1986-06-03

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 six petitions: Nos. 331-430, 331466 to 331-468 inclusive, 331-526 and 331-528.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the revised Acting Ministers list.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise this morning to announce that tomorrow will be a further allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemns the failure of the Government to act in Canada's interests in the free trade discussion with the United States and, in particular, for its failure to obtain an agreement to suspend unilateral tariff action by either country during the period of these discussions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) clapping. I hope he will maintain that disposition later when he hears what I have to say on a subject on which, however else we may disagree, we will be united in our view that it is one of great importance to the country.
At the outset I want to say that in its relations with the United States the Government has now clearly revealed for the whole country, if not for itself, its failure to obtain gain for Canada through what it thought was its unique capacity, namely, its friendly disposition. From the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet formed a Government, it was contended in economic relations with the United States that we as a nation would make considerable gains. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is directly responsible for these important negotiations, welcome to the real world.
We learned last week that a decision made in Washington could throw 4,000 Canadian workers out of jobs in the shakes and shingles sector. Yesterday we learned of a major new tariff imposed upon our steel industry, which will affect another part of Canada. Tomorrow, I suspect, we will hear of another adverse decision coming out of Washington which will have terrific negative effects on softwood producers across the country.

June 3, 1986
Supply
The Government has demonstrated that Willy Loman's reliance upon a smile and a handshake in terms of economic relationships between states is no more effective for us in our relations than it was for him as a salesman in Boston.
Before I put on record some very constructive proposals about what we should be doing now, I want to say something first about the general and immediate circumstance.

According to me and according to the vast majority of Canadians, the economic facts of the relationship between Canada and the U.S. are as follows. It is clear that both countries are agreed we have a valid trading relationship. In fact, trade between our two countries has now reached a value of $150 billion annually. It is true that at the present time, Canada has a trade surplus of $20 billion, and it is clear to us, in this party, and I believe to the vast majority of Canadians, that our trade is in very good health for the time being, but it must continue to prosper in the future. Our two countries accept these facts. We are partners in North America. Nevertheless, we have experienced problems in the past, we are having some today, and we shall certainly continue to have problems in the future. This is perfectly normal when we are talking about relations between two major countries.
Today there are some very serious problems in the lumber industry and in connection with certain agricultural products such as grain. According to us, the Government should take care of these particular sectors right away. It must find a valid way to deal with these serious problems. Instead of spending time and resources on what it hopes will be the long term benefits of free trade, the Government should tackle these very real and serious problems.
They are problems that may trigger a loss of jobs, not in the 21st century but in the very near future.
U0)

That ought to be the priority of the Government and in our view it ought to get on with it quickly. Sectors need immediate attention. Instead of furthering our efforts to concentrate exclusively on free trade talks that have embodied in them the acceptance of what can only be called a free trade mythology, we ought to get on with dealing with these very serious problems as they are perceived on both sides of the border.
Making the argument that short run pain will be replaced by long run gain is simply an act of faith. Perhaps what the most creative economist of this century, Lord Keynes, said about the long run is what all politicians should keep in mind: "the only thing certain about the long run is that we'll all be dead." If there is one group we should not turn to for forecasts about the long run and put any great reliance on them is economists. The only thing certain about long range forecasting by economists, left right or centre ideologically, is that they are bound to be wrong. That is the one thing one can say with
great certitude about the great science of economic forecasting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I regret that what really runs at the heart of the Government's argument in private conversation, in public conversation, in debates in the House of Commons, in speeches made outside the House of Commons, in assumptions of the royal commission is this profound faith in free trade, a faith like most such faiths made independent of evidence. This Government is prepared to accept faith in this myth of the force of the market-place as a guarantor for future Canadian benefits. My Party does not accept this mythology at all.
The reality is that no nation in the past or in the contemporary world, save perhaps for the present Government of this country, is really committed to this mythology as a national policy. It did not work in the past, except to obtain dominant economic power. The only people expounding it in the 19th century were Great Britain for the obvious self-serving reason. It was designed to further their economic interests on a global basis. Similarly, those who are expounding the view today in private, in Canada, in business circles or in certain parts of the business community are those who see its self-serving purpose for themselves. It is not something to which our Government ought to be committed.
Nations for very good reasons want to ensure continuation of certain kinds of economic activity. That means we will have now and we will continue to have, not simply in Canada but in other nations, a variety of tariff and non-tariff barriers which will be needed for cultural and agricultural purposes, for regional development programs and for social programs of all kinds. These will be needed to give the shape and substance to what it means to be a nation. There will be, I repeat, all kinds of such economic measures taken by any Government in the world in a number of sectors that have the long-range and the short-range interests of their people in mind.
The Conservatives like to suggest to those of us who have taken what I regard as a responsible nation building position, namely, that we need a variety of economic policies and that we should not commit ourselves to a carte blanche free trade in every sector, and this is one of the banal lunacies of the Conservatives, that we should be on the defensive about a rational economic and social development policy, I say it is the Government that ought to be on the defensive about trying to get Canadians to accept such a myth.
While the Canadian Government is caught up with its own self-deceiving mythology of the uniform benefits of free trade, the United States of America is not. I want to say something right now about what is going on in the United States. I hope the events of the last 10 days or so will have caused our Government to do some serious rethinking.
What is going on in the United States, I want to stress in my comments, is at the executive level of the United States
June 3, 1986

political system. I am not talking about the very serious protectionist measures that are working their way through Congress. They are well known and they contain a lot of dangerous measures for the economic future of our country. I want to set them aside, not because they are not important but because this Government has been dealing with an administration in a very naive way. The U.S. administration has been preaching free trade, and I say categorically, preaching it to our Government that has been caught up in its mythology is a nice way of further conning our Government.
While the American administration has been preaching this, what have key figures in the U.S. administration been doing? First, consider United States chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker. Consider a seminar he attended April 16 and 17 and what he said, then we will begin to understand what the United States is doing in terms of its global policy on trade, a part of which is aimed at Canada. He spoke at length about the American imbalance of trade. He is right. We should have no illusions. The U.S. trade imbalance is $150 billion. It is a serious matter. But what did he talk about doing? He talked about shifting trade, taking decisive American action to correct the problem. What can he do? Did he leave Canada out? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. He wants to regain $50 billion from Japan, $40 billion from the western European countries and $10 billion from Canada. That is what Mr. Volcker targeted. His view is not isolated. He is one administrative figure.
There is a second I want to mention, Treasury Secretary Baker. On May 20 he said: "Very shortly you're going to find Canada our biggest problem of imbalance". He, too, a key figure in the U.S. administration, is quite aware of their game plan for trade with Canada. To understate the matter just a bit, their game plan does not have us coming out on top.
A week ago the U.S. Ambassador to our country, Mr. Niles, made an incredible statement to justify the unjustifiable, namely, the tariff against our shake and shingle industry, a competitive non-subsidized industry. What did Mr. Niles cite as one of the justifying reasons for this action? Did he talk about unfair trade practices or subsidies? No. Central to his argument was his reference to the imbalance in trade which exists between Canada and the U.S.
Free trade or not, and fair trade or not, it is pretty clear that Mr. Niles is saying that the United States is the world's dominant economic power and that we should not misunderstand that. They did not get that way by accident and they will not remain the dominant power by being buddy-buddy with other nations including Canada. Mr. Niles is saying that whenever the United States has a trade imbalance it has a selfgiven right, as the dominant economic power in the world, to whack away at other countries. Canada is one country with which they want to make up their trade imbalance even if it means unfair attacks on Canadian trade.
Supply
I could cite other administration figures. However, I think the three key ones which I have cited are sufficient to indicate the direction of the U.S. administration headed by the President himself.
It seems to me that this planned attack in terms of trade on Canada as one of the targeted regions includes the following mix of policies. First, a selection of protective measures which they have already taken on fish and pork products in the past year, on shakes and shingles last week, on steel yesterday, and on softwood tomorrow. There are a whole number of sectors which I have touched upon on which the U.S. plans to take protective measures to ensure that they will get greater economic benefit at the cost of Canada.
Second, there will be efforts made by the U.S. to open new markets in Canada. Therefore, in the talks preliminary to the trade talks they are being quite explicit about everything being on the agenda because they want to get access to our drug industry. They want Canada to bring in legislation to make that possible. They want to get into our service industry and publishing. They have no illusions about tearing out the guts of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement in terms of the investment safeguards which Canada has. Anyone who thinks that that is not a key item on their agenda is not only dreaming but is dreaming in technicolour. One-third of our $20 billion surplus in trade with the United States happens to be in the automotive sector.
If I were a U.S. politician interested in the well-being of my country, and particularly if I were from a state in which the automotive industry wants to expand, I would not sit back and say that we should ignore the $20 billion surplus in automotive trade. I would try to make the automotive industry a free trade industry by removing the investment safeguards, which will mean the loss of thousands of jobs.
There is a two-pronged strategy so far. There is protection for a range of industries in the U.S. Second, there is expansion into a number of new markets in Canada which have hitherto been protected for Canadians, or have had certain protective mechanisms in them. A third key element of the U.S. strategy has been the maintenance for themselves of the unilateral right to take countervailing tariff action. No American negotiator, no U.S. Congressman, and no Senator has intimated the slightest interest in getting rid of the countervailing power which they have to protect their jobs and industries at any time that they alone think it is appropriate.
In concluding my remarks this morning I would like to say that it is time that we as a country smartened up. We can no longer conduct a comfortable seminar about the long-range distant future of the likely positive impact of free trade when in the meantime thousands of Canadian jobs are being threatened. We have to smarten up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It seems to me that the Minister has two options. He can continue to do what he is doing. He can

June 3, 1986
Supply
continue with the trade talks in the future and complement that by tit for tat trade war decisions, the like of which we saw yesterday which, I repeat, will be totally counterproductive. We cannot win that kind of trade war with the United States. I will offer an alternative approach right now. We can do two things. First, we can put in place immediately, as the top priority, teams of experts in the limited number of sectors which are in dispute between the two countries. We can get experts on both sides to focus on those disputes to try to resolve them before negative action is taken on either side of the border. That should be the top priority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I see you are rising, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to continue for just another minute.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is seeking the consent of the House to continue his speech by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being such consent, the Hon. Member may continue.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank the other Members. I will try to conclude briefly.
That should be the top priority. I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion which I am about to make; if he does not, I hope he will at least give us his reasons for refusing. As I have just suggested, we should set up committees on a priority basis to deal with areas of trade that are in dispute which could result in new job losses. If the Minister is not going to suspend the talks, which I do not believe is on his immediate agenda, he should instruct Simon Reisman, our chief negotiator, to put on the agenda for those talks as the first item the discussion of a mechanism which could radically change the unilateral countervailing powers of both nations, which would be put in place in those sectors in which free trade is agreed upon in the future. This seems to me to be absolutely essential. If there is no agreement on such a mechanism by the United States on those sectors, all other talks and agreements can be worse than useless. We can be deceived into thinking that real progress has been made when in fact we will have lost a great deal.
In short, the unilateral power of both nations to take retaliatory steps must be fundamentally changed in its application to those sectors where free trade is going to be agreed upon. If it is not, we are only kidding ourselves. We are leaving ourselves open to the kind of action we saw on shakes and shingles in the past week on a whole variety of new sectors which may be negotiated on a free trade basis.
Keeping this kind of power in such sectors for either nation is not an equal benefit as some might argue. It may be an equal right but, like many equal rights, it has very unequal results depending on economic power. If we maintain as a
nation that we want to keep such authority in such sectors, just as the U.S. does, I repeat, we will be doing a great disservice if we give up tariff and non-tariff barriers in such sectors and simply rely on this kind of power. I say that because the exercise of that power by the U.S. and by ourselves is supremely unequal in its consequences. A 4,000 job loss in Canada hits home when the U.S. uses that power. However, it is little more than bothersome, as a statistic, in the U.S. when Canada exercises that power on them. It is the difference between two nations, one of which has an economy 10 times more powerful than the other. To use a metaphor for the Minister which I think is relevant, a beaver jumping on an elephant's toe might cause the elephant to scratch. However, if the elephant decides to step on the beaver it will do more to the beaver than merely remove the itch. I say to the Minister that it is time our Government realized it is dealing with an elephant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we, like many other Canadians, are looking at a harsh new reality in our trade relationships. There has been a lot of fine rhetoric and a lot of noble words used over the past 15 months about the grand benefits we would derive from seeking out a brave new world of trading relationships with the U.S. This morning the workers in the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia know they will be without a job in four days. That is a harsh reality to face. There is nothing very pleasant about looking four days down the road and realizing that an occupation you may have held for 5, 10 or 15 years is all of a sudden going to come to an end; not through any fault or error on your part, but simply because the great forces of international trade have wiped your job out of existence. It is a helpless feeling. Where do you turn? That is part of the harsh reality that at least 4,000 Canadians and their families are facing this week. For them, discussions about trade are not abstract or academic. They are very real, very difficult, very heart-rending, and that makes it incumbant upon this Parliament to treat it in those terms.
Equally so, many other Canadians have woken up to face the prospect, not of a new era of economic co-operation with the U.S. but of a trade war. As much as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tried yesterday to gloss over the reality, the fact is that the retaliation taken by the Government yesterday will further accelerate what has become a pattern of action and reaction between our two countries. Ministers of the Government have tried to maintain over the past 10 days that the tariff on shakes and shingles was an isolated thing. Of coures, it is not. It fits a pattern and was further emphasized yesterday with the decision to impose new import tariffs on Canadian steel.
Canadians are also facing the new reality of an increasingly arduous period in time, in fact perhaps the most arduous in our post-war history of attempting to work out a highly dangerous
June 3, 1986

trade relationship with the U.S. Consumers are going to be paying substantially more for a wide range of products. Whether it be books they read, computer parts they need, or tea and porridge, they will now be required to pay a somewhat higher price. Goodness knows, as we have said many times, this is a Government which has elevated the approach of the Grinch who stole Christmas to that of philosophy, by putting a tariff on Christmas trees, and it is doing it in June rather than waiting for December. The fact of the matter is when you add all those things up, what they really demonstrate is the fundamental flaw in and failure of the approach taken by this Government to conducting its relationship with the U.S. That has nothing to do with the good or bad of the Reagan administration policies, but with the way we reacted to them.
There was a basic premise expressed at the beginning of this Government by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that somehow if you were only liked by and friends with the Americans, in a jocular way but not in an intergovernmental way, you could build up, I think his words were, credits in the bank. When the time came for the U.S. to make a choice on whether to inflict economic damage on Canada, we would just pull those credits out of the bank and all would be well. That time came a week ago Friday. There was a very crucial decision to be made affecting 4,000 Canadians and their families. Every Canadian rightly expected that this was the time to pull the credits out of the bank; all right, let us see this special relationship have some special impact. Of course it did not. No one in their right mind should have assumed it would because that is not the way to conduct a relationship, particularly with a very powerful and determined country, one that since the inception of the Reagan administration has shown a clear pattern of activity which does not recognize the old rules of international co-operation. Whether you are talking about their stand on arms control, UN financing, Nicaragua, or world economic institutions, the fact is they have shown a kind of Rambo-like mentality of go it alone and serve your own selfinterest. From the point of view of the Reagan administration, they have a right to do that and their people support them. However, that has been the fundamental pattern, contrary to what had been the pattern before where other administrations accepted certain obligations concerning maintenance of an international economic world order. The Reagan administration does not see it that way anymore, and that is the reality we as a country should have faced.
In order to deal with that kind of attitude and those policies, the key ingredient is to be respected if not liked. You have to gain respect through a series of actions and reactions, not concessions. We are now paying the price for a fundamentally flawed approach to that relationship. The price we are now paying is being seen in the most evident and personal way by many Canadians in the loss of their jobs and their livelihood.
At the same time the Government has also latched on to the notion of bilateral negotiation with the United States as being the panacea for all that ails Canada. Every time we asked a
Supply
question about what the economic strategy of the Government was, it was that it was going to get that bilateral agreement, have a totally comprehensive free trade arrangement and all will be well. We will not have to work hard at anything any more. We will have this vast market of 250 million people we can sell our goods to. We will be saved from all kinds of harassment and protection.
There is, in the annals of mythology, the old notion of the Pandora's box, which is brought forward as being the great panacea. People cherished it because they thought there were hidden treasures inside. Once the box was opened all that was let loose was a whole legion of demons which you could not control. The Pandora's box has been opened by this Government in its singular, obsessive pursuing of this bilateral negotiation, to the exclusion of all else.
I am not saying that one should not be negotiating and talking with Americans, because obviously you must, and we have. We have been doing it for decades. That is nothing new. The question is how you approach it and whether you are going to come in walking on your feet or on your knees to those negotiations. That is the real question.
By giving away so much at the front end-and I can go through the litany of freebies that were given away by this Government with nothing in return-when it came to the real bargaining that started a few weeks ago we had already put all our chips on the table. It makes the lottery games look like a sure thing. We came into the negotiations already on the defensive because we had already given away the best part of our bargaining leverage; in other words, FIRA, cultural industries, pharmaceuticals, whatever it may be.
You have to ask yourself about the approach it has taken. Let us look at a specific example on the shakes and shingles. The Minister who will be responding, and the Prime Minister acted with great indignation and outrage in the House a week ago Friday, as they rightly should. It was a terrible action by this ally. They also said they were surprised. Why was the Government of Canada surprised at that decision? Their own embassy officials admitted that they had met back in April to discuss this matter with U.S. officials. They knew it was going through the process. Did they assume that somehow a magic wand would be waved, or that their special relationship would come into play? Surely, knowing the impact and significance of the jobs of so many Canadians, something should have been done beforehand rather than reacting to an event that already took place. It needed some anticipation, some hard work and digging. It needed some tough negotiating and some bargaining prior to the decision being made. That we did not receive. Instead we now have wholesale retaliatory actions, which are simply adding to an escalation which only boggles the mind.
If you have a highly developed sense of irony you might be able to tolerate it. You have the Government talking about the need to have open boundaries and wide open co-operation, while at the same time on the other side of the street you have the Minister of Finance imposing new tariffs, imposing new boundaries, the Americans retaliating we are talking about
13900

June 3, 1986
Supply
free trade on one side and highly protectionist actions by both countries on the other. Is this Jekyll and Hyde we are playing? Are we playing some kind of strange game of schizophrenia in our policies? Is it not important that there be some consistency, that we not be subject to these mental aberrations in our trade relationship?
The retort has been, if we were not negotiating things would be much worse. How could they be any worse? If you add up the actions over the last ten days there have probably been more countervail actions during that time than in the last ten years. Those negotiations have not exactly given us a free ride, an open sesame or an exemption against American countervail. They have hardly given us the kind of warm, comfortable exclusion that we wanted. We are a target. We are right in the gallery and we are being shot at.
What have the negotiations brought us so far? What they have brought us is one hell of a pile of trouble. How do you defend that as a strategy? Let us talk about this issue of countervail, because I think that goes to the very heart of the whole trade negotiations. All the advocates from the Royal Commission on down to the Chamber of Commerce, the C. D. Howe Institute, all those wonderful economists that the Leader of the NDP talked about, those new economic wizards, which is the fastest growth industry in Canada at the present time, the proliferation of TV spots by the economic soothsayers on our so-called think tank have all said we need to negotiate in order to protect ourselves against continual harassment. If we do not negotiate we will not be able to withstand the protectionist pressures. If we do not get some change in the countervail, if we do not get some limitation or alteration in American trade laws through which their industries can exercise a whole series of trade actions against Canada, there is not much point to the negotiations. I agree with that absolutely. If you are going to negotiate in order to offset the protectionist forces then you have got to tackle that central fundamental issue of the countervail. What have we seen over the past two or three weeks? What kind of good faith has been shown? That is why the position of the leader of our Party, as of several premiers, in relation to the exercise of that countervail power on the shakes and shingles, and now the action that is being taken on softwood lumber,has been that we should have a joint undertaking by both Governments that during the period when we are talking about how to limit that countervail they will be held in abeyance. We will at least make our best efforts to set those kinds of harassment actions aside so that we can bargain in some good faith.
What have we heard? As I understand it, when the Minister met with his counterpart, the Secretary of State of the United States, he indicated it is just not on the table. What does that tell you about their answer to countervail? President Reagan said in a letter to Senator Packwood when he was buying his deal for the free trade negotiation, "This will not affect the countervail powers". The U.S. Congress has said this will not affect countervail powers.
The question I ask is, what is it we are negotiating for? What kind of an incredible price will we have to pay in order to provide for some slight modification of those countervail powers? That is the real key question that should be answered by the Government at this point in time.
The warning signals have already been set. We have seen the incredibly potent and damaging impact those countervail powers can have. Rather than looking for other options, by trying to reinforce and strengthen the international trading system, the GATT system, putting our resources and efforts there to deal with countervail, which has been the basic Canadian genius I think in the last 30 years to protect ourselves through that multilateral international forum against countervail powers, we have decided that a bilateral route is more effective, and now we see what the end result has been. It has resulted in an increasing number of countervail actions, and ourselves being put on the defensive, sort of in retreat, on that very issue alone.
Because of the Government's failure to deal with the plight of the workers in British Columbia and the fundamental flaw in the strategy that has been approached, and the lack of discussion and debate in this country, I would like to amend the motion presented by the Leader of the NDP. Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period and by adding the following:
and for its failure to assist Canadian workers who are adversely affected by such unilateral actions.


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his rhetoric, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said that there were specific things that the Government has given away before the negotiations. Will he specify what we have given away before negotiations?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I only wish I had the full amount of time to provide all the particulars.


An Hon. Member:: You have 10 minutes.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly what I will do, if the Hon. Member wants. I will take the full time to answer him properly.
The first give-away was the issue of foreign investment review. This was an area of dispute where the Americans demanded some retaliation because they felt it was imposing undue burdens upon their industries. The Government that was elected in 1984 agreed with that position. Surely when changing foreign investment review the Government might have found some basis for determining what kind of investment changes would be made in U.S. practices which have their own limitations. What position did the Government take as a prelude to negotiations in terms of providing for wider investment reviews?
June 3, 1986

There were major changes in energy policy. The U.S. administration did not agree with our energy policy, for its own reasons. Surely that is a matter which required some proper bargaining.
The Americans were interested in having the NORAD agreement re-signed. That is a matter of some great consequence to both our countries, but it should have been brought in as part of a general state of negotiations in the relations between our two countries.
The same kind of negotiations have taken place with respect to the pharmaceutical industry, and similar concessions were given to publishing where the Government acceded to major demands made by the Americans with respect to Prentice-Hall. Those were very important decisions affecting our cultural industry, our book publishing industry, but the Government gave in and acceded to the Americans. What did we get in return as part of the bargaining?
The fundamental premise articulated by the Prime Minister was that these concessions were a way of showing good faith. If that is the Government's reason, then we accept it. However, we are saying today that this was a flawed approach because it did not achieve the kind of respect that one required in order to develop a so-called special relationship.
How has this given some benefit to your constituents in British Columbia who will be unemployed in four or five days from now? What has this new approach gained for them? We are asking those questions because Canada-U.S. relations are the most important and most crucial of our relations with other countries. We are simply saying that this has been a flawed approach.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. The Hon. Member seems to believe that we should not do anything in the best interest of Canadians because it affects Americans and may work to their advantage occasionally. I would ask all Canadians to look very carefully at the list the Hon. Member gave us in terms of the utter ridiculousness of FIRA and the oil policy of the previous Government. They will realize that this Government's decision was taken in the best interest of all Canadians and essentially did not concern trade talks with the United States.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We obviously have a different interpretation, but I would suggest to the Hon. Member that while he believes our oil policy or investment policy may have been ridiculous, they worked.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fennell:: It killed western Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would point out that the state of affairs in Alberta these days is not exactly thriving. There is a much higher unemployment rate in Calgary today than there was two years ago.
Supply


Mr. Shields:: Not true.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are far fewer drillers working in Alberta than there were two years ago. If the Hon. Member wants to talk about whose policies are working, that is a totally different debate which we are quite prepared to discuss. We were giving an incentive to smaller Canadian operators in the oil and gas industry. They are the very ones who are being taken over by foreign companies and being put out of business. Therefore, I simply say that the Government is welcome to its own mythology because everyone has to live in his own fantasy land.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) implied that the Liberal Government knew how to conduct Canada-United States relations. The national energy policy literally discriminated against foreign investment by companies from the United States. I would remind him that those companies came to Canada in 1947 and were the bullwark and developers of the oil industry in western Canada. How did the National Energy Program help Canada-U.S. relations?
FIRA discriminated against foreign investment. How did that enhance our relationship with the United States? I would like the Hon. Member to comment on that.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would be more than happy to comment. Let me deal with FIRA first. In its latter years, FIRA provided major benefits to the economic program of the present Government. The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion made a number of major announcements in relation to investments by Japanese and Korean automobile firms. Those announcements were possible because certain agreements were made as a result of the FIRA process. We did not stop investment with FIRA. In fact, 97 per cent of the applications in the last year of FIRA were approved. However, we were able to gain certain agreements about investment, research and development, and providing a world product mandate. The reason the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion was able to make a major announcement of a Hyundai plant in his riding is that it was an agreement that was made under FIRA. We arrived at that deal because we exercised some leverage on that foreign investment.
Similarly, the major thrust of the National Energy Program was to help Canadianize the oil and gas industry and give us some degree of self-sufficiency in this country so we would not be totally dominated by the large multinational companies. During the 1970s we learned that when it came to protecting Canada's interests, those interests were not always first at hand and we were often given second class treatment by those multinationals, rather than the first class treatment we would expect from our own national companies.


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the impact of yesterday's action by the Government on the 4,000 British Columbia families who will be left helpless to deal with their economic situation has been lost in the rhetoric this morning.

June 3, 1986
Supply
That is certainly the case as a result of the statement made by the Government yesterday. What does the Hon. Member feel the Government should be doing in terms of an adjustment program for those families in British Columbia?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A few seconds, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I know the time is short and I will answer accordingly. First, I think we should still be making efforts to get that tariff changed. We should be making last ditch efforts until June 6 to appeal to the American President. Barring that, I believe the Government should introduce at this time the provisions under the Employment Support Act of 1971 which was brought in under similar circumstances when the Americans imposed a 10 per cent import tax. It helped many Canadian industries to maintain themselves during that period of time by making up the difference between the cost of the import tariff and their costs to continue their exports into the United States.
I am surprised the Government has not taken advantage of that Statute, which is still on the books, to establish an employment support board so that those 4,000 workers will at least be able to maintain themselves in busines and have some future.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the Leader of the New Democratic Party for arranging this debate today. It is a matter of great concern to all Canadians and to all Parties in the House. I want to make a brief comment about the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who is, as we all know, a Member of Parliament who is transfixed by the United States of America, even to the point of having his assistant down now working with one of the leading opponents in the U.S. Congress of acid rain legislation, legislation which would be helpful to Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: A matter of privilege. That is not the truth, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry on a question of privilege.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just stated an untruth. I would ask him to withdraw it.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Get off your knees.


Mr. Gauthier:: You're switching the truth again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my allegation. If the Hon. Member has any evidence, let him bring it forth.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are making the accusation.


Charles Joseph Clark: On the question-


Lloyd Axworthy: I ask the Minister to withdraw a statement which is untrue, by the rules of this House.


An Hon. Member:: Come on. Sit down, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: He cannot come into this House and give a direct lie. It is a direct lie the Minister has stated and I ask him to withdraw it.


Royce Herbert Frith: Ring the bells.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's a lie and he knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Order, please. After some consideration, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry may find he is in strong disagreement, to say the least, with the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). But for him to say what he has said is in fact to use unparliamentary language, per se, and I would therefore ask him to withdraw. I think he knows that he would have to withdraw.


John Edward Broadbent: If I may speak on this point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that it is incumbent on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to accept the word of Hon. Member. One of the rules of the House is that if someone says something is not the case, it is presupposed that we accept the word of that someone. I think the onus is really on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to withdraw his comment before there is a suggestion that the Hon. Member, who has been challenged by the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Tell him to get off his knees, first.


An Hon. Member:: Withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: What is relevant to the Chair at this point in time is not the question of fact as presented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), and I understand his point. What is relevant to the Chair now is that we are now in a forum of debate and it is not expected that Hon. Members on each side of the House always agree on the facts. We all understand that. What is very relevant to the Chair now, and the only thing with which the Chair wants to deal at this point, is the fact that unparliamentary language has been used.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Let me just finish so we can come to a clear understanding on this. The Chair once again understands full well that perhaps the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry does not agree- strongly disagrees with the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has made that quite clear. But the only
June 3, 1986

thing relevant to the Chair at this point is the fact that technically, if you wish, unparliamentary language has been used. I would, therefore, very respectfully ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to withdraw, not out of spite for the other side of the House but out of respect for the House itself. That is the only request I would put to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry at this point.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have respect for yourself, Sir, for the Chair and for this House. I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have equal respect, and when he says something which is not the case, when he cites a fact which is not true, and I ask him to withdraw it he would do so. I am simply asking him to withdraw it and I will withdraw my remark about him. It seems to me that would be the proper way of doing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have already said that we all understand that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has made it quite clear he disagrees very strongly on a question of fact. May I remind the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of the House, that the debate provides for a period of questions and comments at which time Hon. Members can rise and express either a point of view or put a question to the person who has just spoken, and in fact put the case about which he does not agree. That is why the rules were made. That is why we do have a period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member can very well make his point at that time.
However, and I am trying to make this quite clear, the only thing relevant to the Chair at this point is that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has used unparliamentary language and I am, therefore, under obligation to ask him to withdraw immediately and without any equivocation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if I might speak on the point of order. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is correct and an Hon. Member is bound to accept the word of an Hon. Member in the House. I will respect that rule and I would hope that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will immediately and without equivocation or qualification withdraw the unparliamentary language he has used.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances of the Secretary of State for External Affairs withdrawing his statement, I will withdraw my statement concerning his statement.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have wasted approximately five minutes of time on this particular inner debate. I would hope that time would be added to the speaking time of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not a waste of time, come on.
Supply


Mr. Fulton:: Dither, dither, dither. Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will take that into account, but time listening to the Speaker is never time wasted in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, very briefly with regard to the questions of FIRA, the National Energy Program and NORAD, those were matters on which the people of Canada had an opportunity to vote. They voted. They wanted to be rid of the NEP and FIRA and they wanted Canada to honour its obligations. It was for Canadian reasons that the Government of Canada acted, as it always is.
Let me come to the question at issue here. It might help if I start with a little historic perspective. I had an opportunity to consult the now defunct Montreal Star of December 31, 1964 in which there was a very interesting article referring to a telegram sent to the federal Government of that day by the Canadian United Auto Workers. The telegram said that the early implementation of the Auto Pact would leave auto workers with "a pig in a poke". The United Auto Workers went on 22 years ago, to say: "We do not consider it enough to have bland assurances that the plan will expand employment for Canada". The point is that there was blind opposition to the Auto Pact 22 years ago to the point that Canadians did not want the Government to pursue an arrangement which would be better for Canadians. We have found with the Auto Pact that it is possible, if Governments have the vision and determination to pursue better arrangements, to achieve better results for Canada.
The purpose of this Government is to achieve better trading results for Canada and to provide some kind of protection against precisely those virulent forces of protectionism which are causing such a threat to Canadian jobs right now.
I wonder sometimes why it is on questions of this kind that Members of the Opposition take such a consistently negative position when leaders of Government, often leaders of their own Parties, are prepared to exercise much more responsibility in the national interests. I suppose it has to do with the precise question of responsibility.
The 10 premiers who met here last night with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), premiers representing the Liberal, New Democratic, Social Credit and Progressive Conservative Parties, all had some questions about the trading relations between Canada and the United States. All had some reservations; but instead of being blinded by their reservations and instead of putting their Parties first they put their country first. They are allowing Canada to go forward into those negotiations now with a united front that will allow Canadians to achieve the best possible conclusion for the people and the workers of this country. That is a model I would recommend to Members of the House of Commons.

June 3, 1986
Supply

Mr. Speaker, when this Government came to power, it had to deal with some serious economic problems that were due to two factors: A poor national economic policy and a lack of interest in international markets. Since then, we have revived our national economy and our trading relations.
For instance, we created 630,000 jobs in 20 months, one of the best performances in this country's history. At the international level, we need only consider the five major measures that were taken.
First, under the previous Government, Canada had been excluded from the planning group on international monetary policy which has a fundamental impact on the world's economy. In Tokyo, the Prime Minister was successful in getting the group to broaden its membership and accept Canada as an intervenor on international policy.
Second, Canada had not made sufficient efforts to penetrate new markets in Asia. The present Government is now opening new trade offices in Osaka, Bombay, Shanghai and Auckland. The Prime Minister himself visited China, Korea and Japan to promote sales of Canadian products.
Third, previous governments had been unable to take advantage of GATT to help vital industries such as agriculture. We are now playing a leading role in the new series of trade negotiations. We are trying to regroup the countries of this world within the framework of new trade agreements.
Fourth, we are launching new negotiations with our most important trading partner, the United States, to protect our markets and our jobs and to seek new markets.
Fifth, if we look at the agricultural sector, for the first time in this country's history a Canadian Prime Minister raised the Question of agricultural subsidies at the international summit. The debate was lively, but consideration was given to the possibility of breaking the cycle of subsidies that puts a very unfair burden on farmers in all our provinces.
None of these initiatives had been taken before.
They reflect the need to make fundamental changes to existing practices, practices that did not work, that left Canada out of the G-5 and in a situation in which we were falling behind as a trading partner in the world. Those practices left Canada in a way most relevant to this debate; that is, exposed to the rampant and growing protectionism in the United States, exposed without a means by which to guarantee our own future and our own situation.
Of course, there is a fear across the land about the consequences of growing protectionism in the United States. It is a real fear. Canadians have a right to have their Government respond to that real fear in a way that can provide some hope of guarantee. This is too important a matter for politics. The Premiers recognized that last night.
I trust that Members of the House of Commons will also put their country ahead of partisan advantage and realize that it is not just someone losing a debate in the House of Commons that is at issue. If we do not act now to put in place a more effective system there will be jobs lost in every province, every city and in virtually every industry across the country.


Mr. Orlikow:: It's already happened.


Charles Joseph Clark: Members opposite say that it is already happening. Of course it is already happening, which is ample proof that the system in place no longer works. The old system is not adequate. What we need is a new system that will work better.


John Edward Broadbent: Free trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: We owe it to the future of this country to repair a system that is weak, that does not work and that does not provide the guarantees to which Canadians have a right.
Let us take a look at what has been happening here. The punitive tariff on shakes and shingles is only the most recent example. Similar Section 201 investiations threatening our access to the U.S. market for castings and apple juice have recently been terminated on the basis of determinations by the U.S. International Trade Commission that those imports are not injurious to U.S. producers of the products in question. Tomorrow, the U.S. International Trade Commission will be announcing its decision with respect to whether imports of fork-lift arms are injurious to U.S producers.
Over the last two years U.S. authorities have carried out countervailing duty actions involving our exports of live hogs and pork products, fresh groundfish and fillets, raspberries and oil industry steel products. Decisions will be made in a matter of days on whether to initiate countervailing duty investigations involving imports of softwood lumber and cut flowers. Anti-dumping investigations have involved our exports of salted cod, rock salt, rectangular steel pipes and tubes, and iron construction castings. The U.S. International Trade Commission announced yesterday its finding that imports of dumped and of subsidized tubular steel products are injurious to the U.S. industry.
The line and the list goes on and on. It is made more serious still by the fact that there are constant threats that Congress will unilaterally legislate trade restrictions. As we all know, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a major trade Bill, legislation which, if enacted, would significantly revise U.S. trade law, including proposals which could adversely affect Canadian trade interests.
These problems were not created by negotiations with the United States. They are the reason that negotiations must proceed. It is because we have a system that is full of holes that we have to provide a better system to put in place. In effect, the NDP suggests that we set up a bunch of groups of experts wherever there is a dispute. Surely, it is far better to go
June 3, 1986

to the root cause of our problem rather than to engage in firefighting here and there, hither and yon. What we need is an approach that will provide more general protection to Canadian interests that are now under serious assault.
We were not elected to the House of Commons to sit here and do nothing. We were elected to the House of Commons to accept the responsibility, to face up to very real threats that endanger the future of Canadians across the country. That is what we are doing. In the spirit of the first ministers who met last night, who overcame their partisan differences and their other doubts to provide a common front as Canada enters into these negotiations, I hope that there will be a willingness here to try to put in place a much better arrangement. Obviously, tough actions are necessary. The Government has taken tough actions when they were necessary.


Mr. Riis:: Like what?


Charles Joseph Clark: An Hon. Member asks: "Like what?" We have taken positions with regard to the United States' request that there be a delay of one year in the implementation of the decision respecting Georges Bank. We have said that there will be no such delay. We have taken decisions such as was announced yesterday by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), indicating the economic response of Canada to the shakes and shingles measures that were taken. We will continue to take these strong responses because they are necessary to ensure realistic trade negotiations.
Someone talked about a trade war. Of course, one of the dangers, one of the temptations to Members of Parliament interested in partisan advantage, rather than advancing the debate, is to use words and language that create false fear in the country. Let it be very clear that there is no trade war between Canada and the United States. Any trade war is within the United States itself between protectionists, on the one hand, who want to pull the United States inward at whatever cost to its friends, and on the other hand certain American leaders, including the President, who want more open trading relations with the world and, in particular, with their friends. That trade war in the United States is virulent. Protectionist forces are rising. They threaten every region of Canada. We saw that conflict coming. That is why we are seeking a trade arrangement, to protect our access to U.S. markets, to seek new opportunities for new and better jobs for Canadians and to establish a model, a model of trading relations that can provide an alternative to protectionism.
As a first step, we sought the Quebec Accord, seeking guarantees that one country will not take protectionist measures of a discriminatory nature against the other. That agreement was broken once on shakes and shingles. Our response, including the measures announced by the Minister of Finance yesterday, was designed to demonstrate how central we consider that Quebec Accord to be to successful conduct of these negotiations. We believe the United States has received our message.
Supply
I want to talk a little about standstill. Surely Hon. Members opposite would not suggest that we seek a standstill agreement which would be more binding upon Canada than it would be upon the United States. That would be the situation, given the inherent differences in our system; that is the inevitable conclusion one must draw from what the NDP is putting forward. Surely the Opposition would not suggest that Canadian farmers be arbitrarily denied their right to seek relief from injurious imports from the United States of subsidized agricultural products. That is what the NDP is proposing. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting that the federal Government unilaterally take on commitments which could well apply to the provinces.
There is no magic solution to shield us during these negotiations. Individual issues will have to be addressed on their merits under the existing rules and laws until such time as we are able to negotiate a better framework. That is why we are in this business; that is why we are involved in the negotiations. It is our expectation that in cases where there is discretion, both sides will honour the commitment to halt protectionism in cross-border trade in goods and services. That was the spirit or essence of the Quebec Accord. We expect that it will be honoured.
We know that this will involve difficult decisions in specific cases. I discussed this matter at some length with Secretary of State Shultz in Halifax last Friday. I am confident, following those discussions, that the need for advanced notification and consultations on specific issues is accepted. I reject suggestions that we should hold the trade negotiations hostage to specific trade irritants. Events of the last two weeks provide compelling evidence that current international trade rules do not provide the certainty and security of access to the U.S. markets which Canadian producers need to plan and to invest. They offer compelling evidence that arbitrary U.S. border measures create grave hardship for those Canadians whose livelihood depends upon bilateral trade in those products.
Trade negotiations are in Canada's interest. The status quo is not good enough. We need improved rules. Changes in the rules could only be achieved through negotiation. This Government recognizes the need to put our trade and economic relationship on a better basis. We are pursuing that objective both bilaterally and multilaterally under the GATT. We are pursuing it both internationally through trade and domestically by bringing growth and job creation back to the Canadian economy. These trade negotiations are so clearly of benefit to Canada and to Canadians that it would be irresponsible to abandon them because of issues of the day.
I invite Hon. Members of the House of Commons to consider a question very carefully. Fishermen in Atlantic Canada, asbestos workers in Quebec, steelworkers in Ontario and Saskatchewan, uranium producers in Saskatchewan, shake and shingle producers in British Columbia, and farmers and lumbermen across Canada have one thing in common-their livelihood depends upon access to the United States market.

June 3, 1986
Supply
Their livelihood is being threatened by strong and growing protectionist measures in the United States. They know this issue is more important than politics. The Premiers demonstrated last night that they understand this issue is more important than politics. We have a great Canadian challenge. We have a great Canadian opportunity. I trust there will be vision enough in this House and I trust there will be enough dedication to the national interest to cause people to rise above the partisan debates which sometimes occur here and to give the Government of Canada the kind of support we need when we go into negotiations with a very tough adversary on the other side. It is Canada's interest that is at stake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions following the Minister's speech. The first one deals with the auto industry. The Minister made reference to a telegram sent by the then director of the UAW in 1964. The Minister knows that neither he nor I were in the House at that time, but I know something about the history of the period. I know the pact was signed in 1965, not in 1964. The telegram cited by the Minister referred to the absence of certain kinds of provisions which would protect Canadian job interests.
Will the Minister agree with me that when the pact was actually signed in 1965, it then included at least part of what the UAW was calling for and is central to the whole debate? It contained investment mechanisms which were opposite to free trade, investment mechanisms which insured, without going into all the detail, that a certain level of investment had to take place in Canada by General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford. Therefore, the protest telegram which the Minister cited, as well as other protests that were being made, were helpful in getting an agreement in the long run, and in providing substantial benefits. It was not a free trade agreement. Would he agree with that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there could be no doubt at all that the conclusion of any trade arrangement between the United States and Canada will benefit immensely from the constructive participation of all elements of the Canadian community, whether it is the United Auto Workers or the New Democratic Party, assuming a distinction in the two, or any other organization across the country. There is no doubt about that. This is why we have embarked upon the widest possible process of consultation in the country to ensure that our ambassador and the various Governments dealing with the trade negotiation have the benefit of the widest possible range of advice.
I would hope that what the Hon. Member says is the case. I would hope that because the United Auto Workers made a proposal which made sense the negotiator accepted that proposal. That will be the standard now. We must move beyond a situation where there is simply ritual opposition to an idea. Once there is a willingness to join in a Canadian way in trying to get the best arrangement for Canada, the Leader of
the New Democratic Party will find, as he says the UAW found in the past, that there will be a determination to try to take account of that kind of participation.
I was very pleased at the spirit in which the Premiers met last night. They met in precisely that spirit, trying to make the arrangement better. I hope that practice becomes contagious.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, frankly I think the whole tone of the Minister's speech is very regrettable. He was insulting the UAW. He referred to them-and the Minister can check the words-as being entirely negative when they were doing their job in 1964, which was to try to protect Canadian interests. If it had not been for their vigorous protection of their members' interests, there probably would not have been safeguards in the automotive agreement protecting Canadian interests that got the jobs. Rather than taking cheap shots at the UAW, he might have given them some credit.
The Minister did not deal with what I thought was a constructive proposal. I put it in a constructive tone near the end of my comments. The Minister himself has mentioned that the essence of the talks must deal with countervailing authority; at different times the Minister has said that. Does he or does he not agree with what I suggested near the end of my remarks as one of the two points upon which I asked the Government to act? We are in an early stage of the discussions now. Does he agree that the Government of Canada should attempt to get an arrangement that would be applicable in future free trade sectors upon which we might agree, an arrangement which would deal with the countervailing authority that exists on both sides of the border? Does he agree that steps should be taken in those sectors to remove that authority so that we will not be subject to the kind of action we have experienced in a whole range of sectors which the Minister listed in his own speech? Is that not a fundamental goal in the negotiations? If we cannot get that kind of mechanism at the outset, a mechanism pertinent to those sectors, does it not lead to the conclusion I have reached that the rest of the talk about free trade is something worse than a dangerous solution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just so that I may have some clarification, is the Hon. Member suggesting that that should be secured as a condition precedent to the negotiations or that it is something which should be sought during the negotiations?


John Edward Broadbent: The suggestion I was making was that it should be the first item in the negotiations. I have already taken as given that the Minister is continuing with the negotiations. What I was saying was that the first item for discussion ought to be that item and that there should be an attempt to resolve it. Then, if there is a resolution of it, as is consistent with what we have said on the whole subject since last fall, discussions should and could continue. If we do not get agreement on that, we are not dealing with the essence of the problem as it is pertinent to free trade sectors.
June 3, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly it makes sense to me, Mr. Speaker, that that issue should be raised and be pursued. It has been our assumption throughout that an approach of that kind would be taken. What worries me in the formulation of the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party is that he said something to the effect that if this is not secured when it is raised early in the negotiations then we should not proceed with negotiations.


John Edward Broadbent: On free trade. Not on other matters.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member is using the words "on free trade". Do I understand him to say that he thinks there should be progress on other trading arrangements between the negotiators of Canada and the United States, whether or not we have early success on some variant of the proposal he is making? Is that his proposal?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it was not quite clear what the Minister had in mind in his last question, but I will try to clarify what I am saying. I am saying on behalf of my Party that, first, we should have dealt with the bilateral issues and got them out of the way. Yes, second, that discussions between the two countries should go on as they have in the past to try to improve trading arrangements between our two countries so they are mutually beneficial. Third, if you like, that as a carte blanche approach, for historic reasons we reject free trade as applicable across the board, for a lot of the reasons I indicated in my speech, and as I have indicated previously. Fourth, we are saying that in those areas where discussions are aiming at a free trade arrangement in certain sectors that what has to be achieved prior to wasting time on that, it seems to me, is an acceptance on both sides of a mechanism that would put an end to the unilateral countervailing authority in those sectors. If we do not get that agreement, then, as I argued in my speech, we are doing a great disservice to our countrymen. If that kind of unilateral authority would remain with the U.S., for example, and we get a free trade arrangement in our sectors, then the Americans could just swamp us at any given time with that authority. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs think that that is crucial before we begin talking about free trade in a whole range of sectors?


Charles Joseph Clark: I think I understand what is being proposed now, Mr. Speaker. My answer is that we think it crucial that these matters be discussed, that we try to have some change as a consequence of the trade negotiations in some of the instruments that are available to the United States now, just as they would be seeking some in ours. I would not make agreement on that complex question a condition precedent to proceeding to the negotiations.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the action taken yesterday by imposing tariffs on specific items. I have been trying to understand the strategy that underlies this gesture. I would presume from what I have been able to read and from the Minister's statement that it is an attempt to stop,
Supply
if you like, harassment; it is to attract the Americans' attention to the Quebec declaration as the Minister said and it is to sort of send the message: "Look, fellows, this is a two-way game and there should not be any of this, obviously because we can hurt you and you can hurt us."
In the course of doing that, as the Minister recognizes, we impose additional costs on Canadians, we create a retaliatory posture which, personally, I do not think is conducive to any kind of negotiations. This act was taken presumably instead of some other gesture. The one that appealed to me was direct negotiations with the Americans-the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the President saying: "Look, you have put on this 35 per cent tariff. No harassment. Stand still if you like on these issues, all issues, on both sides while negotiations are ongoing." Why would that not have been a preferable approach to imposing these tariffs which are costing us, as Canadian consumers, dollars out of our pockets and which tend, I suggest, to poison the relationship rather than making it more healthy at this critical point?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, there is no question that the actions that were taken by the Minister of Finance yesterday are going to cost, just as the actions taken by the United States President Thursday a week ago are going to cost. Protectionism costs. It costs consumers on both sides of the border. It is not an approach we should be following. We had thought there was agreement on that at Quebec. We certainly want to use every instrument we have to bring the Americans back to the spirit of that agreement.
The Member asks whether we had considered other options. He spoke specifically of direct representations to the American administration. There has been a range of direct representations to the American administration over the last 10 days since all this began. I have spoken twice and met once with Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz. There has been contact between the Prime Minister and the President. Officials have been meeting.
The reality is-we looked at it very carefully taking a steady, strong approach to response-that there are constraints in American politics and constraints in American law that make it extraordinarily unlikely that there would be any chance of the President turning back the measures he brought in, in the circumstances. For a variety of reasons, the most intelligent measure for the Government of Canada to take was to follow through with an economic response.
One other thing I should underline, to reveal an open secret, is that it is always difficult for Canada on any issue at any time to attract the same level of attention in the United States that would be attracted by the Americans actions here. That is part of the relationship. When they do something that hurts us, and this tariff imposition clearly hurt us, they do it probably because they underestimated the reaction of Canada to their action, so it is particularly important that Canada's response be strong enough to ensure that it will not happen again.

June 3, 1986
Supply


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is an historic debate that is taking place in the House of Commons today. One might have hoped that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) could have put aside his unctuous manner, which seems to afflict him when he deals with partisan issues, and attempted, as he suggested to us, to rise above partisanship, to make what we have to say something that speaks for the good of the country rather than for the good of a Party.
We have two countries with a great history of tremendous affinity or tremendous intermingling. In my part of the country particularly, it is an intermingling that takes place on a constant and continuing basis. To talk of Canadians as being anti-American is to miss the point. Our people are not antiAmerican. In fact, their experience with the United States is go great, so complex and so all-encompassing that they have found it necessary to develop a serious strategy of trying to deal with that colossus. Because it is a colossus with a certain kind of internal dynamic which cannot be ignored, an internal dynamic of tremendous economic expansionism, an internal dynamic which has driven its companies to the far corners of the world, but more important for our purposes, has driven its companies to the far corners of Canada, it requires us in turn, and has required us historically, to have a nationalist response. This response protects and defends our concerns and our interests as we face this expansionism. It is something that cannot be ignored by any government. It must not be ignored by this Government.
Many decisions could be made in this four years which could make it very difficult for us as a country to maintain the independence which we must have in a changing international world to be able to reach out to new markets and new parts of the world and to be successful economically. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has put it, we must put our country first. However, to do so is not just a matter of verbal rhetoric, but is instead a matter of concrete policy, a matter of hard thinking and serious strategy. It is the absence of all three of these considerations which I hold as my condemnation of the Government's action with respect to U.S.-Canadian relations.
The Minister has suggested the Auto Pact as an example of free trade. I wish the Minister would read a bit of history and economics and get a sense that the Auto Pact is anything but free trade. It is not free trade with reference to its origins. The Auto Pact was started by what was in effect a retaliatory tariff against the United States. It was, in turn, created as a pact between our two countries on the basis of companies being involved and the two countries being involved. It was not free trade which was established. In fact, from our side it was a multilateral trade pact which permitted these countries to import goods from any part of the world, not just from the United States. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it was a pact which had within it serious, detailed safeguards which dealt both with the number of cars which those companies had to produce
in Canada in relation to the number of cars which they sold in this country, and the level of Canadian content which had to be in those cars.
No one, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any other Minister, has ever put before us in the House a single suggestion that the free trade thrust which is presently taking place aims at that kind of defence of Canadian interests with respect to any single sector which is going to be debated or discussed with the United States. If such had been the case, the reaction of those on the Opposition side would have been very much different.
There is across this country a tremendous fear of free trade as it is being promoted by the Government. That is a fear which the Government itself has created. Admittedly, that fear was created with some help from ourselves by being completely secretive with respect to the Government's strategies. The Government held back every study that dealt with the question of free trade until the very day on which the free trade talks started. It then handed out those studies which were full of vast gaps. The ordinary person in this country could get absolutely no insight or serious understanding of what the Government was seeking with respect to those studies which had been undertaken. Therefore, secrecy created the fear to begin with.
Second, the Government took the low road of insulting the Opposition rather than the high road of recognizing that some of us have very serious doubts about what is being done to this country and what its future is going to be if we are part of a free trade agreement with the United States. Instead of addressing those doubts and talking about those serious concerns of not only Members of Parliament but hundreds of groups across the country, the Government retreated to a series of insults of which I could give you far too many examples today. We were called fretful, prophets of neoprotectionism, timorous and fearful, when we were only trying to defend the interests of this country, just as were those on the other side of the House. Yet, they refused to enter into a serious debate about the best course to take in order to establish what would make our country a better place in its relations with the United States.
There has been constant incompetence in the way in which the Government has followed the path of free trade from point to point. As it has taken us through a charade of negotiations with the United States there has been a lack of direction and a flip-flopping of rhetoric. Finally yesterday, with the supposed retaliation against the tariff on the shake and shingle industry, we saw the ultimate in nonsense brought before the House. It was the ultimate in nonsense because that retaliation did absolutely nothing for the 4,000 workers who were affected by the original decision. Asolutely nothing was done for them, despite the fact that we have legislation which could have provided assistance to that industry as a countermeasure to the tariff which was imposed on them.
Second, in a piece of ultimate flim-flam by the Government it attempted to pretend that it was putting high new tariffs on
June 3, 1986

computers and semiconductors from the United States. When you dig into it, Mr. Speaker, you find that the House had not even passed the legislation to put that duty-free situation into place for computer parts from the United States. Bill C-111 deals with that issue and that Bill has received only first reading from the House of Commons. We have not even established the lower tariffs which we were supposedly increasing.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill C-lll which we were destroying in the process was an exciting, dynamic possibility to set up, not just with the United States, but on a three-level basis with the United States and Japan, a free market in computer parts and semiconductors. Frankly, I could not believe the Government would not only shoot itself in the foot on computer parts, but also shoot Japan in the foot. Yet we checked this morning and found that the decision announced yesterday goes not just against the U.S. but also against Japan. We have taken a quite magnificent sectoral free trade agreement which could have given us something that every Canadian would have felt some pride in, a sectoral agreement involving Japan, the U.S. and Canada in a key high technology product, and with a stroke of the pen, another sign of complete incompetence, destroyed it. This was a piece of foolish retaliation, not thought through or taken in the context of trying to build our country instead of trying to destroy it.
This morning I spoke with executives of the leading computer manufacturing and importing companies in this country. They made very clear what they think of the Government's retaliation. The President of the Electronic Manufacturers Association said this measure will hurt Canadians as much as the Americans. It will have an adverse impact on Canada. There was no consultation with the industry beforehand, none whatsoever. The President of the Canadian Business Equipment Manufacturers Association said we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The industry has a good record on free trade. This action amounts to setting the clock back. The Canadian Association for Higher Technology stressed the damage being done to the industry and the fact that this will increase costs for anyone who uses computer technology. That is the technology we need to become a productive, efficient and world class producer. Yet the Government, with its foolish, short-sighted retaliation, has destroyed the pact made between the U.S., Canada and Japan in a way which will ultimately hurt every Canadian.
I put it to this House that the right thing to do to put our country back on the right path is to first try and deal with the real problems which face us; problems such as softwood lumber which the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merri-thew) can tell us threaten 40,000 jobs in British Columbia; problems such as those facing fish producers in eastern Canada; problems facing steel producers in western Canada like IPSCO.
Supply
Let us deal directly with and negotiate on those problems. Let us set up a dispute settlement mechanism which can act as a kind of early warning system to give us a notion of problems coming up so both sides can try and deal with the problems. We can depoliticize the problems so that they do not explode on the floor of the House of Commons and get us caught up in the kind of incredible rhetoric we all experienced a week ago Friday.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have to use the mechanism which has worked so well for this country in the past, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We have to work as hard as we possibly can through that system to cut back the Americans' aggressive use of subsidies and countervailing action which damages not just us but countries in every part of the world. The U.S. has told us we cannot win the argument on a bilateral basis. If we do it through GATT, with allies who are strong and supportive, there is a chance that we can win the fight to gain exemptions from the aggressive American push on countervailing duties which is so badly hurting this country at the moment.
We in this Party, along with many Canadians, do not want to be part of some sort of grand fortress America. We want to be part of our own country. We want to have excellent trading relations with the U.S. The way to achieve that is not through comprehensive free trade, which will suck us in and make us part of that fortress America. The way to achieve it is to work on the problems which exist and build for ourselves the independence we need to ensure for ourselves a future in the international economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has made a beautiful speech full of rhetoric which contributed very little to the debate. I find it ruddy offensive to listen to an Opposition interested only in playing politics with the future of this country. That is what they are doing, playing politics with this issue. Enhanced trade, not free trade, with the U.S. is the future for this country. The Hon. Member suggests that he wants to read every secret report the Government has prepared going into these negotiations. Obviously he has never played poker. He is suggesting that we go into a poker game with our cards face up on the table while everyone else keeps their cards hidden. We are not going to give him all the information and economic details we have for a very simple reason. He wants to pose, posture and play politics. I do not think he is really interested in seeing the future of this country enhanced through trade. That is the purpose of these negotiations and he knows it, even if he is not prepared to admit it here.
The Hon. Member made some comments about the expanding American economy. I should point out some historical facts to him. Western Canada could not get the capital to develop its oil industry. That money came out of Texas and Oklahoma. It is about time we appreciated the Americans. It is about time we told them how good they have

June 3, 1986
been to us over the years, and they have been. American capital has developed this country to a substantial extent and will continue to do so.
I will ask the Hon. Member a question and when we come back at three o'clock perhaps he can answer. Does he really believe that we benefit Canada and Canadians by handing out every bit of information we will use in the negotiations with Mr. Murphy? That is my question and I would like to hear the answer at three o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
700 SQUADRON'S ANNUAL INSPECTION PARADE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening I had the honour and pleasure to participate in a twenty-sixth annual inspection parade of the 700 David Hornell Squadron of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets. The Air Cadet League of Canada, the officers, staff and cadets of 700 Squadron deserve commendation for their outstanding efforts and accomplishments. I am extremely proud of the young men and women of the 700 Squadron for their discipline, dedication, and commitment to their cause.
They are great Canadians who are serving Canada with pride and distinction. I wish Captain Binns and the Air Cadets of 700 Squadron every success in the coming year.


IMPOSITION OF U.S. TARIFFS ON CANADIAN PRODUCTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, we now clearly understand the nature of the relationship between Canada and the U.S. as it applies to trade. Our access to U.S. markets is only open as long as we do not prove to be able to outperform U.S. companies at home.
If we develop new techniques, better manufacturing performance, or achieve a lower price structure, they will
move, using the full force of countervail, or whatever else is necessary, to restrict or eliminate us from competition.
It makes no difference if we trade fairly, as we do. We are fair game. Whether it be farm or fish products, shakes and shingles, or softwood, or as in the most recent case, steel, they will impose unfair tariffs to restrict our access to their markets notwithstanding the fact that we play by the rules in every case.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, pornography is a personal and social evil, and the people of Kitchener are concerned about it. If anybody spent half their day gloating over pictures of food, smacking their lips in anticipation, we should consider them pitifully abnormal.
Why is it, then, that we bend over backwards to legitimize pornography on such spurious grounds as artistic merit and individual freedom of choice? Let's stop kidding ourselves. Any depiction of any person as a mere object of sexual selfgratification constitutes a perversion of human sexuality.
Recent extensive research indicates beyond any reasonable doubt that pornography is addictive, pornography desensitizes and, if allowed to escalate, can lead to harmful acting out of that which is portrayed. It is now time for the Government to bring in tough legislation on pornography.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, one of our Government's major concerns in Canada and in Abitibi has always been transport safety in the air, on the rails, on the water, or on the roads.
Ever since we came into office we have taken several steps to promote greater safety for the traveling public. Today we are pleased to see that another Government, that of Quebec, has introduced a Bill to make our roads safer. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a Bill to amend the Highway Code under which stiffer penalties will be handed out to drunk and careless drivers. These measures will complement those taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). Indeed, the adoption of Bill C-18 has considerably reduced the number of drunk drivers, the major cause of highway accidents.


June 3, 1986

We urge all drivers to use common sense and support the measures advocated in Quebec's new Bill.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my outrage at the creation of an unemployment insurance police force that will be used by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to spy on unemployed Canadians.
This is just another example of the callous attitude of the Minister and the Government to unemployed Canadians. In the opinion of the Minister, unemployed Canadians would rather draw UIC than work. Well, I can assure the Minister that she, as is the case most of the time, does not know what she is talking about.
People draw unemployment insurance because they need it, not because they do not want to work. All the Minister has to do is to ask any Member of Parliament who deals with the unemployed to find out how desperately people are trying to find work.
The creation of the Minister's unemployment police force will only increase the sense of alienation felt by so many of Canada's jobless. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should recognize this fact and order his Minister of Employment and Immigration to abolish this police force.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, today is Census Day in Canada.
The Canadian Census is the most comprehensive source of specific information on Canadians. It gives a very detailed view of our society and provides information for use by all groups in this country: governments, business and industry as well as community groups, who use this information to make decisions that affect us all.
The Census questionnaire distributed to all households contains nine basic questions regarding age, sex, marital status and ethnic origin. A special questionnaire for farmers contains questions on crops, livestock and farm machinery, and on the use of fertilizer and pesticides.
Mr. Speaker, the information thus collected is vitally important to our society, and I therefore invite all Canadians to complete their questionnaire and count themselves in today.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Post Office management is cutting back service not only in the rural areas and new subdivisions but also in cities like Toronto. It has cut out 140 letter carrier routes from Toronto, adding their work-load on to the remaining letter carriers. When business people, senior citizens and others complained that their cheques arrived at 4.30 or later, too late for banking, they were told: "Come and pick up your own mail."
Donald Lander says that he has made great strides in improved delivery. But the strides are being made by the customers who already paid the Post Office to deliver the letters. Further, Post Office management refuses to send a representative to a meeting I have called in Spadina for tomorrow night to let senior citizens, business people and other residents voice their grievances.
When will Donald Lander get off his high horse and stop sabotaging a basic service that all ordinary Canadians need?


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Medical Association's policy summary on abortion contains a combination of contradictions, distorted facts, and mistruths. It ignores all the recent advances in medical knowledge of life in the womb and contains no concrete plans to reduce the incidence of abortion.
All babies within the womb, even at the stage of development at which most abortions are performed, are alive and human. Therefore, how can a doctor in all conscience sign a death certificate for a patient who makes a fist, sucks his thumb, who gets hiccups, who feels pain, and who has a strong heart beat? Yet a baby in a womb with all these capabilities can be killed by a doctor at any stage of pregnancy.
Doctors should have no part in killing human beings, whether it be in the context of execution of convicted murderers, euthanasia, or abortion.

June 3, 1986


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the late Chief Justice John Cartwright once said that the courts should be like the navy-a silent service. There are many reasons for this, but the primary one must be our need for an authority that is above partisan or regional or ideological priorities.
As the late Chief Justice Bora Laskin said of the Supreme Court of Canada: "It is a national institution-just as there is no federal allegiance, there is no regional allegiance and no political allegiance."
Essential to democracy is variance of opinion, but also essential is a court capable of having the last word in disputes because it is never party to disputes. If judicial spokesmen enter the arena of political debate, everyone will lose, but they will lose the most.


ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Kevin and Kate Oswald of Kingston wrote to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) about Environment Week. They state:
What impact will this campaign have on the 85 chemical contaminants in Lake Ontario, 8 of which are known carcinogens?
On Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday we are to "tune it up"-what? Our cars? From Tuesday to Friday "let's give it up"-what? Smoking? Driving? Detergent? Breathing? And it would seem that at the end of the week we are all to water our lawns and pick up the garbage or plant a few trees at a local national park. "Let's green it up" the campaign ad proclaims! To belittle such a vital concern is black humour at its worst.
Would it not be better for the ministry to appeal to the millions of people in Canada for their support in a campaign that applies pressure on the industries and the government departments who can administer an order of change? Use us, let us vote on these issues, let our numbers make a difference in the magnitude of the effect. We want to help, what can we do that is not trivial?


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


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Deschenes Commission has correctly refused an invitation from the Soviets to collect evidence on alleged Nazi war criminals in Canada.
I have spoken on many occasions, as have several of my colleagues, to warn of the likelihood that the Soviets would
manipulate the proceedings to serve their own political goals. The six safeguards contained in Justice Deschenes' ruling were designed to protect against such manipulation. We now learn that the Soviets fully intended to conduct this investigation entirely under the criminal procedure of the U.S.S.R. Soviet justice is not justice. I am glad to see the Commission recognizes that fact.
I know all Canadians will join with me in commending Justice Deschenes and other members of his Commission for not compromising the Canadian judicial process.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, last week, Quebec youth members of the Liberal Party of Canada held a general meeting at the University of Montreal to discuss differences between Canada and the United States. Aided by their mentors, the Hon. Members for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and Laurier (Mr. Berger), they recognized the PLO as the chief spokesman for the Palestinians, on the premise that it was necessary to create a Palestinian state.
Mr. Speaker, I want to warn the Canadian people against the muddled policies of the Liberal Party. A party whose foreign policy is based on supporting a non-democratically elected group is itself a reflection of hypocrisy and anarchy. This policy is as dangerous as the Member-mentors and activists that defend it.
These Young Liberals who see themselves as the conscience of their party are not only undermining the credibility of the Canadian Government, they are also encouraging revolutionary and terrorist movements to expand.


CANADIAN POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend we in Winnipeg learned via the media that 10 rural routes were being cut by Canada Post. Until now rural routes have brought the mail home. Now some rural residents will have to travel as far as 15 kilometres away, at a cost of up to $700 a year, just to get their mail. In some cases
June 3, 1986

in northwestern Ontario they will have to spend a whole afternoon to pick up their mail.
The Canada Post Act requires the Post Office to get an Order in Council before it closes a post office. This is to provide notice so there can be an appeal to the Minister. The Post Office and the Minister have both turned a blind eye to this legislation. When is the Government going to consult people? Or is it its plan to simply cut, cut, cut our postal services?


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, since our election in 1984 the Conservative Government has worked with the Province of Ontario to provide economic and regional development within the province. A number of ERDA agreements totalling $226 million have been signed by the two levels of government. Part of this package is a $30 million mining agreement signed in Kirkland Lake last June. It brought a long awaited access road in my riding of Timiskaming which has opened up the Harker-Holloway region for further development. This agreement has had a major impact on mining exploration in my riding.
Recently American Barrik Resources announced it has almost finished sinking a three-compartment exploration shaft in McDermott Township. This is the first significant gold discovery in our area in almost 50 years. The company is hoping to bring the project into production by 1988 and we are optimistic that it could result in a production level of 100,000 ounces of gold each year. That is working together-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want the Government to put a stop to pornography. They are demanding tougher laws which will stop the flow of pornographic material into the country. Pornographic material is readily available to anyone who wants it, including our young impressionable teenagers. While parents try to teach their children about morals and values, another aspect of our society is introducing them to sexual violence, child abuse, or incest.
We must control access to this salacious material. It should not be available to youngsters. It should not be sold on our sidewalks. It is time for the Government to get tough and do something to curb this frightening billion dollar industry.
Oral Questions
Canadians are awaiting legislation from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). They do not want to be disappointed. They want strong and effective laws which will make this country a safer place for their children.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, volun-teerism is alive and flourishing with the National Council of Jewish Women, Toronto section. Its most worthy projects include "Kids on the Block", a program which sensitizes children to people with disabilities. "English as a Second Language" has 125 students registered. Passover food baskets helped 282 Jewish families on welfare or other forms of public assistance. The Bathurst-Prince Charles Building will be home to 160 families, seniors, and disabled people.
Last week six volunteers received commendations from Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander for over 4,000 hours of community services: Nita Goldband, President of NCJW; Lily Goldstein, Helen Goodman, Helen Katz, Edith Sobel, and Patricia Starr. There are 1,200 other active, dedicated volunteers. Congratulations to the National Council of Jewish Women!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As he knows, tomorrow morning the Canadian Ambassador in Washington will be meeting in a last ditch effort to arrive at some resolution of the softwood lumber issue before the petition starts with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Baldrige. Will the Prime Minister tell us today what specific instructions Mr. Gotlieb has in terms of a message to give to the Americans? In particular, can he tell us whether last evening there was agreement with the provincial Premiers on a series of actions that the Canadian Government should be taking to forestall any U.S. action that would raise tariffs on our very vital softwood lumber industry?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we have directed Ambassador Gotlieb to make formal representations tomorrow morning to the Secretary of Commerce explaining why we believe there is no

June 3, 1986
Oral Questions
basis for this petition to be accepted. We believe that the inquiry in question was conducted some years ago, that nothing has been changed, and that there need not be the cost to the Americans, or the apprehension that would be caused to Canadians, by proceeding with that action. The Ambassador will make this representation following full consultation with the provinces, with industry, with labour, and with representatives of the House of Commons, some of whom will be going to Washington to be part of the approach we make.


FUTURE OF CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will Ambassador Gotlieb, on behalf of the Canadian Government and all the people whom he has enumerated, make it very clear to Secretary Baldrige that if the United States proceeds with its action against softwood lumber that would put in clear jeopardy the proposed and continuing free trade talks which have now been started? Do we see this of such importance that we would say to them that the Canadian people will not accept continuing the talks under the threat of intimidation in terms of a new U.S. tariff on softwood lumber?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we see the threat that is posed to Canada by that countervail measure, and by a number of other protectionist measures that are growing in the United States, as indicative of just how absolutely important it is that Canada try as best it can to put in place more effective trade relations with the United States as compared to the system we have right now.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- LOSS OF JOBS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the shakes and shingles issue. I wish to quote the Minister who said the following today:
We've made the point that this is something we disagreed with for the various reasons that I set out in my response yesterday.. . But we believe that that should be behind us now.
Will the Minister of Finance explain in good conscience how he can forget and brush away the fact that come this Friday, June 6, 1986, some 4,000 people in British Columbia will be without work? Are they the forgotten people in these trade talks?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify something for the Hon. Member. He was not at the scrum when that comment was made. That comment was made in the context of whether or not there would be further escalation. Obviously, the Government is very concerned about the impact of the shakes and shingles matter on the industry. There are 4,000 people employed in that industry, not all of whom will lose their jobs.
As I said yesterday, we have indicated that we will be reviewing this matter on a continuing basis with members of the industry, both labour and management, to see how the shakes and shingles matter affects them. I caution the Hon. Member not to use the number 4,000-4,000 people will not lose their jobs; it will be considerably fewer.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. Other than demonstrating concern on the floor of the House of Commons for the workers in British Columbia, will the Minister not take the time to stand in the House and explain to the Canadian people and, more important, to those workers, what his Government will do to protect and ensure those jobs in British Columbia? What measures will he take on behalf of the people of British Columbia?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear by the actions we have taken during the period of time since the U.S. took this action that we are very concerned about the affect of this matter on that industry. We have tried to get the Americans to reverse their position. We have tried to get the Americans to agree to some compensation. All these matters are very clear evidence of our concern for the industry.

There is a difference of opinion on what will be the effect. Surely the Hon. Member should understand that until we get a clear understanding of that, it would be inappropriate for the Government to act. However, we have made it quite clear that we will be reviewing the matter on an ongoing basis with members of the industry.


IMPOSITION OF TARIFFS-UNILATERAL ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. In recent weeks we have seen the United States take countervailing action in a number of sectors which in principle are free trade sectors between us and the United States. Tomorrow the Americans are likely to do the same thing in another free trade sector, namely, softwoods. Considering that the Government is in the process of negotiating a series of new so-called free trade sectors, would the Minister not agree that, before doing that, the first item for agreement ought to be an accord or a mechanism of some kind which would put an end to unilateral action by either Government in these free trade sectors? Is that not what it should be all about?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party will recall that about two hours ago, or a little less than that, he and I had an exchange on precisely this question.
I replied for the Government at that time.


June 3, 1986


FREE TRADE-ATTITUDE OF UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary for the Minister, Mr. Speaker. The Minister himself suggested that the main problem was the unilateral power of the United States and Canada's power to make decisions against imports from other countries within a free-trade agreement. If he said that, why is he not in favour of changing those powers immediately?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we want to change the situation or at least try. That is why we started negotiations with the United States, but we can't have any results when before the negotiations have hardly started.


U.S. GRAIN SUBSIDIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister or the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Agriculture, dealing with a specific sector. The Government is standing by and watching one sector after another in Canada be hit, either very seriously or destroyed by American action. Considering that the Americans refused yesterday to put an end to their massive subsidies on grains, which are destroying Canadian grain markets, will the Canadian Government at least come to the assistance of Canadian grain producers and provide the kind of deficiency payment for which Canadian farmers have been asking because of American subsidies?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member knows that that is not essentially supplemental to the earlier questions about free trade negotiations. The Chair is in some difficulty therefore. Perhaps the Hon. Member could wait and another Member could ask the question later on a separate matter.


ALLEGED CUSTOMS TARIFF WAR-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns free trade. We can say that the Conservative Government's disastrous record in its trade relations with the United States has put a number of businesses at risk. We are seeing tariffs on fisheries, agriculture and lumber products and now on steel.
Could the Minister of Finance inform the House what steps his Government intends to take to put a stop to this tariff war which was started by the United States and continued yesterday by the Conservative Government?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no trade war between Canada and the United States. There is a trade war within the United States, between Americans who are in favour of protectionist
Oral Questions
measures and Americans who are not. Those are the facts, and the challenge for Canada is to obtain more effective mechanisms than the ones we have today, to safeguard Canadians. That is why we are now conducting negotiations with the Americans.


FINANCE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. I don't know what to call the present situation. If it isn't a war, I don't know what is. This tariff war is so serious that it has had a major impact on the value of the Canadian dollar. Does the Minister of Finance intend to propose some kind of policy to prevent the slide of the Canadian dollar following the tariff war that has been going on for the last few days?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, we disagree fundamentally with the words the Hon. Member used "that there is a trade war". There is not a trade war. There are a number of specific instances, some of which are initiated by private citizens and private industry in the United States, which are totally apart from the decisions by the administration. The Hon. Member has linked this with the current weakness in the dollar. I am not sure that I would agree with him on that one either.


Raymond Garneau: That is what happened yesterday.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that hundreds of jobs are being lost daily now in western Canada as a result of the shake and shingle countervail, including the area adjacent to the Minister's own constituency. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain what Government actions are planned to encourage the United States Government to lift this countervailing duty?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, since this surprise action was taken some 10 days ago, reacted very

June 3, 1986
Oral Questions
strongly in the House of Commons knowing that part of the challenge for Canadians on an issue of this kind was to make it clear that actions against Canada were going to evoke a response. We then proceeded with discussions as to whether there was compensation, and discussions as to whether there would be some opportunity for the President's action to be rolled back. Yesterday in the House of Commons my colleague, the Minister of Finance, indicated some economic responses that Canada was going to announce.
We naturally will continue to look for any way that we can find to relieve the situation that is causing so much difficulty in British Columbia including, as has been indicated, taking a look at the powers that are available to us under existing legislation regarding direct help to people who are affected by some temporary change of the kind involved in these tariffs.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State be more specific? We are losing literally hundreds of jobs now by the day. On this issue of the countervailing duty on shakes and shingles, will he be specific in saying what actions the Government now plans to take to protect this industry in having that countervail lifted, or is the Secretary of State for External Affairs simply giving up on the shake and shingle question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we were not giving up on the shake and shingle question when the Prime Minister replied to questions in the House the day after the announcement was made.
We have not given up on it as is evidenced by the measures that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, announced yesterday.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Tough.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are continuing to seek, in discussions with the United States, any avenue that we might find open.
Let us be clear about this, Mr. Speaker. There are some very real limits in U.S. law. There are some political realities that are being faced by the American administration that will not be wished away by rhetoric. What we have to do is maintain the strong, steady position that this Government has taken since that measure was announced.


Ms. Copps:: Christmas trees.


CANADIAN TARIFF ON COMPUTER CHIPS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is not enough now to defend ourselves against the U.S. Government, we have to defend ourselves against our own Government. The Minister of Finance knows that we produce a negligible quantity of computer chips in Canada and that his tariff will increase costs to consumers and damage the fledgling Canadian industry
which uses those chips. By what convoluted logic did the Government decide to apply a tariff on computer chips?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear to most Canadians that a lack of a response to the United States Government on this particular issue would have been the wrong approach to take. It would have invited further action on the part of the United States Government had there not been a response. That is the nature of yesterday's announcement. I should also point out that later on that evening there was a very, very successful meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the provinces of Canada taking this whole matter one step further.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was the success of that meeting which laid the groundwork for the negotiations which, hopefully, will lead us out of the problems which we are facing today. We will get a much better relationship in the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Laurier on a supplementary question.
[ Translation]


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT IMPOSING CERTAIN TARIFFS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are going to pick up the tab for this Government's response and stupid move.
Why impose a tariff which will increase the operating costs of a fledging industry and, once again, make Canadians lose their jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the costs of protectionism. The consumer in the United States is affected adversely as well.


Mr. Boudria:: They will send the bill to you.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This will affect trade between the two countries, but that is fundamentally why we are in these negotiations with the United States and fundamentally why the Prime Minister exercised his leadership to call the Premiers together to get on with the job of negotiating a better agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN STEEL PRODUCTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the U.S. International Trade Commission hit Canadian steel. Ipsco of Regina had a 41 per cent duty placed on its tubular steel product. So far the Americans have imposed trade restrictions on Canadian fish, cedar products, agricultural products, and steel. Tomorrow it might be Canadian softwood.
June 3, 1986

Will the Prime Minister now demand a moratorium by the American Government on its unilateral trade restriction measures while the free trade discussions are in progress? If the Americans fail to give such an assurance, will the Prime Minister suspend the free trade negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party continues to use any argument it can to try to stop the people of Canada from achieving job security and the opportunity for new employment through trade negotiations.


Mr. Rodriguez:: It's no wonder they got rid of you.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure that the Hon. Member is interested in the response. I guess he now is. Ipsco has indicated that it will be appealing the matter through the courts. The Government of Canada will help Ipsco in any way it can.
With regard to negotiations generally, I was struck by the fact that yesterday the Premiers from all of the provinces and from four different political Parties, some of whom have some reservations about these negotiations, were prepared to put their reservations behind them in the national interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE INQUIRY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The Government fiddles while Canadian jobs are being lost. The Minister of International Trade assured me on April 21 that the Government was working closely with the Canadian steel industry for a favourable ruling. What assistance has the Government actually provided to Canadian steel and what does the Government intend to do to respond to this latest U.S. action?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Member should know that we are dealing with a decision by a quasi-judicial body in the United States. He should also know that if we are interested in having a better trading arrangement with the United States, or any other country in the world, we cannot do that by backing away from negotiations. We can do it by showing the kind of common front of Canada which was demonstrated by the First Ministers last night.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN TARIFF ON U.S. PUBLICATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's tariffs on books and other publications put culture at the heart of the free trade debate despite the Prime Minister's promises to keep culture off the table. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister's economic response has imposed tariff barriers on U.S. publications
Oral Questions
imported into Canada. Does that not mean that the Canadian book publishing industry has now become a negotiating item in the Canada-U.S. free trade talks?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must understand that this is a specific action taken in response to a specific action taken by the United States.


Mr. Marchi:: Have you ever heard of the word "reciprocal"?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The matter of what is on the table in the U.S.-Canada trade talks has been addressed on many, many occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, and others.


EFFECT ON COST OF BOOKS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I said. Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that the tariffs imposed yesterday against U.S. book publishers will simply increase the cost of books to Canadian purchasers as well as inviting American retaliation against Canadian authors, those very persons whom the Government has repeatedly said it wants to promote and protect?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. We want to assist and protect authors in Canada. That is why in my Budget, in consultation with the Minister of Communications, we introduced a number of measures to support that particular industry, and we will continue to support it.


Sheila Finestone: Now you are undercutting them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, we are not undercutting them and the Hon. Member knows full well that we are not.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. There was no action to resolve the grain trade crisis at the OECD in April, there was no action in Tokyo in May, and there are only minimal prospects that there will be even a discussion at GATT. Yesterday in Vancouver Canada failed to get a commitment to action from the world's major grain exporters. The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board suggested that prospects for relief are very bleak indeed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there a question?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Will the Government give Canadian producers an even break with European and U.S. farmers and

June 3, 1986
Oral Questions
provide some kind of payment to bring them up to the cost of production?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a question which has been developing and looming for the last number of years. I think he should be giving Canada credit for taking the lead in bringing about discussions to resolve this matter.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is about time you did something.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: We had a chance to sit down in Vancouver yesterday with the five major grain exporters and to use the initiative which our Prime Minister took to the Tokyo Summit to be on the table with grain trade related matters. That was very useful to us in our discussions yesterday and I believe we made some progress yesterday.


Lloyd Axworthy: Like what? Give us an example.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, why is it that a valuable and highly productive agricultural sector has to wait so long for some action from the Government when bankers and takeover artists can get billions of dollars within a couple of weeks? The Canadian farmers have been waiting for six months for a commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: That's their priority.


John R. Rodriguez: Explain that, Charlie.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the farmers in this country know full well that they have not waited a long time for action. We have taken action very quickly on behalf of Canadian agriculture.


John R. Rodriguez: Like what?


Charles James Mayer: In the 1985 calendar year the Government provided approximately SI.5 billion as direct support for western agriculture. The Minister of Finance found some additional money to relieve taxes on farm fuel.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They are still going broke, Charlie.


Charles James Mayer: That has definitely helped, and we are assisting producers in other areas as well as evidenced by the meeting which we were able to host yesterday in Vancouver.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Government is incompetently fanning the flames of a trade war with the United States. It is clear from arguments of the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs today that they are using that situation to frighten Canadians into believing that the only solution is a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. This country cannot win a trade war with the United States, nor will it solve the problem of 4,000 lost jobs in British Columbia.
What specific action has the Government taken, either by way of persuading the President to revoke that tariff or otherwise, to save those 4,000 jobs in British Columbia? That is the issue that the people are really interested in.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was late in coming to Question Period and perhaps was not here when that question was asked by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He never got an answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: I outlined the range of steps we have taken.
With regard to the allegation, which is designed to create fear in the country, that there is a trade war between Canada and the United States, there is no such thing. There is a trade war in the United States between protectionists and those who are against protectionism. There is a real risk to Canada in that conflict in the U.S. That is why it is so essential that the Government of Canada do its duty. We are delighted that the Premiers of this country are prepared to work with us, even if the Opposition is not, so that the Government of Canada does its duty to try to get a better arrangement to protect Canadian interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather weak explanation to justify unbelievable incompetence. They have just launched a tariff war with the United States.


ALLEGED LOSS OF 4,000 JOBS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister. What does the Government intend to do to save the 4,000 jobs in British Columbia? What was the original reason for this situation? Tell us what specific action was taken?
June 3, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Right Hon. Member, first that the Leader of the Opposition quoted the wrong figures: too many Canadians will be threatened, but definitely not 4,000 will be affected.
Second, the action we took as a Government was the response of the Prime Minister here in the House; second, with the Americans we have explored the possibility of compensation; third, our senior officials and myself have had direct exchanges with the American Secretary of State to consider all available options; fourth, the measures announced in the House yesterday by the Minister of Finance.
As I said earlier during Oral Questions Period, we and the Americans are now considering any other possible alternatives.


John Napier Turner: The figure of 4,000 jobs is the best number given to us by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia. If the shakes and shingles situation widens into general countervailing action against the entire Canadian industry there will be thousands and thousands of more jobs lost.


COMMUNICATION FROM UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He proudly displayed his telex and letter to the President of the United States concerning the issue of shakes and shingles. Apparently he received a reply. Would he be willing to table that letter from the President?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have received a private reply from the President, as we have received from other heads of Government, dealing with that matter and others. As my right hon. friend knows as a former Minister of Finance and Prime Minister, that would be inappropriate.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. For all intents and purposes the gates of Rideau Hall were recently closed to the people of Canada by the National Capital Commission, an act with which I totally disagree. Was this decision initiated by the RCMP for security reasons? If so, will the gates be reopened to the people of our country?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the decision was not made by the RCMP. Second, this comes under the National Capital Commission
Oral Questions
which did nothing more than standardize our practice with respect to official residences. There are several official residences. Third, it has also been guaranteed that, on very special occasions, visitors would still be able to gain access to Rideau Hall grounds.
Were it possible to go even further and make it easier still to visit the Governor General's residence, I would be the first to support such a measure.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Opposition Members of Parliament have been trying for some time, without success, to get some detailed and solid information on the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Will the Minister now confirm that at least two memos have been sent by her officials, in effect imposing a gag order on information pertaining to that program? Can she tell the House why the public, the media, and Members of Parliament cannot have access to detailed information on that program?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to tell the Hon. Member about the Canadian Jobs Strategy. This year we have already spent some $450 million under that program. That involves the participation of some 50,000 individuals. The programs are ongoing. I have had an opportunity to visit many projects across the country, whether under the Job Development Program or under the new Community Futures Program. All of them are in operation and I would be delighted to give the Hon. Member any amount of detail he wants.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Oh, boy, these recorded messages.


DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister then explain why a memo was sent on May 15, and I have a copy of the text here, explaining that MPs can have some information but, depending on the nature of the request, Public Affairs regionally will be contacted to confirm that this information is in the public knowledge. Can the Minister say why there is a gag order, and also explain why Members opposite campaigned for open government back in September, 1984, but now all of a sudden we have this secrecy?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know any Department

June 3, 1986
Oral Questions
which has been more open than the Department of Employment and Immigration. I may say that myself and my officials have been before committee more than any other Department of Government. I know the Hon. Member has asked us to come back from now until the middle of June. We are delighted to co-operate. I will be back, my officials will be back, and we will be delighted to answer questions from the Hon. Member.


IMPOSITION OF TARIFFS ON U.S. PRODUCTS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance have told us in effect that the tariffs imposed yesterday by the Canadian Government were to attract the attention of Washington to the important issue of protectionism. As my colleagues have pointed out, that is a bit like self-immolation in that it attracts a lot of attention. However, tell us how the imposition of approximately $80 million of additional costs for Canadian consumers helps negotiations with the U.S?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, is it truly the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that when action of this kind is taken without warning, costing jobs in British Columbia and breaking the spirit of the Quebec Accord, that we should do nothing? They might be a do-nothing Party, but this Government stands up for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT GAVE NOTICE OF INTENDED ACTION TO UNITED STATES
Donald James Johnston: But
Mr. Speaker, why did we suggest that the Prime Minister pick up the phone and call the President of the United States? How many times was this suggested?
Mr. Speaker, another question. The Government says it was shocked that it had received no notice from the President of the United States. What kind of notice did this Government give the Americans before yesterday's action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, Mr. Speaker, we are told that there is going to be no reaction from the Liberal Party regarding this provocative action taken by the U.S. Then we find out from the Member himself that the position of the Liberal Party is to export such timber from British Columbia to the U.S., exporting jobs. We are against both. We are defending jobs and progress in British Columbia against the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Yesterday in Vancouver the Ministers of five major wheat-producing countries met to discuss policies affecting the international grain sector. Was Canada's initiative at the Tokyo Summit, to place agriculture as a priority in the next GATT negotiations, discussed by those countries represented at the Vancouver meeting? In addition, are further meetings of these grain-producing countries being considered?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's meeting was very definitely helped by the emphasis placed on agricultural trade problems at the Tokyo Summit. I think it is significant that we were able to meet and have a discussion to understand better how various policies affect the other grain exporters. I think it was also helped by the initiative taken by the Prime Minister at the Tokyo Summit and we all agreed that agriculture should receive comprehensive consideration at the next GATT round.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Several days ago I revealed in the House that federal public servants being interviewed for security clearances are being tape recorded secretly and without their consent by the civilian security service.
I want to ask the Minister to inform the House as to the full nature and extent of this reprehensible invasion of the privacy of public servants and indicate what action he, as Solicitor General, has taken to put a stop to it.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have had this incident fully investigated. This did, indeed, take place on a limited number of occasions. We have been able to identify some six occasions where this took place. Although this practice is legal, in my view it is not proper. Instructions have gone out from the Director of CSIS to ensure this never happens again in the future.
June 3, 1986


REQUEST THAT TAPES BE DESTROYED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the practice will not happen in the future. I do want to ask the Minister to assure the House that all those federal public servants who have been victims of this unethical security snooping will have any tapes or transcripts removed from their files and destroyed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that assurance with the sole exception that, obviously, if someone were to make a complaint to the CSIS, for example, it might be advantageous for that individual to have access to the tape. What I want to do is to ensure that the rights of all individuals who are affected are properly respected.


U.S. DUTY ON CANADIAN STEEL PRODUCTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the new duties imposed by the United States last night on Canadian steel producers like Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, a new duty of 14.2 per cent on oil company tubular goods, what specific action is the Government planning to take in response to these new duties imposed by the United States for companies like Algoma Steel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, these actions were taken after the working of a long process in the United States that is a quasijudicial process. It was not at all a discretionary action, such as some of the others that have occupied debate in this House in recent times.
One of the companies involved, Ipsco, has indicated it is taking action in the courts. The Government of Canada earlier today made it clear that we are prepared to help Ipsco in any way we can. Naturally if other steel companies were to join in that or similar kinds of actions, that offer would apply to them.


EFFECT ON JOBS
Maurice Brydon Foster: I wonder if the Secretary of State can tell us exactly what hope the Government can give to the 1,500 steel workers at Algoma who were already facing lay-offs later this year before these duties were imposed last night? Is the Government prepared to take any further action to insure their jobs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly consider what action is open to the Government of Canada in that circumstance. We would naturally welcome any practical suggestions that might come from the Hon. Member, or from members of the unions
Oral Questions
involved or of the companies involved. I repeat that in so far as the United States is concerned this is the conclusion of a fairly long process that is not discretionary, that is quasi-judicial, that may be open to appeals by the courts. If the companies undertake those appeals the Government of Canada will help as much as we can.


MINES AND MINING
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. At a meeting between representatives of the mining industry and the Quebec and Ontario Ministers responsible for the industry, Mr. Savoy and Mr. Fontaine, a meeting held on May 10, 1986 in Val d'Or, the Quebec Minister mentioned that the Government would like to take advantage of several flagrant cases of abuse to terminate the flow-through shares plan in Ottawa. My question is as follows:
Could the Minister inform the House whether the RCMP is now investigating a number of mining companies in Canada that may have abused or violated the flow-through shares plan in Abitibi?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Member will appreciate, in cases like this where an RCMP investigation may or may not be under way, it is not practice to disclose this information in the House of Commons. If any Hon. Member or any other citizen has information which would be relevant to the police we would certainly encourage them to turn it over.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As the Minister is probably aware, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women on the weekend made benefits for part-time workers one of their five areas of priority. Can the Minister get up in this House and indicate whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to expand the prorated benefits for part-time workers, especially since most of them are women?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, Labour Canada has just completed

June 3, 1986
Oral Questions
another study into part-time work to balance off the information that was not available from the Wallace report. The Hon. Member is also aware that prorating may be beneficial in some areas, but prorating as per time would cause a reversal in some benefits that are already available to part-time workers, such as maternity leave and UI benefits.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister still has not answered my question. There has been study after study and commission after commission in the area of benefits for part-time workers. Is the Government willing to introduce legislation to provide benefits for part-time workers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that there already are benefits. There are benefits of time for part-time workers, there are benefits there, and he knows there are some. The Hon. Member is also aware of the Wallace report which left a lot of very important questions unanswered. A study has just been completed by Labour Canada into the area of benefits for part-time workers. In due course we will be making a decision as to how we react to that need that is apparent.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GUIDELINES GIVEN BY GOVERNMENT TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATING TEAM'S OFFICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which concerns the Canadian negotiating team's office and equitable representation of women and Francophones within that office.
Some people are saying that the Government is dragging its feet, while others say it has failed to give the office appropriate directives with respect to person-years and staffing.
Could the Government inform the House why it failed to give such directives to this office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that was not the case, because I have personally, as well as through Mr. Tellier, the Cabinet Secretary, given specific directives to this office. Such directives of course reflected our very real desire to ensure that ultimately, this instrument would be an accurate reflection of our society, including, of course women and Francophones. A number of people were approached, but initially, certain people were obliged to decline. This of course in no way relieves those in charge of the office of their responsibility, since they received very specific directives from myself and Cabinet. I can assure the House that we will remedy the situation in the very near future.


ROLE OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: The
Reisman group negotiating on free trade fall under the laws that govern employment in the Public Service of Canada. Given that the Public Service Commission reports to Parliament and not to the Government, why did the Government fail to establish the basic requirements of any employer, that is person years, first of all, and how long the negotiations are going to last? Mr. Reisman could not operate otherwise. Why is the Government intervening now between an agent of Parliament-the Public Service Commission-and Mr. Reisman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. I may point out to the Hon. Member that there is no question of intervening, except that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have an obligation to ensure that such instruments accurately reflect the make-up of this country.
And in this undertaking as in any other, the make-up of the office will include a considerable number of Francophones and women, and thus be an accurate reflection of our society.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism last week used a private telegram to him from five Japanese Canadian individuals in Vancouver to suggest differences in the community in Vancouver and to create the sense of divisions in the Japanese Canadian community. Will the Prime Minister now recognize that his Multiculturalism Minister is out to sabotage the redress process, and will he appoint someone else to undertake the work of arriving at a redress agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the quite regrettable events of the last Parliament and previous Parliaments was a formal declaration by the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government that they would not deal with the question of Japanese Canadian problems. That statement was made by the Liberal Government and it was a shame. It was a blot on the honour of Canada. With the co-operation of the House, we will make sure that that is corrected for the future.
June 3, 1986

I know my hon. friend is concerned about the timeliness of certain initiatives. I talked about an apology before the House. I talked about appropriate redress and about compensation that the House could consider. There can be no doubt that this Government, we hope in full co-operation with Members of the House of Commons, will act to correct the profound injustice inflicted upon the Japanese Canadian community by the Liberal Party for over 40 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated yesterday that I was ready to rule on the matters that were raised last week by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell). Last week, two Members raised matters with regard to parliamentary language and the Chair undertook to review the record. I had the opportunity to review Hansard and was prepared to deal with the case of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) first, as requested by the Hon. Member for Windsor West. As the House knows, yesterday the Hon. Minister of Transport indicated his response to that matter on a point of order. Therefore, I regard that matter as closed.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the complaint by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell), Hansard has reported an unparliamentary remark directed at the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and attributed to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to tell the Chair if he is accurately reported in Hansard and, if he is, I would invite him to withdraw his remark.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, Hansard did, in fact, accurately reflect the statement I made. It indicates at page 13715 that I called the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney): " ... an absolute fraud". I would like to take this opportunity to unequivocally, without reservation and without hestitation, withdraw any reference to the Prime Minister of Canada as being an absolute fraud, res ipsa loquitur.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows full well that the Chair knows exactly what res ipsa loquitur means. The
Point of Order-Mr. Marchi
Hon. Member will withdraw the implication he is leaving. He will simply withdraw it, please.


John V. Nunziata: I so withdraw, Mr. Speaker.


OBLIGATION OF MINISTER TO PRESENT DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As of last Friday the House has deemed to have received and approved all Estimates from appropriate Departments. I want to point out that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has failed to present his Estimates to the appropriate committees despite the repeated calls and opportunities. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that he is away on sports business, he has a responsibility as Minister of State for Multiculturalism and I want to call the Chair's attention to this abdication of a traditional parliamentary obligation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given the Hon. Member some time but if he has a point of order I need him to tell me what it is.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Estimates were approved on Friday. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism did not present his Estimates. Therefore, I seek some clarification from the Chair, given the fact that he failed to honour this commitment. I feel that as a member of the committee and a Member of the House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member continues with his comments. I will give him one more chance to tell me what his point of order is. Does the Hon. Member have a point of order?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Estimates for Multiculturalism have been approved falsely because the Minister did not present his Estimates. I seek clarification. If necessary, let us have the Minister of State for Multiculturalism come back from Mexico so that he can deal with his responsibilities honourably.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member appears to have an opinion of what should have happened or should not have happened. However, he is not raising a point of order.


Sergio Marchi: How about a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wants to raise a question of privilege he will have to change the rules in order to allow him to do so at this time. The Hon. Member believes that the Estimates have been improperly adopted. If there was a point of order with regard to the Estimates, it had to be raised on Friday. Orders of the day.

June 3, 1986
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemns the failure of the government to act in Canada's interests in the free trade discussion with the United States and, in particular, for its failure to obtain an agreement to suspend unilateral tariff action by either country during the period of these discussions; and on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (p. 13900).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose, we were in the question and comment period of the speech by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Was the Hon. Member about to reply?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A comment had been made by the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook). I believe that the key points raised by the Hon. Member demonstrated quite clearly the point I was making about the way in which the Conservative Party has consistently lowered itself to the use of political insult instead of dealing with the substance of this issue. This gave rise to the suggestion that we were playing politics by taking an honest and sincere position on this issue.
The Hon. Member raised a second point concerning secrecy and suggested that as good poker players we should recognize we would be giving the Americans the upper hand by laying out all the studies that the Government was using. I want to make it quite clear to the Hon. Member that the Americans have the upper hand and it has not had anything to do with secrecy on the part of the Canadian Government.
I also want to point out that the false analysis by the Conservative Government in that argument is belied by the fact that it finally came out with 26 or 27 special studies which dealt with the issues of free trade. I believe that was also a fatuous and unnecessary attempt to act on a basis of flimflam, instead of bringing this important issue about the future of the country to a forthright debate. We could disagree about principles, disagree about arguments and disagree about facts, but at least respect the intentions of the Members on each side of the House.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, my only comment is that the Member for Essex-Windsor cannot have it both ways. He cannot complain that we are keeping everything secret, then turn around and compliment us for issuing a number of studies. During his speech he berated us for secrecy, but now in response to a question he says that we cannot keep things secret because we have already issued studies. If you have them, what are you complaining about?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Conservative Party is trying to have it both ways. As usual, the Conservative Party
has maintained secrecy with respect to this issue throughout the months in which it tried to use propaganda. We all remember the marvellous videos which reached our offices in which, unfortunately, Prince Edward Island was somehow overlooked. We had that kind of propaganda. We had secrecy with respect to the studies. Finally, the Conservative Government recognized that the secrecy had to be turned around. It did so, not because of its good intentions but for two other reasons; first, because it saw that the Information Commissioner of the Government was taking the Government to court. Here was a remarkable development. One arm of the Government was taking the other arm of the Government to court. Second, the office of the trade negotiator started to get a little bit "antsy" because we began to talk about getting a court injunction saying the Government could not take these talks to their first stages as long as the secrecy prevailed.
In the end, the Conservative Government brought out its 26 or 27 studies, none of which threatened the national security or the poker playing ability of the Government. However, it did at the same time leave masses of blank papers within virtually every study. Some people took it for granted that these blank papers represented something the Conservative Party was trying to hide and they were full of information. On the other hand, I took it for granted that the blank pages actually represented the absence of thought or analysis by the Conservative Government. So it was no surprise to me to see these hundreds of pieces of blank paper in the studies the Government finally released.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate this afternoon on a motion put forward by my colleague in the New Democratic Party. It has been subsequently amended by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and I will not add a second or third amendment, but there is perhaps one word omitted in the motion put forward by the NDP. The word I would use in the motion is the word "incompetence"; the incompetence of the Government of Canada in how it has handled the various free-trade talks now underway with our largest trading partner, the United States.
I do not believe anyone in this Parliament can doubt or question the trading relationship between Canada and the United States as it relates to its importance to Canada and the creation of economic wealth. Our trading relationship with the United States is very important. In my region of Atlantic Canada, and I say this, Mr. Speaker, because I know you have great concern about the various regions of the country, free trade has, historically, been sought by the people in Atlantic Canada, for a good number of years. This goes back to the early days of Confederation. I am sure the same argument could flow from the people of western Canada about their efforts to obtain some sort of free trade agreement with the United States.
June 3, 1986

The tariff policies of Macdonald, way back in our history, paralyzed the economies of many regions of Atlantic Canada. They were tariff policies which benefited one region and discriminated against another. Those of us in Atlantic Canada and those of us in western Canada, if I may presume to speak for them, liked the concept of free trade or freer trade with the Americans, but to say we aspire to that particular concept is one thing. It is quite another to say we have a strategy, a course of action and timeframe to put in place or to achieve that particular goal.
I take you back, Mr. Speaker, to 1932-1933-I am not sure but perhaps you were a young man at that time-when the former Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, who later served in the wartime Cabinet, commissioned a study with regard to the effects of the tariff policy of Macdonald, particularly as it related to the Atlantic region. It was clearly spelled out that we in the Atlantic region were disadvantaged by that policy in the sense that a lot of movement outward took place subsequently, thereby causing economoic difficulties which have plagued us for many years.
When I talk about free trade, I do not want to just talk about it in theory or in concept. I think it has a very human face. But it is quite different now than it was back in 1909 or 1932. We have different social policies now. We did not have unemployment insurance, for instance, in those days. We did not have medicare or regional economic development and grants to industries to try to assist those less fortunate regions of the country. Inshore fishermen did not have unemployment insurance. So the elements have changed dramatically. I think in the over-all interests of Canada, it has been for the better. We are not dealing, and cannot deal, in total isolation with what has happened over the last number of years.
The present Government said to the people of Canada and to Parliament that it wants to conclude a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. But when one looks, and I say this sincerely and not in a partisan way, objectively at its strategy, its course of action, or the lack of a course of action, one can only come to the conclusion, and quite readily, that the whole concept, the whole objective, has not been well thought out by the Government. We are dealing not in theory. We are dealing with the sovereignty of a nation. We are dealing with economic opportunities for young Canadians in all regions. Therefore, there must be a serious tone and tenor of debate. The Government, by virtue of its election in September, has every legitimate right to place this item on its agenda if it so wishes. But having done that, surely there is an obligation on those of us who sit opposite or in the galleries to question the way in which the Government wishes to proceed on a particular matter.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House, the initiative of the Government is wrong for Canada, not because the concept is wrong but because the Government's whole course of action and strategy is wrong. The Government is absolutely incompetent with respect to the United States and I am going to tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
Supply


Mr. King:: You did so well?


David Charles Dingwall: I would hope the Hon. Member opposite would avail himself of the opportunity to perhaps ask a question or two instead of muttering and musing to his partner who perhaps cannot even hear him. Has the Government taken it upon itself to try to rectify the interprovincial barriers within the country in terms of the marketing board, various social programs which may have to be amended and the Regional Development Programs? Has the Government looked at interprovincial barriers? No, it has not done that. Did it call a First Ministers' Conference when the concept was initially put forward to discuss in a preliminary way the concept of free trade? No, it has not done that. Was it able to work out an understanding with the First Ministers as to how it ought to proceed on the process, let alone on the substance? As of last night the Government said yes. But it took a major initiative on the part of the United States for the Government to at least try to put a foot forward in an attempt to show that it wants to get its act together. That is a pretty incompetent and bungling way of dealing with a major issue affecting the Canadian economy and the sovereignty of the country.
It was suggested-and perhaps that word is wrong-it was implied through questioning of the Government front-benchers day after day that by negotiating with the United States on free trade that somehow Canadians would not have to worry about unilateral action being taken by the United States or, indeed, by Canada, with regard to countervails. In other words, the slate would be cleaned. It was implied that we would not have any more trade irritants until the end of those negotiations; and if we were to reach an agreement then perhaps they would be abolished forever and, if not, maybe they would be triggered into play. However, there was a clear indication that trade irritants would be placed on the back burner.
Yet what do we see today? We see the complete opposite. We see that a 35 per cent duty has been imposed on shingles and shakes. Within the last 48 hours we saw a 41 per cent duty imposed with regard to steel. We have seen countervail measures with regard to fish.
Someone in the Government did not think this matter through. The first thing it ought to have done, apart from meeting with the First Ministers, should have been to say clearly to the President of the United States: "If we are to proceed on free trade we have to halt trade irritants at the present time and then let's get down to negotiations". Logic would tell most Hon. Members that.
What we have done is allowed the United States the opportunity to continue to add to the agenda. We were in the midst of negotiations in good faith when the United States slapped on a 35 per cent countervail duty. What will it be tomorrow or the day after?

June 3, 1986
Supply
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the former Prime Minister of Canada, did not seek such an assurance many months ago. It was a crisis situation in British Columbia. He went on bended knee to the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Shultz, and asked him then, after the fact. That is incompetence. That is clear and unequivocal incompetence by our national Government which is dealing with perhaps the most important subject matter that has come down the pike in a long time.
For one moment let us consider what happened in British Columbia. As if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was taking part in a Shakespearian play, he displayed that he was absolutely devastated and upset that the United States would place a 35 per cent import duty on shakes and shingles from British Columbia. The fact of the matter is that the Premier of British Columbia informed the Prime Minister on May 7, 1986 that the matter was in the hands of the President of the United States. What did the Prime Minister do? Was he in Florida at that time? Was he basking in the sun somewhere? What was he doing on behalf of Canadians? What was the Secretary of State for External Affairs doing at the time? What was the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) doing? What was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) doing? What were those Members in Cabinet from British Columbia doing? Were they all asleep? Obviously, the answer is yes. That is incompetence. One does not proceed with negotiations and allow something to take place which is detrimental to Canada, not just to British Columbia but to all of Canada. We look sloppy. We are acting sloppy. We do not have our act together. It is the national Government, not the provincial Governments, not the press gallery and not members of the Opposition, which is incompetent and at fault in this process.
I would like to read to Hon. Members what the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister on May 7. He said:
As you know an investigation has been conducted under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Laws regarding imports of wood shingles and shakes from Canada. The International Trade Commission has determined injury to U.S. industry and has forwarded recommendations to President Reagan.
The letter goes on:
The matter now rests with the President who has full discretion in deciding what action, if any, is to be followed. He is required to announce his decision on or before May 24, 1986.
I can table this document if that is the wish of Hon. Members. It is here in black and white. It shows that the Government of Canada knew about this situation. What did it do? It waited until the announcement was made and then it took some retaliatory actions in regard to some matters which will affect the consumers of the country.
The Minister of Finance has said that the issue is behind us. What about the workers? What about the human side of these free trade talks? What about the unemployed? What about those individuals who want to provide for their families and who do not want to be on welfare? They want to provide an education for their children and an opportunity to make an
honest and decent living in this great country of ours. I tell Hon. Members that these serious flaws by the national Government are, in my view, akin to total incompetence.
The Prime Minister made a great announcement that he has an agreement with the provincial Premiers. The only obligation he has from the Premiers is the obligation to say no at the end of the day. That is the only obligation he has. Thus he can go out and work night and day, or send his officials or the $l,000-a-day Simon Reisman, and they can veto it. The national Government is really in control!
It seems to me that the Government's action on this most important initiative was predicated on the view that if one smiles at the President of the United States, and if he smiles back, and if one sings with him, then somehow economic matters and foreign policy of great substance and effect will somehow resolve themselves.
If this great and special relationship with the President of the United States has done anything for Canada, it has hurt Canada. It would seem that there was an onus or an obligation on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), representing all Canadians, to have telephoned the President of the United States upon receipt of the letter from the Premier of British Columbia and to have objected strongly to the measure. He should have said that it was not part of the Quebec summit. However, the Prime Minister did not do that. Again, where is the competence? Where is the thinking? Where is the logic? There is none.
We have a $20 billion surplus with the United States. We cannot think for a moment that the United States will sit by, will smile, and will say "Thank you very much, Brian. It is nice to know you. Maybe we will see you in Los Angeles or Washington at some point in time. We will have a great time. Our wives will have coffee, go on a little shopping spree, and have a good time", and somehow these matters will be resolved. It is a childish view of international economic matters and foreign relations. Again I point out that that is the view of the Government. That is incompetence, absolute and total incompetence.
I could go on and on and on dealing with things the Government is not doing, but the most recent evidence of its incompetence was saying to the United States that it would become involved in a trade war. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a statement regarding retaliatory actions. Was that done to assist the workers in British Columbia? The answer is no, a clear and unequivocal no. Why was it done? It was done because they wanted to say to the United States that they were really serious. If that was so, they would have picked up the telephone some months ago and called the President. They would have said: "If we are to go on the route toward free trade, all unilateral actions are off while we are negotiating". That would have been the thing to do. However, good old smiley Brian smiled away, our Prime Minister, the great one,
June 3, 1986

the paragon of all Canadians, and sang on national television, only to be raped many weeks later.
I should like to refer to the conduct and behaviour of our Prime Minister, of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who is not in his place, and of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher). Your conduct, Mr. Speaker, is much wiser than theirs. I find those three Hon. Ministers to be not only negligent but grossly negligent in representing the best interest of Canadians now and in protecting, ensuring, and embellishing upon our possible economic benefits in the future. They have taken the ball on free trade. They have dropped it. They have fallen over the ball. They have picked it up and they have dropped it again. They have thrown it to both sides. They have thrown it backward. They fell into the puddle. They are all over the map. We are showing our American friends and the world on the international stage that we are incompetent. What effect does that have on our reputation as a foreign sovereign nation? Who is leading the charge? It is the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. That is the problem with the negotiations.
At the outset I said that my colleagues in the New Democratic Party perhaps intended to have the word "incompetence" included in their motion. That is the intention of the amendment. I rest my case by saying that when Hon. Members opposite rise to question opposition Members, they should remember what they have done for workers in British Columbia. What will happen on June 6, 1986? As one of my colleagues said earlier, the answer is res ipsa loquitur.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, Bob Thompson, who was a Member of the House of Commons for the area of Red Deer for a number of years, made a statement once to the effect that the Americans are our best friends whether or not we like it. That statement is as true today as it was in the sixties when he made it. When we talk about free trade, enhanced trade, or freer trade, we should keep that in mind.
The subject of enhanced trade with the United States has been selected often by the Opposition for debate in the House lately. I welcome the opportunity provided by the Opposition to explain again and again and again that the world is changing and that Canada wants and needs to be part of that change.
To put it simply, Canada cannot sit on the sidelines of evolving world trading patterns and then at some moment in the future turn around and say: "Stop the world, we want to get on". Canada must move first and fastest if we are to protect our markets outside our own boundaries.
Let us not for a moment be deluded into thinking that other nations are not eyeing the American market. All countries of the world are eyeing the American market. Unless we do everything we possibly can to protect ourselves and to ensure our share of that market, we could be in very serious trouble. Any vacancy or void that Canadians may leave will be filled by others throughout the world. We must fight back if we are to
Supply
protect the jobs of Canadians involved in the creation of products and services for export. One out of every four jobs in Canada depends upon export trade. The Government is not being casual about the matter; we are being causal. We want to cause things to happen in trade.
Let me explain the trade talks perhaps in simpler language by referring to an analogy which may make it easier to understand. I will use simple business terms. Let us suppose that a company has a number of customers, one of which is the largest and takes three-quarters of the company's production. Let us also suppose that the company wants to expand. It may be for any one of a number of reasons. Generally speaking, all companies want to expand. Perhaps it is a generation of the family who wants to expand. In any event, that expansion will create more jobs. What should the company do? First, it will launch a sales campaign to sell more product. It will do something else of equal importance, that is, it will talk and talk with its major customer, the one who is taking most of its product. The company will do everything in its power to guarantee continued business with its large, number one customer. A small percentage fall-off in sales to the larger customer could wipe out the value of the total sales to many smaller customers.
This business approach has been described many times in many meeting rooms, seminars, class-rooms, and boardrooms. Good grief, I have done it myself. Most often it is summarized with the old expression, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In this case the bird in hand is the American eagle, and I must add that there has never been an eagle yet that can handle a healthy beaver.
So it is with trade between countries. When a country has a number one customer, it does everything reasonable and profitable to keep that customer's business. In the case of Canada, our big customer is the United States. Indeed we would be foolish if in any program of export growth we did not attempt to protect our business with our most important customer. If we do not protect that business, then we will work years to replace even a small part of any losses in our sales to the United States.
Now we come back to the company I talked about. When that company decides it wants to guarantee, or at least protect, its sales to the number one company, what does it do? Practically everybody does one thing. You go out and talk to that customer. You find out how things are going. How are prices? What deals would help sales, and so on. The important thing is that the company sits down with the customer and talks about future sales. What can be done that will benefit, and I emphasize will benefit, both parties? How can a continued business relationship be beneficial to both? Those are the subjects they discuss, and so would Canada and the United States. We must talk to our best customer to see what things we can do together that will make our future business dealings more useful to both of us. That only makes common

June 3, 1986
Supply
sense. But I do not apologize for introducing a little common sense to international dealings by Canada. You see, Mr. Speaker, when you get some kind of arrangement with our major customer it makes a lot of things possible.
Let us go back to our company again. A long time agreement on sales opportunities allows our company, Canada, to plan ahead with more confidence. It is able to buy raw materials in larger quantities and save some money. Assured sales may allow extra money to be spent on research or on planned expansion. A number of positive benefits derive from knowing the rules of the sales game with the number one customer. There is a direct analogy between the company and the Canada-U.S. trade talks.
Let me emphasize that these are trade talks. It is of vital importance to Canadian exporters that they know the rules of the game for the future. The only way they can know the rules of the game in future dealings with the United States is if the Government of Canada sits down with the United States and works out those rules. What effective trade talks do is to blaze the trail ahead. It is the proper job of Government to be in the lead blazing that trail so that businesses coming along behind can walk with confidence, creating the jobs we need by selling more goods and services.
If one wants to complete the analogy, or at least round it off, we can do that by asking what our company would do to increase sales besides talking and working with the number one customer. The answer is clear. The company would talk to other customers, old and new, and make every effort to get the rules of the game settled with them as well. Of course that is precisely what Canada is doing as we prepare for the next round of GATT discussions, the Canada-world trade talks. We will be sitting down to talk with potential customers from around the world. Again, as with the case of the Canada-U.S. trade talks, it will be the job of our Government to blaze the trail, to make sure that the route to prosperity is clearly marked for Canadian exporters to give them a certain amount of confidence in what is going on.
It is hard for me to imagine that any Canadian would be against the idea of talking to any of our customers, let alone our best customer, about setting some rules for the future. That is necessary, yet the fact of today's debate being requested suggests that at least those Canadians who are in the opposition Parties are against talking to our customers, or at least they must declare themselves against such talks.
I wonder why they worry so much. Talks are not a risky proposition. Any politician knows that there are no bad questions, just bad answers. A business person will tell you that there are no bad sales discussions, just bad deals. The point is that Canada is not sitting down to talk either at the world talks or the U.S. talks with a requirement to come out with a deal at any cost. On the contrary. If Canada cannot make a deal which works to the benefit of Canada and which is good for us, there will be no deal. That is the clear statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
We are going into these talks hopefully to buy insurance in a sense, but if the cost is too high, then we will not buy. Surely the worry cannot be because Canada is new to trade talks. That cannot be a worry. Trade is the longest single thread in our cultural fabric. Canada has always been a trading nation. We have relied on trade to build a nation of which we are proud. Now the nation must be proud of its traders. If we are proud of our traders' ability to compete, then we will certainly want to get right at the job of talking to the United States and others into lowering trade barriers so that our traders have a chance to compete on an equal basis.
Canadian traders are as fine as any businessmen in the world. We have to give them the opportunity to trade more. We have to knock down some of the walls that exist between Canada and the United States. I wonder if in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, Atlantic Canada they have contemplated what it would mean if the total northeastern United States were open to trade. That is a market several times the size of all Canada. Coming from British Columbia in western Canada, we look at California, a market larger than all of Canada. If anyone thinks that British Columbia manufacturers cannot compete up and down the Pacific Coast without anything coming out of eastern Canada or the eastern United States, just look at the distances. Free trade, not necessarily, but enhanced trade very definitely is what is required. Let us give our business people the great opportunities they need. The time to go after these agreements is now. The sooner we have the trade talks the better. With the recent example of what has happened to Canada, to 4,000 people in British Columbia particularly with shakes and shingles, all I can say is that it is a pity these talks did not begin five years ago. If they had, perhaps we would not have these particular countervailing pressures right now. Certainly for the future of Canada these talks are vital.
For a country to build on trade and not to plan to continue as a world leader in trade would be denying our birthright. Canada is trade, and trade is very definitely Canada. While we will probably outsell our competitors in product by product and service by service, I hope we will continue the Canadian tradition of exporting ideas and humanity and surely as well- because I believe Canada has earned for itself a good reputation abroad-that is only partly the result of effective sales efforts. We are known as good people with whom to do business. In many countries that also means we are simply good people. We can be good traders too. It is a good reputation to have. While we certainly want to compete with all the vigour we can summon, we want always to be known as good people to do business with, good people to talk to. Of course, if we are to represent Canadian business at the trade talks, we must in turn be able to talk with Canadian business and labour. That is why we have established a continuing consultant and discussion structure second to none in the world. In all of the trade talks, our Government negotiators will be guided, and remember this, by ongoing discussions with representatives of every economic sector.
June 3, 1986

Sixteen individual committees will provide easy and understanding access for virtually every Canadian who wants an opinion heard by the Government and its negotiators. The names of the chairpersons for these committees have been announced. The decisions on the membership of the groups are being concluded this month. If any Member of the House does not have a list of the chairpersons, I would be pleased to provide one so that constituents may be well informed of their route to the top in talking trade here at home. It is important that the approach we take to the trade talks is a true reflection of the interests and character of all of Canada. That is why we have been so meticulous in establishing a workable consultative program and structure.
I believe that all the ingredients are in place for successful trade talks. The time in history is right. The time for Canada's economy is right. We have the experience as traders. We have created a mechanism that will allow the Government to speak for all Canadians. In short, we are ready to talk. The 10 Premiers are on side and want the talks to go on. We are ready to deal if there is a deal to be made.
From then on it will be up to Canadians, business and labour, to exploit that by building and enhancing the jobs and building this country economically again. I have no doubt in my mind that Canadian exporters can reach out and beat the world if given the opportunity. That is what the Government is attempting to do. It is creating the climate and getting guarantees that we can do it, then going from there. Enhanced trade is our future.
I wish that this subject, which is so important to the country, could have been handled on a non-partisan basis with all three Parties in Canada speaking with one voice to the Americans. That is not the case. Anyone reading the Debates of the House of Commons can see that there is a lot of negativism and disagreement among the political Parties represented here. I deeply regret that. This is just too important to the future of the country to play cheap political games with. I hope there will be some second thoughts when the talks get under way so that we will not be faced with the problems which we presently have.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker for the Conservative Party regretted that all Parties were not speaking with one voice on this issue. I think we may have been able to speak with one voice on this issue if the Conservative Party and the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had shown a little realism in advance of the very unfortunate decisions which came down from the United States in the last couple of weeks. If there had been a sense of realism over there and we had confidence that the Government knew the score when going into these talks, there may have been a much greater possibility of speaking with one voice.
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate condemning the failure of the Government to act in Canada's
Supply
interests in the free trade discussion with the United States and, in particular-and this is very important in my area-for its failure to obtain an agreement to suspend unilateral tariff action by either country during the period of these discussions.
I want to stress the importance of this issue, not only to Canada as a whole but in particular to British Columbia and my riding. While taking a look at the global implications of the trade talks and the way in which the Government has not dealt with them adequately, I want to focus on Canada's number one industry, that being the forestry industry. My Province of British Columbia is dependent on that industry. There are two basic factors involved here. The first is the question of the basic resource with which we operate, and the second is the question of markets. We are in trouble on both counts. This trouble is compounded by technological change over the last 15 to 20 years which has resulted in increased productivity by fewer workers. There is an up side to that in that it makes us more competitive, but the down side is that it has resulted in massive layoffs.
The long-term unemployment problem in British Columbia is more severe than in any other province in Canada. Of those who are unemployed in British Columbia, 31 per cent have been unemployed for more than six months, as compared to the Canadian average of 25.8 per cent. Fourteen point two per cent of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for over a year, as compared to 10 per cent in the rest of Canada. Unemployment itself is a very serious problem, but even more serious is the fact that many of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for periods of longer than six months and 14 per cent of them have been unemployed for longer than a year.
The question of markets is absolutely crucial to the lumber industry because it is oriented toward exports. The United States is one area where we had markets which are now being closed to us as a result of Government action. On May 20 a 35 per cent tariff was imposed by the Prime Minister's friend, President Reagan, on our shake and shingle industry. This will affect up to 4,000 workers in British Columbia. Tomorrow a decision is going to be made as to whether the United States International Trade Commission will proceed with a petition which calls for a very high countervailing duty on Canada's $3.5 billion softwood industry.
I want people to realize the personal problems which are created by this 35 per cent tariff on the shake and shingle industry. I talked with the operators of a small shake and shingle business in my riding. Like so many of these operations, it is a husband and wife operation which has a few employees. They are involved in helicopter logging to get cedar shake bolts out of very difficult terrain. Some of these shake bolts are then processed in a small mill which they have and others are shipped by truck to a larger shake mill in the Fraser Valley. They are then exported to markets in California. These people work very hard and have a reasonable standard of living as a result of their hard work. They are able to give employment to a small number of people in the community.

June 3, 1986
Supply
The 35 per cent tariff is going to leave them with only a fraction of their business and they are going to have to lay people off. They feel they have been betrayed. They ask where their Government was when this happened. Why was this 35 per cent tariff imposed? It was like a bolt out of the blue to them. They had heard vague rumblings that something was happening in the United States, but they wonder why their Government was not on the job looking after them. What good did it do them to have a Prime Minister who constantly proclaimed his friendship with President Reagan? When it came to the crunch that did not mean a thing.
I am reminded of the words of the American humorist, who, I suppose, had some insight into the American character, who coined the expression: "Christmas is over and business is business". It seems that the friendship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan is over and business is business. Right now the American Government is in the business of mid-term elections and that is what is important to Americans. They are concerned about who will win the election. In order to win the election there is a great deal of protectionist talk. Canadian interests are completely expendable in that talk.
When it comes to the crunch, the United States will always act in its own interest or in what it sees as its own interest. It is important that we act in our own interest as well. We cannot condemn the United States for acting in what it perceives to be its own best interest. That is a natural thing to do in this world. Why are we not acting in our best interests? Our Government is not doing that. Instead, for the past year and a half the Government has been constantly proclaiming that the United States is the best friend we have ever had, that we can depend upon it to give us a good deal if only we are supportive of it, and that we have to give it every benefit of the doubt. We have given it the benefit of the doubt and it has now given us the benefit of a 35 per cent punitive tariff imposed on our shake and shingle industry. That is only the beginning. We have also seen the imposition of a 41 per cent tariff on certain steel products. We wait with considerable anxiety for what is going to be coming down in the days ahead on our $3.5 billion softwood industry.
Canada is highly dependent upon exports. Indeed, it is overly dependent on exports, particularly the export of primary resources, semi-processed and otherwise. In debates a few years ago on this subject, when members of our Party spoke of the need for a more diversified economy, prominent Conservatives said that there is nothing wrong with being hewers of wood and drawers of water. As someone who has worked in the woods I certainly appreciate the dignity of that kind of honest labour. However, the question we ask and the question the Government should be asking is, what happens to the hewers of wood when nobody wants to buy the wood anymore? They are laid off and become redundant.
The history of the forest industry in British Columbia, indeed in all of Canada, is a history of boom and bust. This reflects our dependence on external markets. Those markets have been in the U.K., Europe, and other parts of the world, but in latter years they have been primarily in the U.S. When we look at the action the U.S. is taking against us right now, we should not for a moment suppose that it is because the U.S. does not want our timber. It is simply that it does not want it right now. It is just not convenient for it to have our timber and our cedar shakes and shingles going into its market at the present time.
A few years ago the U.S. approached Canadian lumber producers seeking assurances that we would continue to supply its markets. It looked to us as a dependable reservoir of resources. However, like with all reservoirs, it wants to be able to turn the tap on and off to suit itself. Presently it does not want our shakes and shingles, or it wants the raw product so that it could process it itself and have the jobs.
It has been said many times in this House that up to 4,000 jobs are affected by this 35 per cent tariff. That does not take into account the spin-off jobs. This afternoon both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) denied that 4,000 jobs were affected, but they did not say how many were. Certainly it is a very signficant number. Until I hear a better figure from the Government I am prepared to be very concerned about 4,000 jobs in that industry. The Government's attitude is perhaps reminiscent of the senior Canadian diplomat in Washington who was quoted in The Vancouver Sun last Saturday as saying to American officials that it would be no big deal if the Reagan administration put a protective tariff on Canadian shakes and shingles. The official is quoted as saying that there would be a lot of rhetoric but it would not really be a big matter. For the Province of British Columbia, suffering from continued high and long-term unemployment, the loss of an additional 4,000 jobs is a big deal. It is not just a matter of rhetoric, and we would like to see something more than rhetoric from the Government.
Over the past 10 years we have seen the Canadian share of the American softwood lumber market grow from about 20 per cent to almost 32 per cent. That indicates very clearly that we are able to compete. We have skilled workers in our industry. We have better mills. Certainly the lower value of the Canadian dollar has been a significant factor in this increase. As to shakes and shingles, the fact that we have better resources of cedar than the northwestern United States is a significant factor. This tariff is not going to mean that the Americans can sell more of their own shakes and shingles, unless we are stupid enough to supply them with the raw product. I hope that is not the case.
While we have shown we can compete, and there are powerful forces in the U.S. who do not want us to do so, it is important to recognize that there are also market forces in the U.S. who do want our product. It is important to recognize that U.S. consumers are going to be hurt by this tariff, just as
June 3, 1986

Canadian workers will be hurt. Following the imposition of the tariff two weeks ago there was a bit of a scramble to buy up squares of shakes and shingles in the U.S. The price skyrocketed as a result. U.S. consumers saw what the long-term effects of this would be on them.
What we in this Party have been saying for the past year, primarily through our forestry critic, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), is that our Government should recognize the situation which is developing in the U.S. This did not come like a bolt out of the blue. Our Government should take cognizance of the growing protectionist sentiment in the U.S. and take concrete action to prevent it from growing. There are consumer organizations in the U.S. who are going to be hurt by this action. Home builders and developers are going to be hurt. The Canadian Government should have been working with those groups to make sure there was a countervailing force in the U.S. to stand up against the lumber industry. Instead of that, we have had the single-minded reliance on the friendship between the Prime Minister and President Reagan. Of course, that first line of defence completely collapsed a week and a half ago when President Reagan stabbed our Prime Minister in the back and announced this 35 per cent tariff.
This afternoon in Question Period the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there are political realities in the U.S. that cannot be wished away. He was of course referring to this protectionist sentiment. However, if there are realities that cannot be wished away, there are other realities which we should have been developing. There is the reality of those consumers who are going to be hurt by this tariff. There is the reality of home builders who are going to be hurt by this tariff. Why was our Government not working to develop some of those realities? What were we doing to help foster the other reality? Basically we were doing nothing.
This morning our Leader, while speaking on this issue, said that the first item on the table in any negotiations should be an end to unilateral tariff action and countervailing duties. The question he asks, and the question the shake and shingle operators and softwood lumber operators in British Columbia are going to be asking, is, what good is any kind of trade agreement when the U.S. has such easy access to countervailing action? We need to remember that when a free trade agreement was reached between the United States and Israel there was a clause in it that said that any countervailing processes would continue to be in effect. I think it is very important that our Government should learn from the lesson of May 20 when that tariff was slapped on us, that in any discussions with the United States the very first priority should be to put an end to that kind of unilateral action.
We should have known that the fix was in a long time ago when President Reagan was having difficulty getting the free trade proposal on the fast track approved by the United States Senate, and several United States Senators were holding back
Supply
from this because of the growing protectionist sentiment in their ridings. We should have known that we were in trouble when President Reagan sent them a letter giving them the assurance that U.S. lumber producers would get their so-called fair share of the market and that action would be taken to ease the Canadians out of the market. Of course that is what we are seeing in spades right now.
The shingle action is only a token of what is liable to be coming down the pike later on. We have seen the 41 per cent tariff on steel products. Wherever we compete to our advantage we are going to see this kind of action by the United States. As long as we have the possibility of this kind of unilateral action we do not have any protection. What good would any comprehensive or enhanced trade agreement or free trade agreement do us if the Americans have access to that kind of a process?
In retaliation, yesterday our Canadian Government announced some retaliatory measures, some increased duties that seemed designed almost as much to hurt Canadian consumers as to show the United States that we mean business. There is no help in the announcements made yesterday that are going to give any real aid to the shingle and shake producers who were thrown out of work.
We have the question, what is going to happen tomorrow and in the days ahead to our softwood market? We already are supposed to have free trade in forestry products. We have concerns that have been raised by other members of our Party over jobs in the auto industry, concerns over our cultural industries.
I urge this Government to make our Leader's suggestion its number one priority for any talks, and that is that there should be no more unilateral tariff action, no more unilateral countervail action. Surely there are other mechanisms that have to be developed that can lead to a better flow and regulation of trade than this sudden imposition of crippling and punitive tariff actions by one country upon another when those two countries are supposed to be friends.
In conclusion I would simply like to make one concrete suggestion that might help to alleviate the situation of shingle and shake producers. I urge the Government to develop a comprehensive campaign to develop shake and shingle markets in eastern Canada where we do not use shakes in the same way that they do on the West Coast. Let us develop a market in eastern Canada that could at least take some of the sting and some of the slack out of that industry that has been so cruelly hurt by the best friends that the Prime Minister has ever seen.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I have two points only by way of comment to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I am utterly amazed, having heard his speech, that he obviously does not know that the Premier of British Columbia has already placed an embargo on any cedar logs being shipped to the United States. I am also utterly amazed at hearing him talk about an eastern market for shingles and shakes when earlier today one of my colleagues was talking
13932

June 3, 1986
Supply
with a couple of mill operators in the East Kootenays who have never shipped to the United States and who said that it all goes to eastern Canada. I hope that in future speeches he will show he has perhaps learned a little more about the economy of British Columbia and some of the things going on before making statements in the House which are incorrect, at the very least.


James Douglas Manly: The embargo is good, I welcome it. What I am saying is that it should be permanent. There should not be any possibility of the export of cedar logs to the United States. We have had a Government in Victoria, the Social Credit Government, that has allowed over the past few years prime logs to go out of British Columbia to Japan and to China. Jobs have been exported by that Government with every log that has gone out. I do not want to see that happening with our cedar industry. I have some difficulty taking things at face value that are done by the present Premier of British Columbia. I still think there is room to develop a shake market in eastern Canada that has not been developed to the extent that it can be. I would urge the Government to do that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three things that have been of concern to me with regard to the free trade discussions that have been undertaken by this Government and the Government of the United States.
I think it is fair to say that we now have a pretty clear picture of where we stand with regard to the U.S. as it applies to the question of trade. If we ever had any doubt about whose interest was to be served by any decisions taken by the U.S. administration, then I think that that doubt has been cleared up.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), I think in good faith, believed, by virtue of a friendship and a song or two in Quebec City, that the relationship between Canada and the United States had improved to such an extent that the likelihood of the U.S. taking punitive, unfair action against Canada had been dramatically diminished.
I think we now know that this is not the case, that the U.S. interest, as it defines it, is always paramount in anything it does. Its whole purpose, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the administration and, in particular, of the President of the United States, is to secure for itself the greatest advantage, notwithstanding the detrimental effect that any action in that regard might have for any other jurisdiction.
Now having said that, I want to make it clear that I did not personally expect it to be otherwise. I cannot recall a time when it was ever any different. I certainly do not remember any time in modern history when the United States took an action which was not deemed to be to its advantage. I would not expect it to take any other action. It is because of that expectation that I have, which I think is probably based on reality, that I am concerned about what is now being undertaken by the Government of Canada.
The Congress of the United States is elected to serve the people of the United States. The individual people serving in that Congress, whether in the House of Representatives or in the Senate, are elected to solve the problems of the people of the United States. They are there by virtue of the fact that the people in their districts or in their states believe that they will properly and adequately represent the interests of the individuals living in those districts or states. It has been my experience from dealing with U.S. politicians that they have been extremely parochial in the way they have addressed concerns. I have gone to Canada-U.S. meetings and have frequently visited Washington. I have travelled through much of the United States and met with many representatives, past and present. Every time we speak about issues, they talk about issues that affect their local district and never speak about issues affecting their country as a whole, let alone world-wide concerns.
I ask Members of the House to recollect a single occasion during meetings they have had with representatives of the Congress of the United States, whether it be the Senate or the House of Representatives, when anyone has spoken about matters other than those of local, parochial interest. I ask my colleagues who have gone to such meetings whether they can remember such an occasion?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes.


Ian Deans: My colleague from Churchill says that he can. While his memory is faulty at the best of times, my other colleagues are nodding in agreement at what I am saying.
The fact is that the decisions that have been made for many years by quasi-judicial and non-judicial bodies in the United States have been in their own self-interest. Let me give some examples. They passed a Farm Bill. Was the purpose of that Farm Bill to assist Canada or to help some other part of the world? No. Its purpose is to enable American producers to breach the markets of the world at a price below that charged by other countries. That Farm Bill hurt Canada and Canada's farmers the most. Furthermore, the markets which the Americans sought first were traditional Canadian markets. That is what our friends did when they sought to determine how they could best solve their economic problems.
But they did not stop there. What did the Americans do when there was a little dispute over hogs? They immediately moved to impose restrictions. We had a dispute over fish, and they moved to impose restrictions there. They moved to impose restrictions as a result of a dispute over lumber.
Yet did we do anything illegal or wrong? Did we infringe the understanding that currently exists between our two countries with regard to trade? No. We continued to operate as always.
The United States was experiencing an economic downturn. I might say that this was coupled with a very strong American
June 3, 1986

dollar which they refused to address. These factors left them in a non-competitive situation so that their consumers were purchasing at least as much, if not more, products from other countries than they had been purchasing before. Another reason for this is that we have technologically advanced in some areas to the point where we are able to sell more cheaply than the Americans. Furthermore, in many cases we took up a larger part of a market not because we were selling more but because our share of the previous market now looked much larger because that market had become smaller. In any event, they decided that we were selling too much and would no longer tolerate this. We were not selling improperly, we were not subsidizing, dumping or shipping in bulk. We were selling on consignment. Yet the Americans, the people with whom we are about to enter into a free trade arrangement, decided they would no longer tolerate this. They talk about free trade, but we had free trade arrangements with them in some of these areas.
The shake and shingle issue has been talked about frequently in the House. We have had free trade in shakes and shingles for 50 years and have operated with no tariff. Yet some kind soul in Congress in the United States decided that one or more of his or her friends was being hurt by this 50 year old arrangement between our two countries. We were not doing anything wrong, they simply did not like what was happening. Therefore, they decided to impose an exorbitant tariff on our product.


An Hon. Member:: Who did it?


Ian Deans: My colleague asks a very good question. It was the President of the United States who personally imposed this tariff. He is the same President who is the very good friend of our Prime Minister. He is the same President who stands up the very next day to extol the virtues of free trade and states that the Americans are as committed as ever to the concept of free trade. I believe that they are as committed as ever to the concept of free trade because I do not believe they were ever very committed to it. I suggest that their concept of free trade is what is best for them and any changes they undertake will be in their own self-interest.
It is time that we held our Government accountable for what it is attempting to do. Canadians have been faced with the U.S. Farm Bill, with actions on such things as raspberries, fish products, hogs, shakes and shingles, and lumber. Now we face action on steel because Americans failed to reinvest money in the steel manufacturing areas and used it to diversify into other areas. They failed to modernize their equipment and became non-competitive. We reinvested our money, built our industry and attempted to develop technology. Now we are going to suffer.
It is time the Government woke up and smelled the roses. It is time that it understood what is happening in this world, and it is time that it stood up for Canada. It must begin paying attention to what is happening in the United States.
Supply
The President has no mandate to negotiate free trade. He would not receive support from Congress or the Senate for a mandate for a free trade arrangement with Canada. Therefore, how did he manage to obtain a 10-10 tie in the Senate Finance Committee without that support? He made a promise to solve such issues as the shakes and shingles question. Perhaps this is the only way he can get a sufficient number of votes in Congress to carry a free trade arrangement. Perhaps he will have to take similar action in other areas where irritations exist. Will the President have to undercut further the steel industry of Canada or take similar action as he has on shakes and shingles, as I predict he will take tomorrow on softwood lumber? If he must take these actions in order to get the votes he needs, what will be left for us? Where will be our benefit? What is it we are going to get out of these negotiatons? How much do we have to lose before it is recognized that the level playing field asked for by the President has a great, huge hump in the middle right after the game got started and we got locked into our end?
This is what concerns me the most. There has not been a fair opportunity to contemplate reasonably what Canada is seeking. When this issue first arose we were going to have free trade. Then were going to have enhanced trade. Then they decided to make it freer trade, whatever that means. And would it only be in matters relative to tariffs? "No, that would not work", thought the Government, "we had better make it non-tariff things, too". How would the Government negotiate all that? It would hope that the Americans would be fair and reasonable with us.


James Douglas Manly: We could get someone for $1,000 a day.


Ian Deans: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat

The Islands (Mr. Manly), said that we would get someone at $1,000 a day to do it for us, together with cars and offices and all the other paraphernalia that go with it.
We ask: "What are we going to negotiate? Is everything on the bargaining table?" Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) replies: "Our culture and our social policies are not on the bargaining table. Our auto industry is not on the bargaining table". But the fellow on the other side simultaneously, as if programmed, says: "Everything is on the bargaining table".


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I rise on a point of order. With the greatest of respect to the Hon. Member, I am really tired of his turning around with his back to the Speaker and to these benches and lecturing his own caucus. I would appreciate his speaking to the House of Commons and addressing his remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, rather than having his back to you through most of his speech.

June 3, 1986
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I do remember hearing the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) always addressing the Chair-


Ian Deans: Absolutely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: -which is the proper thing to do.


Ian Deans: If the Hon. Member had to look over and see what I can see, he would turn this way, too. I do apologize to at least one or more of the Hon. Members-well, at least one.


Mrs. Landry:: No sexist remarks.


Ian Deans: You are assuming I mean you. You ought not to jump to conclusions, let me say through you, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Where was I when I was so rudely interrupted?


Mr. Rompkey:: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).


Ian Deans: Oh, yes. There was the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the one side saying: "Oh, yes, social programs, culture and the Auto Pact are not on the bargaining table". Then we heard Mr. Murphy-not this one but the other one, the fellow from the United States-saying at almost exactly the same moment in time, as if they were programmed to speak simultaneously so they could confuse the issue even more: "Oh, yes, social programs will have to be looked at. Culture is certainly something we are concerned with and want to discuss. And, aha, the Auto Pact, we are certainly going to take a look at that". Who does one believe? Who is telling the truth? Is Mr. Murphy feeding his people one line while we are being fed an entirely different line? It is not that I do not accept the word of the Prime Minister when he says he does not want, nor will he abide, having those matters dealt with, but the fact is that the U.S. has made it abundantly clear that those issues are negotiable.
If we are committed not to negotiate in those areas, would it not make sense that we clear up with the Americans in advance the areas in which we feel no useful negotiation could take place? There is no point in sitting and paying $1,000 a day plus expenses, plus all of the cost of the entourage, office refurbishing and the cars and trips for everyone to trundle their behinds down to Washington or to some other place, if they are going to sit down and talk about something we have already decided cannot be negotiated. That makes no sense.
So I say to the Prime Minister again, as I must, let us deal with what we know we are prepared to discuss. If there are things we are not prepared to discuss, let us not pay the cost and waste the time of the negotiators in those areas.
The second point I would like to make is one I asked about last week. We are going to have issues such as the shakes and shingles matter, and other similar kinds of disagreements, arise
in the course of the next year or two years. I know that. My colleague from Vancouver knows that as well. Common sense tells us that this will be the case. Does it not make sense that as the first item for negotiation, if the talks must proceed, we sit down and work out a mechanism for the resolution of those-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted for his speech is now overdue. If the Hon. Member wishes to wind up very briefly, I will offer it to him.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me just quickly ask if it does not make sense to work out a mechanism for dealing with those things as they arise during the course of negotiations and relinquish, if we must, the right to unilateral action? That strikes me as making some sense. Let us not continue with the countervail arrangement in the U.S. about areas of dispute right now. Let us agree that there could be in place another kind of mechanism, bilateral in nature, that we could use to resolve our differences. If we could agree on that, I think a lot of people in Canada would be a lot more comfortable with the ongoing negotiations.
I appreciate the extra moment, Mr. Speaker. I assume that was the time taken by the Parliamentary Secretary in the nonpoint of order he insisted on raising.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He spent some time describing the kind of things the American negotiator, in particular, Mr. Murphy, was saying, about programs Canada has which must be put on the table in the discussions on free trade. We know from the memorandum we obtained from our own Department of External Affairs that the Americans have a dozen or more programs to subsidize their fishing industry, their agriculture, and so on. Every state in the United States has legislation which gives its employers, workers and companies an edge in purchasing against every other state in the United States, let alone against Canada. To the Hon. Member's knowledge, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) or Mr. Reisman ever said publicly to the American negotiators, or to the Canadian public: "Hey, guys, if you want to talk about our programs, which you think give an edge to Canadian producers, how about the programs you have?" Have our negotiators ever raised those kinds of questions, to the Hon. Member's knowledge?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a fascinating point because I do not think it is well known to many in the House, let alone the country as a whole, that the United States has a substantial number of direct and indirect subsidy programs to assist its producers and manufacturers. I cannot recall-and obviously I do not hear everything that is said- anyone from our Government ever suggesting that, first, there are such programs and, second, that those programs will have to be reviewed. As I look back I cannot help but feel that that is part of what is missing in the debate. It would have been
June 3, 1986

very helpful in the House of Commons if we had had an opportunity to place on the record not the type of partisan disagreement which we frequently have on the record but, rather, a more statistically analysed counterpoint on what Canada is prepared to negotiate, what the U.S. has indicated it is willing to negotiate and what sorts of programs for subsidy purposes exist in each of the countries. I think it would have been very helpful for us and for the public of Canada to have had that information, and even for the U.S. Congress to have had that information. I doubt very much if many in the U.S. Congress are aware of the degree of subsidization that takes place within the United States. Most of them do not come into contact with that, and they are specialists in certain areas.
The other minor point I wish to make, to which my colleague has alluded many times, is that it is often thrown up that the Auto Pact is a good example of a free trade arrangement. The Auto Pact is not a free trade arrangement at all. It never was, and it was never intended to be such. The Auto Pact is a managed trade arrangement. It was structured in order to allow for industry rationalization. It was set up in such a way as to take five automobile manufacturers that serviced in 1965 most of the North American consuming public. It was designed to allow for a balance of manufacturing and sourcing in each of the countries based primarily on their sales potential. So that there was some reasonable benefit that flowed to each country as a result of the auto industry, which was deemed to be, and was, one of the main industries in central Canada.
That is a managed trade arrangement. It is not a free trade arrangement. I have heard it said by many government Members and by members of the Cabinet that somehow the auto industry is an example of what we might get through free trade. That is not free trade. It never was and it was never intended to be such. It worked well because it was managed and because it required that certain things be done that benefited each of the countries involved.
Of course, if we could work out similar types of managed trade arrangements in other industry sectors then I think we should attempt to do that. The larger the industry sector and the more diversified it is, the more difficult it is to do. It is harder with an industry sector with 1,000 companies as opposed to one with five major companies. We would have to try to see if that is possible. I suggest that if the Government were looking at the type of arrangement in which there are clear benefits set out in the agreement which had to be made available to each of the participating countries, then we would not be nearly as concerned as we are right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mrs. Landry).
Supply


Monique Landry: Today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to talk about the wider ramifications of our trade relations with the United States.
Our Government is supportive of a significant lowering of international trade barriers between Canada and the United States, and I am quite convinced that our negotiations on freer trade will lead to an increase in this country's international competitiveness, new job creation, and real income.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that reasonable and well-meaning people may entertain legitimate concerns about the political, cultural and social consequences for Canada of an over-all trade agreement with the United States.
Allow me to try to allay some of these fears. First I should like to respond to the statement that there is no point in changing the status quo. Why try to fix something which works well, some say. These same people claim that Canada's economy is not doing too badly and they point to the fact that for a number of years now our trade balance with the United States has definitely been on the plus side. Unfortunately those who express this short-sighted outlook fail to take into consideration the fact that our economy is saddled with serious structural problems which have developed over the past years or decades. A sure sign of this is that during most of the 70s and the 80s Canada, among the major industrialized countries, posted the lowest productivity gains and one of the highest increase in costs.
This caused our competitive position to deteriorate, resulting in a substantial devaluation of the Canadian dollar in relation to the US currency. We are progressing, but we still have a long way to go before fully recovering from the recession of the early 1980's which affected Canada more severely than most of the other industrialized nations.
On the other hand, a number of other negative factors make it impossible for us to hang on to the status quo. Traditionally, Canada has always relied heavily on the aboundance of its natural resources as a source of employment and income. Technological changes, however, have caused the world demands for some goods to fall and, in Canada, this problem has been compounded by the increasingly strong competition from developing countries which are desperately seeking foreign currencies.
In the case of finished products, sold on domestic and foreign markets, not only are we facing the fierce competition of other advanced industrialized nations, but we are also coming under increased pressure from newly industrialized nations. These new considerations have combined with two other phenomena which have a profound impact on our country. I refer first to the technological revolution which is taking place now, and second, to the resurgence of protectionism in the world, nowhere more evident than in the United States, our biggest customer.
It has become almost a cliche to say that of all the industrialized nations of the world, Canada is the only one, apart from

June 3, 1986
Supply
Australia, which does not enjoy the assured access to a market of over 100 million inhabitants.
In the mid-1950's, such important and powerful countries as West Germany, France and Italy, not to mention a number of smaller European countries, had already felt the need to join forces to create a major-size market, in order to improve their competitive position internationally. Eventually, all the nations across the Atlantic joined either the Common Market or the European free trade area. We believed for quite a long time that we could survive and prosper without joining a wide market of this kind. But the major developments which have occurred recently and which I have described earlier-the slowing down of the productivity growth, the drop in demand for our resources, the increased competition from newly industrialized nations, the accelerated technological development and the rise of protectionism in the world-clearly demonstrate that the Canadian economy has become dangerously isolated and extremely vulnerable.
In line with a recent statement from the C.D. Howe Institute, I suggest that the status quo cannot represent a goal for our economic policy if we want the standard of living of Canadians to continue improving.
I think that is the lesson to be learnt from all the events that have lead to the development of a broad consensus supporting the twofold trade initiative launched by the Canadian Government last fall with a view to liberalizing trade, both multilaterally and bilaterally. This consensus also reflects the urgency for Canada to reach an agreement with its neighbour so as to reduce its vulnerability in the event of rigorous enforcement of the protectionist measures now in effect in the U.S. and measures that are now, as we know, being adopted and others that may be adopted, by the U.S. Congress. I believe that many Canadians have finally realized that obtaining broad and assured access to the vast American market will help our manufacturing sector achieve the degree of specialization and level of production that will make it fully competitive, not only south of the border but throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Canadian manufacturing sector can be of world calibre. We need only look at how many manufacturing industries reacted to the major reductions in trade barriers that have taken place as a result of the GATT agreements. Exports of manufactured products went from 7.8 per cent of all Canadian exports in 1960 to 42 per cent in 1984. Nevertheless, there are still many Canadian industries that would benefit enormously from unlimited access to the vast U.S. market. Those who are opposed to a new trade agreement with the United States claim that one of the consequences would be a considerable rise in unemployment, by which quite a number of people may be affected, according to certain statements in labour circles. Since trade and trade policies have always been of vital importance to this country, we have pioneered a number of studies on both the theoretical and practical impact of free trade. I could even say that the
number of economic studies carried out in Canada on the question of free trade with the United States greatly exceeds the number of studies done before the European Common Market, the European Free Trade Zone or any other regional trade arrangement was put in place. Practically all these studies concluded that free trade, by improving efficiency and guaranteeing access to a large market, would in time result in a substantial net increase in the number of jobs and a considerable rise in real income of Canadian workers. In a report prepared by the Economic Council of Ontario last fall, Professor Richard Harris of Queen's University estimated that eliminating all trade barriers between Canada and the United States would increase employment in Canada by more than 5 per cent. According to Professor Harris, the real income of Canadian workers would increase substantially since free trade would result in a 5 per cent reduction in the price of goods imported from the United States. Furthermore, reducing trade barriers would bring about a substantial increase in the productivity of Canadian companies. Interestingly, in the long run, almost all gains as a result of increased productivity would benefit Canadian workers, resulting in higher real wages, still according to Professor Harris. There are of course some quantitative differences concerning the impact of reducing trade barriers, but the general consensus is that it would result in major economic benefits to Canada.
I am thinking in particular of the in-depth studies which have been made, such as the report published last year by the Royal Commission on the Economic Union, various reports published by the Economic Council of Canada and the analyses made by the C.D. Howe Institute and Informetrica, a highly respected firm of consultants.
As the Hon. Members are all aware, Mr. Speaker, and as I am personally convinced, these evaluations have been strongly supported by a great many small and large Canadian businesses represented by such important associations as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Business Council on National Issues.
I would like to emphasize the variety of analyses and facts which indicate that freer trade between Canada and the United States would result in more jobs, but far be it from me to suggest that a large number of workers would not have to change jobs.
As for other resources, these changes are not only essential, but they are an integral part of the process which we have to go through if we want to benefit from freer trade. However, there is nothing extraordinary about these transfers. Indeed, in a recent report entitled Reorienting the Canadian Economy, the C.D. Howe Institute came to this conclusion:
Dynamic change is the standard in Canada.
The author of this report cautiously estimates that, in 1984, nearly 50 per cent of all Canadians working that year changed jobs, either within the same business, or by joining another company. As this example clearly illustrates, the economy is in constant and dynamic change in response to technological
June 3, 1986

change, consumer demand and trade policy, to name but a few of the factors which are always coming into play.
It is important to understand that any major trade agreement should provide for a phasing out of obstacles to trade over several years. This process would be aligned with the successive reductions brought about by GATT and would in fact be consistent with the series of reductions which are about to be undertaken and which will continue until the end of 1987.
By phasing out obstacles to trade, we would reduce the disturbances caused by the adjustment process, and it would be much easier for the Canadian industry to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by the opening up of foreign markets. However, the Government recognizes that it would be necessary to continue to offer adjustment assistance programs to facilitate the transition process.
I would now like to respond, Mr. Speaker, to another major concern which has been expressed many times. Some people fear that a freer trade agreement with the United States will translate into a massive exodus of American affiliated companies as parent companies adjust their production in the United States to meet the requirements of the Canadian market.
Frankly I am not too sure how I should refute this allegation, particularly when it comes from these same Canadian nationalists who have always maintained that all economic woes could be traced back to the ownership and control of Canadian industries by American interests. Strangely enough, these same people also complain that Canada is now the target of a series of take-overs by foreign interests. The assertion that a great many American subsidiaries will call it a day and go home is apparently based on the fallacious assumption that most such companies continue to operate in Canada only to sidestep high tariff barriers and strictly to supply the small Canadian market.
This happens to be the premise underlying the study done for the Government of Ontario by Illinois Institute of Technology Professor Jack Baranson. However, he defeats his own argument when he admits that there is already wide-ranging trade between subsidiaries and parent companies in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, if everything points to a massive exodus of U.S. subsidiaries, I wonder why we have not seen any sign of it yet, given the fact that we have already done away with major trade barriers. Indeed, direct American investments have continued to pour in during most of the past ten years and, more often than not, this increase is particularly significant if we keep in mind the income which remains in Canada for possible re-investment. Sure enough, the odd subsidiary would leave Canada as a result of a bilateral trade agreement, but then other companies would rush in to fill the void.
Trade agreement or no trade agreement, there will always be comings and goings due to changing circumstances and new opportunities. This is nothing new.
Supply
In the final analysis, the question is whether subsidiaries of American and other foreign corporations can operate profitably in this country, and whether they have confidence in our nation's outlook for the future.
As matters now stand, and according to a number of surveys, there is no intention on the part of American corporations to withdraw en masse. Rather than worrying over a possible withdrawal of American capital, we should be concerned about the very significant outflows of funds resulting from direct investments by Canadians in the United States, because they topped the $30 billion mark between 1974 and 1984.
There is no end in sight either to that outflow of capital that would be badly needed in Canada. According to surveys of investment intentions made by Professor Don Daly of York University, many Canadian businesses intend to significantly raise the level of their investments in the United States in the near term.
In my view, that kind of behaviour reflects the view of investors that there are no comparable opportunities in this country, given the current economic conditions. In a study done by the C.D. Howe Institute, Richard Lipsey and Murray Smith emphasize a second major factor. "Just as tariffs imposed by Sir John A. Macdonald under his national policy led to the establishment of American plants and subsidiaries in Canada, existing and expected non-tariff measures in the United States attract to that country Canadian investments and the resulting jobs."
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunate situation should convince us not only to seek a comprehensive trade agreement that would eliminate or significantly reduce non-tariff barriers which attract Canadian capital into the United States, but also to lay the foundations for a restructuring of the Canadian economy, which would create major investment opportunities in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. We had a speech which sounded exactly like the kind of lecture which an economics professor gives to his first year economics class. She quoted a professor from Queen's and she quoted the C.D. Howe Institute posing the question this way: "If we had complete free trade between Canada and the United States, everybody would be better off." That may well be true. But, of course, there is no evidence that the Americans are interested in real free trade.
In the last few weeks the Americans imposed a countervail duty against our East Coast fisheries, a substantial duty against the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia, and yesterday a substantial duty was imposed on steel pipe and

June 3, 1986
Supply
other steel products. Given that this is what the Americans are doing, and there is no suggestion in any of the discussions that the American Congress would give up its right to impose countervail duties on any particular product which it feels hurts one or other industry in the U.S.A., what reason is there to believe that we can get complete free trade?
What everybody is saying who is opposed to the free trade concept is: "Let's negotiate with the Americans, the Japanese or the European Economic Community in any area on any product, on any manufactured equipment that we produce, and if we can make an arrangement that will benefit both countries, then let us do that." But to talk about free trade as if the Americans are ever going to agree to complete free trade between Canada and the U.S., given their record of the last few weeks, it seems to me is to be talking about pie in the sky.
[ Translation]


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the Hon. Member seem strange to me, because as we very readily realize, the current situation, the status quo has a tremendous negative impact on our economic situation and on our agreements with the Americans concerning our products. This is another reason for negotiating with the United States with the hope of reaching an agreement under which we will no longer be the victims of the protectionist measures that are now the trend in the United States. I think the Hon. Member should agree with me that the status quo is no longer acceptable. We must strive, in the interests of Canadian industries and Canadian jobs, to reach understandings with our American neighbours so that we no longer fall victim to the kind of protectionist measures that are now hitting us.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning that it would be advantageous if we could come to an agreement. Why is it that when the Americans put a countervail duty on our East Coast fisheries because they say we have programs that subsidize our fishing industry, unemployment insurance or support loans at low interest for modernizing ships, nobody in Canada, not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), not the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) nor Mr. Reisman, the very astute, tough bargainer, says to the Americans: "Just a minute. You are putting a countervail duty on our fish. You have half a dozen programs, loans at subsidized rates for improving the fishing industry, subsidies to build better vessels, you have a whole range of programs"? Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that when the Americans put a countervail duty on steel yesterday, we did not say: "You have a whole series of programs to subsidize your steel industry to make it more efficient, and yet you are saying to us that you are going to put duties on our products that we try to sell to you because we have programs to help our people"? Why do we not say to the Americans: "What are you going to do about the subsidies and the assistance that you give to your industries and workers?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to my hon. colleague that, as concerns the disagreement which we are now having with the United States, it is precisely by negotiating new procedures that we can eventually avoid the need to provide such compensation for all industries. This is what we are now saying. As for what you said earlier, we are not certain either that these negotiations will be finalized. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have both repeated many times that no agreement will be signed if it is not to the advantage of our country and of jobs for Canadians.
We therefore must repeat that we shall sign an agreement only if it benefits Canadians, but there is definitely a need as we are always facing protectionist measures which harm the employment opportunities in Canada.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on questions from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I must ask the Hon. Member if this is not an Alice in Wonderland approach. The Americans have just imposed a tariff on fish. We have always had trade with the U.S. As a matter of fact, 70 per cent of our fish goes to the United States. Historically, Atlantic Canada has traded primarily with New England, as my colleagues across the way will know. The Member says we must not maintain the status quo. The fact is that the situation is getting worse. Tariffs are being imposed on fish because the Americans say we have subsidies. The irony is that the last Budget did away with those subsidies. We no longer have fishing vessel insurance. We no longer have fishing vessel subsidies. The Government has made the fishery completely user-pay. It is now charging for environmental forecasts and is charging berthing fees. Everything in the fishery is now user-pay.
The point I am making is that at a time when the Government is moving to user-pay in the fishery and eliminating subsidies, the Americans are slapping tariffs on Canadian fish, which they did not do before. What does the Hon. Member suggest we say to Canadian fishermen? Should we tell them to have faith in the Americans? Should we tell them to have faith in the negotiating process, that the status quo is not good enough and that we are going to get a better deal for them? The fact is that they see their situation worsening and going downhill. What would my colleague say to those fishermen if she were in my shoes and representing them?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, as far as our negotiations with the United States are concerned, we say that we must first of all strenghten and increase our markets, but that it is also necessary to implement new structures to avoid incidents such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member. We in the Government also admit that it is unfortunate, but as long as we have
June 3, 1986

not developed new structures to prevent such incidents, we shall always be faced with this type of situation. It is therefore urgent to negotiate new agreements so that we do not have to face such a prospect in the future.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question which has to do with her province. The bulk of workers in the clothing, textiles and shoe industries live in Quebec. Those industries in Canada and the United States are being decimated. Hundreds of thousands of workers are being laid off and hundreds of plants have closed because those industries in Canada and the United States cannot compete with the low wage imports from Third World countries. What will a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States do for the hundreds of thousands of workers in her province who work in the clothing, textiles or shoe industries?
[Translation\


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I think that we all agree that the main danger to our textile and footwear industries comes from Third World countries rather than from the United States. In this regard, we also give a lot of attention to our multilateral negotiations under GATT because we shall also have to adjust our mechanisms as far as these other countries are concerned. I am pleased to add that, while we are in the process of undertaking bilateral negotiations with the United States, the Canadian Government recognizes the importance of multilateral negotiations to consider all aspects of its dealings with other countries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the failure of the government to act in Canada's interests in the free trade discussion with the United States and, in particular, for its failure to obtain an agreement to suspend unilateral tariff action by either country during the period of these discussions.
An amendment to the main motion, on which the House will be asked to vote, was moved, adding the following:
-and for its failure to assist Canadian workers who are adversely affected by such unilateral actions.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the motion does not ask Hon. Members, at least not for the time being, to take a position for or against discussions with the United States. The purpose of the motion is to examine the way the Conservative Government has acted since the beginning of the negotiating process with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have to say that, taken word for word, the motion as amended by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), reflects a situation that is plain to see for any observer of the political scene.
Supply
First of all, before the Conservative Government came to power and hatched this plan of negotiating a free trade agreement-perhaps we should have a better definition to know exactly what we are talking about-but before the Prime Minister of Canada started these negotiations, there was no specific action by Customs to block exports of Canadian fisheries products to the United States. Before the Conservative Government started these discussions, there were no American measures against exports of agricultural products, pork in particular. Before the Conservative Government started these talks, there were no U.S. subsidies to undermine our exports or compete for international markets with agricultural products from Western Canada. Before the Conservative Government started the talks referred to in this motion, there were no tariffs to block exports of cedar shingles to the United States, and before the Conservative Government started these talks with the U.S., there was no 41 per cent tariff on certain steel products exported from Canada to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we can only conclude that the negotiations of the Conservative Government are a dismal failure, and so it appears obvious to me that all impartial observers would readily support the motion introduced by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and amended by my colleague the Hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of the Mulroney Government to do its job properly is there for everyone to see. This is why it should be severely censured for having so obviously failed to protect the interests of Canadians.
One might wonder why the Conservative Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have performed so miserably. The answer is that they get off or got off on the wrong foot. Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote the remarks made by the Prime Minister no so long ago, barely a few months before the election.
Imagine, he was the Leader of the Opposition, urging Canadian men and women to support the Conservative Party. Here is what the head of the Government thought of free trade with the United States, free trade being defined as total abolition, I suppose, of tariff and non-tariff barriers, as he explained in his intervention here in the House last September when he announced the opening of free trade negotiations with the United States.
Here is what Mr. Mulroney, the present Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Canada said a few months before becoming Prime Minister with respect to free trade with the United States. He spoke in English, so I quote him in English:

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said free trade would be "like sleeping with an elephant. If it ever rolls over, you're a dead man. And I'll tell you when it's going to roll over. It's going to roll over in times of economic depression".

June 3, 1986
Supply

This is what the present Prime Minister of Canada had to say on the concept of free trade with the United States hardly a few months before he was elected to the position he is in now. The question that comes to one's mind, without passing judgment on the substance of the free trade issue, is this: Did the Prime Minister have a mandate from the Canadian people to negotiate or to enter into such negotiations?
I suppose that historians who follow the present actions of the Government and draw a parallel with the suggestions the Tories made a few months before the election could easily recite to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) many of the speeches made by Mr. Disraeli in the British House of Commons when he was attacking his Leader, the Conservative Prime Minister Mr. Peel, on the issue of the implementation or repeal of the Corn Laws. Because at that time Conservatives in England had stated their position publicly against the repeal of the Corn Laws. Everybody recalls that. Disraeli had this to say about his Prime Minister and his Party:
A Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy. That is what Disraeli was saying about Peel when he abolished the corn laws, because the Conservative Party of England in those years campaigned against the abolition of the corn laws. Today the Prime Minister of Canada, who campaigned against free trade, is now in full negotiations with his friend, the President of the U.S. I wonder if we can apply to this situation the same kind of speeches that Disraeli was applying to Peel about the corn laws.

There is also another aspect which tells us that this Government deserves to be condemned, as indicated in today's motion, because they launched those negotiations on a basis that is not very sound in my view. The premise to the Prime Minister's argument was the following: Let us be nice with the President of the United States, and the Americans will be nice to us. Or: Let us be nice with the Americans on a number of questions, that is money in the bank for free trade negotiations. Everybody recalls that.
He told us, when an American ice-breaker entered our waters without being invited, that it was a significant encroachment upon Canadian sovereignty. But there was the usual argument: It was money in the bank for free trade negotiations.
When the American Government and the President applied pressure to have us change the rules on screening foreign investments ... The indirect suggestion was that we should be nice to the Americans, and this will be money in the bank for the free trade negotiations.
When we amended the National Energy Program, certainly to please some very conservative circles that existed in Canada, big corporations we did that for them, but also we did that to
please the Americans because, to use the Prime Minister's terms, that was money in the bank.
I can tell you that when we consider the results, the money in the bank has not yielded much interest. Because we suddenly realize that we have a Prime Minister who has banked on his personal relations with the American President, who has said yes to the National Energy Policy and to the passage of the American icebreaker in Canadian waters, and who has accepted the NORAD agreements without saying a word. All of this because this was part of his policy to be nice to the Americans.
It is easy to see that at the international level, negotiations cannot be conducted this way. That is why the motion as amended properly reflects the reality without taking a stand for or against free trade negotiations; but it can be very easily demonstrated that this was a deplorable failure. Because there are today in British Columbia 4,000 jobs being jeopardized and in danger of being lost because the American Governe-ment has imposed a countervailing duty of 35 per cent. How many hundreds of jobs are being jeopardized by the imposition of a 41 per cent tariff on some steel products? How many Atlantic coast fishermen are affected by a specific tariff? How many hog producers? What about the agricultural policy of the United States? And they say on the Government side that the purpose of the negotiations was to stop American protectionism. What a good deal! There has never been so many tariffs, quotas, protectionist measures since this Conservative Government came to power.
Are we to conclude that because the Prime Minister is too weak and willing to go down on bended knees, the American President take this opportunity to tighten the screw?


Bill Rompkey: The emperor has no clothes.


Raymond Garneau: It is easy to demonstrate that until now this Government has failed completely in its negotiations with the U.S. Canadian workers in the shake and shingle industry are losing their jobs. Our fishermen are losing their markets. This morning I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) saying we want to protect our markets. When the President wrote his letter to Senator Packwood what did he say? He said that in any agreement with Canada the U.S. will retain the right to implement countervailing measures.

Mr. Speaker, this means that at the very moment we were involved in negotiations with the United States, the U.S. President had already decided-whatever the previous speaker or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said this morning-the American Government and the President, in a letter to Senator Packwood, had already clearly indicated that the U.S. Government intends to reserve the right to impose countervailing measures to protect American industry.
Ironically, and this shows just how poorly the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) has handled this whole
June 3, 1986

affair, a total disaster, the sectors where free trade already existed, the sectors that were not subsidized, are now the very sectors that are most severely affected.
Mr. Speaker, there is no way the Canadian Government will convince this House that the new agreements will prevent the U.S. Government from imposing countervailing measures. The American President said the exact opposite in his letter. And I don't think the President of the United States is about to lie to the Finance Committee of the U.S. Congress. So I think the Government should realize that it better not try and sell us a bill of goods.
Mr. Speaker, now about the substance of the question. I think that everyone, at least on this side of the House, and I realize that the Members of the Tory majority, even if they do not agree and they realize their Government is a failure, 1 realize they will have to vote with the majority and defeat this motion, but the fact remains that the substance of the question-
We on the Liberal side have shown during 20 years of administration-and I could go back much further than that- that the Liberal Party of Canada has always taken an open approach concerning foreign countries. We do not have to be lectured by those who today, well certainly none of us because we were not there, but I can remember a time when the Conservatives had campaigned against free trade and managed to elect their Party leader, Mr. Borden, at the end of the debate. There was something left. I think there is a lesson there, and it is that the various Government we had since then-Liberal of Conservative, but mostly Liberal-have always defended the interests of Canadians and as a result were re-elected on a more regular basis. But since then the various Governments have always kept in mind the historic example of 1910-11. Canadian men and women as well as politicians never forgot the note President Taft had sent to some people in his administration. We must remember that because history repeats itself, and I always like to quote this remark of President Truman who once said: The only part of things one does not know is that part of history which one does not remember. We must keep history in mind. With respect to the 1911 negotiations, I wonder if today a similar note might not be found sooner or later in the files of the American President.
At the time, President Taft had said: "Basically ..." As I cannot find the quote in my notes, I shall have to paraphrase it. He said something like this: "I understand the concerns of Canadians about the Reciprocity Agreement. I can understand them because, basically, this will open up many new markets and develop very close links between the two countries, and finally, Canada will become an adjunct of the United States." The quote has just been found. Here is what President Taft said in his note to the Government which was made public by accident, thus killing any chance of success that the Reciprocity Agreement might have had. President Taft had written the following:
Supply
The amount of Canadian products we would take would produce a current of business between western Canada and the United States that would make Canada only an adjunct of the United States... I see this argument made against reciprocity in Canada and I think it is a good one.

When I look at that today, I say to myself: Yes, as the Liberal Governments have always done in the past, we have to increase our markets, but we must always remember that the main thing is to protect Canada as a nation. We have to protect the integrity of the political sovereignty of this country, and I am not saying this because I want to wrap myself in the Canadian flag, but simply because, in these trade negotiations, we have to maintain our identity and political independance and not put ourselves in a situation where we would come to depend even more than we do now on the major powers, especially the United States.
The position of successive Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, since 1910 has been to choose multilateralism over bilateralism so that the integrity of our political sovereignty would be protected, and it is best protected by agreements between a number of countries of varying economic strength sitting around the same table to sign agreements such as in the case of GATT. Some might say that we have drawn all that could usefully be drawn from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. For my part, I do not think that it is true because until now, the GATT rounds have been used only for the purpose of reducing duties, which means that they have dealt only with tariff policies, or virtually only with tariff policies plus a number of measures which prevent the Governments from granting excessive subsidies, for instance, and which allow compensatory action to be taken.
However, I think we have reached a stage where the range of action of the GATT must be widened, and this indeed is what Canada should try to have on its agenda at least for the Montevideo discussions: extending the scope of negotiations to services and non-tariff measures that hinder trade, but on a multilateral basis.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time has expired. I would like to remind you that the motion now before us is not a motion for or against freer trade. The motion now before us asks whether this Government, ever since the negotiations opened last Fall, has acted to ensure maximum protection for Canadian interests. In view of what has transpired in the areas of fisheries, farm products, forest products and steel, not to mention this newly declared tariff war, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion is quite simple-this Government has failed in its task, and the majority of members in this House should support the motion.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I would like to ask.

June 3, 1986
Supply
I would like to make a very brief statement as a preliminary. I first heard of free trade in the House of Commons in Ottawa when it was proposed by a gentleman who lives in Vancouver and happens to be a representative of the Official Opposition in the other place. I thought it was not a bad idea since I came from Atlantic Canada and I believed that it should be pursued. Atlantic Canada has had two periods of prosperity really, the first one during the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom when we had free access to the United Kingdom's markets for whatever product from Atlantic Canada; and the second in that period of time when we had reciprocity between Canada and the United States. We have never been prosperous when we have had to trade east and west. Nor has the West been as prosperous as it might otherwise have been when it has to trade east and west.
Canada's regions are such that they either trade across the water by the most economic source of transportation or we trade north and south to the nearest market for our products. There is a great deal of merit from an Atlantic point of view to pursue free trade as was proposed by that distinguished gentleman from the other place, and constantly discussed in Canada-U.S. relations through the Canada-U.S. parliamentary association in a constructive way.
Now I have some questions. Why does Canada find itself in the position of not being able to respond to this or virtually any other difficulty in which we now find ourselves without being committed to pay compensation to the country against whose action we reciprocate? How did that happen? Why did we negotiate ourselves into that position when we started GATT negotiations in the late 1940s? Why did we sign an agreement which left a law in place in the United States which stated unequivocally that if any production in that country was damaged it could, indeed, impose a surtax? Why did we sign that document? Why have we perpetuated that document in the continued negotiations which have taken place?
These are questions which I would like to hear Members from across the way answer. Why do we expect that we can sit in this House and wash all the dirty linen that Canada might have in trade before the television, when certainly there must be some respect for those who were trying to improve the position of Canada by trade negotiations? Why are we doing this? We cannot conduct international negotiations on the floor of the House of Commons. It never was done when the former Government was in place on an extended basis, why do they want to do it now?
There have been complaints about the surcharge on fish products going from Atlantic Canada. I ask you, why did those people who were former cabinet Ministers from Atlantic Canada not speak up? Why did they not take notice to the structures in the United States which were complaining when we set up the socialist company with unlimited access to tax dollars to export fish to the United States? Why? Why are we now criticizing today's Government for acts for which today's Canadians have to pay? Why? These are questions that the
Opposition has ignored. It has ignored them utterly in its total presentation today.
Why did we sign GATT? Why did we sign a treaty with any other nation, such as the European Economic Community, which did not allow Canada an opportunity to surcharge exports of agricultural products to Canada? Why did we do that? Why are we now complaining?
If you take a glass of reconstituted apple juice today you will find that it probably came from the European Economic Community to the detriment of our trade in Canada.
I have just one more question. Why, in dealings with GATT, did we accept the subsidized product from Europe to the point that those countries sold us their wine in Canada at less than the cost of the bottles and we had no opportunity, by virtue of negotiations of the former Liberal Government since the late 1940s, to take any punitive action against them without giving compensation to the European Economic Community? We are boxed in left, right and centre by former negotiations. Let us address these things fairly and honestly.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how I should handle the series of questions that have been put, because they were somewhat inconsistent-
The first part of my answer-


Fred Alward McCain: Not one contradicts the other.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Let him answer.


Raymond Garneau: The Hon. Member said there is no contradiction. I want to repeat what his Leader said a few months before the election. He said that free trade with the United States was like sleeping with an elephant. If it ever rolled over, you are a dead man. He said: "I will tell you when it is going to roll over. It is going to roll over in times of economic depression". My answer to the Hon. Member would be to ask if he would be happy to have, as a minimum, the same situation that existed in Atlantic Canada before his Government took over? There was no specific duty on fish exports from the Maritimes. There was no specific duty for hog producers.

Mr. Speaker, what could I say? When I suggested in my speech we advocated freer trade, I was not looking for an argument with the Hon. Member. It has been the action of successive Governments since 1910 to open up markets, whether in the United States, whether in the Pacific Rim countries, whether in other areas of the country ... Liberals were never against freer trade, quite the opposite. We have always looked for better access to markets.
June 3, 1986

But the Hon. Member asks why we have not provided better protection under the GATT to certain markets by repealing measures that could prevent nations from imposing special tariffs on specific products? Quite simply, I would suggest to him that when the President of the United States writes a letter to Senator Packwood saying that in any agreement with Canada he will ensure that the right of Americans to impose countervailing measures will be protected, of course 1 wish every luck to the Government in trying to reach an understanding that would prevent that kind of thing.
But what we are saying is that broader agreements must be reached. We are not against freer trade, we are against the fact that this Government badly conducted negotiations from the start, because we are now losing our markets. We are not protecting them, we are losing them as far as lumber, steel, fisheries and farm products are concerned. The inescapable conclusion is that this Government is a failure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A short supplementary question. The Hon. Member for-


Fred Alward McCain: Let it be noted that not a single question that I asked was addressed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Would he comment with regard to the position taken historically and more recently by the Leader of our Party with regard to the free trade issue? Would he not agree that the Government of Canada has been very incompetent in proceeding with negotiations for free trade because it has not made a request of the Government of the United States to eliminate any unilateral action taken by either side? Does he not believe that the failure of the Government to make that request amounts to total incompetence and a bungling of the free trade issue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A few seconds only; the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the remarks my colleague the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has just made. It is clear that we have entered these discussions unprepared. There have been no debate in the House; it was even contrary to the position adopted by the head of the current Government during the election.
It is not surprising that the negotiations should have ended up in such a mess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 82(9), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.
Supply
Therefore, the motion is as follows: Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans moved:
That this House condemns the failure of the Government to act in Canada's interests in the free trade discussion with the United States and, in particular, for its failure to obtain an agreement to suspend unilateral tariff action by either country during the period of these discussions.
The question is on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy, seconded by Mr. de Corneille:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period and by adding the following:
and for its failure to assist Canadian workers who are adversely affected by such unilateral actions.
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Call in the Members.
(Division No. 264)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Gauthier	NicholsonAngus	Gray	(Trinity)Axworthy	(Windsor West)	NunziataBaker	Heap	NystromBenjamin	Henderson	OrlikowBerger	Hovdebo	OuelletBlaikie	Jewett	ParryBoudria	Johnston	Prud'hommeBroadbent	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisCopps	mount)	RobichaudDeans	Keeper	Robinsonde Corneille	Langdon	RodriguezDingwall	MacLellan	RompkeyEpp	Manly	Rossi(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellFinestone	McDonald	Young-47.Frith	(Broadview-	Gagliano	Greenwood)	Garneau	Murphy	Attewell	NAYS Members Brisco	ClinchBeatty	Browes	CoatesBernier	Cadieux	CochraneBertrand	Caldwell	CollinsBissonnette	Champagne	ComeauBlackburn	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)	Cook(Jonquiere)	Champagne	CorbettBlais	(Champlain)	CossittBlenkarn	Clark	CdteBouchard	(Yellowhead)	(Lac-Saint-.Bourgault	Clark	C6teBradley	(Brandon-Souris)	(Langelier)Brightwell	Clifford	Crofton
June 3, 1986
Supply
Crosbie	Jardine	Pietz	yjL/ividiuri iyu.	(St. John's West)	Jepson	Porter	Crouse	Johnson	Price	YEAS	Darling	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Ravis	Members	Daubney	Conception)	Redway	Della Noce	Joncas	Reid	|	Dick	Jourdenais	Reimer	Althouse	Gauthier	NicholsonDomm	Kempling	Ricard	Angus	Gray	(Trinity)Dor in	Kilgour	St-Julien	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	NunziataEllis	Kindy	Scott	Baker	Heap	NystromFennell	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Benjamin	Henderson	OrlikowFerland	Ladouceur	Shields	Berger	Hovdebo	OuelletFontaine	Landry	Siddon	Blaikie	Jewett	ParryFraleigh	Lawrence	Sparrow	Boudria	Johnston	Prud'hommeFretz	Layton	Stackhouse	Broadbent	(Saint-Henri-West-	RiisFriesen	Leblanc	Stevens	Copps	mount)	RobichaudGagnon	Lesick	Stewart	Deans	Keeper	RobinsonGass	Lewis	Tardif	de Corneille	Langdon	RodriguezGervais	Lopez	(Charlesbourg)	Dingwall	MacLellan	RompkeyGirard	MacDonald	Taylor	Epp	Manly	RossiGottselig	(Kingston and	Thacker	(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	McCurdy	WaddellGraham	the Islands)	Towers	Finestone	McDonald	Young-47.Gray	MacDougall	Tremblay	Frith	(Broadview-	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	(Timiskaming)	(Quebcc-Est)	Gagliano	Greenwood)	la-Madeleine)	MacKay	Tremblay	Garneau	Murphy	Greenaway	Mayer	(Lotbini&re)	Gris6	Mazankowski	Tupper	Guilbault	McCain	Turner	(Drummond)	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)	NAYS	Gustafson	McCuish	Valcourt	Members	Halliday	McKenzie	Vankoughnet	
Hamilton
Hardcy
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
James
McKinnon
McMillan
Merrithew
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nielsen
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pa proski
Pennock
V6zina
Vincent
Warner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise
Witer-144.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I declare the amendment lost.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you were to check, I think you would find a disposition to apply the same vote to the main motion and have it recorded as such.
Attewell
Beatty
Bernier
Bertrand
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford
Clinch
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Gervais
Girard
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
James
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
McKinnon
McMillan
Merrithew
Mitges
Moore
Murta
Nielsen
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Paproski
Pennock
Pietz
Porter
Price
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
St-Julien
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Shields Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: By unanimous consent the House agrees to apply the same vote to the main motion. Therefore, the next question is on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Therefore, I declare the main motion lost.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having been absent for the first vote, I hope to be included with my Party in the second vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 6.12 p.m., the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.00 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 4, 1986