1986-05-27

Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government response to 25 petitions, Nos. 331-438 to 331-462 inclusive.
*
* *


[Stage Direction]
Thirty interest groups and individuals appeared before our Legislative Committee, and about 100 amendments were proposed. Half of these were accepted. We therefore believe this is a fair and equitable report that takes into consideration the proposals submitted by the witnesses who appeared before the Committee and by Committee members who were most diligent in their work and in attending the Committee's proceedings. The result is that a stronger and more comprehensive Bill can now be reported back to the House.
[Stage Direction]
In closing I would like to say that acting as chairman for the committee has been an enriching experience for me personally, and I would like to take this moment to thank all the staff of the Members, the House of Commons and the Library, who made the work of the committee flow so smoothly.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) I would like to lay on the table in both official languages notice of ways and means motions to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 84(2), I ask that a day be designated for consideration.



COMPETITION TRIBUNAL


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a Legislative Committee, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Legislative Committee's report on Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, with amendment.

This Legislative Committee has sat extensively during the months of April and May, and on many occasions, for whole days at a time.


PETITIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions today, one respectfully calls upon the Parliament of Canada to repeal tariff item 99201-1 of the Customs and Excise Acts, which violates the freedom of expression provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A second petition, which calls upon the Parliament of Canada to remove the Clarkson Postal Station in Mississauga because it cannot accommodate the staff or the traffic congestion which ensues on the site where the post office is located.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting today a petition from people in my riding who are residents of Cap-Pele, Robichaud and Barachois and are asking to have the changes in the unemployement insurance regulations repealed.

May 27, 1986
Motions


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have again the pleasure of presenting a petition to the House from many thousands of people who live on the coast of British Columbia who are seriously concerned about the closure and automation of lighthouses along the coast. They view this as a dangerous action by the Government and urge that a public inquiry be called to assess the dangers and damages done by this program. They note that search and rescue will be diminished, lack of communication, lack of accurate weather reporting, and they urge the Government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to call a public inquiry into this matter.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: I would like to present one of several hundreds of petitions from the residents of Victoria, British Columbia, who are calling upon the Government to revoke the recent changes to the unemployment insurance regulations which negatively affect former members of the Canadian Armed Forces, former members of the RCMP and other police forces, firefighters and other men and women who are forced in midlife to seek new employment.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition organized by Mr. Ed Tchorzewski (MLA for Regina North East) and signed by the residents of Park Ridge in the City of Regina. These residents pay taxes and pay the same price for postage as anyone else, but do not receive the service of door-to-door mail delivery. Canada Post's policy of not extending mail delivery to new residential districts means that the people who reside in Park Ridge, Regina, will receive less consideration than residents in more established communities.
Therefore, this petition of 196 citizens of Park Ridge are praying and calling upon the House of Commons to initiate a change in Canada Post's policy so that mail delivery services will be provided to those neighbourhoods that meet delivery criteria.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties, and I think you will find a disposition to accept by unanimous consent and pass without debate the following draft order:
That, notwithstanding the Order of the House made on Wednesday, June 12, 1985, the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations be
empowered to present its final report not later than Wednesday, June 25, 1986; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to request that the Senate unite with this House for the above purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has the unanimous consent necessary for the introduction of that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Shall the motion be carried?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried and so ordered.


DESIGNATION OF ALLOTTED DAY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At
this point in time I would like to designate tomorrow as a further allotted day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders
Consideration of an Opposition Motion-
That this House urges that the Government press upon the Government of the United States the unanimous views of the House of Commons as expressed in its resolution of May 23, 1986, and insist that the United States rescind the 35 per cent duties on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles and guarantee that similar measures or other possible trade action will not be applied to Canadian products in the future if the present comprehensive trade negotiations are to proceed.-Mr. Tobin.
Mr. Speaker:: By consent, the motion is moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I so move.
May 27, 1986

I want to thank the House for the unanimous consent in allowing me to appear on behalf of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who will be following me in the course of the debate. I want to congratulate that Member from Newfoundland, who represents a very heavy forest industry in his riding, for having brought this to the attention of the House with such despatch.
The issue that absorbs us this morning and throughout the day concerns double-dealing by the President of the United States and the American Government because the imposition of a 35 per cent tariff against British Columbia red cedar shingles and shakes offends the very spirit and runs contrary to the very thrust of the current free trade negotiations between our country and the United States. The imposition of the tariff ran directly counter to the efforts of two Governments to enhance our respective access into each other's markets. In fact, as it affects B.C. red cedar and, indeed, the entire lumber industry, we already have a free trade arrangement that is now being offended rudely by a 35 per cent tariff. I might say that this tariff is so severe that at 35 per cent it is in effect a barrier that prohibits the entry of B.C. shingles and shakes to the American market.
This double-dealing also reflects the incompetence of the Government in the handling of our negotiations with the United States. We now have a situation where the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have no compass, no sense of direction and no sense of purpose. On the two occasions of the so-called Shamrock Summits with the President-where the only winner was St. Patrick and certainly not the people of Canada-the Prime Minister boasted of his special relationship with the President. He boasted of a closer relationship that he was fashioning between our two countries. Yet the President, the Prime Minister's partner, friend and confident, the man that he said was only on the other end of the telephone, was the one who used his presidential discretion and imposed this 35 per cent tariff on B.C. red cedar.
That special relationship was replaced by bombastic rhetoric, by promises of retaliation and by threats from the Prime Minister as he escalated his vocabulary to feign outrage and turn on his erstwhile partner. We have something to say about that because we will prove in the House that the Prime Minister was not surprised and had received full warning from the Premier of British Columbia well in advance of the presidential action.
The negotiations have been handled very badly. Prior to sitting down with the United States, the Prime Minister had already thrown away the Foreign Investment Review Agency, thrown away the National Energy Program and thrown away the book publishing industry. He had already received a weak commitment on acid rain and the President had made a unilateral deal with the U.S. Senators on our Canadian lumber industry in order to get free trade on the fast track.
Not only have the cards been thrown away, the timing for beginning the negotiatons was lousy. We have a $20 billion
Supply
surplus with the United States. The average American Congressman thought that his or her real problem was Japan with its $50 billion surplus. Now they are looking directly at us and analysing our trade. This will not be a philosophical discussion with the United States, but a hard-nosed, eyeball-to-eyeball negotiation. The Americans will look at every item and every number and their objective in these trade negotiations will be to reduce our surplus of $20 billion down to zero. That is what they are trying to do with the shakes and shingles. That is what they are trying to do with lumber and fish. That is why they would like to reopen the Auto Pact. That is the message we are getting now from the President of the United States.
Of course, the negotiations were undertaken on the false premise, as we have heard from many of our independent institutes across the country, that the very fact of negotiating a trade arrangement with the United States would dissipate protectionist pressure in the U.S. Congress. That is a naive assumption. These negotiations seem to have done just the opposite. Focusing the attention of the American Congress on Canadian trade has perhaps even exacerbated those protectionist instincts or, at least, rather than being vaguely focused around the world against Japan or Europe, they have been focused on Canada as well.
We do not know how to respond to this issue from day to day. I am going to make a statement in another forum on the whole free trade subject. We set forth fully our position on September 26, when I spoke before Your Honour for an hour in the House of Commons. Our caucus met on January 19 when we again set out our position which carries the unanimous support of our caucus. We will further define that position when we assess the situation. However, we have not seen any facts.

There has been no clarification, no education of the public, no parliamentary debate to give Members of all parties a chance to contribute their insights, reflexions and opinions and those of their constituents. Not a single opportunity was given. Even the documentation provided by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was censored. Every single page, and there were even a few pages missing entirely, every single page had been doctored prior to producing the documentation, so that Canadians are unable to judge the pros and cons, the advantages and liabilities, the cost and benefits of a future agreement. And provincial participation is practically nonexistent. There is some confusion here. What do the words "full provincial participation" mean? The Premier of Ontario doesn't know, the Premier of Quebec doesn't know, the Premier of British Columbia doesn't know. These talks are being pursued in an amateurish, clandestine and absolutely incompetent fashion.

Our negotiators' lack of understanding of the American position has been absolutely negligent. Apparently we were

May 27, 1986
Supply
taken by surprise by the close vote and the opinions of the 20 U.S. Senators on the Finance Committee of the United States Senate. What was our embassy doing? What was the 100 person trade office, set up under Mr. Reisman, doing here in Ottawa? Why were we taken by surprise?
I suggest that the Government should not have been surprised about this issue as well. I am holding a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada from the Premier of British Columbia, the Hon. W. R. Bennett. It is dated May 7, 1986.1 will read it into the record:
My dear Prime Minister:
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 Commission is divided in its recommendations with one-half recommending no restrictions and the remaining three Commissioners recommending a 35 per cent tariff be applied.
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 am deeply concerned that the President may in fact decide to impose a tariff, perhaps for extraneous reasons.
He may decide to show that he is not reluctant to act on Section 201 cases. Furthermore, in view of the difficulties surrounding the Senate Finance Committee decision to provide the President with fast track authority, he may decide to demonstrate a tough posture vis-a-vis Canada.
This matter is of great importance to Canada and, in particular, to British Columbia. The jobs of an estimated 4,000 workers across Canada are threatened. I urge you to contact the President directly so as to convince him not to act in any way against Canadian shingle and shake imports into the U.S.
The final two paragraphs merely reinforce that particular argument and the letter is signed by the Premier of British Columbia.
In other words, the Prime Minister was warned directly by the Premier of the province most intimately affected. He was urged to contact the President of the United States. We do not know what was done. We suspect nothing was done. Yet despite this knowledge, the Prime Minister feigned surprise and outrage. It was a phoney reaction. It was a manufactured reaction and cosmetic bombast. The Prime Minister knew about the issue. He should not have been surprised. He had been warned by the Premier of British Columbia.
We have a very serious situation in British Columbia involving the B.C. cedar industry. I met yesterday in my constituency office with a committee representing the entire lumber industry of British Columbia. It told me that this tariff has the following direct job and dollar effect on the Canadian economy; first, the loss of 4,000 direct jobs with an annual payroll in excess of $100 million; second, raw materials suppliers face the loss of revenues in excess of $100 million; third, transportation loss of revenues resulting in approximately $55 million; four, suppliers to the industry face losses in excess of $25 million; five, financial institutions face losses of revenues of $36 million on short-term financing, not to
mention the long-term financing and the problem now facing the whole industry in terms of the availability and continuance of credit. These direct effects total more than $344 million per year. That is concentrated in B.C. cedar and the shingles and shakes industry, because white cedar was excluded, and related industries, which are directly involved. With respect to the indirect dollar effect, the industry representatives made the point very well.
The irony of the situation is that the action taken by the President is not going to help the American shake and shingle industry because it faces, as do our Canadian suppliers, a declining North American market. Cedar used to represent a considerable percentage of roofing in North America. It is now down to 3 per cent because of the competition of asphalt and tile. This will leave the American industry crippled because it is now going to be without raw material to manufacture its part of the industry. Moreover, it is going to be absolutely captive to the big lumber and logging companies of the United States, the Weyerhaeusers, the Georgia Pacifies, the Boise Cascades. It will now not have any competitive counterweight against the tremendous economic power it faces. The President's action will not help the American industry but it will absolutely cripple, even destroy, our lumber industry in British Columbia because at 35 per cent we do not have a tariff, we have a wall which cannot be climbed.
Is this a shot across the bow of the Canadian lumber industry? Is this a harbinger of things to come? The Canadian lumber industry has become a pawn in the trade discussions with the United States. I have already recited the letter from the President of the United States to the senior Republican Senator of the State of Oregon, Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate which piloted that fast track resolution. He is also the senior senator from the largest forest-producing state in the Union. He received a separate deal. That deal was consecrated in a letter we put before the House from the President to the senator saying to him, and to other senators, we suspect: "Don't worry, boys, about these free trade negotiations with Canada because the lumber negotiations will be kept separate and I, as President, will enforce the full weight of the American law to protect our lumber industry". And that is what has happened.
Now a countervail action has been filed by the American industry against our Canadian industry, not only in British Columbia but in New Brunswick, Ontario, Newfoundland, Quebec and right across the board. The law has not changed. Our industry won a countervail action in 1983. The facts have not changed. But perhaps there is connivance on the part of the administration that this time a countervailing action will succeed. The President still has until June 6 to use his discretion as to whether or not he will receive that petition from the American industry. If the President refuses the petition, the action does not go any further. If he receives the petition, the whole quasi judicial process in the United States proceeds inexorably towards some kind of conclusion. Of course, the Canadian industry suspects the worse. It suspects
May 27, 1986

that the attitude of the United States' administration has changed adversely against Canadian interests.
Our position on this issue can be summarized in this way. First, we want the Prime Minister to call the President of the United States directly on the telephone, use the advantages of that vaunted special relationship with the President and accept the President's invitation to call him any time he has a problem. We want him to ask the President two things. We want him to ask the President to reverse the 35 per cent duty on B.C. shingles and shakes and to exercise his discretion to refuse the countervail petition of the American lumber industry against the Canadian lumber industry. We want our Prime Minister to suggest to the President that while trade negotiations are continuing between our two countries, we negotiate with the United States-and it can be done simply by an exchange of letters between the President and our Prime Minister-a standstill agreement or what I have called a "cease and desist" agreement, so while any general discussion on trade are being taken between our two countries the unilateral harassment actions like the imposition of tariffs or countervailing actions on both sides of the border cease and desist.
If we do not get a satisfactory response from the President on these issues then, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) suggested in the House at the end of last week, we as a country should seriously consider reassessing these negotiations with the United States on trade, or suspend them until we get some understanding of what is going to happen by way of the unilateral harassment actions.
We do not believe that this is the time for retaliation. We believe this is a time for cool assessment by our Canadian Governments. This is a time for negotiation and a time for ascertaining the real mind of the President and of his administration. I am supported in that view by the President of the IWA, Jack Munro. I am supported in that view by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia with whom I spoke on Sunday. I am supported in that view by the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia with whom I met yesterday, and I am supported in that view, I understand, by the Member of Parliament for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), the chairman of the Conservative caucus. That is the attitude we ought to take, not this sort of catch up ball which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) are trying to play in order to make them look tough after they have looked like patsies for the last year and a half. It is not going to work.
Finally, we want a statement from the Government that if the tariff persists there is adjustment for our industry and for our workers in British Columbia who have been been put absolutely out of business.
I know exactly what I am doing here, and if the Government had known what it was doing we would not have had to put this motion forward. That is our position. We look forward with great interest to what the Government will propose. We
Supply
look forward with great interest to see how the Prime Minister responds. This issue could have been foreseen. It was highlighted to the Prime Minister. It was signalled to him by the Premier of British Columbia. Any feigned surprise will not wash. Any phoney, bombastic, cosmetic rhetoric just will not fly. We present this motion to the House with the utmost conviction and the utmost sense of outrage at the futile conduct of the Government throughout this whole matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of resolving a situation which is very traumatic and dramatic for western Canada, I appreciate the concern that all individuals and all Hon. Members have taken with respect to this issue that deals with an acute situation that has arisen, especially in my riding.
I have a couple of questions to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. He alluded to the fact that this is an inappropriate time to commence free trade talks because of the $20 billion imbalance. What is the position of the Liberal Party? Does it have a position as a Party? Why has it not enunciated it before now? We have been listening.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you deaf?


Gerry St. Germain: I say to Hon. Members that we will not stand in our places and say that we will not listen to other people. We have maintained from the very beginning that we will consult and conciliate with every Canadian in seeking a resolve to some of the major problems which face the country, especially in terms of improving the plight of Canadians who seek jobs. My first question is, will the Hon. Member deary enunciate the position of the Liberal Party? The Hon. Member says that this is an inappropriate time. I would like him to respond to the 300 protectionist Bills which are sitting in the Congress and in the Senate of the United States. Does he feel that they will just disappear or that some fairy godmother will come down and strike these things off the face of the earth? I would like him to respond to those questions if he could, please. I would like the tone of this debate to be positive so that we can all work toward a resolve.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the embarrassment which the Hon. Member feels. I sympathize with his constituents since they are very deeply affected by this issue. We are trying to find a solution.
First, the position of the Liberal Party was set forth in a one-hour speech I made on September 26 in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister introduced the resolution in a short, vague and ambiguous speech which took 15 minutes, and we have not heard from him since in the House of Commons.

May 27, 1986
Supply
Second, he can find our position in a caucus statement dated January 19 which carries the full force of our caucus. It was distributed to the House and to the media. It sets forth our position. I believe I will have an opportunity to render that even more precisely before the House rises.
I am saying that the position of the Opposition has been very clearly set forth. Our problem is, as it is the country's, that we do not know where the Government stands. There has been no statement of principles. There have been no facts which set it forth. We have not been told what is negotiable and what is not. We have not been told what is on the table and what is not. The provinces are in the dark. The Canadian public has no facts at all.
We believe the timing was bad because a $20 billion surplus is not the best opening gambit. Nor is it good timing to begin negotiations in an election year when key U.S. Senators and key U.S. Congressmen will not be able to look at this issue with the type of objectivity which one would expect and hope in a free trade arrangement.
In terms of the protectionist sentiment in the United States, the naivite of the Government was and remains, I suppose, that beginning negotiations would dissipate that protectionist sentiment in the U.S. Congress and those 200 Bills would just disappear. That has not turned out to be the case. My response to the Hon. Member is, what price does he want the country to pay to dissipate that protectionism? We are looking constructively at the discussions. We have laid out what we believe are the benchmarks. However, the negotiations have been handled so ineptly that the country is shaken to its roots by the incompetence of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fulton:: Mr Speaker, I have two short questions to which I hope the Hon. Member will respond. Yesterday, when he met with the same group with which I met, he indicated that it was his position, and I assume the group thought that it was the position of his Party, that he wanted to have the comprehensive trade talks suspended until the 35 per cent duty in relation to shakes and shingles was removed. That is not what the motion suggests. I wonder whether you could clarify if that is your position that is, if the 35 per cent duty placed against shakes and shingles is not removed then you want those talks to terminate.
The second question is in relation to log and bolt exports to the United States. Mr. Clark is on the record as opposing the movement of any cedar logs or bolts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is starting to use "you" again. I remind him that questions are directed through the Chair. I think he knows he should also refer to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


James Ross Fulton: I wonder if the Hon. Member could expand with respect to what is the position of the Liberal Party in relation to the log and bolt exports.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the representatives of the shake and shingle industry I expressed our view exactly as I have expressed it this morning. First, we want the Prime Minister to test the President and the President's willingness to withdraw the tariff against B.C. red cedar shakes and shingles. Second, we want the Prime Minister to test the President as to whether or not he will exercise his discretion and refuse the petition on countervail against the Canadian lumber industry. Third, we want to know whether he would agree to some sort of cease and desist or standstill agreement with Canada while the negotiations are proceeding. Failing that, we would have to consider reassessing or suspending our free trade negotiations with the Americans. That was my position then and that is my position now. Let us stay with shakes and shinges and we will deal with the other matter on another occasion.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said that he opposes retaliations which would trigger a trade war.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So did you!


Gerry St. Germain: I oppose any action that would trigger a trade war. If the Hon. Member's position is one in which he seeks a solution to this problem, does he have a definitive position? I go back to this question because the Liberal Party should have a clearly enunciated position and it does not seem to have one.


Mr. Frith:: Where have you been?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Wake up, you've been sleeping too long.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Bye-bye, Gerry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that I have to allow time for a reply. Will he complete his question or comment briefly, please.


Gerry St. Germain: They said bye-bye in 1983 and 1984 and I proved them wrong then, and I will prove them wrong again.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You didn't have shakes and shingles hanging around your neck then.


Gerry St. Germain: The Hon. Member wants the Government's position which, without question, has been clearly enunciated. I ask him for the position of the Official Opposition. He says that he gave the position in a speech and that he clarified it further as he went along. I say this in sincerity. We want as much constructive criticism or as many constructive points as can be brought forward in this debate. It is an issue critical to British Columbia and to all of Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that he ought to review what I said in the House on September 26. He ought to review our caucus statement as well. He ought to bring both documents into his own caucus
May 27, 1986

and ask the Prime Minister where he stands on all the issues we have outlined before the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Second, we will be as constructive as we can. On behalf of our caucus I believe I have put forward a very constructive proposal to the House this morning. I hope the Hon. Member will reinforce it through the very eminent position he holds in the caucus of the Conservative Party.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I would like to begin by taking a close look at the motion before us. In my view, it does not address what has taken place; it wanders, and I think it is worth reading. It is as follows:
That this House urges that the Government press upon the Government of the United States the unanimous views of the House of Commons as expressed in its resolution of May 23, 1986-
The motion reads very well up to that point. It refers to the motion introduced by the Leader of my Party and unanimously supported by the House on Friday. The motion then goes on to read as follows:
-and insist that the United States rescind the 35 per cent duties on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles-
It reads well to that point. However, it then goes on to say the following:
-and guarantee that similar measures or other possible trade action will not be applied to Candian products in the future if the present comprehensive trade negotiations are to proceed.
That is about as vague as one could possible word the tail-end of a motion. It basically means that the Liberal Party is not calling for a suspension of the trade talks at this time because Liberal Members do not view this as being a matter substantive enough to have those talks suspended.
I think we have to look at what the House did. We have to be very careful and methodical about how we will get the 35 per cent duty removed. I learned yesterday that the President has not yet signed that duty into law. The announcement was made by the White House, but there is still a vague opening. There is still an opportunity for us to remove the 35 per cent duty.
How do we go about removing the duty? The Cabinet is meeting today to look at placing retaliatory duties against oranges, for example, or products from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, northern California and other areas. We must ask ourselves how the U.S. administration will respond if those kinds of tariffs and duties are placed against their products. That will pound the final nails into the coffin of this issue. There is no way either Reagan or the U.S. administration will back off once those kinds of retaliatory measures begin.
I would encourage Members of the House to take some time to read about what happened in the late 1920s and on into
Supply
1930 when the Smoot-Hawley Bill was introduced in the United States and kicked off a trade war that had effects all the way around the world. Part of what precipitated the Smoot-Hawley process and the trade war was Canadian wood products. It is an extremely sensitive area and we have to look carefully at what has been said so far because we are beginning to see the personality of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) revealed.
We heard the statements made by the Prime Minister here in the House on Friday. As the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has pointed out, the Prime Minister knew for three weeks that this was being precipitated. We knew that Paula Stearn, the Chairperson of the International Trade Commission Secretariat that looked at the shake and shingle issue, voted with the other two members of the commission that there be no countervailing duty brought against B.C. shakes and shingles, but the other three members of the commission voted for it. Then the President stepped in and here we have to deal with the whole question of good-faith negotiations between the President and Canada.
It is clear that there was not a clear launch to the negotiations. I will deal with that more extensively in few moments. Time and again, the Prime Minister has said that we have to give the benefit of the doubt in most of these situations to the President of the United States. Anyone who has ever played cards knows that the first time someone is caught cheating at cards, very tough action has to be taken because that person will continue to cheat while playing cards if he finds out he can get away with it.
The American administration managed to pillory a $250-billion B.C. industry without a peep from the Premier of British Columbia. He has not asked that the talks be suspended. He is waving in the wind on retaliatory action. The Prime Minister used the harshest words used in this century against the President of the United States but, so far as I have been able to learn today from people here in Ottawa, he has not had a response to that telex. There has not been a response to Mr. Clark's initiative with Mr. Shultz, nor has there been a response to any External Affairs or embassy initiatives.
We have here a very clear example of bad faith on the part of the President of the United States. I think we have to look back with care to earlier this month and recall the note scribbled on the bottom of the letter written to Senator Packwood saying: "Don't worry about lumber, Bob, we'll fix it".


John Napier Turner: Don't worry about timber.


James Ross Fulton: That's right, don't worry about timber. We should recall the letter of May 8 from the President to Mr. Packwood of the Senate Finance Committee indicating that they would try the bilateral talks process, giving us a full week to try the entire envoy process. How marvellous to have a full week in order to negotiate for the largest singly-traded bilateral commodity between Canada and the United States, a

May 27, 1986
Supply
$25-billion industry thrown to the rocks. The President went on to say, "or unilateral trade action will be taken". It has now been taken and the Prime Minister had better wake up to what is going on.
I hear the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the Premier of B.C. and others talking about putting some kind of fund together to assist the shake and shingle workers who have in some cases already lost their jobs and in others are about to lose their jobs. Where will the shake and shingle market be diversified to? Will it be diversified to the Arctic? It will not be diversified into Japan, Great Britain or other areas of the United States. The fact is that there are some other stick-handlers in this game at whom we as Canadians had better take a close look.
The tile producers and asphalt shingle producers in the United States are a part of this action. As well, the Washington, Oregon, Idaho and northern California shake and shingle producers want our bolts and our cedar logs because they do not have enough raw product to maintain their own position in the market.
I would like to deal for a moment with market penetration because that is one of the hot issues being used by the Americans. They say that we have gone from a 50-50 relationship to a 75-25 relationship. The reason we have greater participation in their market is that we have spent new money on shake and shingle production in British Columbia. We have more raw product available to us. We have a more competitive production process so we may sell that product at $38 to $40 per square to the United States.
Let us deal with that argument head on. While the United States has taken almost 150 petitioning processes of one kind or another against Canadian products since the so-called free trade negotiations began, Canada has not taken a single one against the United States. We have not protected our potatoes, our fish and many other commodities adequately. The U.S. is winning part of the argument right now. The Americans know that because of the level of bank loans to some of the shake and shingle producers in B.C. those producers are going to need to at least move bolts or logs to the United States market, and that is of course exactly what those guys want.
I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) had to say on May 27. At that time he said that the Government will not permit the Canadian shake and shingle industry to be exported across the border. That view is supported by the shake and shingle industry coalition with which I met yesterday. That coalition has already written to the Province of B.C., and I assume that letter will soon be in the hands of the Prime Minister, taking the exact same position. The shake and shingle workers do not want those 4,000 shake and shingle jobs in B.C. simply exported across the border so the American shake and shingle mills can pick up our jobs.
We now know where Liberal Members stand. They do not think that this is enough of a bad-faith issue, a British
Columbia issue or a Canadian issue, to call for the suspension of the trade talks on this issue alone. They are opposed to any kind of countervailing action or any kind of retaliatory action, but they have given themselves all kinds of escape routes rather than hitting the nail on the head. If at the very beginning of bilateral negotiations, such as those into which we have entered, we find that we are being dealt with in bad faith, as we have now discovered, we have to change the rules of the game and get back to square one.
I think it is worth while for Canadians to know just exactly who in the United States and who in Canada is interested in pushing for free trade talks. Since last September when the Prime Minister announced this initiative, I have never been stopped on the streets by anyone saying: "Jim, I want you to get in there and fight for these trade talks, they are going to get me a job". Do you know who in Canada is fighting for free trade? Do you know who is leaning on Simon Reisman and the Prime Minister? One simply need totter down to Bay Street and see who is going back and forth to Mr. Reisman's office, the $78,000-per-day operation, in their limousines. It is the big-seven families; the Bronfmans, the Reichmanns, Power Corporation, Conrad Black and Brascan. It is the big integrated operations that can move capital and branch plants easily back and forth across the border.
Who is for free trade in the United States? I should like to refer to the second page of Mr. Yeutter's evidence before the United States Senate Finance Committee. He referred to those U.S. industries which were most interested in seeing high Canadian tariffs eliminated-furniture, telecommunications equipment, home appliances, cosmetics, electronics, paper products, recreational boats, aluminum products, wall coverings, and leather. Then he pointed out that U.S. beer and wine interests wanted a good crack at the Canadian market, as well as poultry, eggs, dairy products, meat, and so on. There is the pressure.
How can we get a President and an administration that acted in bad faith during a process such as this to back off? How can we do it? I do not think it is by taking retaliatory measures against Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. I do not think that will assist at all. As I said earlier, it will pound in the last of the nails. It will also ensure that Secretary of Commerce Baldrige, on June 2, proceeds with the countervail action against Canadian softwood lumber.
The Leader of the Opposition said that it was just a shot across the bow of the Canadian lumber industry. My colleague reminded me that it was a direct hit, midships at the water line, for the shake and shingle industry. As it sinks, so too do our efforts in relation to the lumber issue. Contrary to what the previous speaker said, we know that case law has changed in the United States. Anyone in Canada interested in the forest industry who has not read the countervailing position, or the case law in the carbon black case from Mexico, had better read it pretty damn quick. If Secretary of Commerce Baldrige
May 27, 1986

and the President decide to proceed against the Canadian forest industry per se, we are in real trouble.
Backing that up, of course, is the fact that there is no longer 300 "Goosey-Lucy" Bills in the U.S. Congress. They have been amalgamated into one Bill, the Gibbons omnibus trade Bill, which is 485 pages long.
Let us think of the timing of this so-called great friend of Canada, President Reagan. Last Wednesday night that Bill went through with the support of the Democrats and the Republicans on a vote of 295 to 115, and it is before the United States Senate today. If it goes through this week, which is what is expected, as we learned in the forestry committee last Thursday, a countervailing duty could be brought against Canadian softwood products generically from coast to coast by July 4.
Let us think of the timing. In the same week the so-called free trade talks opened, a 35 per cent duty was imposed on B.C. shakes and shingles. Also in that same week there was the 295 to 115 vote on a 485-page Bill almost entirely directed against Canada. Let us think about exactly what they are after. It will affect the aluminum industry because its resource subsidy section goes after our entire resource base. It goes after 80 per cent of our trade with the United States. However, we talk about free trade, good faith, and trusting the President and the U.S. administration!
What has happened is that our new Government has not understood the politics of the issue and the depth of protectionism in the United States. I must say to my friends in the Liberal Party that I have been attending meetings continuously during the past year and I cannot recall a single occasion when any member of the Liberal Party came to those meetings. The motion before us is really a "Johnny-come-lately" motion. It is saying that suddenly the forest industry in Canada, the shake and shingle industry, is one of their most important concerns.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Cheap shots.


Mr. Gauthier:: Yes, cheap shots.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, they want to deny it, but anyone can look at the record of who has attended the meetings of the forestry committee or who has attended the meetings in Vancouver with members of the U.S. subcommittee on trade and other such meetings. Anyone can find out that they are very much a "Johnny-come-lately" on this issue.
Let us deal for a moment with what is happening to the shake and shingle industry, and then I will return to protectionism. There will be a 35 per cent duty for 2.5 years. The coalition members made clear that almost none of them could survive in that 95 per cent of their product went into the U.S. market. Thereafter it will be 20 per cent for two years and 8 per cent for the six months following, if the U.S. industry still needs it.
Supply
The big difference is that this is a 201 ruling and 332 is the big one at which we are now looking. Between now and next Tuesday, when Secretary of Commerce Baldrige will make his determination on whether or not to proceed, we should take the strongest possible action we can. We started well last Friday with the unanimous motion of the House, and I think the U.S. Congress and President Reagan will have heard about it. We should suspend those comprehensive talks right now and say: "No more of this bad faith; you promised a clean launch and you did not deliver".
Perhaps the Prime Minister thinks that we can sacrifice those 4,000 jobs. Almost all of them, or a good healthy chunk of them, are in Mission-Port Moody. Some are in my constituency on the Queen Charlottes and in the northwest, but most of them are between Hope and Vancouver and on Vancouver Island.
Perhaps that industry will be sacrificed. Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Premier of British Columbia will say that they will put together a package to save those workers' jobs or whatever. Those workers know that that is not possible. There is not a market into which to diversify; there is not another readily accessible product. That kind of approach would be used simply to calm the concerns of Canadians generally, so that the Government can say it took action, that it assisted shake and shingle operators, and that they do not need to worry.
I should like to refer to the figures which were quoted by the previous speaker. They were given to us by the coalition yesterday. They are staggering. They indicate 4,000 jobs and a total of $344 million in relation to payroll, raw material, transportation, and supplies, as well as another 20,000 jobs indirectly and hundreds of millions of dollars. It went on to point out that the entire industry had been reduced from approximately seven million squares in 1977 down to four million squares in 1985, and that the majority of the loss was in the traditional marketing states of California and Texas. That is where the big move is on in terms of tile and asphalt shingles.
Also the coalition pointed out something which is key to evaluating the issue. It pointed out that it was important to note that the existing United States industry was not dead and that the portion which did not survive was not killed by Canadian production. It was killed as a result of loss of market, lack of economical raw material, and failure to automate. Also it pointed out that every Canadian firm which did not automate and adjust to markets has been removed from production as well during the same period of time.
In terms of existing inventories, the coalition pointed out that the 35 per cent tariff would add $40 million to the cost of existing inventories of raw materials and manufactured goods which cannot be processed and shipped prior to June 6. Not only is a $250 million industry at risk, also at risk are their inventories and the 20,000 associated indirect jobs, most of which are in the Fraser Valley. The Government has a responsibility not to ballyhoo and talk tough.

May 27, 1986
Supply
I should like to refer to a question I put to the Prime Minister on May 21. In part my question was:
I think he is aware that on May 8, President Reagan wrote a letter to Senator Packwood regarding Canadian softwood lumber in which he stated: "-I intend to press for an expedited resolution to this problem independent of comprehensive negotiations."
I am sure the Prime Minister is aware that President Reagan controls the acceptance or rejection of the countervailing action through Secretary of Commerce Baldrige. Has the Prime Minister himself, through his office, by phone, or by letter, contacted President Reagan and asked that this countervailing action be stopped?
The Prime Minister did not do what I suggested. He went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, no. I think I responded to that question yesterday. We are satisfied that the mechanisms in place are designed not only to eliminate problems but to create a climate of confidence within which these problems can be resolved. That is exactly what we are trying to do-not by yelling at the problems, not by denigrating anyone, but by sitting down in a reasonable, positive, and strong way to resolve these problems on behalf of Canadians.
That was six days ago. On Friday the Prime Minister decided it was time to yell at the President. That is his initiative. We will discover over the course of this debate and over the next couple of days what will be the personality of the Prime Minister and his Government and whether they will retaliate. If so, that will finish the shake and shingle industry. If they offer some kind of $500,000 adjustment program through FLIP, LEAP, JET, FLOP or whatever, it will be a total failure. They should take the constructive action which is absolutely necessary in this kind of relation and dialogue with the United States, our largest trading partner, with $130 billion last year-the largest bilateral trade in the world. Our largest single industry is now at risk. One Canadian in ten or one million people are at risk. We have just lost 4,000 jobs. That was a dead hit by the President at midships, and that ship is going down.
I want to hear from the Government side whether or not the Government is prepared to take the kind of bold Canadian initiatives upon which this country was founded, which is to say to the United States: "You cheated at cards and you are not going to get away with it. We are suspending the free trade talks today."


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with everything the Hon. Member put forward this morning, but he did put forward some things that are of great concern to all of us. As he pointed out, the newly concerned individual from the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) has just arrived on the scene now that it is a national issue. It is important to note the answer he gave with regard to the exportation of logs and bolts. He said: "We will leave that for another day". What he is leaving for another day is possibly the exportation of jobs in Mission-Port Moody and jobs for Canadians right across the country. I would like the Hon. Member to give me his reaction to that. I am quite certain from the Member's speech that his concern is also the
same concern as ours, even though the Official Opposition has decided to put it off for another day.
When the Hon. Member spoke of the penetration of the market I think he left a few questions unanswered. He quite rightly depicted the American industry and what is happening in the United States, but he failed to point out that the amount of shakes and shingles used has decreased. We basically maintain our level of production and shipments to the United States but the U.S. has lost its portion, and that is quite important. This has been a declining market, but inasmuch as it is a declining market I just wanted to set the record straight on it.
The Member said we should suspend the free trade talks, but the solution to this problem lies in free trade because that is what is in jeopardy. Will the Hon. Member comment further on this? It appears he wants to cut off his nose to spite his face. In spite of this Draconian action taken by the President of the U.S.-it may be unethical but I do not believe it is illegal because laws exist under which the Americans can take this action-I still feel that the free trade negotiations have to be addressed in a more responsible manner. I would like the Hon. Member to reply to the logs and bolts issue which is so important to jobs in British Columbia.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to the Hon. Member's point. It is clear that the Liberals really do not know where they are at on a lot of these issues. The Hon. Member, I believe, was the one who put the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make sure that the Government's position stayed solid and that there would not be the export of logs and bolts. I am sure the Hon. Member is also aware of the study just released from the University of British Columbia produced by Michael Margolick and Russell Uhler. This study was funded by the Canadian Forest Service. It points out that by lifting the restrictions on log exports, which would include cedar logs, not directly bolts, there would be a short-term increase of $40 million a year to the log exporters but a direct loss of 3,200 jobs in the wood processing industry. Part of this is the desire by some in the United States who are extremely short of raw product-and here I am talking about the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho-who need bolts and raw logs because they simply cannot get them in their own areas. They would very much like to see exported logs go down in price and domestic logs go up in price, because they would be getting firesale prices on cedar throughout that whole area. Not only would the industry be benefiting from the 35 per cent duty placed against our producers but it would be getting firesale product. Anyone who applies any logic to that would realize that that would immediately provide for the movement of those 4,000 jobs, or perhaps more, directly across the border.
As far as the second point made by the Hon. Member regarding market penetration is concerned, I pointed out that the coalition reminded me that our participation has been reduced from seven million squares in 1977 to four million squares in 1985. The market has constricted massively because
May 27, 1986

of the penetration of competing products, such as tile and asphalt.
To take this kind of Draconian action, to use the Hon. Member's words "unethical action", requires the strongest kind of response, and here I come directly to the point made by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain). Should this country continue this so-called free trade process at this time? Again I come back to the analogy of playing cards for the first time. Whether you are a dealer or a player and you catch someone cheating, what do you do? Are you going to punish someone else because someone cheats?
We were given a country to country guarantee that there would be a clean launch. The Senate Finance Committee got tied up and we ended up with a 10-10 vote. Some special offers were made and are now being delivered to Senator Packwood and other Republican lumber state Senators. It is simply a question of whether you are prepared to continue dealing with someone who has cheated in the opening days of a process. That is what this is. You can call it unethical, you can call it bizarre, as the Prime Minister does. You can throw out all kinds of other language, but you have to withdraw from a process and evaluate internally within your own bureaucracy and political system and not allow the Americans to do something? The pressure will come very quickly, as it did on generic drugs and other things. There will be enormous pressure on the President. That 35 per cent duty would be withdrawn by next Tuesday, I can guarantee you, if we suspended those talks today, Mr. Speaker. I can absolutely guarantee that. The pressure on the White House from those who want to negotiate is far bigger than this. There is $130 billion in trade on the table to be negotiated on an annual basis. To worry because there is legislation in the U.S. Congress is one thing, but to say what is being done unilaterally and politically on a whim to apply this kind of duty means you have to call the cheater at the game.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that the Hon. Member tried to leave the impression that the Prime Minister was not aware of this issue. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as one who meets with the Prime Minister on a weekly basis and who chairs the national caucus, that this issue has been monitored from the day, that it arose on the scene in the U.S. and it has been an ongoing issue under discussion in our caucus. It is an issue with which the P.M. is totally current. He knows every aspect of it. We have kept the Prime Minister involved. The shock and the dismay the Prime Minister showed here last week was absolutely sincere.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Lies.


Gerry St. Germain: The Hon. Member aptly tried to present the fact that we were asleep at the switch. We were not. He knows that because I have been speaking with him on an ongoing basis. I know the Hon. Member has knowledge in this area. We have tried to work together. I want to let the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) know that the Prime
Supply
Minister knew everything about the issue. The Prime Minister knows more about shakes and shingles than many Canadians.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Member puts some interesting information on the record. But I think he knows that this information has been put forward a number of times by myself, by members of the forest industry and by our own embassy people in Washington. I am convinced some of them are about to go down the tube, partly in relation to this issue, in a desire to shoot the messenger.
The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody was in Washington at the same time I was last year, and he heard what the Americans had to say. He knows they wanted far more resources, that they wanted to be able to get information out, not just to the national home builders, or to other groups in the U.S., but to get information out to the two million Americans who go to work everyday and get their pay packets from producing commodities for the Canadian market. We missed. I am saying this as a country. I am not going to lay all the blame on the Prime Minister , but his responsible Cabinet members, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs were not listening to our embassy in Washington. They were not listening to the Canadian forest industry.
After skating close to the edge the shake and shingle industry has now fallen over the edge. Next Tuesday will be the telling day in Canadian history. If Secretary of Commerce Baldridge says that he is going ahead with Bill 332 we will lose a million jobs in Canada. We lost 4,000 jobs last week and a million will be on the table next week. We have been asleep at the switch. We have not done our job in dealing with the grass roots political issue in the United States. Fifty per cent of the wood in Georgia, the largest softwood producing state in the United States, is from British Columbia.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government to the opening remarks of the two Opposition Parties. It is perhaps timely that I intervene because I am afraid that the huffing and puffing which has been going on may blow the House down and we would not want that to happen.
I welcome this debate because it has forced the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to give an indication of the position of the Liberal Party with regard to the efforts which the Government has initiated to develop a more predictable and enhanced trade relationship with our neighbour to the south. The Hon. Member said that he spoke for an hour a month ago. At a future date to be determined they will try to refine their position further.
Their position in the first speech was that the timing is bad because we presently have a trade surplus with the United States and because they are holding mid-term elections. In the United States there is a presidential election every four years

May 27, 1986
Supply
and a mid-term election every two years. It is perhaps because of that Liberal logic that we have the problems which we are presently facing.
The timing is never good to make tough decisions, particularly when dealing with the most important trade relationship between any two countries in the world. The timing to take courageous decisions is never good. We know that the Liberal position is to stay away from the trade talks because the timing is bad. I would like the Liberals to tell us when the timing will be good. Perhaps that is why we have seen no action from them other than to antagonize the most important friends that we have had in the last 20 years, which have now put us in this position.
I would like the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) to tell me whose jack-in-the-box he is today. Is he the jack-in-the-box of Bob White who says that we should get away from any trade talks? He says that he is okay because he has the Auto Pact and has told the Americans where to get off. However, the last word has not been spoken on that. Or, is he the jack-in-the-box of Jack Munro in B.C. who will be affected by this situation? Has the Member asked Jack Munro how he feels about getting more secure access for our lumber in the United States? Who is he defending in the House today?
We know their position. Under no circumstances do they want enhanced and more secure trade with the United States. They say: "To hell with our $112 billion of exports to the United States". I would like the Member to tell me where we will find markets to replace the market in the United States. You cannot always dump on your friends, call them cheaters and crooks, and then say that you did not really mean it and ask them to buy your products. That is NDP logic. They have nothing and want to share it with everyone.
The Government needs no urging from Members opposite to take all the appropriate actions to defend our trade interests in the United States or in any other market in the world. While members of the Opposition are only now waking up to the fact that the B.C. shake and shingle producers are vulnerable to protectionist trade actions in the United States, the Government has been taking action. Has the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, my friend who represents a riding in British Columbia, asked a single question in the House over the last eight months on this issue?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Yes.


Frank Oberle: I say "no". We have taken action to defend our shake and shingle exports to the United States and to negotiate better rules to ensure that tariff and non-tariff barriers do not impede our exports to the United States. We have negotiated rules to protect Canadian exports, not only of shingles and shakes, but of lumber, hogs, steel, fish, potatoes, uranium and a whole range of other Canadian exports that are the subject of protectionist measures in the United States.
More than eight months have passed since the United States shake and shingle producers petitioned their Government for
import relief under U.S. trade remedy legislation. We were aware of this situation eight months ago and we acted. We did not act only in response to a letter of May 7 from the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. We have been working on this issue for the last eight months. It is more than two months since the United States International Trade Commission recommended that the President impose a punitive tariff on imports of red cedar shakes and shingles. For over eight months the Government has been in the trenches working with the Canadian industry to defend our access to the United States market for shakes and shingles.
One might well ask where the Opposition was. Why have we not heard before of their new-found concern for protection of jobs which were at risk in the shake and shingles industry? The Government assisted the industry in developing the argument we presented to the U.S. International Trade Commission. I can assure the House that the Canadian Government's opposition to the International Trade Commission's recommendation was put to the U.S. Government forcefully and on many occasions.
The punitive tariff announced by President Reagan on May 22, which is to take effect on June 6, is not in our view an appropriate remedy to address the problems of the U.S. shake and shingle industry. They are not just destroying the Canadian industry, but their own industry as well. If they think that the British Columbia Government, or indeed the Canadian Government, would be inclined to send them the raw materials to revive their own industry, they will have to think again. The problems with the United States industry, are long-term and relate primarily to a shortage of domestic raw materials and competition from alternative products. Perhaps the exchange rate has become a problem for that industry as it has for other industries.
Western red cedar is for all practical purposes a nonrenewable resource. The U.S. supply of old growth western red cedar, the raw material used to make red cedar shingles and shakes, is dwindling very rapidly. The United States International Trade Commission's report on the investigation estimated that the supply of old growth cedar in the United States would be totally depleted within 20 years. Some experts say that that will happen in an even shorter time frame.
Intense competition from other substitutable products such as asphalt tiles is reducing the shingle and shake market and will prevent significant price increases even if the very high tariff that has been imposed stays in effect. Changes in building and fire codes in many jurisdictions effectively prohibit the use of untreated wood shingles and shakes. In fact, as the Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out, our own shipments to the United States have been drastically reduced. Builders, architects and homeowners are switching to substitute products because of growing concerns about fire safety issues. The substitute products have a number of advantages over traditional wood materials, such as superior warranties, and are highly price-competitive with wood shingles and shakes.
May 27, 1986

For all of these reasons we argued forcefully in all of our consultations and representaions that tariffs or quotas would not address the fundamental problems of U.S. producers. At the same time U.S. border measures would create great hardship for those Canadians whose livelihood depends on our bilateral trade in these products. No Member of this House knows better than I the hardship which these protectionist measures will generate for the workers in this industry and their communities, primarily in British Columbia. Some 4,000 Canadians, as has been pointed out, are employed in the production of shingles and shakes. Over 90 per cent of the industry's production is exported to the United States. It is difficult to argue the precise impact of these protectionist measures on current production and trade levels. Estimates range from 10 to 40 per cent reduction. Only time will tell, but it is most certainly a cause for serious concern.
As Members of this House are aware, the Canadian Government's response to this protectionist trade action by the United States President has been swift and vigorous. The Government's objections have been conveyed directly to the president and to Secretary of State Schultz by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), as well as in a diplomatic note protesting the U.S. action in the strongest terms. The note is public and I am sure I do not have to read it out for Hon. Members.
I can assure the Member's opposite that the United States authorities are well aware of the resolution unanimously adopted by this House last Friday. Let there be no doubt also that the Government now has under active consideration a range of options which might constitute an appropriate response in the event the U.S. Government is not prepared to rescind these tariffs or offer acceptable compensation. Included in the range of options available to the Government would be some direct assistance for the British Columbia producers, who stand to be most seriously affected. My colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) will have this issue high on their agenda in meetings later on this week with their U.S. counterparts, Secretary of State Schultz and Ambassador Yeutter, the United States trade representative.
I would contend that the resolution we are debating today is shortsighted and unrealistic. When we speak of protectionism and trade and free trade we speak of markets. It was Adam Smith who said 200 years ago that a nation's ability to grow and expand economically in an industrial sense depends as much on its ability to consume as it does on its ability to produce. Canada is more dependent on trade with other countries than is any other nation in the world. Protectionism works in favour of those countries which have something to protect in terms of markets. We have a very limited market and, therefore, enhanced trade has to be our battle cry.
Supply
If the Opposition thinks that the Americans came to us begging to get into these enhanced trade talks they are wrong. It is in our interests to develop more secure and better access to foreign markets wherever they are, whether they are in the United States, in the new emerging Asian markets or in the European countries.
We are the only nation among the important industrial nations that does not have unimpeded and secure access to a market in excess of a hundred million people. We are the only outsiders in the industrial world. Unless we correct this problem and find more secure, predictable access to a market which meets a certain economy of scale we shall fade away as an industrial nation into obscurity and insignificance.
The Opposition is asking us to hold the trade negotiations hostage to specific trade irritants, when the trade negotiations are so clearly in our best interests. These negotiations, if successful, could reduce our vulnerability to actions like the tariff increase on shakes and shingles. It is unrealistic because it would be neither appropriate nor possible for either Government to implement some sort of standstill with respect to actions which are not discretionary under the existing trade laws.
Surely the Opposition would not suggest that Canadian producers could be unilaterally denied their right to seek relief from injury in case of dumping or subsidized imports while the trade negotiations are underway. Is the Opposition aware that the Ontario corn producers have requested a countervail investigation against subsidized corn imported from the United States? Canadian agricultural producers are acutely aware of the massive subsidies made available to the United States farmer in the new Farm Bill.
There are, of course, discretionary decisions. The action on shakes and shingles was a discretionary decision by President Reagan. We do not like it and we are dismayed by the decision. We find it impossible to understand. It makes no economic sense. It destroys their own industry as well. It is bad trade policy, and it is a breach of a political commitment not to introduce new barriers to cross-border trade. We would hope that this is an isolated case, an aberration that will not be repeated while trade negotiations are underway.
No case could illustrate better that the current international trade rules do not provide the certainty and security of access to the U.S. market which Canadians producers need to plan their future and to improve their investment position. We are all well aware that countervailing duty actions are a serious threat to our access to the United States. Over our heads still hangs this dark cloud on softwood lumber. The GATT permits the application of countervailing duties in situations where subsidized imports are found to be injurious to domestic producers. The GATT rules on subsidies and countervailing duties do not provide affected exporters with rights to compensation or retaliation except as a last resort flowing from recourse to GATT dispute settlement procedures.
13664

May 27, 1986
Supply
In the case of the new countervailing duty petition on lumber, Members of this House are well aware of the Government's strongly held view that initiation of a new investigation cannot be justified. Neither the material facts nor U.S. law have changed since Canadian lumber producers were found by the Commerce Department in 1983 not to be benefiting from countervailing subsidies. The Americans do not understand our system, they are comparing it with theirs.
We in British Columbia, as the Hon. Member from Skeena knows, have to put in place a management regime which is consistent and conducive to the problems that we have in British Columbia. We still have massive virgin stands of timber which are becoming over mature and rotting away. The Hon. Member from Skeena and his friends think that the trees actually grow to heaven if you leave them standing long enough. A tree is a living thing, it has a life span, and when that life span is complete it is of no use to a shingle and shake producer or to a lumber producer, it dies. We in Canada and British Columbia must have a different management regime than what they have in the southern United States where they are dealing with fourth and fifth generation timber.
We have made plain to the Americans our intention to invoke GATT dispute settlement procedures in the event a new investigation is initiated. Our ambassador in Geneva was instructed to make a statement on May 22 to the GATT council. I have the statement here; I will not delay the House by reading it into the record, but I certainly would be prepared to table it. We have made a very strong case pointing out all the facts I have mentioned.
There is no doubt that protectionist pressures in the United States are strong and they are growing. Each of these investigations or tariffs, or trade restrictive actions, no matter what the outcome, takes its toll, both in legal expenses to fight U.S. protectionism and immeasureable damage to the Canadian investment climate.
Let me reiterate for the benefit of the Members opposite that the resolution we are debating is shortsighted. Trade negotiations are in Canada's interests. Last week's events are but one example of the shortcomings in the current contractual rules. The status quo is not good enough. We need a better set of rules for the conduct of our trade and economic relations with the United States.
The existing rules can be improved only through negotiations. There are two avenues along which negotiations can take place. One is bilateral, with our principal trading partner. The other is multilateral, under the GATT. The Government is pursuing both avenues.
Finally, let me reiterate for the benefit of those opposite that the Government recognizes the hardship and personal economic dislocation that could result from the 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles in British Columbia and similar threats to our Canadian access to U.S. markets with
other products. The Government has launched negotiations aimed at a better contractual basis for the conduct of our trade relations with the United States. If members of the Opposition are genuine in their concern for Canadian cedar shake and shingle producers, they will lend their support to our important initiatives and endeavours.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle). I hope he will attempt to respond to my question about the shake and shingle and lumber issue.
The Minister is very much aware that we have had absolute unrestricted, unfettered, tariff-free trade with the United States in softwood lumber and shakes and shingles for half a century. I hope the Minister has not been permeated by what I consider to be incredible lunacy and naivety on the part of the Government. Will the Minister explain why he kept avoiding the history of the shake and shingle issue when we are involved in these trade negotiations? Can he explain this unilateral action which has been taken after a tie vote at the Internan-tional Trade Commission, including the chair having voted against applying any kind of restrictive duty on Canadian shakes and shingles? Why does the Minister believe that these negotiations will help after half a century of unrestricted free trade? What can be freer than free?
The U.S. is going after this particular industry. Will the Minister tell me how this issue will be resolved in the negotiations between Peter Murphy and Simon Reisman? The Minister knows full well that this issue will not be on the table. If we do not ensure that these duties are removed totally right now, they will be levied against the industry for five years.
Will the Minister explain what is freer than free trade and tell us whether the Senate is likely to give up such countervail powers? It has made it clear that it will not.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member has never heard it said that nothing endures more than change. The fact that we have had unimpeded and unfettered access to the U.S. for our lumber does not mean that this will always be the case. In fact, we now know that it is not the case.
This countervailing duty action began long before we started our negotiations on the enhanced trade issue.


James Ross Fulton: No. Four months after.


Frank Oberle: Perhaps the countervail duties started as a result of a prolonged problem facing the United States in terms of balancing its trade, not only with Canada but with other parts of the world due to currency problems. In the last 10 or 15 years Canadians have had a very distinct advantage over American producers as a result of the spread in the currency exchange, which also allowed us to become most efficient and make great efficiency gains in our mills. The Americans are saying that enough is enough and that is why these actions have come about.
May 27, 1986

Previous governments should have had our foresight to see this and recognize the value of our resource industries. If they had secured that access with some formal relationship, perhaps similar to the Auto Pact, and built on the strengths of our regions as we intend to do, we would have an arrangement to protect that pillar of our economy in Canada. Now we must operate after the fact and simply because there has always been that free trade does not mean it will continue forever. Changes are imminent and we have to react in the best way possible.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister referred to the importance of securing that American market for Canadians. I believe that certain forms of retaliatory action have begun, as mentioned by other Members. For instance, I am receiving letters from my constituency describing how some constituents will not buy American orange juice. The fact that I am receiving these letters from British Columbia in three days may be a miracle in itself, but the fact is that people are reacting to this issue already. In Nanaimo Harbour, there was consideration given to buying a large fleet of American forklift trucks but now they are contemplating buying them elsewhere.
Will the Minister agree that trying to save one job through a tariff measure has the effect of losing three or four jobs? Will he comment on some of the remarks of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he said that the Americans were actually aiming at the Japanese with their $50 billion trade surplus but somehow Canada has become involved with our $20 billion surplus? Is the Leader of the Opposition accurate in saying that if we had not begun free trade talks this tariff would not have come about?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the last question first. Everyone knows that this problem has existed throughout the 1970s but is compounding and becoming very serious. The United States must find a way to come to grips with their problems. They believe they should not be held to ransom by the rest of the world simply because they have decided to play a major role in correcting some of the serious imbalances with Third World debt and those greater issues which are involved. This means that protectionist measures through their more direct system of democracy are the order of the day in the United States. The Hon. Member referred to the many Bills presently before Congress.
We believe that we should have developed a special relationship between our two countries ten years ago because of the great dependence on each other for this trade. Neither we nor the Americans can afford to enter into a trade war because this involves winners and losers. Since we have the most to lose, it does not make sense for us to even mention the word. That does not mean that we should play dead every time a measure is directed against us. We should be strong in our resolve to tell the Americans that if they had made the same decision as we made some years ago, to modernize our industries, to become more competitive, and to react better
Supply
against other markets, they would not be in this fix. However, it does not make sense to huff and puff about a trade war and perhaps send the navy into San Diego Harbour.
I believe I have responded to the other comments of the Leader of the Opposition. It is the first time that he has spoken out on this issue. He is a Member from British Columbia and faces some political problems. Apparently he met with all the producers yesterday and understands the issue much better than he did.
The Hon. Member knows that we have worked on this issue for many months, in fact years. We have full confidence that the initiatives we have now undertaken are not only designed to heal some of the wounds and correct some of the mistakes of the past, but to secure for us a much better relationship with the United States, one which is not threatened by these temporary issues.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) has asked that we maintain a very positive note in the House during this debate today. So I would like to begin on a very positive note by indicating to him that the Liberal Party of Canada and Hon. Members of the Opposition will never take lessons from the Conservative Party on how to enhance trade between Canada and the United States. The Liberal Party of Canada will never take lessons from the Conservative Party on how best to handle problems of a protectionist U.S. Congress, or on how best to maintain Canada's trading position within a multilateral framework. I say that on a positive note.
Hon. Members opposite expressed some concern in this debate about the vagueness of the stand taken by the Liberal Party with respect to free trade and about the position taken by my leader during the last election campaign. In order to help out in the debate this afternoon, I would like to refer to some of the vagueness I see eminating from Hon. Members opposite. Perhaps we will start with a little bit of a quiz show. What Prime Minister of this country said: "When next the winds of protectionism blow in the United States, Canada will be exempt"? That was said 15 months ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Who was the Prime Minister on St. Patrick's Day of 1985 who sang and tap danced and who said: "If there is ever a problem between Canada and the United States, don't worry, folks, I am only a phone call away"? If I am not mistaken that was Prime Minister Mulroney, Leader of the Conservative Party. Who was it who said three years ago: "It would be absolute folly for any political Party to enter into a free trade relationship with the United States"? Just to refresh the memory of Hon. Members opposite, it was their leader, the present Prime Minister, during the leadership race for the Conservative Party in 1983. It was the man who also devastated the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on that same issue. So Hon. Members opposite should not lecture us on vagueness in policy or hypocrisy and

May 27, 1986
Supply
duplicity because the Conservative Party is the Party which is guilty of all those things.
The Prime Minister in the House of Commons last Friday expressed outrage at the surprise announcement by the President of the United States who, unbeknownst to the Prime Minister, his front bench or any member of the Priorities and Planning Committee of his Cabinet, had the audacity to impose a 35 per cent countervail on shakes and shingles. The Prime Minister went on in his speech to express concern about the way in which the opening salvos of free trade had begun. I take it it was not lost on the Prime Minister that the President of the United States, on the same day his chief negotiator was sitting in on a press conference with our chief negotiator, chose that moment to impose the 35 per cent countervail motion. I think that speaks volumes for the relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister. Two days later in a taped version of Question Period on CTV, the Secretary of State for External Affairs used such words as: "I was absolutely stunned" at this action taken by the President of the United States. He said he was "absolutely surprised" by this action. I still find this slightly odd, but in fact he referred to the President of the United States as an "eccentric".


Mr. Garneau:: Pardon?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: "Eccentric". If that is the kind of relationship the Prime Minister values with our major trading partner south of the border, it is because one of two things has occurred. Either the Prime Minister feigned his anger on Friday afternoon and, therefore, misled the Canadian public, or he is a very incompetent Prime Minister. Good heavens, if there is one thing the Canadian public has been told over the last 20 months since the Government took office it is that the Prime Minister had a special relationship with the President of the United States. If that special relationship exists it is hard to understand why this administration is so stunned and surprised by the action taken by the President. Is the Prime Minister that incompetent? Is he surrounded by incompetent advisors who, we are told, are paid in the neighbourhood of $ 1,000 a day to advise the Prime Minister on trade negotiations and on what to expect from our partners during those trade negotiations? What was the embassy doing in Washington over the last three and a half weeks? Where was our so-called "special relationship" between the Congress and U.S. Senate over the last three and a half weeks? Where were the lines of communication between the embassy personnel in Washington and our 100-man plus negotiating team here in Canada? I submit that the action of the President was telegraphed a long time ago with respect to how he was going to deal with the matter of imposing countervail duty on one of our major exports to the United States.
I put the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday. It is very important that we understand the timing of the two letters which have been read into the record, one by my leader here this morning and the letter I am going to read into the record which President Reagan, not Premier Bill Bennett, wrote to one senator by the name of Robert
Packwood on May 7, the same day that Premier Bennett wrote to the Prime Minister.
The President wrote to the Chairman of the U.S. Finance Committee who was responsible for the approval for fast track free trade negotiations which would take place with Canada. Mr. Packwood represents the State of Oregon, a major competitor in lumber products with British Columbia. President Reagan wrote: "Dear Bob, I am committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Canadian softwood lumber problem." That is an understatement. The President of the United States imposed a 35 per cent countervail duty on shakes and shingles. I suggest and say with all sincerity that the personal note in that letter from President Reagan to Senator Bob Packwood indicates to me that the price paid for U.S. Senate approval for fast track free trade negotiations was paid by 4,000 British Columbian families. That was the price which was paid for the signature of Senator Robert Packwood so that President Reagan could show he was dealing in good faith with his great friend to the north of the 49th Parallel, the Prime Minister, Brian M. Mulroney.
On the same day the letter was written by the President of the United States to Senator Robert Packwood, the Premier of British Columbia took the opportunity to outline his concerns in a letter written to the Prime Minister, in which he pointed out the real possibilities of that kind of action taken by the President. He conveyed in that letter a hope that the Prime Minister would take the opportunity to use that so-called good relationship which supposedly exists between himself and the President and telephone the President and plead with him not to impose those kinds of countervail options on major Canadian products when the free trade negotiations were just about to begin. What was done? I submit absolutely nothing was done, and there is one of two reasons for that. Once again the Prime Minister was not aware of a letter written to him. That is something which has happened repeatedly over the last 12 months.
Last fall we had the same problem. The Prime Minister kept saying he did not know about any problems with regard to the western banks. He said that he was not made aware by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of those concerns. He was not made aware of the problems which the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was having with respect to tuna-gate. He had a communications problem last fall. Evidently, he has the same communications problem this spring. That is one possibility.
The other possibility is that the Prime Minister badly misread the mood of the U.S. Congress and Senate. There is also one other possibility about this feigned reaction, this feigned anger shown in the House of Commons last Friday by the Prime Minister. I suspect that the pollster for the Conservative Party, one Allan Gregg, who has done extensive polling in this country, has come to the conclusion that the Canadian public is very wary of the way in which the Prime
May 27, 1986

Minister is slowly evolving us into too close an orbit with the United States. There is a great deal of concern on behalf of Canadians in terms of the faith and confidence they have in the ability of the Government to properly present their viewpoints to the U.S. administration.
Having listened to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) one would think that the mood of protectionism which presently exists in the U.S. Congress has never existed before. One would think that the problems we face today are unique and that we have never had problems with the U.S. Congress before.? I submit that the problems Canada has with the United States today are no better or worse than those we have had in years gone by when Liberal administrations ruled the country. We had difficulties negotiating fishing treaty arrangements with the United States. We had difficulties in the softwood industry. We negotiated these arrangements with the United States, and we did so successfully.
This is why I said at the very beginning that the Liberal Party of Canada will never take lessons from the Conservative Party in terms of how to effectively deal on a country-to-country bilateral arrangement basis in the best interests of the citizens of both countries. To suggest otherwise belies all of the historical facts which exist in terms of the evolution of our trading relationship with the United States since Confederation.
I need not remind Members opposite that, to a large extent, it was during the terms of office held by the Liberal Party that we saw significant improvements in the size of two-way trade between Canada and the United States. That is not a reflection of the last 20 months. That was as a result of deliberate and smooth-and I emphasize the word "smooth"-negotiations between the Canadian Government and the American Government. It has been Canadian Governments headed by Liberals that made the commitment to the multilateral trade route which has led to the establishment of Canada as one of the major trading partners in the international economic order. That did not come about by fluke; it came about by design, hard work, intelligence and by competency in the front benches of the Liberal Party. We were successful in negotiating and in enhancing trade between not only Canada and the U.S. but between Canada and the Pacific Rim and between Canada and Europe. The Canadian public has been well served by a multilateral approach to trade.
Last Friday we saw the Prime Minister wrap himself in a cloak made from the national flag and defend Canadian interests. He was wounded and hurt that his friend, the President of the United States, would do such a dastardly deed as to impose a 35 per cent countervail duty on cedar shakes and shingles. The Prime Minister should not be focusing his anger on the United States; he should be focusing it internally on himself for not having had the sense to fortify not only the ability of his Secretary of State for External Affairs but the ability of his Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher).
Supply
That is where the mistake was made. He has surrounded himself by incompetence.
It is no wonder that the Canadian public no longer has any faith or confidence in the Government in terms of negotiating, not only with the Government of the United States but with other major trading partners. I think this lack of confidence is justified. I say that because we have had lessons in the last 12 months which have clearly indicated to the Canadian public that the Conservative Government does not place much faith in it to understand its position.
Since September 26, 1985, some eight months ago, the opposition Parties have constantly demanded the Government's position with respect to free trade. Time after time we have asked those who sit on the front benches of the Government side to table in the House of Commons the trade papers which were such an integral part of the trade negotiations between Canada and the United States. Until just a week ago we were repeatedly foiled in our attempts to obtain the documents upon which the Canadian Government plans to form its negotiating position with the United States.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's supposed to be an open Government.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It is such an open Government that it does not even have the faith to give to the Premier of the largest province in Canada the documents pertaining to the trade negotiations. Ontario is our largest point of concern during these negotiations since it is the manufacturing heart of our country. What was the Premier of the Province of Ontario given? Was he given full access to these documents? Balderdash! The Premier of the Province of Ontario was handed a document from which had been deleted 17 pages; 28 per cent of the original document had been deleted because the Government did not feel that the Premier of Ontario deserved to know what was in those deleted pages. If he did have any concerns he was not to worry because it would not be he who would be negotiating this free trade deal. The Government was saying to the Premier: "Just trust us. It will be the trading team led by Simon Reisman that will deal with this matter". That is the same team which was not even aware of the close vote that would occur in the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. Four weeks ago the results of that vote came as a surprise to them. The vote had to be delayed for three or four days in order to allow time for sufficient arm-twisting by the President before the Senators could come to a 10-10 tie. It was almost by default that the United States administration finally entered into the free trade fast track proposal. Those are the facts.
Now, just three weeks after that time, we see the results, the folly of the advice being given by the trade team. If it was wrong with respect to the mood in the U.S. Congress and Senate, and if it was wrong with respect to how far the American President would go to ensure the viability of the U.S. lumber industry, then why should I have any faith in its ability to negotiate a free trade arrangement with the United States?

May 27, 1986
I understand that the Prime Minister will be meeting with the First Ministers of each of the provinces in the early weeks of June. Given the track record of the negotiating team to date, I suggest that he had better take into consideration the concerns of the Premiers of the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. He had better take into account the concerns of the provinces. They have legitimate concerns which must be addressed in those negotiations with the United States.
In conclusion, I wish to indicate the position of the Liberal Party with respect to the 35 per cent countervail duty being imposed on shakes and shingles. We have called upon the Prime Minister to telephone the President this afternoon and ask him to reverse this 35 per cent duty which is being imposed. We are asking the Prime Minister to refuse the U.S. proposal with respect to the omnibus Bill. We are asking that a cease and desist order be imposed and that a standstill agreement be made. The Government had better wake up. So far it has fumbled the ball with respect to this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I met with representatives of community organizations in Vancouver Quadra. Each of these groups provides a valuable service to the community. In the past they have received assistance through federal Government job-creation programs such as the Canada Works Program and the Summer Canada Program.
This year many of the non-profit groups working in my riding, and indeed in ridings across the country, have contacted me saying that they will not be able to provide the same level of service this summer. This point has been made repeatedly on a national basis by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). This is because the non-profit sector is not a high priority for the Government.
There has been a clear shift in emphasis away from the voluntary sector in funding job-creation projects. As a result, many of the organizations which provide essential services to the community, and particularly to those most in need, are not being funded this summer under the Challenge '86 Program. I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to reconsider this ill thought out change in direction, to recognize the importance of non-profit groups and their work, and to reintroduce community value as an element in job-creation programs.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the week of May 25 to 31 is National Transportation Week across Canada. What better way for the Government of Canada to celebrate this week than by announcing a rejuvenated, revamped, and modernized passenger rail transportation system for Canada?
Ever since the Conservative Government came to power it has been promising this transportation system and it has been promising my constituents that the new rolling stock that will replace outdated, inefficient, and costly VIA trains would in part be ordered from Thunder Bay. What better way to show a commitment to improved passenger rail transportation than by announcing that the contract for up to 125 railway passenger cars has been signed with the UTDC-Can Car Rail-Bombardier consortium? I call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to announce the contract this week, thus not only beginning a process of modernization for VIA but also ensuring stability of employment at a number of rail manufacturing sites in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. David MacDonald, Canadian Emergency Co-ordinator for the African famine, on his fine work in co-ordinating and developing aid programs to relieve the suffering in Africa and to rebuild communities shattered by drought, famine, and death. Canada was one of the first countries to respond and Canadians gave generously. Two out of three Canadian families contributed financially. The Northern Lights for Africa Society raised millions with the song Tears Are Not Enough.
This massive relief has saved millions of lives over the past two years and relieved much suffering. However, as Mr. May 27, 1986

MacDonald has pointed out, our responsibility to the world community extends to the longer-term recovery in Africa and to ensuring that a famine and crisis of this magnitude will never happen again. I commend Mr. MacDonald for his work and for focusing our attention on the need for long-term commitment to this most serious issue.
Minister. Elected Members from the region of Montreal should be given an important role in this decision.

* *
*


IMPORTANCE OF BILATERAL COMMERCIAL LINKS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, "international trade is of capital importance for Quebec", as Pierre MacDonald, Quebec Minister of External Trade, said recently. He went on to say: "Quebec's economic growth depends largely on foreign sales, especially to the United States, where Quebec directs more than 75 per cent of its international exports."
"The future of Provigo will depend mainly on the United States." I am quoting Pierre Lortie, chairman of the board and chief executive of Provigo. The company's goal is to do as much business in the United States as it does in Canada, in five years' time.
You heard the official position taken by the Quebec Government on negotiations with our neighbour to the South on bilateral trade. You also heard a position taken by the private sector, which realizes that under the leadership of the Conservative Government of this country, our national economy is expanding at a rate unknown under the previous Liberal Government.
Quebec's reaction is miles away from the negative response of the federal Liberals opposite.
* *
*


AIRPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Montreal Airports Advisory Board reported to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) on five possible options for the use of Dorval and Mirabel Airports. These options ranged all the way from keeping the status quo to the consolidation of traffic at one of the airports.
Since the advisory board is to make a final recommendation to the Minister within two weeks, I would ask the Minister to make the commitment that no final decision will be made by him until a committee of MPs from the Montreal region has had a chance to examine the advisory board report and all other evidence, and to make their recommendations to the

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, how concerned is the Liberal Party about protecting Canada's interests?
It has been reported that an aide in the office of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) approached a United States congressional committee to obtain information on Canada's role in the case of a U.S. lobbyist.
As some of the Congressmen involved are also attempting to block tighter controls over acid rain, The New York Times quoted the Canadian Liberal aide as saying the following:
It's a funny co-operative effort. We are helping a congressional committee trying to block acid rain legislation while we are all for acid rain legislation.
Most Canadians do not find that to be particularly funny. Either the Liberal Party is for acid rain protection, or it is not.
In the pursuit of cheap political points, this Liberal aide and his Party are violating the national trust. By working in collusion with those who would damage the Canadian environment, this aide and his political masters are acting in the worst interests of Canada. This is improper, unacceptable, and many would say unpatriotic.
* *
*


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bankers' Association is conducting a national advertising campaign on behalf of Canada's 65 chartered banks, stating how much they like working with small business. Yet, five months ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a survey showing that small business disatisfaction with banks had increased over the past three years, to about one-third of those surveyed.
As the small business spokesperson for the New Democrats, I should like to request the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) to outline to the Canadian Bankers' Association ways in which Canada's chartered banks can make the advertisement a better reflection of reality.
Small businesses are saying that they are unable to secure loans from chartered banks due to the high level of collateral or security demanded by the banks. Furthermore, the banks

May 27, 1986
appear to be cutting back on issuing loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act while some branches choose to ignore or are unaware of the program.
The Minister must make it his job to bring these small business concerns to the attention of the Canadian Bankers' Association and of Canada's 65 chartered banks.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, at Prince Albert in July, 1984, the PC Party pledged to bring western Canada back into Confederation.
The revitalization program for agriculture promised to eliminate the federal tax on farm fuels, to remove the capital gains tax on the sale of farm property, to double the level of cash advances, to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act to permit earlier interim payments, to create a voluntary national red meat stabilization program, to re-establish a longterm national dairy policy, and to permit voluntary dual labelling on all farm products. In just 20 months these commitments have been met and more.
FCC interest rates are now at 10.75 per cent for five years and 11 per cent for longer terms. This represents the lowest interest rate in seven years and, coupled with a commitment to examine domestic wheat pricing, provides further hard evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to Canadian agriculture.


PRETROLEUM POLICY-GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, while international oil prices have gone up significantly, I would like to point out to the House that the price at the pump has dropped another 3 cents a litre, especially in Quebec.
As my hon. friend from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) has said many times, here is another example that proves our policy to deregulate the oil industry has been instrumental in bringing about these new developments.
It is too bad that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has chosen to remain silent on the matter, with all his protest groups. Why are the Liberals not saying anything?
Is it by any chance because the Conservatives have been introducing new policies daily to help Canadians, the same Canadians who were forgotten by the Liberals for over 20 years?


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Unkrainian Canadian Students' Union, a federation of 15 university clubs across Canada, are in Ottawa this week to meet their parliamentarians.
I had the pleasure of meeting with a group of the students last evening, and I should like to indicate how impressed I was with their dedication and commitment to their cause. These students are meeting with Members of Parliament to present their position on the issue of alleged war criminals in Canada, and to relate their concerns in respect of the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals.
I should like to express my support for these young Canadians and urge my colleagues to take time to meet with them to discuss this important issue. They have a lot to offer, and they ought to be listened to by Members.


STOCK EXCHANGES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it used to be that stock and bond transactions were carried out in the club-like atmosphere of an exchange which met for a few hours a day in a specific location to deal in local issues. In today's world of instantaneous communications, innovative and competitive exchanges spanning all times zones and computed technology, the securities business will continue to present new challenges and opportunities which can be seized upon by Canadian dealers.
O)
The Computer Assisted Trading System of the Toronto Stock Exchange and its coming link-up with the Paris Bourse is illustrative of this exciting evolution toward a fully international round the clock trading system.
May 27, 1986


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Canadians to have the comfort of knowing that at the very least the people who are charged with the responsibility of monitoring and criticizing the nuclear industry in Canada are separate and independent in every way from those who feel a missionary calling to promote the use of nuclear reactors both here and abroad.
At present there is far too much incest between the Atomic Energy Control Board and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and both are too keen on the promotion of nuclear energy to be reliable and objective regulators of this industry. The time has come for this longstanding conflict of interest to be ended. How it could be ended is one more useful thing that a full public inquiry into the nuclear fuel cycle in Canada could do, when and if the Tories live up to their campaign promise. Without such an inquiry, the Canadian people will be deprived of an important opportunity to say whether they approve of the dangerous collective bet with death that all nuclear countries are making when they rely on the nuclear option for security or for energy.


FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Department of Fisheries and Oceans operating under the present Government for the tremendous job that it is doing in pursuing and prosecuting foreign violators in our 200-mile fisheries zone.
In the eight years preceding our election in September, 1984, foreign vessel convictions resulted in total fines of a mere $173,000. Most of these fines were less than $5,000 each, and many convictions resulted in no fines whatsoever.
In 1985, the first calendar year that the present Government was in power, there were fines totalling $745,000. There are now 10 cases before the courts with total possible fines of $1.1 million plus forfeiture to the courts of both vessels and catch. This is what protection of our fisheries is all about.
Through our actions, Mr. Speaker, it becomes increasingly obvious that this Government cares much more for our fisheries than the previous administration did.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, because of the failure of the Government to keep its election promises about jobs, jobs, jobs, and because of severe Government cuts in the Upper Ottawa Valley, it became necessary for a number of responsible citizens from Pembroke and area to organize a food bank to help needy people, and we applaud them. The food bank was officially opened today at noon by the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada. The sad part of it all, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole operation would not be necessary if the Conservative Government in Ottawa had not broken all its election promises. Instead of jobs we have had increased unemployment each month for the past several months because of the Government's disastrous economic policies.
It is a sad day for Canada, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister and his Government fail to keep faith with the people by not delivering on their election promises. If these promises had been kept there would be no need for a food bank in the first place. This Tory Government has failed the people of the Ottawa Valley and of Canada.


TERRORISM
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I voiced my dismay over the senseless act of violence in Vancouver against a member of the Punjab Cabinet whose only crime in this country was his feeling that he would be safe in our land of freedom and democracy.
I listened with horror today to the national spokesman for the International Sikh Youth Federation, Mr. Singh, who stated on national television that Minister Sidhu should have realized that the security he must have in his homeland would be needed while he was visiting Canada. Mr. Singh went on to state that other political persons from India would also be risking their lives by coming to our country.
I have a great many members of the Sikh religion in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, and I can assure this House that they are repulsed by the actions of some fanatic fringe. If visitors to our country must expect that their lives are at stake and must travel about this country with security people, then I plead with the Government of Canada to put a stop to this ridiculous situation.

May 27, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On May 7 Premier Bennett of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister. He said:
I urge you to contact the President directly to convince him not to act in any way against Canadian shingle and shake imports into the United States... Your direct intervention-is most important.
That was three weeks ago. The Prime Minister did not act. The President's action was, therefore, of no surprise to him. Now 4,000 British Columbians face unemployment. Will the Prime Minister now belatedly telephone the President of the United States and ask him to rescind that 35 per cent tariff on B.C. red cedar shingles and shakes?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong when he says that we did not act. We have acted consistently in the area of trade liberalization. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is now a convert to the idea of liberalized trade negotiations between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Crosbie:: It's about time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is long overdue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the embassy, and I, as Prime Minister, brought to the attention of the President a number of items consistent with his undertaking at the Quebec summit which said: "As a first step we commit ourselves to halt protectionism in cross-border trade in goods and services".


Mr. Tobin:: Did you call the President? Yes or no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Actions at all levels of the Government of Canada were consistent with our desire to rid-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He got a busy signal.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I realize that the Liberals talk one way and act in quite another. I know that they do not take the problems of British Columbia seriously, and they will pay heavily for that in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What a joker you are, Mulroney.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada ignored a letter from the Premier of British Columbia dated May 7 on the specific subject against which the President of the United States acted. He need not tell me who is ignoring the interests of British Columbia.


PETITION AGAINST SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister telephone the President of the United States, not only to deal with the revocation of that tariff but also to ask the President to recognize his personal presidential discretion, which he can exercise before June 6, to refuse the petition by the American lumber industry to move toward imposing countervail duties on all exports of Canadian lumber across the American border?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House on Friday, I have already conveyed my views directly to the President of the United States. I have had conversations with him in the past, and I shall again in the future. I know that the Member for Hamilton East is sputtering away and delighting in the fact that there are problems in British Columbia. We are trying to solve problems in British Columbia, which is what we have been doing from the very beginning.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't you call the President? You got a busy signal.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is why we opened these liberalized trade talks. The Leader of the Opposition quite properly contradicted his spokesman for External Affairs who said on Friday that he wanted the trade talks cancelled. The Leader of the Opposition-


Jacques Guilbault: That's no answer to the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -contradicted his front bencher and quite properly stated that this forum is required to rid Canada and the United States of these irritants. We will continue to deal with this irritant and this problem, as we shall with any other problems which arise to disturb the relationship between Canada and the United States and threaten jobs in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY IF PRIME MINISTER WILL TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT ON COMPENSATION AND 35 PER CENT TARIFF
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between myself and the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, but I am asking, for the third time: Will the Prime Minister call the President and make arrangements to have our countries suspend all unilateral harassment such as countervailing duties and the 35 per cent duty, during the free trade negotiations? Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that if he does not get an answer from the President, he will either reassess free trade negotiations with the United States or suspend negotiations altogether?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the Leader of the Opposition is
May 27, 1986

expressing an opinion that contradicts another opinion he proferred only 48 hours ago. We will check, but I think you are totally contradicting a position you took only 48 hours ago. We will check, and in any case, it will not be the first time-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sure, but they don't want an answer.


Mr. Rossi:: He doesn't answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that Members are entitled to be heard.


MEASURES TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, if there is any confusion and contradiction it has got to be over there, it is not over here.
Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked the Prime Minister a very direct question. It is in Hansard at page 13558. Did he have advance notice of the President's decision and, if so, what did he do to head it off? We now know he had advance notice as of May 7. What specific steps did he take to head it off?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, he gets sillier and sillier. We had no advance notice from the administration of the decision that was arrived at that day. We knew full well, as I have indicated to the House many times, that President Reagan is under constant attack from the protectionist forces in the United States Congress. We know that, and I have explained it to the House many times.
One of the principal reasons we are seeking this kind of comprehensive trading arrangement is precisely to vitiate possibilities of these kinds of attacks against Canadian industry. We had no notice that day that it would transpire. As I indicated to my hon. friend, such an action that day is at variance with a very important provision of the Quebec agreement. We have made all representations, both at the Prime Minister's level, the ministerial level, and the level of the embassy. The Canadian interests were well protected and well represented.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, they say forewarned is forearmed. Warnings don't seem to do our Prime Minister any good, so my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How could he say on national television that he was surprised, when the Government was warned in writing by the Premier of British Columbia nearly three weeks ago?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Hon. Member is wrong. The Government was
Oral Questions
not advised by the United States of their action, and it came as a surprise.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I quote from The New York Times of March 16:
The Prime Minister described his relations with the President as excellent. 'I doubt we will ever encounter a better or a fairer friend than Ronald Reagan', he said, 'He's a great friend of Canada'.
On Friday the Prime Minister sent a strongly worded note to President Reagan opposing the 35 per cent duty imposed on B. C. shakes and shingles. Has the Prime Minister heard, either by phone or in writing, from his great friend?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever of the fact, as Prime Minister of Canada, I have sought to place Canadian-American relations on a friendly footing. I make no apologies for the fact that we have tried to eliminate the vindictiveness, the nastiness, and the spuriousness that went back and forth caused by the previous Government. We have tried to purify the atmosphere-and that is just on acid rain.
I make no apologies for the fact that I said that Ronald Reagan is a great friend of Canada. He is a great friend of Canada. It happens that even friends sometimes go a little astray. We are trying to make sure the President of the United States remembers the commitment he made to Canada in regard to freer and fairer trade at the Quebec City summit. We are going to try to make sure that is always the case in his view of Canada.


POSSIBLE RESPONSE BY PRESIDENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is very easy and very simple. Has the Prime Minister heard from President Reagan? Have you heard from him by phone, by telex, or in writing? Have you heard anything from President Reagan regarding the 35 per cent duty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the ball is quite properly in our court.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Then do something with it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is Lloyd Jr. speaking up over there. There he is, the third trade wing of the Liberal Party.
We were given a decision on Thursday night. We responded in the House on Friday, and Cabinet is now considering appropriate remedies. There will no doubt be conversations back and forth after that, designed to make sure, to the extent humanly possible, that this kind of measure never takes place. That is something I think all Members of the House would support. We think protectionist measures are bad for Canada and bad for the United States and that is why we are trying to

May 27, 1986
Oral Questions
negotiate a comprehensive bilateral arrangement that will make sure they are eliminated in the future.


INQUIRY CONCERNING RESPONSE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, we have had free trade in shakes and shingles from British Columbia for half a century. My question is very simple and very easy to answer, because the President apparently has not yet signed into law the 35 per cent duty. Has the Prime Minister heard from President Reagan regarding his note or his comments of last Friday? Have you heard by phone? Have you heard anything? Yes or no.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, and it is very much received by the United States, which is one hell of a lot more than can ever be said by the Liberals or NDP.


REQUEST MADE BY BRITISH COLUMBIA PREMIER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for the Prime Minister to admit today that he ignored the request of the Premier of British Columbia specifically to make a phone call to the President of the United States. He had a choice. He could have said yes to Bill Bennett, but he said no.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Even three weeks after the fact, will the Prime Minister pick up the phone and speak to the President of the United States to express the consensus of the House and the people of Canada that this kind of action does not represent a friendly trading relationship?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already done that. I have already conveyed that view to the President of the United States. I have indicated to him our regret, and the regret of all Members of the House, that the action taken was clearly at variance not only with his undertakings internationally but specifically with regard to undertakings given to the people of Canada. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated, we believe that that was an isolated act. We are acting in that regard because we do not propose to jettison, as suggested by the Liberal Party, a very valued trading relationship simply because there was one unfortunate act that occurred. It has been isolated and we are going to act to correct it. That is the obligation of a responsible, mature Government, as opposed to the smart alec comments coming from irresponsible people.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: We
all know that the Prime Minister has been communicating with the President through a bull-horn. We do not know whether he has been talking to him over the telephone. The comments last Friday were not necessarily solving our problems. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External
Affairs said that retaliatory action would be decided today in Cabinet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. No preamble, please, just a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Before the Government implements any such measure, will the Government consult with the Premier of British Columbia, the rest of Canada's Premiers, and specifically consult with both labour and industry in British Columbia before it puts Canada's softwood lumber industry, worth about $3 billion, at risk with more ill-conceived action by the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first they want us to act, now they want us not to act. The Liberals do not know what they want on any issue, even the most serious ones that confront the country. I thought that the response of the Government and other Members of the House who were here on Friday was a thoughtful and reasonable response to a difficult situation. We are in the process of considering appropriate responses by the Government of Canada. We do it with neither malice nor vindictiveness.
[DOT] (U30)
I am not in any way impressed with the idea of the word "retaliation". This is something that, to the extent humanly possible, ought never to be used as we seek to build an improved bilateral relationship which will bring more jobs to Canada. There are certain facts that occur. One of them transpired on Thursday. We are dealing with it as quickly, as effectively and responsibly as a Government can.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S RESPONSE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now conceded that he has heard from the President. My question is very straightforward. What has he heard? Has he received an apology? Has he received a commitment to change the action which this House unanimously condemned? Has he received at least an explanation of what took place? What has he heard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says I have conceded something. I have done no such thing. I have conveyed to the House the information at my disposal.


RESPONSE FROM AMERICANS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's response to my colleague was very much that he had indeed heard from the Americans. I ask him again, if he has heard from the Americans, what has he heard? Has he heard apologies from them? Has he heard that they have made a mistake? What has he heard?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have answered that question, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Jewett:: No, you have not.
May 27, 1986


An Hon. Member:: Repeat it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have indicated that we are advised that our message, and that to which other colleagues have subscribed, has been received. We are responding. We are taking our responsibilities on our side. I can tell the House that, pursuant to appropriate custom, we have instructed the ambassador to seek the view of the American Government as to whether it is its intention, as we believe it should in these circumstances, to pay compensation to those British Columbia workers affected by that action.
There are other things going on and we will advise the House of them in an opportune and appropriate way.


REQUEST MADE BY PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying he has answered the questions about what he did before the 35 per cent tariff was imposed by President Reagan, and afterwards. But there is at least one point he has not fully explained to the House and to the Canadian people. Why did he not accept the request directly made to him by the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Bennett, and telephone the President of the United States directly to head off this 35 per cent tariff? Why did he not do what Premier Bennett asked? Why did he not have any confidence in Premier Bennett's view and information on this important matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have a great regard for Premier Bennett's view and I am delighted to hear that my hon. friend, as a Liberal, has been so supportive of Bill Bennett over the years. Next I will hear from the New Democratic Party in that area.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to answer the question, Mr. Speaker. We had secured from the American administration its determination not only to fight protectionism but, moreover, the undertaking of the President of the United States, publicly given, to veto any such measures which would have an adverse effect upon Canada. That was the undertaking. This was the climate within which trade negotiations began, as agreed upon between the President and the Prime Minister of Canada.
So our view, having put forward our strong positions in regard to that industry in British Columbia, at my level, at the level of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and at the embassy level, was that it was quite inconceivable that action would be taken at variance with a fundamental principle given by both sides. We believe that the action taken was adequate and proper, and we will continue to work on it for the benefit of British Columbians.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TELEPHONE UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister knows that the President of the United States is not following up on what the Prime Minister says was the commitment given in that communique, why will he not telephone President Reagan immediately and remind him of his commitment, ask him to reverse that duty and not to do anything further along those lines in the future? Why is he afraid to call his pal on this simple matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not afraid to call President Reagan or anyone else at all. In point of fact the vigorous response taken by the Government of Canada is in sharp contrast to the action by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Finance and G-5 was created and snuck right past his nose, and he never said a word to defend the interests of Canada. The actions taken by this Government are entirely different. We will continue to defend the interests of Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going to phone, yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: After we are finished with the work we have to do at Cabinet, we will convey to President Reagan, and to others, our views which we hope will eliminate trade barriers, eliminate protectionism, and not add to it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Given that the United States has taken actions in the last few months which have been seriously detrimental to Canada's economy, will the Prime Minister, before the trade talks recommence next month, direct that our negotiators sit down with the U.S. negotiator and try to find an interim way of dealing with the situation which just arose, in order that we do not have to face this over the next two years as those talks progress?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member refers to actions taken by the American Government which are detrimental to our economy. Perhaps he could tell us what he has in mind.


Ian Deans: All right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because by and large the actions taken, of which we are aware, have been positive, with some exceptions, including the one to which we referred on Friday.


REQUEST FOR MEASURE TO ALLOW ONGOING DISCUSSION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister unaware of the actions by the U.S. Government to subsidize the exportation of grain, among other things, which has caused tremendous harm to the Canadian grain producers? Is he unaware of the pending action on softwood lumber? Is he denying the shakes and shingles problem which has arisen? It is those actions. What I'm asking is if there is no

May 27, 1986
Oral Questions
interim measure which can be put in place which will allow an ongoing bilateral discussion to solve those problems before we are faced with others over the course of the next two years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only are there ongoing bilateral discussions, another chapter of which will occur on Friday when I meet with Secretary Shultz in Halifax, but the Prime Minister of Canada, the first Prime Minister in the history of this country to do so, has raised the question of farm subsidies, to come to that particular matter, at the Tokyo Summit, so we can begin to break the cycle of subsidies.
This Government, on the two separate timber questions now at issue, has indicated, in the case of countervail, that we are going to be supporting the Canadian industry as extensively as we can, and we will be.


Ian Deans: But that isn't helpful.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have issued on Friday, and are following now, actions in response to the surprise decision by the President of the United States on Thursday. That is action. It is not rhetoric. Rhetoric is what we get from the NDP. Action is what Canadians get from this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TERRORISM
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. Sikh extremism is one of the greatest threats to national security, yet the Security Intelligence Service did not know that a Punjabi cabinet Minister was in Canada. Journalists knew. The Indian Consul General knew. The would-be assassins knew. Yet the Security Intelligence Service did not know. I would like to ask the Government why did the Security Intelligence Service not know? And would the Minister not agree that, if the Security Intelligence Service was doing its job, it ought to have known of the cabinet Minister's presence in Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman and Hon. Members of the House that CSIS knows what it is doing. But when there is a foreign visitor who has not reported his presence to either the Government or to his own diplomatic representatives, I hardly think the CSIS can be blamed if he does not have security protection every moment of his stay in Canada. Let us try to be reasonable and not try
to take partisan advantage of every misfortune and tragedy which occur in this country.


SECURITY SERVICE'S BUDGET
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service should not have to rely on official information in order to determine the presence or absence of a cabinet Minister in Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: The Minister knows-


Mr. Speaker:: This is a preamble; just a question, please.


John V. Nunziata: In view of the fact that the Government has cut $2.1 million from the budget of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I specifically asked the Hon. Member for a question and he went on with his preamble.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question, immediately.


John V. Nunziata: Would the Minister not agree that one of the reasons the Security Intelligence Service did not know of the Minister's presence in Canada is because its budget has been cut by $2.1 million-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -and it does not have the resources to mount an effective intelligence operation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I completely disagree with that silly and jejune suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Guelph.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Author, author!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even the interpreter had trouble with that one. The Hon. Member for Guelph.
* 4t *


DISARMAMENT
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, a Reuters news report today stated that the United States might
May 27, 1986

breach the SALT II treaty later this year. That is very troubling news. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs confirm that report? What is the Government's position with respect to adherence to the SALT II Treaty and its limits?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Obviously it is a matter of great concern to all in this House. The reports as to what precisely has been announced by President Reagan are not completely clear at the moment. Certainly we support and are pleased by the announcement as it relates to Poseidon submarines, which would respect the SALT II limits. We are concerned by reports that the President might be prepared to go beyond SALT II limits.
The Government of Canada was consulted on this question by the Americans. It was made very clear by way of letter from the Prime Minister to the President one week ago, and by way of my conversations with General Rowney, that we believe it very important that the United States continue its adherence to SALT II limits.
Obviously, arms limitation requires compliance by both sides. This Government has also raised with the Soviet Union its non-compliance with the limits in that treaty. We hope that the Soviets will begin to comply so as not to put at risk the SALT II accord. We hope that both countries, the Soviet Union and the United States, might succeed in achieving some arrangement that will reduce rather than enlarge the risk of conflict in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question concerning a flight attendant who was suspended apparently as a result of a request by his executive correspondence group for responding to a letter by a Conservative delegate to their convention in Montreal earlier this year, while on a flight from Vancouver, when asked her opinion of the present Government and the Minister. The flight attendant responded in the negative and has since been suspended-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a question, I think, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -after a letter was sent to the Minister by a Mrs. Donna Ford. Can the Minister tell us who is Mrs. Donna Ford? Was she a delegate to the Conservative convention? Why was the letterhead clipped off her letter to the Minister, a copy of which I have in my hand?
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member might want to provide me with a copy of the letter. I am not aware of all the allegations to which the Hon. Member refers. I would be glad to check into it. As a matter of fact I think the Member should know that, from time to time, we do receive letters from customers of Air Canada who, in some cases, express their disapproval with the service and, in other cases, express their approval of the service. In every case these letters are forwarded to Air Canada executive officials. I would be glad to look into the matter.


POLICY VIOLATION INQUIRY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister what violated any policy in what has occurred to warrant the suspension of an employee, for expressing an opinion when asked for it by the complainant, after the Minister's executive correspondence group got in touch with Air Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not sure that anyone has been suspended.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They have been.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If they have been then I will certainly look into it. I think the Hon. Member knows that I do not set the rules and regulations for the management and operation of Air Canada. That is a management decision, and I will certainly be glad to take it up with the management. The Hon. Member could take it up with the management as well. He, as a Member of Parliament, has done it on other occasions. Why does he not do it now?


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. Last weekend in Toronto a conference of over 100 organizations serving refugees passed a resolution of non-confidence in the Government's recent announcement concerning the new refugee determination process. They said: "We condemn the Government's failure to respect the fundamental principles unanimously recommended by the non-governmental groups across Canada".
Given the overwhelming criticism which has developed on the principle to deny access, and for a weak appeal system based on law-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sergio Marchi: Will the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.

May 27, 1986
Oral Questions


Sergio Marchi: Will the Minister rescind his two measures- pardon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member might ask his question, please.


Sergio Marchi: Your Honour jumped up in the middle of my question so I am repeating it.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I rose because the Hon. Member's preamble was too long. When I rose he started his question. Will he now please finish his question?


Sergio Marchi: Will the Minister rescind his two measures which deal with denying access universally and with a weak appeal system to the Federal Court of Appeal, so that this process can have the strength and fairness it deserves, something that it presently does not have?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member would have wanted to comment on the general approval that is being expressed across the country for the proposal policy which has now been presented.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: I would have thought that the Hon. Member would want to remind the House that we are following-


Ian Deans: No. He wanted to comment on what he commented on.


Walter Franklin McLean: -Rabbi Plaut's recommendation and the recommendation of the standing committee.


Mr. Heap:: That is false! Not true!


Walter Franklin McLean: I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that certainly the Hon. Member would be aware that under the new rules of the House, which I outlined to the Standing Conference, there will be an opportunity when we bring in legislation for-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Point of order-


Walter Franklin McLean: -the legislative committee to review those principles.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The committee did not recommend that and you know it, Mr. Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question, the Hon. Member for Laurier. Just a question.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S ATTITUDE
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister care to explain how he can blithely ignore the unanimous recommendations of experts and of the Standing Committee of the House? Would he care to explain this attitude, which has aroused the indignation of all concerned, since after two years of consultation, a consensus had been reached on two fundamental principles: universal access and appeal based on merit?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to underline for the Hon. Member that the principles of open access presented by Plaut are being honoured by this Government, and with regard to the question-


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Not true.


Walter Franklin McLean: -of appeal mechanism we are following the recommendations of the standing committee.


Sergio Marchi: That is not true.


Walter Franklin McLean: The Hon. Member, and groups who wish to have some further-


Ian Deans: Will you sit him down?


Walter Franklin McLean: -discussion on this matter will have an opportunity after first reading to discuss it with the legislative committee.


FINANCE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The inter-generational roll-over of farm land is available only in situations where the land is being farmed by either parent or child at the time of the transfer. Will the Minister consider amending the provisions of the Income Tax Act to make available a tax-free rollover to those Canadians who have farmed almost all their lives but who, through illness or advancing age, are not now actively farming?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter at which we in the Department have looked recently. In view of the Hon. Member's well-known interest in this matter, I will take another look at the proposal he has raised. However, I would remind him that since the election of September, 1984, the Government has taken 237 separate initiatives in support of the agricultural community in Canada. While in Tokyo, the Prime Minister raised the matter of
May 27, 1986

agricultural problems on a number of occasions. In addition, we have just increased the farm fuel rebate to provide for almost a total rebate of fuel taxes for farmers.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the Deschenes Commission. The Prime Minister will know that the Deschenes Commission has indicated that it does not have sufficient time under its present mandate to complete the assignment given to it by the Government. Is the Government prepared to give it the time it needs to do the job it was given?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that when the Deschenes Commission was first appointed, it was asked and expected to report by the end of December, 1985. That period was extended to the end of June, 1986. We certainly want to see that the Deschenes Commission has reasonable time to complete its report. I think it has made a great deal of progress and we will be replying shortly to letters recently received from the commission.


ACCESS TO UNITED NATIONS FILES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, considerable volumes of new material on war criminals has recently been discovered at the United Nations. The Deschenes Commission cannot request this material, only a Government can. Has the Government asked for this material? If not, is the Government prepared to do so?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government is prepared to do whatever is necessary to see that action is taken to follow up on any report we are given by the Deschenes Royal Commission. Its main task is to advise us on whether or not the present law is now adequate, and if it is inadequate, in what way it should be changed so that this matter can be properly pursued even after 20 or 30 years of inaction by the Government that occupied the seat of power in Ottawa through all those years.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1983 CANCOM APPLICATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns allegations of which I have given him notice along
Oral Questions
with copies of documents I received in the mail. Will the Minister undertake to have an investigation conducted of allegations of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud apropos the application of Cancom to the CRTC in Saskatchewan in 1983 at which time the President of Cancom was Andre Bureau, now President of the CRTC?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I did receive from the Hon. Member today a document dealing with questions raised about the gentleman just named by the Hon. Member. I consider it to be completely improper and irresponsible to pursue a matter of this nature by making these kinds of allegations publicly. They will have to be looked into now that the Hon. Member has made them.
I do not think that these are new allegations or charges. I think they have been looked into before by the CRTC. Nevertheless, as Acting Solicitor General, now that the Hon. Member has chosen to take this unusual procedure which I think is damaging to peoples' reputations, I will certainly have it referred for investigation to the RCMP.


REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN BE SUSPENDED DURING INVESTIGATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the charges and the fact that there has been a three-year gap during which the CRTC could have investigated, will the Minister ensure that Mr. Bureau is not in office while any investigation is conducted, and would he undertake to ensure that the conflict of interest situation at the CRTC is also investigated, as well as the possibility of a coverup of allegations of a kickback scheme?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I really think the Hon. Member is carrying this beyond the bounds of propriety altogether. I am certainly not going to suggest that anyone stand aside on unsubstantiated charges that are being brought here now. I do not think this is the proper way for the matter to be handled. I would further recommend to the Hon. Member that she make these charges outside the House so that those who are named will have a chance to take whatever action they would then think appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMPORTATION OF SUBSIDIZED STEEL PRODUCTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Canadian Steel Trade Conference held in Sault Ste Marie this week has been told that fully 55 per cent of the steel imported into Canada last year was subsidized or dumped, costing

May 27, 1986
Oral Questions
Canadians 4,200 jobs. The Government referred this matter to the Import Tribunal for further study. Can the Minister say exactly when a fast-track anti-dumping mechanism will be put in place in light of the 2,000 or more jobs that may be lost in Sault Ste Marie in the next year?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that the Government very deeply shares the concern expressed by the Hon. Member. He asked me a very detailed question about a specific date. I am not in a position to provide the answer to that detailed question at this moment but I will take his question as notice and get back to him.


PREFERENTIAL TARIFF ON STEEL FROM BRAZIL AND SOUTH KOREA
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the steel conference also heard calls this week for the withdrawal of the preferential tariff treatment given to steel from Brazil and South Korea where there are very highly advanced steelmaking technologies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Is the Government prepared to withdraw the preferential tariff treatment in light of the loss of jobs in the Canadian steel industry caused by these two countries with very advanced steel-making methods?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice as well and I will get back to the Hon. Member when I have information to convey to him.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. As the Minister knows, Mr. Clifford Fillip retired from the Armed Forces after 28 years of service as a Master Warrant Officer and reenlisted as a training officer at the Forces' request, with a promise that his pension entitlements would not be affected as a result. Mr. Fillip died last week. Is the Minister aware that this promise was not kept? Will the Minister assure the House that he will investigate this matter to ensure that Mr. Fillip's widow receives her proper pension entitlement?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the Hon. Member's question is yes, we will.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It has been brought to my attention that senior executives of the major banks have directed branch managers in western Canada not to forward or even prepare loan applications for western Canadian oil companies, or for indeed any company heavily dependent on the oil industry. Will the Minister intercede with the major Canadian banks on behalf of western Canadian businesses? If the banks continue this ill-advised and short-sighted approach to the economic problems facing western Canada, we will lose a very vital oil industry and in time that will threaten our-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details of the question the Hon. Member has asked today. I would be happy to discuss it further with him. I should point out that just a few short weeks ago the Government did provide some relief, particularly to small oil and gas producers, so some of the pressures they face as a result of the falling international oil prices will be relieved to some extent.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. U.S. trade lawyers and the Governor of Michigan are asserting that Canadian efforts, including tariff remissions, to force Japanese investment in Canada are violations of GATT and pose a threat to American jobs. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of these concerns, and what has been our response?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, concerns of this kind are raised from time to time. What also happens, as the Hon. Member will know, is that from time to time individual American States try to resort to actions themselves, as did the States bordering Manitoba recently, on hogs. This indicates the absolute necessity for us to change a trading system with the United States which does not now work well enough for Canada. That is precisely why we are looking to try our best to achieve some arrangement in trade negotiations with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must call it three o'clock. I should explain that earlier we got out of sync in terms of who followed whom, in terms of rounds, and that is the reason I did what I did in that situation.
May 27, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House urges that the Government press upon the Government of the United States the unanimous views of the House of Commons as expressed in its resolution of May 23, 1986, and insist that the United States rescind the 35 per cent duties on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles and guarantee that similar measures or other possible trade action will not be applied to Canadian products in the future if the present comprehensive trade negotiations are to proceed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to participate in the debate today on the motion which I had the pleasure and privilege of putting before the House earlier. It urges the Government to take decisive action to ensure the interests of the cedar shakes and shingles industry in British Columbia.
My motion does not ask for bombast. It does not ask for a bull-horn, megaphone, diplomatic effort by the Government. It does not ask for posturing. It does not ask for rhetoric. It asks for the Government to wake up and realize that the interests of the Province of British Columbia have been sold out by all people interested in having a free trade debate at whatever cost.
Members of the House from the Province of British Columbia, particularly those in the Consevative Party-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am very sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but it is not possible to hear what he is saying.


Mr. Boudria:: He is making an important speech, and we all want to hear it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am informed that this is an important speech-and I have no doubt whatsoever on that issue-like all speeches of all Hon. Members. I ask Hon. Members to conduct their meetings outside the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not dock the first few minutes from my time. In any event, I want to tell the House that I am not surprised. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House are paying as much attention to the motion which seeks to address the concerns of British Columbia as they paid to the letter from the Premier of British Columbia to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). They have as much concern about 20,000 people who may be unemployed in British Columbia as they have for the Premier of British Columbia who wrote a letter to the Government, ringing a bell, sounding an alarm, and demanding action three weeks ago. Yes, I am in good company.
On May 7, 20 days ago, the Premier of British Columbia wrote a letter to the Prime Minister which contained a
Supply
warning. He said that 20,000 jobs were at stake and that hundreds of millions of dollars of GNP in that province were at risk. He said: " Mr. Prime Minister, I want you to wake up.
I want you to quit posturing, to quit the rhetoric, and to quit looking for photo opportunities. Go to the privacy of your office, get on the telephone, and make a telephone call". The Prime Minister ignored him. The Prime Minister admitted today that he totally ignored the Premier of British Columbia. He said that he had assurances from somebody down south. He thought everything was okay in that context and that he could ignore a premier of this country.
This is the same Prime Minister, pumped up with his peacock feathers spread in colourful array for all to see, who said that he was promising a brand new day for Canada. This is the same Prime Minister who said "no more shall the premiers be ignored; we are going to operate on the basis of consultation and co-operation".
However, what did the Prime Minister do when 20,000 jobs and the accompanying paycheques which put bread and butter on the table were at stake? What did he do when one of the longest serving premiers in Canada wrote him a letter and took the unusual step of specifically asking him to telephone the President of the United States? What did he do? He shoved it in a file because there was no photo opportunity in a telephone call made in the privacy of his office. There was no opportunity to stand centre stage in Quebec City and sing "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" in making a telephone call to the President of the United States. There was no opportunity to grab the bull-horn or the megaphone, to beat one's chest, and to blow up and bombast in false, contrived, and phoney outrage in a private telephone call to the President of the United States. He ignored it.
That naive view was engendered in the Prime Minister when he was a young boy. He used to sit, in the eastern townships of Quebec, on the knee of an American industrial giant and sing for a quarter. I believe that naive view of the world has cost 20,000 people in British Columbia dearly. Hon. Members should also be aware that that faux pas, that naive reaction, or that inability to act in terms of its danger and potential impact upon the country is a bit like an iceberg. In Newfoundland we have colossal masses which float on the water-icebergs. Fishermen see mountains of blue ice sticking up and they say to themselves: "That is a hazard. I have to watch it because it can sink my boat". However, fishermen know that only 10 per cent of the iceberg is above water and that 90 per cent of that dangerous mass is below water. It is beautiful to look at but dangerous to get close to. The Prime Minister has not understood that the 35 per cent tariff which has now been imposed upon cedar shakes and shingles in British Columbia is but the tip of the iceberg.
We have an industry in this country worth $3 billion. It is located primarily in British Columbia and it is called softwood lumber. The cedar shakes and shingles industry is worth $250 million, but the softwood lumber industry is worth $3 billion in exports. Now there is a petition before the President of the

May 27, 1986
Supply
United States to launch a countervail at the rate of 27 per cent against that $3 billion industry.
We have been talking primarily about British Columbia. One might ask why a Member from Newfoundland is becoming so exercised about jobs in British Columbia. It is for two reasons. We in Newfoundland believe that the Rockies are as much ours as are the Grand Banks. We in Newfoundland believe that the Athabasca region of Alberta is as much ours as is the Codroy Valley in western Newfoundland. We believe that we belong to every part of the country and that every part of the country belongs to us.
There is another reason. We in Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia know that if a successful countervail can be launched on softwood lumber in B.C., based upon what the Americans call our subsidized stumpage system, which is nonsense, that same countervail measure can be applied to pulp and paper in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada, based upon the same stumpage system. Obviously the Government of Canada has not understood that.
When the Premier of British Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister, I do not think he was worried about the next election. I do not think he was worried about posturing, as was the Prime Minister on Friday past. We all know that the Premier obviously had in his mind to leave political life. He wrote a letter which he thought represented the reality-the real threat to the people of his province. He specifically asked the Prime Minister to act. There was no action.
What are we talking about in British Columbia? We are talking about the loss of 4,000 direct jobs with an annual payroll in excess of $100 million. We are talking about raw material suppliers facing the loss of revenues in excess of $100 million. We are talking about losses in the trucking and transportation sector. We are talking about financial institutions that have decided this industry is beginning to look-and this is tragic-a little plague infested. They are neither willing to make the investments nor willing to stand behind the people in that industry. The seas have gotten rough and the financial institutions are bailing out of the action, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about 20,000 jobs. We are talking about increased unemployment in a province that now trails my province in terms of the highest unemployment numbers in the country. We are talking about the loss of millions in tax revenues to both the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada.
It is clear to everybody in this House that the Government of Canada frantically called the United States administration and said a month ago: "Wait a minute. We hear that this free trade negotiation is not going to pass the Senate Finance Committee. We hear the numbers are not there. We here in Canada are politically committed to this negotiation. You have to get this through, President Reagan." The President said: "Don't worry, Prime Minister. We are going to delay the vote." Remember the Americans did that, Mr. Speaker. They
put it off for a week. Somehow in that seven day time frame the President went from not having enough votes to get free trade talks going in the Senate Finance Committee to having just enough votes, a 10-10 tie.
It is inconceivable to me and to anybody who thinks about it in this House that the United States President did not say to somebody in the Canadian Government: "Fellas, there is going to be a price to pay. It will cost something to get those extra votes. The guy I am dealing with is Senator Packwood who represents one of the most intense industrial areas in the United States and he wants something in return." Of course the President must have said that. Did he say to somebody in the Canadian Government that cedar shakes and shingles are what it will cost? I don't know. Did somebody in the Canadian Government say: "I don't want to hear about it. Don't tell me. Get the votes however you have to. Make sure the Senate goes along with this." So Ronald Reagan went out with B.C. cedar shakes and shingles and he purchased, he bought and he paid for with B.C. jobs a few more votes in the Senate Finance Committee.
Whether the Government of Canada was overtly involved a partner active in that deal or a partner passive by turning a blind eye, the Government has failed the best interests of this country. We now have a Government that has invested so much of its reputation, so much of its credibility, so much of its political capital in the notion that it has a special relationship with the United States Government, in the notion that free trade is good for us in Canada, that the Government now believes it has to have a free trade deal at any cost.
Politically the Government has put itself in a very weak position. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government has put itself in a position where the American administration understands that the Prime Minister of Canada has gone so far out on a limb in terms of his reputation in achieving a free trade deal that the Americans can put a tariff on the cedar industry in British Columbia, can penalize the softwood lumber industry that he will be reluctant to respond in an intelligent manner. That is what is happening and it could only happen when the Prime Minister of Canada behaves as if free trade negotiations will occur in the kind of comraderie that exists in a private back room tennis club somewhere, when the Prime Minister of Canada naively thinks that the tinkling of champagne glasses, being on stage singing "When Irish eyes are smiling" before the cameras is the same kind of comraderie that the Americans will bring to the free trade table. That is the only way that could happen.
Professor Alan Rugman of Dalhousie University, an advisor to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) on the International Trade Committee, said yesterday as reported in The Chronicle-Herald in Halifax that shingles tariff, big headline, "no surprise". The Professor went on say "I am not suggesting the Prime Minister is ignorant of what is happening. However, he must have been badly informed because nobody who knows anything about what is happening in the United States could have possibly been surprised."
May 27, 1986

We know the Premier of British Columbia was not surprised. He wrote the Prime Minister 20 days ago. We know the Prime Minister's own advisor on the International Trade Committee who gives advice to the Minister of Trade was not surprised. We know that the industry in British Columbia was not surprised. We know by looking at newspaper clippings going back over a month that the journalists were not surprised.
Why is it that the Prime Minister was shocked? Why was he surprised? We know the Prime Minister has a very bad memory, we all know that. He was in New York a few weeks ago telling the editorial board of The New York Times that when he heard about the tuna scandal, bang, the Minister of Fisheries was fired. Then he had to come back to Canada and be reminded that the Minister of Fisheries hung around for a few weeks. In fact, the Prime Minister himself defended him in this House.
Canada needs a Prime Minister and an administration that will speak to us from their hearts, their minds and from their sense of commitment, not from a Hollywood script. The photo opportunity Prime Ministerial stance that we have seen is too damned costly for this country. We cannot afford it.
The Liberal Party has put forward a position. We believe the Prime Minister ought to examine it, but all we got today from the Prime Minister was flippant answers. We are not calling upon the Prime Minister to get out his megaphone. We are not looking for megaphone diplomacy. We are not asking for the Prime Minister to beat his chest and call the President names. Quite frankly, it may make the Prime Minister feel better but it really doesn't do a lot for those 20,000 people who are wondering whether they will have a job next week. We have asked the Prime Minister to pick up the telephone to call the U.S. President. So far, either since he got this letter May 7 or since the tariff was imposed last Thursday, the Prime Minister has admitted today that he has not done that. He sent a telex to his good personal friend, Ronald Reagan. He is waiting for a reply to the telex. We have asked him to make a phone call to ask the President to reverse the tariff. That is the first thing we have asked for. Second, we have asked him during the course of that telephone call to get a commitment from the President that he will refuse the petition for a 27 per cent tariff on the softwood lumber industry, that that secondary action on a $3 billion industry over and above the action on a $250 million industry will not be allowed to go ahead. We have asked him to get an agreement from the President that if free trade negotiations are to proceed, that there be agreement on both sides that both countries will cease and desist from these kinds of tariff measures during the course of those negotiations.
We have said to the Prime Minister that failure to get those kinds of assurances from the President should then result at that point in a decision by the Government of Canada to reassess our involvement in free trade talks. At that point we must ask ourselves whether we are talking to tariff walls
Supply
instead of talking to men of like mind and like ambition who want to have a fair trading system between our countries.
We have also told the Prime Minister that, despite the threats of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) yesterday, until that phone call is made we must not get involved in knee-jerk retaliation measures. To do that on cedar shakes and shingles at this stage, without ever having talked to the President, is to put at even greater risk a $3 billion softwood lumber industry.
That has been the position of the Liberal Party. It has not been our position to measure the Prime Minister by how hard he beats his chest. It has not been our position to measure the Prime Minister's performance by how loud he shouts. It has not been our position to measure the Prime Minister's response and competence by the names he dreams up to call the President. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has called him erratic and eccentric, and the Prime Minister has called him bizarre. It has been our position that those things may make the Prime Minister feel better, but that they do nothing for the people in British Columbia who may lose their jobs, and that they do not put bread and butter on the table.
The Prime Minister made sure that he did the right PR things to get himself on the front page of The Globe and Mail and in front of television cameras to beat his chest. However, he admitted today that since last Thursday he has not made a phone call to the President of the United States. He admitted today that he ignored the letter of the Premier of British Columbia, who saw this coming 20 days ago, and has not made one phone call.
The people in the forestry industry in British Columbia are not really interested in the rhetoric which crosses the aisle of the House of Commons. They are not really interested in whether cheap political points are scored. They are not interested in chest-beating or in hollow threats which emanate uselessly like the sounds of a hollow drum. They are interested in a Prime Minister who will go to the heart of the U.S. administration and express, on behalf of all Canadians, our sense of outrage and betrayal and our commitment not to allow our fellow Canadians in British Columbia stand alone during this time of need.


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, I have observed the continuing flip-flop of the Official Opposition on the important issue of a trade agreement with the United States. If anything, this whole lumber issue highlights how correct we were during the last number of months to pursue friendly relations with the United States and how important it has been and will be for us to maintain communications. The Government has been strongly criticized by the Official Opposition for its overtures to the United States in its efforts to conclude a trade agreement. The Government has been accused of selling out to the United States. Now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has contradicted the Liberal critic who spoke on Friday. They now say that we must continue to negotiate. If

May 27, 1986
Supply
there is any rhetoric and grandstanding taking place, it is being undertaken by the Official Opposition which finds itself closing the barn door after the horse is out.
Is it now the position of the Liberal Party that a trade agreement with the United States, which would prevent similar actions in the future, is part of the changing and flexible platform of the Liberal Party?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member is a fairly well-meaning and decent individual. I have known him for some time. I am sure that within the befuddled and confused words he just expressed is the intention to contribute positively to the debate.
He will recall that the opposition Parties and some Conservatives in the country, including Conservative Premiers, expressed concern about the way in which the Government was proceeding with free trade negotiations. Our concern was primarily that the so-called friendly relations were not truly friendly. Any true friend is a friend on the basis of mutual respect between the parties. There is a sense of wanting to respect the opinions and attitudes of the other person. However, we also understand deep down that that individual demands our respect.
We have seen the Government give in to the Americans in the energy sector. Corporate boardrooms in the United States once again make decisions about Canadian energy policy. The Government has given the Americans a commitment to bring in a generic drug bill which will increase the drug costs of Canadians by $200 million or $300 million. Like a bull in a china shop the Polar Sea ploughed its way through Canadian waters without a whimper from across the way. The Foreign Investment Review Agency was swept under the carpet. The United States was told that it is just an appendage of the American economic model and that they are welcome within our borders.
Our administration has been busy sending bouquets and gifts of huge chunks of the Canadian economy across the border to the United States. Have they ever stopped to think that one day when the going gets tough they will have no damn cards left? In Newfoundland we understand that in a game of cards you do not put all your cards down on the table face up and expect to be able to play poker. The Member may not appreciate that. I repeat that real friendship is based on mutual respect rather than grovelling.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Do you want a trade agreement?


Brian Vincent Tobin: My friend, I want a deal which serves Canada's best interests rather than a commitment to a slavish view that the way you get ahead in this world is by sitting on the knees of the American administration and singing songs with them. We have just found out that the Americans can be tough negotiators. It is about time that the Government and the administration took a cold shower and found out that we are living in the real world of trade.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the previous speaker who is the forestry spokesperson for the Liberal Party in Canada. We could not get a clear enough answer from the first Liberal speaker on two things which are not too difficult to respond to. One, what is the official position of the Liberal Party on the export of logs and bolts? Second, what is the precise position of the Liberal Party on the suspension of the present talks to encourage remedial action to be taken on this 35 per cent duty?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to answer those questions and will begin with the second one. The Member asked what the position of the Liberal Party is with respect to the suspension of these talks in order to encourage the return of some kind of sanity to the U.S. administration with respect to cedar shakes and shingles. The Member heard a very clear position this morning. If he was listening a short while ago he heard a repeat of that extremely clear and far-sighted position with respect to that matter. The answer is that we have asked the Prime Minister, just as the Member did during Question Period, whether he has contacted the U.S. President. The Member was asking whether he had a response. We are asking the Prime Miniser to get on the phone to the U.S. President- rather than dealing through a telex or the Ambassador-to ask for a reversal of the 35 per cent tariff. We also asked him to seek assurance that the tariff action now being petitioned against softwood lumber in Canada will be stopped by the President. We ask that an agreement be reached between our countries that these kinds of harrassment measures will not continue during the course of the free trade talks which have started and are ongoing. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) discovered that he cannot get that kind of assurance from the President of the United States. At that point it is our position that we ought to consider a cessation of those talks until such time as we believe again that they are in the interests, not only of the United States, but in the interests of Canada as well. I think that is fairly clear.
Some members of the New Democratic Party want to break off talks tomorrow. We have listened and consulted with both labour and industry in British Columbia, who have said that the position I have just articulated is the one they would find useful, thoughtful and constructive.
With respect to the export of logs and boats, let me say to the Member that I want to do some more consultation on that matter with people in the industry in British Columbia. I can tell him that I start from the position that if, on the one hand, there is a 35 per cent tariff on the export of that product from our country that has the effect of shutting down that industry in our country, then I have grave trouble with the notion that we should then take the raw material and send it south of the border to allow the American industry to capture Canadian jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.
May 27, 1986


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, having heard the comments of the Hon. Members of the House who have preceded me in this discussion I will now proceed to identify and examine several important aspects of this issue as they relate to the motion at hand.
I would like to start by restating the motion, which has been put forward by the Hon. Member who has just spoken in this House. It says:
That this House urges that the Government press upon the Government of the United States the unanimous views of the House of Commons as expressed in its resolution of May 23, 1986, and insist that the United States rescind the 35 per cent duties on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles and guarantee that similar measures or other possible trade action will not be applied to Canadian products in the future if the present comprehensive trade negotiations are to proceed.
This motion seems to address the current situation to a degree in a critical, yet constructive manner. It must be pointed out, however, that the perspective represented in this motion varies greatly from all of the views on this issue previously stated by the members of the Opposition.
Members opposite initially broached this issue with blind fervour and hollow claims of petulance. I am now pleased to say that perhaps they have come to their senses, applied some logic and, yes, perhaps even used a little bit of common sense.
It is slowly becoming obvious, evidenced through the motion we are debating today, that the members of the Official Opposition may finally have allowed reason to prevail over rhetoric. It is hard to make that statement when we have just heard the Hon. Member from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). However, I believe they have allowed a little bit of reason to creep into their thinking. It appears that the Members opposite have finally recognized the implication of President Reagan's action, and the important role that the free trade negotiations must play in avoiding similar actions in the future.
I really do not think it is possible for me to overemphasize the gravity of the situation which has been created as a result of the United States placing a 35 per cent tariff on all British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles as exports. The response that has been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) accurately and fully displays the shock and sense of dismay felt by all Members of the House, those in the industry and the Canadian public as a result of the actions taken last week by President Ronald Reagan on this issue.
Yes, our Government was aware that the imposition of a tariff on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles was being considered. Yes, we were aware that the President was under considerable pressure from both political counterparts and industry lobby groups. I want this House to understand, however, and I want the people of this country to understand, that in no way did we expect the action against B.C. cedar shakes and shingles to be levied in this form, as it is so contradictory to all that Mr. Reagan has been promoting for so long. It is even more appalling that such a rash and unjustifiable action should have been taken without the
Supply
President having first advised the Government of his intentions.
The Prime Minister has denounced the President's actions as being at variance with all his previous contentions, and as being totally unacceptable to the Canadian Government and to the Canadian people. It is reassuring to know that the Leader of our Government is prepared to take the appropriate actions to defend the people of our country from adverse measures such as this one.
It is the Canadian people who truly deserve mention when this issue is under debate. After all, it is the population of this country who must live in the wake of this irresponsible protectionist act on the part of the President of the United States. Undoubtedly all of the people of this nation will be affected to some degree.
I would like to comment in some detail on the direct and indirect effects this action will have on the people of British Columbia, but more specifically on the people from my riding, that is, the people from Mission-Port Moody. It is a region that survives almost solely on this resource-based industry and on directly related businesses. Its economy rests on a delicate balance, even when times are good, because, as we know, mother nature is both unpredictable and unrelenting.
Men and women who work in the forest related industries are familiar with trying times, and have certainly had to contend with their share of strife. The forest industry has endured a long and difficult struggle over the past five years, during which only the toughest have survived. Now, in the face of a 35 per cent tariff on all cedar shakes and shingle export products, it appears that there will be few survivors, if any.
Since the International Trade Commission first initiated action in this area I have continuously kept up to date on the status of the serious deliberations surrounding the cedar shake and shingle industry. I have been interested in what steps were being taken by our Government to influence any action that might result from the deliberations. I have been concerned for the people in my riding, I have been concerned for all British Columbians.
I have raised this issue three times in this House over the past month. During these statements I have stressed the vital importance of the B.C. cedar shake and shingle industry, and the necessity for a sound trade agreement to ensure the continued healthy existence of this industry, the lifeblood of British Columbia. On April 28, I said the following, as reported on page 12693 of Hansard:
The recommendation of the U.S. International Trade Commission for a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian red cedar shakes and shingles is a threat to jobs in British Columbia, in particular to Mission-Port Moody, the heart of Canada's shake and shingle industry. While trade negotiations will not in the meantime preclude traditional action against Canadian exports, they will lessen the threat.
On May 8, as reported at page 13080 of Hansard, I said:
One out of ten Canadian jobs is related to the forest industry. In British Columbia, forestry is our lifeblood. We cannot allow our lifeblood industry to fall prey to protectionist measures in the United States. The current threat of a 35

May 27, 1986
Supply
per cent U.S. tariff on red cedar shakes and shingles would be devastating to the B.C. economy and particularly to the Mission-Port Moody area.
On May 12, as reported at page 13167 of Hansard, I stated:
Last year we sold more than $100 billion worth of goods and services to Americans. We are the closest and most important trading partner of the largest and richest market in the world.
We must secure our access to that market if Canadian export industries, such as our lumber industry and the B.C. cedar shake and shingle industry, are to survive.
I have lived up to my responsibility and I shall not quit.
I want to deal now with what was said by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) in the House yesterday during Question Period. The Hon. Member may be a neighbour but she certainly has a lot of nerve pretending to speak for the people of Mission or for any of my constituents. I want the House and the people of Mission-Port Moody to know that the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has actually opposed economic development in my riding. She has gone so far as to attempt to block a strategic economic development project in my riding. She has supported the doomsayers and apostles of the status quo. Now she tries to portray herself as a saviour of the people in my riding. What nerve!


Pauline Jewett: Somebody has to save them, Gerry.


Gerry St. Germain: The Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam wrote to my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), some months ago asking him not to proceed with an important runway extension project at Pitt Meadows Airport.


James Ross Fulton: Stick to the subject.


Gerry St. Germain: It relates to the project. It is tied in to forestry.


James Ross Fulton: You are the Member.


Gerry St. Germain: This project was intended solely to enhance economic development in the area.


James Ross Fulton: You are trying to divert attention from an incompetent Government. Your Government is incompetent.


Pauline Jewett: It's pretty sad.


James Ross Fulton: Mulroney has not even phoned.


Gerry St. Germain: The Minister of Transport proceeded with the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There will be time for questions and comments. Let the Hon. Member finish his debate. I am sure I will be able to recognize both Hon. Members.


Pauline Jewett: Okay, but it is a real red herring.


Gerry St. Germain: Not surprisingly, the Minister proceeded with this important project and I had the honour of attending a ceremony last Saturday, marking its completion. On hand with the Minister of Transport were many of those whose livelihoods depend on forestry and its related industries. That is what made this project so important. These are the people whom the Member opposite claims to defend. They are the ones whom in fact she knowingly proceeded to hinder when she tried to block this great project.


Pauline Jewett: What was the project?


Gerry St. Germain: The Pitt Meadows Airport.


Pauline Jewett: Why not tell the House all about it?


Gerry St. Germain: Where does the Member really stand? Where does she get her nerve? The people of Mission-Port Moody do not need to hear any more of her lectures. They know where I stand. I stand to protect their jobs and I have fought and will continue to fight for their interests.


James Ross Fulton: And your friend, Ron Reagan.


Gerry St. Germain: Economic development in British Columbia is our goal. The Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam has pure petty politics as her prime objective. The people must understand that that is the NDP way, the socialist way and the wrong way.
It has only been through continual receipt of up to date information that I have been able to stay on top of this critical issue.


James Ross Fulton: You free enterprisers are doing a great job.


Gerry St. Germain: I certainly appreciate the assistance I have received from my colleagues, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) in this regard.
Further to my efforts to remain fully informed, I have kept in close contact with local and regional representatives of the industry, as well as representatives of local Governments whose municipalities will be severely affected by this action. These meetings have proved to be very informative. It is necessary for the Government to have complete briefings from all parties that are affected because their contribution provides us with an understanding of how this action will impact the people in the communities, whose entire survival rests with this industry.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Mayor John Agnew of Mission. His outrage was only surpassed by his real concern for the future of his community. Mayor Agnew told me that the people of this area are petrified and that the entire area is devastated. He said that bankers were already starting to withdraw the lines of credit upon which shake and shingle producers depend for their cash flow. One mill has already shut down, laying off 75 workers.
May 27, 1986

This morning I also spoke to another mill operator who told me that his bank had already contacted him to say that his credit line was in jeopardy in view of the current situation.
At this time I want to make a plea to all those in the banking community to take a responsible role in their community and not over-react at this particular time. As was pointed out, the entire scenario has not evolved and so a true evaluation cannot be made. Panic on the part of the banking community would just add to the dilemma we are already facing.
This might be viewed as a knee-jerk reaction, but a considerable number of questions remain unanswered over this entire issue. Confusion has lead to nervousness, and this has lead to the shut-down. Confusion still exists over the effective date of the tariff. The American administration has yet to clarify on what date the tariff will be imposed. There are rumours about retroactive action and there is a question about the price on which the tariff will be calculated: the price at the mill or the price on delivery.
This confusion is understandable and it must be cleared up so that the long-term adjustments can be made. Hopefully, these adjustments will not be necessary at all. However, the short-term problem is still the one that looms large today. With 3,000 to 4,000 jobs about to be lost, communities like Mission could end up as virtual ghost towns. I want to reiterate how this will impact on Mission, a community already plagued with an unusually high unemployment rate.
As tragic as it may sound, the truth is that unemployment in the Mission area is currently about 27 per cent. Studies conducted a year and a half or two years ago by the Fraser Valley College indicated actual unemployment in Mission and the surrounding area at close to 50 per cent. Who would want to contemplate the social and economic consequences of this latest blow on a community suffering as this one already has?
What did the previous Government do to head off this tariff action when it was First rumoured three years ago? Did it heed these warnings? Yesterday, I spoke to Mayor Agnew of Mission, as did the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has taken a lead role in making certain that everything possible is being done for British Columbia. Let me relate what Mayor Agnew told me yesterday. He said: "We met with every key member of the previous Liberal Government three years ago and warned them that this problem was there and that action like this was coming." He said: "Needless to say, nothing happened. They didn't respond".
I spoke to Mayor Griffen of Maple Ridge. He said: "It is devastating and I have nothing else to say, Gerry." Ladies and-


James Ross Fulton: Where are you going to give this speech, Gerry?


Gerry St. Germain: I am so concerned about the people in Mission-Port Moody that I am thinking of the ladies and
Supply
gentlemen there rather than Members here because I think we are insignificant in the over-all picture of this situation.
The response of the previous Liberal Government was ignorance, arrogance and complete indifference-so typical of the Liberal response to British Columbia concerns for so long.
Today, our Government has responded and we plan to act. We have the information at hand that has been provided by the industry itself. They are concerned, and rightly so, for their industry and their future. They assembled a data sheet which clearly amplifies the impact of this industry on the British Columbia and Canadian economy.
The tariff as imposed by President Reagan will have the effect of a direct loss of 4,000 Canadian jobs, equalling a payroll of $100 million and benefits of $28 million. There will also be a considerable dollar effect on the Canadian economy due to lost spending: $100 million in raw materials such as logs and blocks; $55 million in transportation; $25 million in supplies; and $36 million in short-term financing. This results in a total of $344 million in a direct job and dollar negative effect on the Canadian economy. Indirectly, there will also be an effect on 20,000 additional jobs, as was pointed out earlier.
The cost to the provincial and federal Governments in unemployment insurance claims will be overwhelming, to say the least. The loss to provincial and federal coffers from tax revenue will be millions of dollars. There will also be related effects on transportation and wholesale and retail contracting industries in the United States.
It must be made clear to everyone involved that the protectionist Act by the President serves to destroy a significant portion of the United States economy as well as ours in Canada. The destiny of the American producer is not directly related to the state of the Canadian industry. There are other significant reasons why they are not competitive. The United States producers have a shortage of raw material and lack of control over what existing materials there are. Prices for raw materials are higher than they can afford to pay. In addition, the American industry has failed to automate and expand capital to reduce unit costs. These factors, in conjunction with the loss of traditional markets, is what has caused the decline in the American industry. The punitive action taken against the Canadian red cedar shake and shingle industry will do a lot of damage to this industry within a matter of months.
I wish to conclude on a very positive note. This tariff action comes as a complete shock to us all. The potential for disastrous effects is frightening. On the other hand, an ironic situation flows from the events of the last few days. This tariff action points clearly to Canada's reason for pursuing a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. It is telling why Ambassador Reisman's efforts are so vital to Canada. If he achieves nothing else at the negotiation table, Ambassador Reisman must convince the U.S. that protectionism and actions such as the one launched by the President on

May 27, 1986
Supply
Thursday, are a threat to the economic future of both our countries.
Certainly, this tariff cannot and will not be forgotten. We must continue to act in a manner which will assure the people of British Columbia that their interests come first, that their livelihoods will be protected and that any trade agreement will be in the best interests of all working Canadians. Our best customer, our largest market, is at stake. Canadian jobs and security are at stake. I plead with all Hon. Members of the House today to band together to find a resolve to this terrible situation which faces the people of Mission-Port Moody, British Columbia and all of Canada.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member. I know he does follow this industry with care. However, I just want to ask him about the politics of this matter. His own Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) made it clear in the House just an hour ago that he has neither telephoned President Reagan, nor has he been telephoned, and he has not had any kind of written or telex response to his letter, and so on, from last Friday. I have been around here long enough to know how this place works. I think the people of Mission-Port Moody should be advised as to how this place works. The only way a situation such as this can be quickly resolved is through the Prime Minister's Office. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) can do things, as well as can the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), and so on. However, the fact is that President Reagan has not yet signed this 35 per cent duty into law, so we have a very small window opening in which to move. If the Government moves with speed and with some intelligence, we can get that 35 per cent duty taken off and we can get rid of it.
The Hon. Member is the chairman of the federal Conservative caucus. Why does he think the Prime Minister has not telephoned President Reagan? Is it not high enough on the agenda or are there other things he would rather be doing? Is it in fact true that the Prime Minister has known all along that the deal which was going to be cut to get these free trade talks going and get past the 10-10 stalemate vote in the Senate Finance Committee, was that the forest industry, particularly the shake and shingle industry, would be hung out to dry, as it is of this moment?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, why the Prime Minister has not taken the initiative I believe has been clearly enunciated. On Friday he sent a telex. Monday was a national holiday in the United States. I would like to read the telex into the record. It states:
Dear Mr. President,
I want to convey to you the profound disappointment of my government at the action you announced yesterday regarding softwood shingles and shakes. The imposition of a 35 per cent tariff is a punitive measure against Canadian products. This unjustifiable action is all the more appalling in the context of freer trade negotiations between our two countries having been officially initiated this week.
This American initiative is pure protectionism, the precise thing you and I pledged, in Quebec and Washington, we would seek to avoid. Canada is now placed in the position of being forced to consider an appropriate response.
I deeply regret this action by the Administration.
I do not know how much stronger one can get. I believe the Prime Minister has lived up to his responsibility as we knew he would. The people of this country gave him a mandate to govern, and we will govern the way we see fit. I know the Hon. Member is sincere in his thoughts in wanting to reach a solution. I know there is a political aspect in his question, but I also know he would sooner lose this one politically and win it for the industry and the province, as I would.
I can assure the Hon. Member that I will be speaking to the Prime Minister on this issue, as I have spoken to him before. If it is felt necessary within the wisdom of the operation of our Government, I am certain the Prime Minister will make the call, but at a time he deems correct. I think we must look at the submission he made to the President of the United States last Friday. I am sure the proper action will be taken in due course.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is on the record as opposing the log and bolt exports, as is his Government now. The Liberal Party seems to be the only Party left in the world which does not understand that particular part of the issue. I would like to hear further from the Hon. Member because it seems clear to me from wide consultations that if this 35 per cent duty is left against the shake and shingle industry of British Columbia, if we do not move to have it removed while it is still as yet unsigned by the President, the U.S. will take that as a signal from the Mul-roney administration that it is prepared to accept the imposition and maintenance of it for the next five years. The duty will come into play on June 6. The signal the U.S. administration will take from this-and I understand this from discussions I have had with members of the U.S. Congress in both the Senate and the House-will be that Secretary of Commerce Baldridge next Tuesday will be given the green light to initiate the International Trade Commission investigation into injury of Canadian softwood going to the United States.
I know the Hon. Member has read the case law in the carbon black case and knows that the rules of the game have been changed in relation to the 1983 countervail we won. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comments because I have been led to believe, that if the Prime Minister does not phone and ask that this be taken away before the President pulls his pen out of his holster and signs it into law, it will be the green light for the Department of Commerce to begin the investigation next Tuesday against our softwood industry, and there go a million jobs, not 4,000 jobs.


Gerry St. Germain: Again I reiterate, that I do not think the Prime Minister could enunciate his position more clearly than in the letter he sent to the President of the United States. There is no one in this House who thinks we should stand back on this particular issue. As the Hon. Member knows, Cabinet at this particular time is deciding how the situation should be approached. I agree with the Hon. Member that the only way is for the 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles to be
May 27, 1986

rescinded. I am literally terrified, like every other British Columbian or any Canadian, that if we are subject to this type of protectionism from the United States, which is our largest trading partner, we are in serious jeopardy. Our total economy is in jeopardy. 1 want to point out to the Hon. Member that it was the foresight of our Government and its initiative that have triggered these free trade talks. That is the only way out of this dilemma. That is why we cannot suspend the talks. But we must not start a trade war.
The Hon. Member questions the actions taken. If I were sitting in opposition I would be doing exactly what he is doing. However, I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that we have taken the strongest action that has ever been taken in an instance such as this one.


James Ross Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! The period provided for questions and comments has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins)-Tourism- Canadian Pavilion at Epcot Center; the Hon. Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford)-Hate Literature- Posted in Moscow for delivery in Canada; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Unemployment Insurance- Forget Commission-Request for interim report on pension income.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House urges that the Government press upon the Government of the United States the unanimous views of the House of Commons as expressed in its resolution of May 23, 1986, and insist that the United States rescind the 35 per cent duties on British Columbia cedar shakes and shingles and guarantee that similar measures or other possible trade action will not be applied to Canadian products in the future if the present comprehensive trade negotiations are to proceed.
Supply
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by commending the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) for his very moving remarks about the real and present danger to the community of Mission and possibly other communities in the Fraser Valley becoming ghost towns if they lose one of their fundamental and vital industries such as the shake and shingle industry which we are discussing today. As representative of the neighbouring constituency I can tell the Hon. Member that many of the people living in my riding are employed in the industry, or at least were employed in the industry until now. I feel as deeply about the matter as he does himself. I do not intend in any way to be negative or purely oppositionist. On the contrary, I wish to be as positive and as constructive as I can.
In that connection I say to the Hon. Member that I was very concerned at the time of the airport expansion about which he spoke to have received a great many communications from residents of his constituency who felt that an insufficient number of environmental impact studies had been done before the contracts were let. These people requested a formal public hearing on what environmental impact studies had been done. They were concerned with the shortcomings of them. I see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is in the House. I am sure he would join with those of us who nowadays are concerned about environmental impacts. It was in that connection that I took up the cause which many of his constituents presented to me at that time.
Toward the end of his remarks the Hon. Member said that he would be speaking to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) about the horrendous impact the U.S. tariff on cedar shakes and shingles will have. As my colleague from Skeena has pointed out, the Hon. Member is chairman of the Progressive Conservative caucus and is therefore an influential person with the Prime Minister. Had there been time I would have asked him why he has not already spoken to the Prime Minister. Given the consequences of this tariff, if we cannot have it revoked, why would the Hon. Member, as chairman of the caucus as well as a concerned British Columbian, not have said immediately to his Leader, the Prime Minister: "Given your good, friendly and warm relations with the President of the United States, will you phone him right away as a follow-up to the letter which was telexed to him?" I suppose that the President receives a million telexes a day. On Friday there should have been a follow-up in terms of a phone call to the President before the holiday weekend commenced. I say that because it is possible that the President might have been gone after Friday. Why did the Hon. Member not ask the Prime Minister in the most forceful terms possible to phone the President immediately?
Some of us think that the President does not think about Canada every time he wakes up in the morning. Hon. Members will remember that the Prime Minister once said that it would be a good thing if he were to do that. He does not think of Canada very frequently at all. He certainly was not thinking

May 27, 1986
Supply
of Canada when he decided in favour of this horrendous tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. I do not think Canada even crossed his mind, if he has a mind on this matter. Therefore, it becomes all the more important for the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody to say immediately to the Prime Minister: "It is absolutely essential for you to get through by phone directly to the President".
It may be that the Prime Minister tried to do that, although he did not indicate that he did, and could not get through. I do not think that that was the case. The Prime Minister has not indicated that. The fact of the matter is that he did not try to reach the President on Friday. Because he did not try to do so, I must say to the Hon. Member that that makes it very difficult for the rest of us from British Columbia to think that the Prime Minister really knows how serious the situation is in the Hon. Member's constituency and in my constituency. I do not think he realizes that if this action is followed through with some other type of action in terms of the softwood lumber industry generally, how absolutely horrendous it will be for British Columbia. This is our country's major export, something which most Canadians do not even know. It is not widely known how important the industry is to the whole of Canada.
I wish to say to the Hon. Member that by failing to have talked to the Prime Minister in terms of urging him to follow up his telex with a direct phone call to the President, I am sorry to say that we have substantially reduced our chances of getting the 35 per cent tariff decision reversed.
It is important to remember that this is not a countervail measure. It was imposed under Section 201 of the United States Tariff Act, which is the section which allows a group of producers to apply to the administration for relief from imports which they say are causing injury. The reason I emphasize this is that at no time did they say that there was a subsidy involved in the Canadian industry, nor has there ever been.
I think it is very important to remember that we have had free trade in shakes and shingles for half a century or more, although everyone keeps talking about the importance of the free trade negotiations. There was free trade in the shake and shingle industry but the U.S. shake and shingle producers applied to the ITC last September saying that they were being injured by imports which had taken place prior to last September.
As well, it is important to recall that the decision of the ITC was split. Only three members of the ITC recommended a duty and the other three took our position, which was that there was no injury to the producers. I mention this because I would like to hear from the Government the reasoning it is following when it says that this kind of thing will be avoided under the free trade arrangements that are extolled by Government Members. Quite frankly, the chances of having our market in the United States diminish will probably be even greater because of the negotiations that are taking place.
I think the Government is misleading us when it suggests that, through these negotiations, we are somehow going to protect let alone enhance our share of the U.S. market. As far as the shake and shingle industry is concerned, the result of the bargaining will probably be to reduce drastically our share of the U.S. market. I am quite confident that unless this is pointed out now, even if we do get the 35 per cent tariff decision reversed, we will still give up a substantial share of the U.S. market in this particular industry through these negotiations. Far from enhancing our access to U.S. markets, supposedly the purpose of these negotiations, we will end up seriously limiting it.
The same applies to countervail. Countervail is the issue with respect to the softwood lumber industry about which we have heard a lot today. Most of us on this side of the House feel that the President's decision to go ahead with a tariff on shakes and shingles despite the even split in the ITC is a political signal of enormous dimensions indicating the nature of the countervail on softwood lumber which is to come next. It is a message to all of us in British Columbia that softwood lumber is next.
I cannot take as much reassurance as I would like from the statement the Prime Minister made today indicating that the tariff on shakes and shingles was bizarre, erratic and a one-shot deal. Most of the people in the industry in British Columbia to whom I have spoken, both management and union, have felt that on the contrary, it is a clear political signal to get us softened up for the next blow which will be a countervail of 27 per cent on softwood lumber.
I guess it is fair to say that most British Columbians have known for a long time that this was in the works. I could not quite understand the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody who said that they knew it was coming but they did not know what form the action would take. I would have thought that the action would be either a tariff or a countervail. In any event, in view of the fact that British Columbians have said that they knew for nine months that some kind of action was coming first on shakes and shingles and then on softwood lumber, I cannot for the life of me understand why the chairman of the Progressive Conservative caucus, a British Columbia Member of Parliament, did not say immediately on Friday to the Prime Minister: "Get on the phone". The most disappointing remark made by the Hon. Member is that he will be speaking to the Prime Minister.
The ironic thing about the entire shake and shingle issue is that it will probably ruin the shake and shingle industry in the United States as well. As all British Columbia Members know, U.S. producers will gain very little from this tariff. Certainly, as the Minister has assured us, they will not have access to further raw product. Their own shortage of cedar logs will surely mean that they will be able to expand very little. This means that another industry will fill in the gap and the shake and shingle share will diminish even further. Again, that is why it is such an erratic decision. It does not even benefit the shake and shingle industry in the United States.
May 27, 1986


James Ross Fulton: Tile and asphalt.


Pauline Jewett: Tile and asphalt will probably be the chief beneficiaries of it. This is another reason why the B.C. forest industry is so shocked by this decision. It really does seem to be totally irrational.
Although I hope it is not too late to have the Prime Minister get on the phone to the President of the United States, that is about the only thing that is left for the Government of Canada to do in order to try to get this tariff decision reversed. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has pointed out, this decision has not yet been signed into law. Therefore, there is still time.
The House agreed unanimously last Friday that the U.S. should rescind this duty. We found today during Question Period that the Prime Minister was not really seized of the absolute necessity for the sake of British Columbia workers and all Canadians of impressing directly but in a friendly fashion upon the President of the United States the consequences for British Columbia of this decision and any other decisions that may be taken. As well, he is not seized of the absolute necessity and importance, while negotiations are under way, of not undercutting the negotiations by taking unilateral action in raising tariffs or imposing countervails.
In conclusion, I hope that members of the Conservative caucus from British Columbia will treat this matter in a more urgent fashion, take it directly to the Prime Minister, who in turn will take it directly to the President. If they do not do that, I would really have to wonder how urgent they think the matter is.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's concern about the plight of the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia, but I have some problem with it. I come from an industry which has enjoyed free trade with the United States for the past 25 years, if not for the past 50 years. In all cases it has been a winner under that free trade arrangement.
It amazes me that the Hon. Member and her Party can be opposed to a formalized trading arrangement with our major trading partner; it never ceases to amaze me. It is like Bob White. He does not want us to enter into these negotiations. He has a free trade arrangement for a bilateral negotiated agreement with the United States, so he does not want anyone else to participate in advantages similar to those of the automobile industry.
Why would an Hon. Member, who comes from a constituency which has enjoyed the benefits of a liberalized trading arrangement between the two countries, be so opposed to it?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, we are not opposed to existing free trade arrangements, certainly in the lumber industry.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: What about the other people who want it?
Supply


Pauline Jewett: We are not opposed to those either. If we could get auto pacts with guarantees similar to the ones built into the Auto Pact, we would be all for it.


Gerry St. Germain: That is administered trade.


Pauline Jewett: The Hon. Member is absolutely right. We have said all along that the Auto Pact is administered trade. Indeed we would be very happy if our tough bargainers could get other pacts of that nature. We have always said that. We have always said that where we have existing free trade, we would want to see it continue. However, when we discover things like what the U.S. is doing today to the shake and shingle industry, a highly competitive and efficient industry-


James Ross Fulton: Free for 50 years.


Pauline Jewett: Yes, it has been free for 50 years. We are simply warning, and warning countless times, against what, under a so-called comprehensive agreement, we will have to give up. I am afraid that we will have to give up everything from the access to the shake and shingle market which we have enjoyed for the past six years, to possibly the Auto Pact or any similar agreement that has been developed. The chances of securing or guaranteeing free trade in shakes and shingles become far less. The chances of other areas having genuine free trade, which we should like to see, may become far less than they would if we did what we have argued all along, that is, conduct our dealings, arguments, arrangements, and bilateral talks with the United States on a sectoral basis.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, again it never ceases to amaze me. Every time the Hon. Member talks, she increases the reason for going to a free trade or a freer trade arrangement with the United States.
I would like the Hon. Member to do something for me when she returns to her office tonight. She should have her researcher pull out the speeches of the major NDP speakers and labour leaders of the day prior to the signing of the Auto Pact, for they are a verbatim record of what we are hearing from her Party and from Bob White today.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to pull out those speeches. I was in the House at the time and remember a great deal about the Auto Pact debate and what everyone said in it. It is like talking to someone whose mind is totally closed-


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: You are right, you are right.


Pauline Jewett: -when I am talking to the Hon. Member. I wish I could ask him a question. If he participates in the debate, I will. Let us take the shake and shingle industry, for example. At present 75 per cent of it is under free trade, under genuine competition. As the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody pointed out, the Americans are not as competitive as we are in this area.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Agreed.

May 27, 1986
Supply


Pauline Jewett: We have earned 75 per cent of that market. Is the Hon. Member telling me that under free trade negotiations we will enhance that percentage? Is that what we will get from free trade negotiations?


James Ross Fulton: Not likely.


Pauline Jewett: That is what he is telling me, and I am telling him that we will not. He should not mislead people into thinking that we will. Under these negotiations, chances are that the United States will insist upon reducing our share of the market back to 35 per cent or 40 per cent. We are talking at cross purposes.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: You bet we are.


Pauline Jewett: It is because Hon. Members on that side of the House and in the Tory Party do not seem to understand. That is very likely to happen in the shake and shingle industry, and the people in the industry know it. This is why they are now beginning to get very serious about these infamous comprehensive free trade negotiations which the Government is pushing.


Mrs. Landry:: Mr. Speaker, earlier, my hon. friend said, in referring to the Conservatives, that "Your mind is closed".
However, I have the impression it is the New Democratic Party's mind that is very much closed. We all agree that the Auto Pact has been of great benefit to the automobile industry. How can the Hon. Member not be in favour of other sectors in our industry being regulated by the same kind of pact, which would be just as beneficial for other industries?
And I fail to see why they are opposed to negotiations on free trade, when we hope to negotiate an agreement that will in fact reduce the likelihood of the kind of intervention we are seeing today, an agreement that will benefit all industries in this country.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. I can only assure her that we would like to see dozens of auto pacts. What makes the Auto Pact so important is the guarantees built into it in terms of Canadian employment. That is what is not being negotiated.


Monique Landry: It is the beginning of discussions.


Pauline Jewett: It has been made fairly clear so far that that is not what the Canadian Government is negotiating. It has rejected the sector by sector approach and the application of the kind of regulations which we see in the Auto Pact, as did the previous Government. Those have been rejected. We do not think that they should have been rejected. It is the kind of negotiation which should be taking place sector by sector.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, in her speech the Hon. Member-and I am sure it was inadvertent, not intentional- stated that we knew it was coming. That statement was made by Mayor John Agnew when he spoke three years ago. He
made that statement to the Liberal administration at that time. In order to clarify that point, let me point out that it was not my statement; it was the statement of Mayor John Agnew.
I find it strange that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) is somewhat like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner)-a johnny-come-lately. I have not heard her make one statement in the House on shakes and shingles, nor on the lumber industry.


James Ross Fulton: Nor have 210 of your Tory Members.


Gerry St. Germain: I have not seen her rising to defend this particular issue. I have heard the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on the issue. Now she is to be the the saviour of all. I agree that it is important-


James Ross Fulton: There is only one B.C. Tory in the House.


Gerry St. Germain: Let us not get into that, Mr. Speaker. The NDP did not have a speaker ready at three o'clock. Let us not get nasty about things like that.


An Hon. Member:: There were two Tory Members from B.C.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member knows that that is wrong. There were three speakers here from our Party.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Pauline Jewett: I was waiting for the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) to speak. Sorry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Notwithstanding the number of Members in the House, we certainly can hear them. They are all being heard.


Gerry St. Germain: The Member over there started it, I didn't.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) would be kind enough to wrap up.


Gerry St. Germain: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam alluded to the fact that I had not spoken to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I can assure the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister was in direct contact with me on the weekend.


Pauline Jewett: I said Friday.


Gerry St. Germain: Anyone in Canada who does not feel that the Prime Minister is not on top of this issue, is not current with it and is not concerned about it, is unequivocally wrong. The Prime Minister has spoken to me on three occasions since.


Mr. Robinson:: What about beforehand?
May 27, 1986


Gerry St. Germain: I can assure Hon. Members that we know what is going on in this country. We will provide the leadership that we promised Canadians we would give them. I can assure the Hon. Members that the country is in good hands.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to spend a few moments this afternoon speaking in support of the motion of my hon. friend and colleague from Newfoundland. I had the opportunity of being here on Friday when we first learned of the quite extraordinary action taken by the President of the United States to impose a 35 per cent safeguard tariff against red cedar shakes and shingles which come from the Province of British Columbia. We have heard much about that this afternoon and we will hear much about it in the days ahead. What I would like to share with you and my colleagues present here, Mr. Speaker, is the mystery that surrounds what has taken place, the mystery of this 35 per cent tariff.
Canadians not familiar with the background of this action by the President will also be interested in joining with us in trying to solve this extraordinary puzzle. I hope, Mr. Speaker, as I put the facts to you, you will join with me in this exercise, although clearly I do not expect you to pass judgment or to furnish an answer and, as a matter of fact as my comments will demonstrate, I do not have all the answers either. I have some suspicions, but I do not have all the answers.
First, we are not dealing here with a "whodunit"; we know who did it. The President did it. He exercised his rights under Section 201 of the relevant provisions of the U.S. trade laws. He imposed the tariff with his own hand. We all saw him pull the trigger. This is not a smoking gun mystery. The question is not who did it, the question here is why he did it, which is one of the questions in the puzzle that we are called upon to resolve. What motivated this quite extraordinary action by the very apostle of free trade?

Perhaps I may repeat this for our francophone colleagues, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday, on May 22, President Reagan decided to apply a severe tariff clause, covering a five-year period, to imports of Canadian cedar shakes and shingles, two softwood products.
Mr. Speaker, considering the President's ideas and philosophy on the importance of free trade today, how are we supposed to interpret this action? Against the background of the bilateral negotiations being pursued, this action was unacceptable, and we are trying to get to the bottom of this mystery this afternoon.

The first part of the mystery, which I intend to go into at more length, Mr. Speaker, is, why did the President impose the tariff? Why did he stab his buddy, his friend, his fellow Irishman, who shares the northern half of this continent as leader of a state, in the back? Why did the President go back on the so-called representations which the Prime Minister says
Supply
he has received over a period of time at the Shamrock conferences and elsewhere?
The second part of this mystery is even more intriguing. The facts have come to light over the last few days with respect to knowledge which the Government had on this potential action. Why was the Government surprised? Why was the Prime Minister surprised? Why was the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) surprised when we now know that the Government had in its hand for nearly three weeks- in fact, the letter was dated May 7 from the Premier of British Columbia-a letter which warned that the President might indeed take this action?
I am sure that everyone in this House is puzzled. Everybody in this House would like to know the answer to the mystery, and I will come back to it, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was quite explicit in the statements that he made on television over the weekend that he was surprised and that he was shocked.
Let me return to the first question. Why did the President of the United States impose this tariff on the day following the announcement of negotiations between Simon Reisman on behalf of Canada and Peter Murphy on behalf of the United States? Can we believe that the timing was accidental? I suppose one could always argue that in a Government as large as the U.S. administration it is possible that the left hand may not always know what the right hand is doing. I would say though that that is an unlikely answer to the mystery. I think we have to assume that the imposition of this tariff by the President in these circumstances, coming as it did at the very beginning of negotiations, was a negotiating tactic. What was it designed to accomplish?
I suspect that every Member of the House is familiar with many sports. Let us take football, for example. A tactic in football early in the game is to rough up the quarterback, intimidate him and make him nervous. In tennis, there are some tennis players who deliberately take the first opportunity to drive a ball right at their opponent when he or she is vulnerable at the net to shake him or her up, to intimidate them. We all know about the close pitch in baseball- intimidate the batter. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that what might have been intended by this gesture was to soften up the Canadian Government, to let it see the claws of the eagle at the very outset of these negotiations. Of course, the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested as much during his interview on the CTV program Question Period. I think that he probably believes, as does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that this was not just an accident of timing but that it was timed very carefully to coincide with the launching of these bilateral discussions between Canada and the United States.
Think about what an extraordinary gesture this was, Mr. Speaker. Let us reflect upon the reaction of the Prime Minister to the imposition of this tariff. On Friday I questioned the

May 27, 1986
Supply
Prime Minister. I asked him whether, in view of his relationship with the President, he had advance notice that this might take place. I asked him, if he did have advance notice, what steps were taken to head it off. Of course, we received no answer to that question, although we do know, as the record now shows, that Premier Bennett had given very adequate advance notice to the Government of Canada with respect to what might unfold with respect to the imposition of this particular tariff.
Let us think about that special relationship. The Prime Minister of Canada has made a very major personal investment in the special relationship between himself and President Reagan. He has tried to draw the Government of Canada closer to the American administration and has tried to bring Canada closer to the United States. From the outset he has made a major investment in goodwill. He has said so. I sat at the Economic Club in New York in the autumn of 1984, I believe it was, and listened to the Prime Minister say how he was going to refurbish that relationship, that Canada was open for business. The implication of his remarks and the inference to be drawn was that under previous Liberal Governments that relationship had deteriorated.
There is no doubt that the Americans liked what they heard. I think they like our Prime Minister because of the rhetoric which he offers so frequently, in fact at every opportunity. He seizes every opportunity to support the United States. He backed up that rhetoric in New York by closing down the Foreign Investment Review Agency, dismantling the National Energy Program, and lending support to the Star Wars concept and the Libyan invasion. In fact, you name it, Mr. Speaker, and he has been there to support the United States and has been proud of it. I do not think that he would deny any of the statements which I have made with respect to the importance which he attaches to the relationship with the President of the United States.
At the personal level, we saw the Shamrock conferences which began in Quebec where the Prime Minister went as far as singing on stage with the President and establishing a strong personal bond between Ronald Reagan and himself. He is proud of it. He has said that the President is only at the end of the telephone line. I do not think that the President or the Prime Minister would deny that this personal relationship has developed. They have walked arm in arm together.
In a sense, the Prime Minister's reaction on Friday was sad. In some ways I felt for him, as I think other Members of the House did, because he felt he had been betrayed. His comments reminded me of that famous saying that hell hath no fury like a lover scorned. I thought that perhaps the Prime Minister even went a little further on Friday than he had intended to go. One can imagine how he felt to have been stabbed in the back, and perhaps dealt a mortal wound in so far as these negotiations are concerned, after having assumed that his relationship with the President was a close one.
As reported on page 13558 of Hansard of last Friday, in response to a question from me, the Prime Minister said:
-and I will tell my hon. friend that actions like this make it extremely difficult for anyone, including Canadians, to be friends with the Americans from time to time.
My colleagues and I do not share that view. I do not know that the Prime Minister intended to paint Americans with that brush. We are talking about an individual act of the President of the United States. Bonds between Canadians and Americans will not be placed in jeopardy by the act of the President of an administration in the United States with which probably millions of Americans disagree, especially those consumers who will pay the price of having higher tariffs placed on these Canadian exports, if indeed these Canadian exports will be able to penetrate the U.S. market at all. As our Leader pointed out today, a 35 per cent tariff is, in effect, a barrier to the penetration of that market by Canadian goods.
I think that the first part of the mystery as to why the President stabbed his friend in the back can be answered by the intimidation argument. It is certainly one argument, and we may hear more about it as the days and weeks unfold. However, it was certainly a surprise to us because we on this side of the House had never anticipated that the President of the United States would treat his friend, the Prime Minister, in that fashion after taking and taking and accepting the goodwill of the Prime Minister and being pleased about the dismantling of these programs in Canada, which they regarded as positive. The fact is that we were surprised.
The second part of the mystery is the Prime Minister's surprise. Should he have been surprised? You can imagine our astonishment after witnessing that performance last Friday in this House and reading the transcript of Mr. Clark's comments on Question Period in which he said "that the decision was a shock to us. It came as a surprise to us. It came as a surprise to our Embassy". Mr. Clark demonstrated all the surprise and shock of somebody who suddenly has a truck driven into his living room.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should know that he should not refer to other Members of the House by their names but rather by their ridings.


Donald James Johnston: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right. I stand corrected. As I was saying, the Secretary of State for External Affairs expresses the surprise of someone who sees a truck drive through the wall into the living room with no prior notice. You can imagine our surprise and shock when we discovered today that on May 7 Premier Bennett wrote a letter to the Prime Minister telling him exactly what might happen. In fact he said:
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.
He announced it on May 22. Mr. Bennett continues:
I am deeply concerned that the President may in fact decide to impose a tariff, perhaps for extraneous reasons. He may decide to show that he is not reluctant to act on Section 201 cases.
May 27, 1986

Furthermore, in view of the difficulties surrounding the Senate Finance Committee decision to provide the President with fast track authority, he may decide to demonstrate a tough posture vis-i-vis Canada.
Well, I can tell you one person who was not surprised on May 22, it was Premier Bennett. I am sure he was shocked, but obviously he was not surprised.
Now why, with this letter in hand, was the Prime Minister telling us that he was surprised, and why was the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) pretending that he was surprised? Well, of course, the answer today in the House was that he did not receive any advance notice from the American administration. The Government received advance notice from Premier Bennett.
It is like saying, in the case of that truck driving into your living room, after someone has come in and told you there was a truck coming, that you were surprised because you did not hear from the truck driver. They knew precisely what might happen on May 22.
What are the answers to this? That, indeed, is perhaps a greater mystery than why the President applied the tariff. I have at least furnished a possible answer to that, but in this respect, I must confess, I am lost.
Here is Premier Bennett with this information at his fingertips, and here is our Government with a trade office with close to a hundred people in it, with an embassy in Washington, with highly paid lobbyists who are supposed to have direct access to information which goes on within the administration, and yet it is not aware that this might take place-complete surprise. It was not a complete surprise for Mr. Bennett.
Did they not believe Mr. Bennett? Did the letter get lost in the mail? Is that a possible answer? Perhaps the letter got lost in the Prime Minister's Office. There are so many people in that office, the staff is so large that there, indeed, may be an example of the left hand not knowing what the right hand may be doing. I know that sounds outrageous, but I must say it is the only response I can think of, because what other Prime Minister, what other Secretary of State for External Affairs would not act when the Premier of a province affected to the tune of $250 million of exports tells him that this is likely to happen some time before May 24? Could there possibly be another answer?
I also say that because I always thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for all the criticism we may throw at him, is a man of integrity. I think that when he was on Question Period on Sunday and said he was surprised, he was surprised. It would not surprise me, in turn, if he did not even know about Mr. Bennett's letter and, perhaps, has never seen Mr. Bennett's letter.
Well, the final answer, which my Leader dealt with this morning, is that, having found ourselves with this extraordinary mystery on our hands-and I certainly hope that as the days unfold the mystery will become clarified and we may get
Supply
some answers-the question is, what should the Government do?
Mr. Reagan has played a very strong card. He has played a card which, in my judgment, requires a response, not retaliation. I asked on Friday in my question to the Prime Minister, given this stumbling start out of the starting gate on these negotiations, what is the Canadian Government to do?
This issue is so serious for the people of British Columbia, for the value of our exports, the jobs, and for the future of these negotiations, that careful consideration should be given to suspending those negotiations until such time as this tariff is withdrawn, and, as our Leader said, until such time as both parties agree that there will be no further harassment during these negotiations. Negotiations of this kind should not be conducted with either a gun to the head or a knife in the back.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Member who just spoke would care to clarify for the House and for the people of British Columbia just exactly what the Liberals' policy is, first, on the export of logs and of shake bolts, which is clearly something that the Washington, Oregon, Idaho, northern California shake and shingle producers are interested in; and second, whether or not this motion that is before the House means that if the 35 per cent duty harming British Columbia's shake and shingle industry is not taken away, the Liberals will then be calling for an end to the free trade talks. Or perhaps he could expand a little bit on exactly what this motion means.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have to recall the exact text of the motion, but on the first part of the question-later I will come to the second part-the position has been clear, there has always been free trade in these products. The President, in this case, has not basically dealt with an issue of countervail, he has dealt with a safeguard tariff, which, theoretically, can be applied in any circumstance where injury is shown under Article 19 of the GATT treaty.
Our position on it is clearly that as these negotiations begin, this would be the last gesture one would expect to find. Of course that market for shakes and shingles is the most significant market and, as we know from the numbers that have been put forward, it will effectively create serious unemployment in the province represented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). It will affect exports and, as the Member knows, will affect a lot of ancillary industries as well, including transportation and support industries. That is the position on the first point raised.
With respect to the second point, our Leader this morning laid out, I thought quite clearly, that we would expect the Prime Minister to use the good offices, to which I have made reference, with the President of the United States, that he should call the President of the United States and ask that that tariff be removed. He should also ensure that the countervail action will not proceed. He should get an undertaking for what our Leader called a cease and desist order, that as long as these negotiations are going to go forward, they should go forward without harassment, either in the United States or in
13696

May 27, 1986
Supply
Canada. That is essentially the position he laid out this morning.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a lot of British Columbians are interested in knowing where the Liberals stand on the export of logs and shake bolts during this crucial period of time. Are you in favour of it or opposed to it?


Donald James Johnston: Is the Member asking me whether we are in favour of the exportation of logs and shakes and shingles? Well, of course we are in favour of the exportation of logs and shakes and shingles, how can we not be? I am surprised that the Hon. Member would even ask the question.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this, but obviously the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) does not understand the industry, because the question placed to him by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) was simply this; is he in favour of the exportation of logs and bolts to the United States? This has nothing to do with shakes or shingles, this is the raw material. What we are trying to find out is the position of the Official Opposition on this very, very important issue. That is the question that I would like answered right at this point in time.


Donald James Johnston: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Skeena has been mischievous in terms of the motion in front of the House. The issue in front of the House is the issue of the imposition of a tariff on cedar shakes and shingles. That is what the motion deals with, and that is the issue which our Leader dealt with this morning. That is the issue which I dealt with in the course of my comments this afternoon.


Gerry St. Germain: This is fine, but this relates to the industry. We asked the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) this morning, and he said this was for another day. This is an integral part of the entire program that is facing us right now. They are refusing to answer it. Now I want to know why they are refusing to answer it. Every speaker from the Official Opposition who has risen has refused to answer it. Are they advocating the exportation of jobs to the United States? I suggest that that is what they are prepared to do if they do not have an answer to the question. I would like to hear an answer to that.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, again, the Member is being mischievous.


Gerry St. Germain: We are being straightforward.


Donald James Johnston: He is suffering from an onset of embarrassment at what has transpired, justifiably so. I can imagine how difficult it is to be a Member from British Columbia.


Gerry St. Germain: You cannot answer the question.


Donald James Johnston: Certainly we can answer the question. Essentially, the issue in the whole sector is to increase the
exportation of finished products and semi-finished products from Canada. That is the essence of the question and, of course, shakes and shingles fall into that category.
We are dealing with the question of shakes and shingles before the House. I cannot ask the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) a question, but I do not know whether he went back to his riding this weekend. I know that even in the East, which is not immediately or directly affected by this particular gesture by the President of the United States, there is concern for the people of British Columbia and the jobs in British Columbia.


Gerry St. Germain: Answer the question. I was back in my riding.


Donald James Johnston: I cannot hear the Hon. Member. He will have an opportunity to speak up. We know that unemployment in British Columbia is running at 14 per cent. Imagine the impact that this action will have on that situation, which is, of course, of immediate concern to us as members of the Official Opposition.
Second, is this a harbinger of things to come in terms of softwood exports generally? That is a national issue as well, because while British Columbia will again be primarily affected, so will Ontario, which is the second largest exporter, Alberta, and the Maritime provinces. What we see here is perhaps the thin edge of the wedge.
I do not know what the Hon. Member is trying to achieve by not being forthright and admitting his concern. I know that he was somewhat embarrassed by the comments of our Leader this morning, as he should have been.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific and straightforward question for the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). It is not a mischievous question. Will he clarify the position of the Liberal Party in British Columbia for the people of B.C. with respect to the issue of the export of cedar logs and shake bolts?
The Liberal spokesperson in the House today indicated that it was the policy of the Liberal Party-I assume the Liberal Party of Canada-to support the export of cedar logs and shake bolts. Is the Hon. Member speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party in British Columbia in advocating the export of cedar logs and shake bolts?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have no authority to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. I have not pretended to do so.


Gerry St. Germain: We are asking for your opinion.


Donald James Johnston: There is a specific motion here. However, I understand that the purpose of the House is to discuss issues and attempt to drag in stray cats into a very important subject. I can understand these gentlemen taking that position because they are the ones who are directly affected, on the front line with their constituents.
May 27, 1986

This motion is designed to help them show that there is unanimity in the concern in this House for the people of British Columbia who are directly affected by the action taken by the President. What could be more clear?
If they wish to drag in all of these stray cats, and raise extraneous questions about what the Liberal Party in British Columbia may think about the export of cedar logs, I suppose that is fair game. That is up to you to decide, Mr. Speaker. However, that is not what we are talking about here this afternoon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this important debate this afternoon. Before getting to the substance of my remarks, I want to spend a moment reflecting on a very serious matter that was just raised by the spokesperson for the Liberal Party concerning the position of the Liberal Party on the question of the export of cedar logs and shake bolts. The Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount	(Mr. Johnston), apparently
speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, stood up on the floor of the House and made a statement which would have a devastating impact on the people of British Columbia and on the workers in the shake and shingle industry in that province.
I am astonished that a former cabinet Minister, a former spokesperson on regional industrial expansion, would actually be prepared to stand up in the House and advocate action that could destroy the jobs of thousands of British Columbians. That is exactly the impact of the policy of the Liberal Party as enunciated by the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount.
Let us take a moment to examine the implications of what he has said. If the industry is allowed to export raw cedar logs and shake bolts to the United States, the industry would effectively be exporting jobs from British Columbia to the United States. Of course, the source of this raw material for this industry is in British Columbia, yet the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, as spokesperson for the Liberal Party, is saying to go ahead and take our raw materials, our raw logs, our shake bolts, our market and our jobs from the people of British Columbia. That is the exact position advocated by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Let me assure the House that the people of British Columbia will be made aware that the Liberal Party of Canada, through its spokesperson on external affairs, is advocating the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts which would destroy the industry in the Province of British Columbia. There is an unholy alliance in the House today between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. On the one hand, the Conservative Party has been dragging its heels and not been prepared to stand up for the workers in British Columbia. On the other hand, it was revealed today for the
Supply
first time that they are buddies with the Liberal Party. We see the dynamic duo of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount who, together, are cozying up to one another for the first time. The workers in the Province of British Columbia are getting the shaft.
In this debate on a motion moved by the Liberal Party, I am pleased that for the first time the Liberal Party of British Columbia and the Liberal Party representatives in Canada are revealing their true stand on this important issue. I am pleased that those of us in the New Democratic Party who have at least been consistent on this question will have an opportunity to quote throughout British Columbia the words of the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount who is advocating relinquishing jobs to the workers in the United States. That is a shameful abdication of responsibility by the Official Opposition on this important question.
I am pleased that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), was able to finally smoke out the Liberals and see where they really stand on this question.
The reality is that the shake and shingle tariff we are speaking about today is a punitive tariff that will effectively kill the industry in the Province of British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada within a matter of months. The irony of this position is that not only will the British Columbia industry be destroyed by this punitive tariff, the American industry will be severely hit. That is, unless the policy of the Liberal Party is adopted. In that case, all our raw cedar logs and shake bolts will be sent south of the border, as the Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount has indicated.
This tariff decision is sending a very clear message from the American adminstration to the people of Canada, particularly the people in British Columbia. The message from the President of the United States is that he is prepared to stab the Prime Minister in the back. While the President says the Prime Minister is his good friend from the time of the Shamrock Summit, where they stood together to sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling", when it comes down to the crunch, the President sells us out and stabs the Prime Minister in the back.
No one should have been particularly surprised by this decision. On May 8 the President wrote to Senator Robert Packwood and said: "I am committed to finding a rapid and effective solution to the Canadian softwood lumber problem. I will take such action as may be necessary to resolve this problem consistent with U.S. law".
Some 4,000 families in the Province of British Columbia are paying the price for this promise made by the President of the United States. I might say that many of those families live in my constituency of Burnaby and many of them work in the riding of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) where a significant part of the shake and shingle

May 27, 1986
Supply
industry is located. I was home last weekend and had an opportunity to meet with those people. They asked me some questions I want to ask in this House. First, where were the Tory Members of Parliament from the Province of British Columbia before this decision was taken? There are 19 Conservative Members of Parliament from British Columbia, and my constituents who work in the shake and shingle industry asked why it was that this decision came as such a terrible shock to the Tory MPs from British Columbia. Where were they? Why were they not standing up for the jobs of the people whom they represent?
We have heard from the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody. I accept his words that he thought, and presumably his colleagues thought, that the decision would not go the way it did. But if that is the case, then we must ask some very serious questions about the source of his information. Presumably the knowledge of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, and of other Hon. Members, was based on information received from people who are supposedly working for us in our embassy in Washington. If these individuals were misrepresenting the position, if they were not sounding the alarm bells and saying: "There is a real possibility that this punitive tariff may be imposed", then they were not doing their jobs on behalf of the people of Canada. Certainly, I think we have to look very carefully at the role played by our embassy and by our ambassador in Washington in not giving us the warning that this decision was in fact a distinct possibility.
This industry in British Columbia is a very important one. It accounts for some $250 million in exports. There are 4,000 direct jobs and many other indirect jobs involved in some 140 operations. Much of the industry is in the Fraser Valley and is a cottage type operation. Like the U.S. shake and shingle sector, there has been a very substantial rationalization and job loss in recent years. This is a devastating if not a terminal blow to this important industry.
Another question asked when I met with my constituents in Burnaby on the weekend was how we can trust the Prime Minister to negotiate a firm and fair deal for Canadians in these free trade negotiations when he gets sold out on the very eve of these negotiations. The Prime Minister rose in the House on Friday and said he was shocked, bewildered, incredulous and angry and that it was bizarre, confusing and goodness' knows what else. That is a portent of things to come in these negotiations. I want to note that we paid a very heavy price as Canadians for this special relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States. We supposedly paid that price to avoid the kind of sell-out we saw on Friday. The Prime Minister said: "Yes, Sir" to the Americans time after time whether it was on the participation of Canadian industry in star wars, on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada, on the blind and unequivocal support for the bombing in Tripoli and the death of innocent civilians, or the acquiescence to the invasion of our sovereignty in the Arctic Sea. Time and time again the Canadian people have asked what the Prime Minister was up to. Why he is selling
out Canadian interests? Why is he selling out Canadian sovereignty for no apparent price?
We were told that there is a special relationship between the Prime Minister and the President. They are good buddies. The prices we are paying in these other areas are the prices we are prepared to pay because President Reagan will never let down his good buddy, the Prime Minister. But what happened on Friday? The President made a decision which attacked the jobs of 4,000 British Columbians in the shake and shingle industry. The Prime Minister got stabbed in the back by his good buddy. My constituents in Burnaby are asking themselves if they really want this man and this Government to negotiate a free trade deal for Canadians when they have that kind of relationship of trust with the people with whom they are negotiating. The answer from the people I had the opportunity to discuss this with was a very clear no. They said there was no way they wanted to embark on those kinds of discussions. That is why we in this Party have said we do not believe these free trade negotiations should go ahead in the face of this deliberate attack directed personally by the President on the Canadian shake and shingle industry. We say that these negotiations should not go ahead when they can only get under way on such a shaky foundation.
I had thought that at least we had the agreement of the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition. I see the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, the Liberal spokesperson, is back in the House. There will be an opportunity in the time after my remarks for that Hon. Member to rise and say to the people of British Columbia: "Wait a minute. Perhaps I was a little hasty. Perhaps I was wrong. I take it back. We are not going to sell out your jobs". I admit that the Liberal Party, having considered the matter with care, does not now support the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount has had a chance to consult with his colleagues in British Columbia. I know they will have told him: "For God's sake, Don, set the record straight because if you do not, what is left of the Liberal Party in B.C. will be wiped out". Some of us would not shed great tears of sadness if that were to happen. But let us at least think of poor Art Lee who is struggling valiantly to build up the tiny and fragile Liberal Party in British Columbia. I plead with the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount to consider the position of Art Lee and what he must be thinking now when he has been stabbed in the back-not in the back-he was stabbed in the front by his own colleague in the House of Commons. That colleague is the spokesperson on external relations who says to the workers in the shake and shingle industry in the Province of British Columbia the following. "We will allow raw cedar logs to be shipped to your competitors in the United States. Yes, we will allow shake bolts to be sent south of the border to compete with what is left of the B.C. industry".
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), looks in shock and bewilderment as if to say: "Did
May 27, 1986

he really say that?" Mr. Speaker, of course he did. The record is quite clear in that regard. As I have said, I will yield the rest of my time to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount to allow him to stand up and salvage what is left of the credibility of the Liberal Party in British Columbia and say: "No. We, in fact, have had an opportunity to consult and to discuss the implications of this, and I take it all back. We will not allow cedar logs and shake bolts to be sent out of British Columbia".
I will now sit down. I will give the Hon. Member the opportunity to rise in his place and recant. I will give him the opportunity to stand up and say: "No. The Liberal Party of Canada does not support driving the final nail into the coffin of the shake and shingle industry in the Province of British Columbia".
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Donald James Johnston: I was very much amused by the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-

-who protests so much. I must say that I have watched the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for some years. I have found their interventions to be fascinating. In view of the interventions which my Leader and I have made with respect to the concern that this Party has expressed and the demands that it has made with respect to the implications of the tariff imposed on shakes and shingles, I really do not understand the Hon. Member for Burnaby, except, as we say in Quebec-

He is playing petty politics.

He is trying to distort and say that we do not want a shake and shingle industry. He is trying to say that we do not want to export raw materials, when the whole purpose of the motion is to remove that tariff. That is fine. The Hon. Member can play petty politics.
I gather from the Hon. Member's remarks that he thinks that there should be an embargo in Canada and in Quebec, for example, with respect to the exportation of Canadian logs and with respect to the importation of logs. Incidentally, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue before the House today.
Will the Hon. Member give the House a straight answer? Is he saying that there should be an embargo with regard to the importation and exportation of logs? That is a fair position, if it is one he wishes to take. I would like to hear his view.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thought that perhaps the Hon. Member, having had an opportunity to consult with his colleagues from British Columbia, might have
Supply
wanted to rise in his place and, in a very sober and sensible manner, say: "Yes. I have considered this question, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe that raw cedar logs and shake bolts should be allowed to be exported from British Columbia". He has had the opportunity to consider the matter. Frankly, I am amazed that, having been given the time to stand in his place to recant and to reconsider that, he has still not taken the opportunity to do that.
Rather than getting into the details of a very important and serious question, I will give up my time to allow the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, on a supplementary question, to stand up and indicate very clearly whether his answer to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Skeena is that he would in fact allow the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts from British Columbia. Is he speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada? Has he consulted with his colleagues from British Columbia?


Carlo Rossi: Why don't you answer the question?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I hardly need to consult with anyone when it comes to the issue at hand. The Hon. Member is on the run. Apparently, he is not prepared to stand in the House and say whether or not he is in favour of an embargo with respect to the exportation and importation of logs, period, be they oak, maple or cedar. Is he prepared to stand up and say that? That is the position which one would infer from his comments. He does not have to answer the question. It strikes me that he has put himself in a typical position.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just to deal quickly with the specific question concerning the export of raw logs, we in the New Democratic Party, and my colleagues from British Columbia in particular, have very clearly stated that we believe that the export of raw logs is the export of jobs from British Columbia. We are fundamentally opposed to the export of raw logs.
I now wish to return to the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount. I wish to ask this question very clearly: Does the Hon. Member stand by his position that the Liberal Party of Canada would in fact support the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts?


Carlo Rossi: You should ask that of the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Another Liberal Member says that that is right. So we now have two Liberal Members saying that they support the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts, and perhaps there are others who want to support that position.
Mr. Speaker, I want to-


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), on a point of order.

May 27, 1986
Supply


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is putting his own interpretation on what is said. When I said: "That is right", I meant that-


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


Carlo Rossi: The answer comes from the Hon. Member for Skeena. That is not your answer. You have not got enough guts to give your own answer.


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


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is called for. We are debating an important issue here. The question which was asked of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount (Mr. Johnston) was a legitimate one. It relates to something about which I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). As far as I see it, as the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody, the issue here is jobs. That is the question. When the question was put to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, it reflected directly on jobs. Does the Hon. Member for Burnbay concur with that?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody is quite right. Effectively, what we are talking about in terms of the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts is a question of the direct export of jobs from the Province of British Columbia, particularly from the riding of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody. These are jobs which in many cases are the jobs of my own constituents and constituents from other parts of the Lower Mainland. That is the issue. That is why I am so disappointed that the representative of the Liberal Party would stand in his place and seriously suggest on behalf of his Party that it supports the export of raw cedar logs and shake bolts from British Columbia. As the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody has indicated, the Liberal Party is saying that it supports the export of jobs from Canada to the United States.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have rarely seen in this House a Member of Parliament dig himself such a deep and immediate hole as that dug by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston). I am sorry that he has chosen to absent himself from the House now. Rather than become lengthy on this matter I would like to quote from page 13620 of yesterday's Hansard. At that time, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) said the following:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the U.S. protectionist tariff action against Canada's cedar shake and shingle industry, will the Minister take action to prevent raw materials such as cedar blocks and logs from British Columbia being imported into the United States, effectively transferring the Canadian shake and shingle production and Canadian jobs across the border and, if so, what action will he take?
The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) responded by saying in part the following:
I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Government will not permit the Canadian shake and shingle industry to be exported across the border.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for entrapping so well the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri- Westmount. The Hon. Member should never have risen to his feet to speak in the first place because he does not have a grasp of the subject. That is the bottom line. He does not know what a bolt means, except perhaps to bolt from the Chamber when the Hon. Member for Kootenay West rises to speak and to explain the problem to him. He was shaking in his shoes, and I do not know if he was also scratching because he has shingles. That is the sum total of his knowledge of the subject.
To what has the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-West-mount agreed? He has agreed willingly and forthrightly to export the shake and shingle industry in total, jobs, equipment, machinery and the works, to the United States. That is what he has proposed, and he has agreed today that that is the policy of his Party. I can see CTV having a lot of fun with this one tonight.
This is a very important motion in that it deals with perhaps the most important economic initiative ever undertaken by this or any other Government in many years. I speak of the motion itself and its intent. It is unfortunate that members of the Opposition should seek to take political advantage of the hardship of thousands of Canadians, the bulk of them located in British Columbia. They have presented a motion which capitalizes upon the anger of every Member of the House to present a suggestion which can only be called irresponsible.
This motion holds the bilateral negotiation hostage to a reversal of the shingles decision. In doing so, the Opposition ignores the fact that this action is a symptom of a disease that is rampant in the United States today, and that is protectionism, and that the cure for protectionism lies in a new trading agreement. The opposition motion suggests that the symptom hurts so we should refuse to try the cure.
This trade action is exactly the sort of problem that has plagued Canadian industries for many years. Whether it was Canadian lumber, steel, potatoes, berry products or fish industries, there has been a steady parade of industry spokesmen going to Washington to plead their case, the Canadian case. It has been one of the greatest job-creation programs in recent history.
Many Washington lobbyists and lawyers have kept the wolf from the door on the basis of income they have secured from Canadian clients, and one of their best clients has been the Government of Canada. I wonder how many Washington lawyers are putting their children through school so that they too can become lawyers and live off the fat of the Canadian land.
May 27, 1986

Today we stand ready to negotiate our new system, a system in which this sort of trade harassment would not be a normal part of business. However, the Opposition says that the recent action on shingles is a signal that Americans can never be trusted so we should not try to do business with them. As angry as we are over this decision, that is clearly an unacceptable suggestion.
There should be no mistake about our concern for this industry. The manufacturing of shingles and shakes is an industry that we are proud to dominate. It is a value added offshoot of our massive forest products sector. Thanks to our efficiency and marketing skills, we have gradually increased our market share, winning a free market battle on the basis of superior natural resources and efficient production, coupled with a 100-year supply of old growth cedar, that is, cedar that is 300 to 600 years of age. That can be compared with a 20-year supply of old growth cedar in the United States.
Where is that old growth cedar in the United States? It can be found on lands owned by Weyerhauser, Louisiana Pacific, Pope and Talbot and a host of other American forest giants. They are not cutting cedar since cedar makes up only 6 per cent of their total reserves. Unless they have a stand of cedar that comprises 75 per cent or 80 per cent of their total reserves, they are not going to cut it.
The bottom line is that there is an acute shortage of cedar in the United States. Not only is it difficult to come by and isolate from shake and shingle mills, it is also very costly because in 1979 and 1980, the American forestry sector began paying a premium for its timber. Companies outbid one another and they had a field day. As a result, they pay too much for the product and they are not going to sell it cheap.
Today some 4,000 Canadians make their living in this industry, producing $250 million worth of product and serving as the only major industry in towns like Nakusp, which is in my constituency, and Mission, which is in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.
Nakusp is a small town which had a population of around 1,400 in 1981, according to Stats Canada. I am not really certain what the population is now because of the actions taken by Westar to withdraw manpower requirements. It has pulled out of Nakusp and left that community in very difficult economic circumstances.
What is the sole or principal support of those who live in the community of Nakusp? It is the Columbia River Shake and Shingle Company, which employs about 120 people in its mill and 75 people securing wood to supply the mill. The action that is now being taken is deadly for that small community.
I know Dick Jones, owner and manager of Columbia River Shake and Shingle Company, and I know him well. I know the kind of man he is. I know that if one were to put him in a lineup with his crew, one would not be able to pick him out because he wears his working boots all the time. He is a hands-on operator. He knows what is going on in his mill. That is the kind of fellow he is, and he works long hours. He deserves the
Supply
benefits that may accrue to him from the results of his endeavours.
Dick Jones is not a quitter. When I spoke to him a few days ago, he said: "My father told me during the Depression that there were always a few mills in operation, and if we are now into a depression, this mill is going to continue to operate". I believe that Dick Jones will do everything he possibly can to make that happen because he believes not only in what he is doing but in his community and the people who work for him.
The shake and shingle industry produces building material which is durable and beautiful. Many home builders in the United States and Canada have benefited from the availability of this pleasing and economic product. We were shocked that this action was selected from the many options available to the President of the United States. We are furious because the main result will not be recovery for the United States sector, which suffers from a shortage of raw material and a lack of investment, but a shift from wood materials to aluminum siding. Roofing material will be asphalt, tile, clay tile, or derivatives of plastic made to appear like shake and shingle products. That 10 per cent of the market which is now occupied by the shake and shingle industry in the United States will diminish to zero.
This latest action is only the most recent in a long series of measures which the shingle industry has fought, measures such as building codes and fire codes designed to discourage home builders from using wood products. Non-tariff barriers are always present in international trade and probably will always be, but the action announced on Thursday was different. It was an action taken at the President's discretion, selected from a series of options which included measures to support the U.S. industry without harming Canadians. If we examine the measures taken to support the U.S. industry without harming Canadians, we see the options they requested from the industry. They canvassed about 35 shake and shingle operators, the majority of whom did not bother to reply, on what options, upgrading, modernization, and benefits would accrue if the British Columbia shake and shingle industry were stopped in its tracks. Out of the twelve or so who had some kind of response, five did not really know what they could do and the other seven thought that perhaps they could do something. The industry in the United States was on its back, and there is nothing in the form of resuscitation which Canada or the United States could do to revive it, short of shipping the logs and bolts that have been the subject of discussion in the last 30 minutes. Clearly that is not an option we are about to exercise.
The fact that the President is under incredible pressure from protectionists in Washington may provide an explanation, but it is cold comfort for Canadian workers whose jobs may be lost. The hardships of the U.S. shingle industry reflect badly on the U.S. stumpage system. That system does not control speculation in timber prices. Some companies are now holding

May 27, 1986
Supply
supplies of red cedar which are desperately needed by U.S. producers, refusing to sell at a price that would keep U.S. shingles competitive. I have already explained to the House the reason for it. It is that they paid too much for the timber which they secured some years ago in the first instance. As everyone in the House will know, U.S. lumber producers have spent millions of dollars arguing that our stumpage is too low. It is ironic that their own system has failed to provide timber cheaply enough for shingles to compete with aluminum siding.
Is the opposition motion that we call off the trade talks the right answer? Is the NDP suggestion that we get out of any trade talks the right answer? I do not accept either suggestion; I do not accept either recommendation. Neither Canada nor the United States has ever promised to suspend all trade actions for the duration of these talks, and that is a promise I would not like to secure. The NDP talks about calling the United States and asking the President to suspend duties. However, are they also willing to tell Canadians that we will not move on dumping, which we have seen in the Fraser Valley and in the Okanagan, or on unfair subsidies, which we have also seen, particularly in the British Columbia agricultural community in terms of the Okanagan apples? Or, will they recognize that trade is a two-way street?
In the negotiations currently under way, an agreement to solve trade disputes is less damaging than any other option. The House should remember what these bilateral trade talks are about.
What are they about? First, they are about security. In the last two decades we have seen the world trading system fractured into trading blocs-the European Common Market, the South American, the Soviet, the Iron Curtain, the Australian, and the New Zealand. Canada is the only industrial country, except for the United States, which stands alone and competes alone. It is time to develop the strength, the vitality, the imagination, the technology, and the ability to work together.
When we say "compete", what do we really mean? We mean sell.


Mr. Keeper:: Sell out.


Robert Hylton Brisco: A member of the NDP whom I cannot identify said; "Sell out". That is very characteristic of the NDP philosophy, one that has failed to sell in Canada to this day.
Canada is a producer, and the world is our customer. Unfortunately, world over-production of commodities has produced a buyer's market. Prices are down and production is up. We cannot ask Canada to be the only industrial nation without security in these dangerous times.
When I talk about production being up, one sector which immediately comes to mind is the forest sector itself. From looking at the figures and at the statistics, we know that a traditional section of the U.S. market which we occupied at about 23 per cent or 24 per cent-and I am now referring to the softwood industry-now stands at around 34 per cent or 35
per cent. It is alarming but it is not surprising. It reflects the ability of British Columbia and the ability of Canadians generally to respond to a specific circumstance-the decadence of their own equipment and the economic and industrial response to gear up, to do better, and to compete. We have competed very successfully.
The second thing which the negotiations are all about is change. Every Canadian knows that technology and changing demand are causing and have caused radical changes over the last 15 years. They will continue to reflect and cause change. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians will find their current jobs changing; they may even disappear like the gandy dancer. No one can stop those changes, but we can manage the note and degree of change by protecting Canadians from the worst impacts; by establishing transition periods for industries, so that instead of workers being surprised one morning by lay-off notices, they will have adequate warning of major changes in the industry; and by providing programs to help them shift into a more secure line of endeavour.
Finally, trade negotiations are about opportunity. We believe Canadians can compete with anyone in the world. We have the educated workforce, the technology capacity, the social and commercial infrastructure to make our way. Canadians are remarkable people. Only the NDP would call us ordinary. Our success in so many industries proves just how competitive and combative we are and reflects the force and drive in the soul and body of Canadians.
The Americans are our neighbours and business partners, but we have our differences. The shingle case reminds us that it is not a game between friends; it is a matter of tough negotiations. Over the next two years we will face many disruptions and disputes in our trade with the United States. Any trade relationship which involves $150 billion per year is bound to have disruptions and not be an easy ride.
I note that my time is up. I regret that, because there is much I would like to say about what has been contributed to the debate today. In conclusion, I should like to comment upon what was contributed by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), because I looked for a gem of wisdom, a suggestion of validity, or a worth-while proposal which we could consider. Neither he nor the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) offered a single suggestion of positive assistance. I think that reflects the very tone and nature of their contribution today. I consider it very unfortunate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I know the Member to be an honest Member. He has been a friend of mine for some years now. I fail, however, to grasp the meaning of his last sentence. He said that not one positive suggestion had been made in this debate today. I would argue with that. Suggestions were made. One of the most important was during Question Period and this morning when the Leader of the Liberal Party suggested that the first
May 27, 1986

thing was for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to call his friend, the President of the United States, to ask him to cease and desist from imposing of a 35 per cent tariff on shingles and shakes. Does the Hon. Member not think that that would be the first thing for a leader of this country to do? The P.M. claims to be very friendly with the President of the United States. Does the Member not think that the P.M. would do what he said in a speech, that when negotiations get tough, you call, you negotiate, you deal

you at least communicate with the person? I know a letter was written last week. I know the House passed a motion unanimously condemning the 35 per cent countervailing duty. Does the Hon. Member not think that the Prime Minister should be working in the interests of all Canadians, especially British Columbians and those working in the industry, by picking up the phone, calling the President and saying: "Ron, desist or quit harassing Canadians with unwarranted taxes?"


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I take my colleague's point. He is a colleague because we are both in the House professionally. I have known him almost as long as he has known me!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: To respond to the Hon. Member's point, if he reflects on the actions of his Prime Minister and the actions of any Prime Minister historically, he will find that there is a great deal not said in the House of Commons that has been done. I do not have any hesitation in my own mind, on the basis of what I do know and on the basis of what I think I know, that the dialogue between the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has been on ongoing process. There was an element of confidence that the problem would be resolved without this kind of negative impact so that we would not today be debating the issue we are.
When the Prime Minister said he was shocked and amazed, so were we all. I think that amazement, shock and disappointment was based on the knowledge of the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Government. They had already put forth a major effort on this issue as they are doing on the softwood issue. They will continue to do so even during this debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member about the common thread in a lot of his speeches which can only be described as slash and hack, trying to blame everything in British Columbia on the NDP, even after his friends, the Social Credit Government has been in office continuously for the last 10 years. The Member's Party has the largest parliamentary majority in this part of the century. He claims to be somehow crippled by an inability to deal with what has just happened to the shake and shingle industry.
Since September, 1984 unemployment has gone up continuously in British Columbia as a result of the Member and his Government's policies. They did nothing about potato dumping. Of the 150 petitions filed by the U.S. against various
Supply
Canadian commodities, he and his Government have never ever responded. The count is zero for the number of times he and his Government have taken responsive actions to these actions from the United States. We will see the shake and shingle industry basically wiped out unless the Prime Minister calls the President. We see the crazy, insane policies of his cabinet colleague from British Columbia in relation to fisheries in B.C. and the crazy policies of his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on night flight MEDIVACS.
It now appears clear that the Prime Minister will not phone the President because this issue is not high enough on his agenda to require a phone call, but these shake and shingle workers will be left hanging out to dry. Only the President can veto the tariff matter, even though today it has not been signed into law. Does the Member think it is satisfactory that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) sometime in the next couple of weeks will announce a couple of Canada Works projects for those shake and shingle workers who have been laid off so they can pick up paper in the streets in Mission-Port Moody? Is that good enough, Mr. Speaker? Or does the Hon. Member support retaliation, the retaliatory measures that will be announced in the next few days by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Is that the route to go?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has been smoking-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that is unparliamentary. I suggest the Hon. Member might want to withdraw his comment. He is imputing motives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not know whether I want to rule on this, knowing how these things evolve, but perhaps the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) might want to reconsider his comment.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, certainly if it will make the Hon. Member more comfortable, I am quite prepared to exchange the word "smoking" for "chewing". Tobacco does have a strange effect on the stomach and perhaps subsequently it affects the brain. But for the Hon. Member for Skeena to suggest that some retaliatory action will be taken is to suggest that he sits in the inner sanctum of the Cabinet. For that he will have a very long wait. Is he prepared to cross the floor now? I respect the Member and I would be delighted to have him as a colleague on this side of the House, but beyond that the Member knows his Party is tied to the coattails of the Liberals. He knows what kind of a thrashing was taken. If I make reference to the policies of the national New Democratic Party, surely he understands why. I can stand up for my riding and I can represent the concerns of my constituency, and I think that I do that reasonably well.


Cyril Keeper: Tell Ronald Reagan to get off their backs and withdraw.

May 27, 1986
Adjournment Debate


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


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, could you do something about the noise coming from some weird source on the other side?


Cyril Keeper: Just standing up next to you.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I think if the Hon. Member reflects, he will see that there is certainly no way that the Government is about to introduce some policy to put the shake and shingle workers on the streets to pick up paper. The Hon. Member should know better than that. We will fight this right down to the wire, and the Member should know that too. We do not give in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on April 23 I asked the Minister responsible for tourism a question about the Epcot Centre in Disney World. I received a number of complaints from friends who had visited the Epcot Centre who felt the Canadian pavilion there did not accurately reflect the opportunties available in Canada for potential visitors.
There was some hilarity about the question and a few media comments. I wanted the opportunity today to discuss this in much greater depth because to me it is an important issue.
Let me explain why. First, let us look at tourism as an important part of the Canadian economy. Tourism generates $20 billion a year in the Canadian economy. Much of that goes to the small business sector. U.S. tourism generates about $3 billion a year. In fact, it is expected that Expo 86 in Vancouver will attract $1 billion of U.S. money into the B.C. economy. We are talking about big business and big dollars when we talk about tourism from the U.S. to Canada.
For example, in 1984 there were 8.1 million visits to Canada from the United States. Each visitor spent about $225, which boosted the economy by over $3 billion. That created jobs for approximately 600,000 Canadians. Increasing the number of visitors and dollars spent by 10 or 20 per cent would have a remarkable impact on job creation. That is what the Government is all about and that is what we want to generate for Canadians.
There are over 20 million visits to the Epcot Centre each year. About 350,000 of the visitors are Canadians and the rest are from the United States and other parts of the world. People who have visited there have already indicated an interest in travel. If they could be enticed to consider Canada as a destination, we could very significantly increase the number of visitors and dollars coming into the country. Bearing in mind that we have a $1.1 billion deficit in our tourist account in Canada, we need to do something to redress that imbalance.
What can we do to increase that potential? We could upgrade the facilities of the Epcot Centre to make it more attractive and contemporary in illustrating what is offered to visitors to Canada. What do we know about what visitors want when they come to Canada? What is their present perception of Canada? We know that those who travel the most are adults aged 25 to 44. They are married and the majority are at the professional management level and are well educated. They are from two-income households with an average income of $40,000. They are people who have some money to spend on travelling. In past years a lot of people travelled to Europe, but given some of the problems with international terrorism, people are considering other destinations. We are aware that there are many travel opportunities within America, and I think we could tap that maket and attract those people to Canada.
Through studies made by the Ministry of Tourism, we have learned that Canada is not very well known. Americans just do not know that much about Canada as a potential tourist destination. They think that we are not very exciting. A study done a year ago concluded that Americans found us boring. I find that rather annoying, but that is a reality of perception. They do not think we are a nation of swingers. Perhaps we are not, but I think we have a lot of exciting things to do. They think we have a poor climate. There is not much we can do about that, but they are not aware of the beautiful climate which is available in many parts of the country. They are looking for something safe, which they think Canada has. They are aware of our beauty and that Canada is relatively inexpensive and uncrowded. As well, we are different. Those are all positive attributes which we can emphasize.
Through the Epcot Centre and television advertisements in the United States, we should emphasize those positive things. We should increase awareness of Canada as a travel destination, a place with some foreign mystique, but with all the amenities of home. It is a beautiful country with walkable cities. "Canada, the world next door" has been the theme of our advertising program this year in the U.S. I think that is a very appropriate theme.
I know my time is limited, but I want to say that if we put the energy and imagination into developing the Canadian pavilion at the Epcot Centre to in any way rival what we have at Expo 86 in Vancouver, which is magnificent, we will

May 27, 1986

certainly be a long way ahead. Americans will then see us not as a country of mountains and Mounties, but as a country which is friendly and fun, courteous and classy. Our theme can be "Canada, a great place to go; Canadians, great to be with".


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her interest in tourism in Canada. With her, I realize, and this Government realizes, the extent of the industry's contribution to this country. I think that considering her very perceptive speech, the Hon. Member would make an excellent spokesperson at the Epcot Center, if the Canadian Government ever decided to send her there as our representative.
We realize and we have been made aware of this by the many letters sent to a number of government Members that the Epcot Center does not give a true picture of Canada. As my hon. friend explained, and the point was well taken, the 14 million or so Americans who visit the Center every year would certainly have a better idea of our country and a greater interest in going there if we showed them the tremendous opportunities this country holds in store.
In this connection, the Government had prepared a study of the American market for holiday travel, and one of the points the study raised was that Americans really do not know our country. We therefore have every reason to make the splendours of our country known through this Center.
I was able to give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Canadian Government, and more specifically the Department of Tourism, has met with the authorities of the Epcot Center, and they are trying to make the Center realize it must change the way our country is advertised.
I think the Hon. Member will be pleased with the action we are taking at this time, and I am sure, as she is, that in the near future Americans will visit our country in greater numbers, including of course Expo 86, as she mentioned in her speech.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-FORGET COMMISSION-REQUEST FOR INTERIM REPORT ON PENSION INCOME
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 1986, I again raised with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) in the House of Commons the question of the changes made to the unemployment insurance program affecting pensioners across Canada. The Minister indicated that in June of 1986, she would be receiving from the Commission of Inquiry into Unemployment, the Forget Commission, an interim report, which she believed would deal with the matter of pension income in relation to unemployment insurance.
It is very timely at this moment in the House of Commons that we again address this controversial subject, which has brought grief to many unemployed pensioners across the
Adjournment Debate
country, particularly pensioners of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been forced to seek other employment after retiring from the Forces in order to maintain themselves and their families.
Let me begin at the beginning by mentioning that on November 21, 1984, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated in his financial statement, delivered in the House of Commons, that he intended to make some changes to the unemployment insurance program.
There was very little detail included in his speech to the House of Commons, but one of the papers that was introduced at the time of his speech indicated that some administrative changes to the UI program would be made immediately in order to improve the quality of the program, and reduce program costs. The changes involve the inclusion of pension income, separation allowances and vacation pay and establishing benefit levels. That was a simple enough statement on the part of the Minister of Finance, but Members of Parliament generally on all sides of the House really did not know the impact of this particular measure on pensioners, particularly those in the Canadian Forces. Let me explain why.
The concern of persons who were retiring in 1985 was related to the fact that they anticipated an eligibility for unemployment insurance. That was part of their motivation in retiring in 1985 and part of their financial plan in relation to their retirement. There was an immediate result of an unfairness to those persons who were contemplating retirement, not knowing that this change in the eligibility was to be made. The Government made quite a wise decision at the time to delay for one year implementation of any changes in eligibility in relation to employment income. That stalled the whole matter.
Unfortunately, it meant that there was very little publicity about the exact ramifications of this change. As January 1, 1986 approached, many of us did not know the exact details in terms of the effect of this change on individuals who were receiving retirement income. I say that because if one scours the official report of the House of Commons, Hansard, and if one searches the media reports, one will find very few utterances by members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties objecting in specific terms to this change in the unemployment insurance eligibility.
It came as a shock to some people to realize that when the change was actually implemented in January, 1986, after a year's warning, that the results as they applied to particular individuals were very harmful and quite unfair.
It was in the context of that difficult situation that the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated her intention to refer the whole matter to the Forget Commission for total examination and a report back to her. I suggest that was a wise and understandable decision under the circumstances.

May 27, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Let us examine the unemployment insurance program very briefly. Many people are fooled by the name and believe that, like an insurance, it is an absolute right to receive a certain benefit. Let me draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that the unemployment insurance program is far from being self-sufficient. In 1985, the total cost approached $11.6 billion, $5 billion of which was contributed by employers, $3.6 billion by employees and $3 billion by the Government of Canada. Quite apart from that, over the years the unemployment insurance account accumulated a deficit of $4.4 billion. It cannot be said by anyone who has participated in this program that it is self-sufficient and they have a right to it on the basis of the so-called premiums they have contributed.
One of the great lies of governments in the past was to pretend that programs like unemployment insurance had some kind of self-sufficiency. Unemployment insurance is really another form of tax to supply a specific benefit. It is not unlike a gasoline tax which is used to pay for highways, or a hospital tax to pay for medicare, as we have in the Province of Nova Scotia. Nevertheless, people are lead to believe that when they pay their premiums they are entitled to a specific result and that those rights are embedded in stone. That is not the case at all. The Government must look after the finances of the unemployment insurance program just as it must look after the finances of the country in the interest of all Canadians.
There is a special interest in unemployment insurance in Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has pointed out that it impacts greater in the labour force in Atlantic Canada than it does in the national labour force. Not everyone is in favour of a broad-based unemployment insurance program. For instance, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has pointed out that its priority is tightening the eligibility for unemployment insurance. It believes it has a bad effect on some commercial and industrial activities.
I want to direct the last moment of my presentation to the Canadian Forces and those Canadians in all walks of life who are forced to retire from the activities related to their careers. The Canadians Forces require some members to retire at the age of 45, and earlier in some instances. As a result of economic recession, many commercial employers have asked employees to retire early and, in many cases, forced them to retire early. These Canadian Forces personnel and other employees are forced to seek other employment to maintain themselves and their families.
I want to direct the attention of the House to this particular group. When people in that group seek employment, and are terminated from that employment after a certain period of time, in many cases they are quite dependent on the benefits that flow from the unemployment insurance program. These are the people who have been adversely and, I believe, unfairly affected by this change. For example, if a person with a Canadian Forces pension of $600 and $1,000 a month employment income loses his or her job, the end result is that
the benefit from unemployment insurance, which would normally be $600, would be reduced to something like $150 per month and the person would be left with $750 per month in order to sustain himself.
There is a solution, and I hope the Forget Commission will reach it very quickly. It is already in the law. At present a person who receives over $36,000 a year by 1986 standards and also receives unemployment insurance is required to repay the unemployment insurance, not the whole part but a percentage. I do not know why that same rule would not apply in relation to pension income.
If the combination of pension income and employment income exceeds a certain amount, such as the figure this year for employment income and unemployment insurance, which is approximately $36,000, then I believe the excess amount should be returned to the Government. Otherwise, I believe pension beneficiaries should receive their unemployment insurance benefits free from encumbrances unless and until they have exceeded that amount.


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his constant concern with respect to this matter. Certainly we have been aware of the concerns and needs of his constituents. I have had the pleasure of working with him since the beginning of the year. We have also had the privilege of numerous consultations with the Minister with respect to this situation. She has always listened, but has continued to maintain that rather than try for a piecemeal solution when we are so close to receiving the results of the Forget Commission, that is what we should wait for and that is what we are expecting and hoping for.
The Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance has just about concluded the most demanding schedule of public hearings and consultations which could ever be imagined. It visited 46 different communities across Canada. The commissioners have heard over 475 briefs and have participated in a total of 62 days of hearings, field trips and consultations. In addition, the commissioners have received more than 200 written submissions and individuals continue to send their views on specific issues. As indicated by the Minister in the House, the Forget Commission will be reporting to her in a preliminary way at the end of June and the full report will be presented before the end of September.
The change to pension regulations was announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984, as part of the expenditure reduction program. We all know what was happening with respect to the deficit before a new group of Canadians were elected on September 4, 1984. This group was committed to once and for all put our house in order. Those astounding deficits which continued to rise are now not only under control, but the $33.8 billion which was originally forecast by the Minister of Finance might even be a few billion dollars less when we come to the end of the last fiscal year.
May 27, 1986

That is the kind of pride we have in the Government for which we have been working.
The Cabinet, 1 might say, delayed the implementation of the change to pension regulations until January of 1986. The subject, of course, has been referred to the Forget Commission. The Government will carefully examine all recommendations of the final report when it becomes available, including any recommendation dealing with the issue of changes to pension regulations.


HATE LITERATURE-POSTED IN MOSCOW FOR DELIVERY IN CANADA
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have received many complaints from Ukrainian Canadians who are the recipients of unwanted literature they deem hateful since I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) over six months ago. It is ironic that this subject is being discussed today when representatives of the Ukrainian-Canadian Students Union are visiting Parliament.
The key to the problem is misinformation, particularly misinformation from the Soviets. Chernobyl is one great example of this misinformation. After the incident at Chernobyl, days went by before anyone would acknowledge that there was a problem. That went on until other countries informed the rest of us that there was a problem, something to which the Soviets finally admitted.
I think this subject takes any mystery out of the 1932-33 famine which was certainly a reality in Ukraine. This type of misinformation leads people to become hateful of the literature and materials which are sent unwanted to them. It seems to me that we must have rules and regulations to protect the human rights of Canadians. They are rights which must be cherished and looked after.
When one examines the system which is in place, one has to look at the customs officers, the frontline troops so to speak, who see the materials which come into our country. It is apparent that these people are key decision-makers in determining whether or not these materials should be reviewed by our justice system to see if in fact they do offend the rights of Canadians. It is up to these officials to decide whether or not to detain the materials or pass them through to Canada Post, which will distribute them to Canadians.
I have discussed this situation with officials at Canada Post. They tell me that they are very concerned about it. They have pointed out that they have no alternative but to deliver the mail. It is their mandate to deliver mail if it is appropriately addressed and if it carries sufficient postage. That is their job. They are certainly very sympathetic to anything which would violate the human rights of Canadians.
Thus the onus in on the Minister of National Revenue, through the Department of Customs and Excise, to get these
Adjournment Debate
rules and regulations in order. I suggest that some new guidelines are in order. The frontline troops are in need of some operating procedures which they can use to examine the materials which flood into our country. They need guidelines to allow them to make decisions so that Canadians will not be bombarded with this unwanted material.
These guidelines will have to be based on jurisprudence which is available in Canada. However, I must say that in doing a review of it, I find that we are somewhat lacking in jurisprudence in the field of hate literature. I hope more cases will be examined by our judicial system in order that more decisions can be made. Therefore, more jurisprudence will be made available so that new guidelines can be put together. In this way our customs officials can have them at the ready at the border crossings to intercept this foreign literature. This is literature which in some cases is very much hate literature to the recipients here in Canada.
I am sure Ukrainian Canadians would like me to say that the matter about which we are speaking today goes beyond just Ukrainian Canadians. I hope the Minister will take this into account because hate literature has become a major problem in Canada. I hope he will implement some new guidelines and regulations so that Canadians will have maintained the human rights which we fought so hard to obtain.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the Hon. Member's concern regarding hate propaganda directed to Ukrainian and other people in Canada. The subject he raises tonight flows from certain literature that was posted in Moscow for delivery in Canada. I can advise the Hon. Member that the Department of National Revenue shares his concern with the importance of prohibiting material which incites hatred toward any group which can be identified by race, creed or colour.
The Department of National Revenue is responsible for administering Tariff Item 99201-1 of Schedule "C" of the Customs Tariff which prohibits the importation into Canada of certain materials. Material suspected of being treasonable, seditious, obscene or hate propaganda is inspected thoroughly by customs officers and, if judged to come within the terms of Tariff Item 99201-1, is prohibited from entering Canada.
The material in question has been thoroughly reviewed by customs officials. Consideration was given to the dominant feature or over-all tone of the material. The material does not constitute hate propaganda within the meaning of Section 281.3(8) of the Criminal Code in that the material does not reveal hatred against Ukrainians or any specific ethnic group in Canada or any other country.
The issue in question is a publication of a Soviet society known as the Rodina (Homeland) Society, responsible for cultural relations with compatriots residing abroad.

May 27, 1986
Adjournment Debate

I think it is essential to make a distinction between hate literature and bona fide historical research and social or political analysis and commentary. The Department of National Revenue is committed to guaranteeing the right and freedom of Canadian men and women to express their points of view, opinions and beliefs and to read this kind of material. However, the Department is also committed to enforcing the legislation passed by Parliament to deal with hate literature.
Mr. Speaker, our conclusion must be that the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, will pursue its primary role which consists in actively combatting the importation of hate literature, a kind of literature that has no place in Canadian society.

In conclusion, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the Minister will take his comments as representations in the continuing concern of the Department to rule out such literature in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 28, 1986