o'clock on Monday I want to move to concurrence in Ways and Means Motion No. 43 tabled on May 21, 1986, to amend the Customs Tariff.
Discussions have been ongoing with Opposition House Leaders and we are looking at the sequence of other legislation which might come forward. I will continue to have consultations so that all Members will have adequate notice in order to deal expeditiously with the legislation.
Privilege-Mr. Garneau



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to two petitions.


PRIVILEGE
Raymond Garneau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Oral Questions Period the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) asked a question and referred to remarks I am alleged to have made recently. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to check the blues of the official record and correct some of his comments because the sound system was not functioning properly and I did not hear everything he said. After checking the blues, I might seek the floor to raise a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair takes notice of the Hon. Member's concern. He will know, I think, if he checks with his House Leader-
[ Translation]
-there are rules concerning the question of privilege, namely that it is necessary to raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. If he thinks he has a question of privilege now, the fact is-

The question of privilege does not exist because the "blues" say it exists. A question of privilege exists if it exists. Does the Hon. Member think he has a question of privilege?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) claimed that I had made some comments to the effect that Francophones did not have the economic know-how to hold certain positions. I never said that. The Conservative Member, the Hon. Member for Levis ... But first I wanted to check the blues.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please! I think the Hon. Member knows this is not a question of privilege. It may be a disagreement on a matter of fact but it is not a question of privilege.
13568

May 23, 1986
Committee Reports

The Hon. Member will know that a false statement is not a question of privilege.


Mr. Valcourt:: You do that every day, Garneau.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certain interjections are also points of order, however.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages. This report deals with the criteria which the Standing Committee has developed for the selection of votable items.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice of a desire to raise a point of order at this time by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of what happened in the U.S. yesterday, and in view of the responses on both sides of the House in Question Period today, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to accept the following motion. I therefore ask you to seek the consent of the House to move the following motion:
This House urges President Reagan to take immediate action to reverse yesterday's decision to impose an unfair 35 per cent duty on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may have your indulgence, there have been consultations between the Leader of the NDP, myself and a representative of the Official Opposition House Leader. In light of the fact that this matter is of some concern to the Government, and the motion itself is very supportive of the direct communication which has taken place between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, as well as representations by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to Mr. Shultz, we are quite prepared to support this motion. We appreciate this support of the Prime Minister and the Government. This is on the understanding, of course, that the matter is dealt with by unanimous consent without debate because we do have an agenda.
With your further indulgence, I want to indicate that the message from the Prime Minister to the President of the United States, which has been conveyed today, is as follows. This will give a context to the motion. It says:
Dear Mr. President,
1 want to convey to you the profound disappointment of my government at the action you announced yesterday regarding softwood shingles and shakes. The imposition of a 35% tariff is a punitive measure against Canadian products. This unjustifiable action is all the more appalling in the context of freer trade negotiations between our two countries having been officially initiated this week.
This American initiative is pure protectionism, the precise thing you and I pledged, in Quebec and Washington, we would seek to avoid. Canada is now placed in the position of being forced to consider an appropriate response.
1 deeply regret this action of the Administration.
Yours sincerely, Brian Mulroney


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that was consent for the introduction of the motion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of the Official Opposition that we are very desirous of having a unanimous expression of the will of the House, without reference to differences of view which undoubtedly exist among the Parties, that what President Reagan has done is unacceptable to Canadians. Therefore, we share in unanimous consent to have this unanimous expression of the will of the House on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the House is giving its unanimous consent to the waiving of the usual notice for the introduction of the motion. It is understood the motion may therefore be introduced. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, question No. 549 will be answered today.


Mr. Lapierre: 1. Is there a privatization committee at Pecheries Cartier, in Gaspe, Quebec and were members of the committee appointed by the Government and, if so (a) which members (b) what is their salary?

May 23, 1986

2. (a) Was a house purchased by the company for its former president, Dave Barrett (A) was the house sold and, if so (i) to whom (ii) at what price?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: 1. In March, 1985, a privatization committee was formed within the Board of Directors of Pecheries Cartier Inc. The members of this committee were appointed by the Board of Directors of the company and not by the Government.
2. (a) Yes. (b) Yes, on April 18, 1986, all common shares held by the federal Government in Pecheries Canada Inc., the parent company which holds the majority of the shares of its subsidiary, Pecheries Cartier Inc., were sold to the Purdel Agri-food Co-operative, (i) Consequently, the house is now owned by Purdel. (ii) The house was included in the sale price of the shares.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.