1986-03-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of recent Order in Council appointments. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 103(1), these are again referred to the appropriate Standing Committees, a list of which is attached.


TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy held on Wednesday, March 5, 1986, concerning revisions of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons for the fiscal year 1986-87.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: May 1 remind all Hon. Members that all petitions must be certified prior to presentation.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament who is dedicated to protecting the lives of unborn Canadians it is both my privilege and honour today to present a petition signed by 349 individuals from Kitchener. These petitioners are deeply concerned and protest the continued operation of the Morgentaler Clinic in blatant disregard and defiance of Section 251 of the Criminal Code. My constituents request the Government of Canada to require the Government of Ontario to remove any and all restrictions which have been placed upon the police force of Metropolitan
Toronto in laying the appropriate charges against the operators of this clinic.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition, certified as required under the new rules, and signed by myself. It is from a group of Canadians who support Katimavik. They urge that the Government reinstate the program in sympathy with Senator Hebert.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present a petition that has been certified as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions and is signed by a large number of constituents from the riding of Gatineau who are asking for re-instatement of Katimavik, for the sake of the youth of this country.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition certified as acceptable by the Clerk of Petitions. The petition states, that in the opinion of the number of people who have signed this petition, the federal Government's decision to cancel the youth program Katimavik is a short-sighted budgetary measure taken at the expense of Canadian youth. The petitioners pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate, with full funding, the Katimavik program for the young people of Canada.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar petition signed by me and duly certified as being in order. It calls upon the Government to change its view with respect to Katimavik. It points out that the cancellation of the program, as I might say Senator Hebert is so eloquently pointing out-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When your leader Pierre Trudeau comes to town you guys stand up, don't you?


Donald James Johnston: -himself, through his personal sacrifice, is a short-sighted budgetary measure at the expense of Canadian youth.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present a petition that has been certified as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions, in which petitioners ask the Government to reconsider its decision to drop Katimavik. This petition supports Senator Hebert in his effort to make the Government see reason.

March 18, 1986
Petitions

Mr. Speaker, I also have a second petition which is duly in order as attested to by the Clerk of Petitions. It asks that the Government reinstate the Katimavik program in support of Senator Hebert's public protest against its abolition.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition that has been certified as to form and content. The petition also concerns Katimavik and states that the program was a success in training 20,000 young people who took part in the program in the last decade.
Petitioners are asking the Government to reconsider its decision to terminate Katimavik.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House of Commons in accordance with the new rules. It is signed by 29 people. The petitioners express regret with respect to the short-sighted budgetary measure which is being taken at the expense of Canadian youth through the cancellation of the Katimavik program. It calls upon the House of Commons to reinstate the funding of Katimavik in support of a program for the young people of Canada and in support of the demonstration which Senator Hebert is carrying out ir the other place in support of youth.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. It has attached to it the certificate of examination. The petition has been signed by 50 young people who describe themselves as the "Friends of Katimavik". They are all from the Kitchener-Waterloo area, an area where there are many students. They are protesting the Government's cancellation of the Katimavik program.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition which has been duly signed and certified in which constituents from the ridings of Gatineau, Chicoutimi, and certainly a number of areas across the country, call upon the Government to reinstate the program Katimavik, not "PC-mavik", which the Government seems to be intending.
[DOT] (U 10)

-which was a success, because it was an education for 20,000 young people who took part in the program during the last decade and because of the important community projects that were carried out by these young volunteers in Canadian municipalities during that period.

I have a second petition also calling upon the Government to reinstate the Katimavik Program rather than PC substitutes, because all Canadians will be the lesser for the loss of a program that gave young men and women a chance to fulfil their potential and show leadership while helping others. I
think this petition certainly moves in concert with the battle which is now being fought by Senator Jacques Hebert.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Jean-Robert Gauthier: for leave to introduce Bill C-286, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (Parliamentary institutions).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, to remove all doubts and restore a measure of justice, I would like to introduce a Bill that is aimed at making the Official Languages Act apply specifically to Parliamentary Institutions, which according to an age-old rule as interpreted by certain people, are not bound by general legislation unless provision is specifically made otherwise.
According to this provision, the Act would apply specifically to the Library of Parliament and the permanent offices of the Senate and the House of Commons, while the private offices of Members and Senators would obviously be exempt.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 381 will be answered today.
March 18, 1986


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, has the Department of Secretary of State purchased 27,500 sets of Canadian encyclopedias and, if so (a) at what cost to the taxpayer (b) for what reasons (c) to whom were they distributed (d) what was the name and position of the highest authority who approved the purchase?
2.	(a) Was the contract let by public or invited tender (b) what were the names of the firms who submitted bids and, in each case, what was the amount of the bid (r) what was the name and address of each successful bidder?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Supply and Services as follows:
1. In July, 1983, Treasury Board gave authority to enter into a contract with Hurtig Publishers Ltd. and subsequently a contract was awarded by the Department of the Secretary of State in March, 1984 to Hurtig Publishers Ltd. The Contract called for the supply in September, 1985 of 20,000 sets of The Canadian Encyclopedia (English version) to the Department of the Secretary of State. However, the Secretary of State has subsequently approved Mr. Hurtig's request to buy back at the original purchase price, 9,500 of the 20,000 sets purchased by the Department of the Secretary of State. A second contract was awarded to Les editions internationales Alain Stanke Ltee. for the supply in 1986-87 of 7,500 sets of L'Encyclopedie du Canada (French version) to the Department of the Secretary of State. Payment for the encyclopedia is to be made upon delivery.
(a)	The English version costs $62.50 per set and the French version $125. The total anticipated cost of the purchase and delivery of the 18,000 sets of The Canadian Encyclopedia is $1.7 million.
(b)	The Deparment of the Secretary of State is committed to promoting a sense of belonging among Canadians of all cultures. The encyclopedia will make available a record of our achievements, environment and people in a comprehensive Canadian reference book. It will serve to increase knowledge about ourselves.
(c)	Hurtig Publishers Ltd. requested that the encyclopedia not be distributed until the official release date of The Canadian Encyclopedia by Hurtig Publishers Ltd. on September 6, 1985. The encyclopedia will be donated by the Secretary of State as a comprehensive Canadian reference book to departments and agencies of Government, to university and college libraries, to Canadian studies organizations and to Members of Parliament and Senators. A number of copies will also be made available to the Government of Canada Gift Bank as gifts for dignitaries. It will further be distributed to youth organizations by the International Youth Year Secretariat, to foreign universities, libraries, consulates and embassies by the Department of External Affairs. The distribution plan is currently being finalized by officials of the Department of the Secretary of State.
(d)	Treasury Board approved this purchase on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis
2. (a) No, the encyclopedia, which is Canadian in content, was developed, printed, and published by Hurtig Publishers Ltd., who possess sole proprietary rights; Stanke was authorized by Hurtig to publish the first edition of the French version, as a consideration for doing the translation.
(b) and (c) Not applicable.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of this point of order prior to the commencement of proceedings this morning. I think this is our first opportunity to bring the matter to your attention. I would ask that you review the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) contained at page 1 1558 of Hansard, remarks which were originally enunciated in French and therefore difficult for those of us who are not bilingual to pick them up. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you may find those remarks to be unparliamentary.
We are in some difficulty here. The Hon. Member has complained recently about remarks that are alleged to have been made about him. I suggest that all of us have to come to the House with clean hands and clean language. I do not think the Hon. Member for Bourassa has done so in this case. I think there were two infringements, at least in the English translation, of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary language. Naturally we are in your hands and you may decide whether or not you find them to be unparliamentary.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: I'm up on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of privilege then.


Philip Derek Lewis: All right, I will yield the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Could we at least know what page we are talking about? It is not normal for the Hon. Member to go on at length without telling the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member has indicated-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's only one rule-

March 18, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Lewis


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member indicated the page and I am listening to his point of order. I do agree that he should come to his point of order quickly. I believe he claims that it was on page 1 1558.


Philip Derek Lewis: I believe I began my remarks by saying that it was on page 1 1558. If I did not, I am sorry, but I-


Mr. Deans:: You did.


Philip Derek Lewis: I think so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Apologize, that's what you should do.


Mr. Nystrom:: Resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we are naturally in your hands as to whether or not the remarks are parliamentary. I would suggest that to say: "No one in the political history of our country can equal the Prime Minister's expertise in back-stabbing" is unparliamentary.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ask Joe Clark.


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest that using the comparison to Judas Iscariot is also unparliamentary. Mind you, if you find the remarks to be parliamentary, then it would be open to those of us who want to use that kind of language to use it. I would ask the Chair to rule now or later at the Chair's leisure as to whether or not that kind of language is parliamentary.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point. I certainly would be fascinated to hear your ruling, but I had thought that perhaps the Hon. Member was rising to complain about the fact that the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) was making reference to Members by their names as opposed to by their constituencies or titles.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's an additional point of order.


Ian Deans: That clearly is out of order. I would be interested, and in fact fascinated, to hear just whether or not those kinds of references are considered to be out of order. They may not be kind or pleasant, but I was wondering if they were out of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There has been a representation made with respect to whether or not the statement made by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) was unparliamentary. It would have been nice had the Government Member had the courage to wait until the Hon. Member for Bourassa was in the House but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order. I would be glad to hear the Hon. Member on the point of order. Perhaps the Chair should explain that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he wanted to raise a point of order with regard to language. The Chair advised the Hon. Member that the proper procedure is to do this as early as he is aware of the situation.
Therefore, there is only one time that it could be raised, I must say to the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is exactly my point, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Standing Orders to read that an Hon. Member is to raise the matter as soon as he or she is aware of it, unless 1 am misreading the new rules. The statement was made some time early in the day yesterday in French and unfortunately if the Hon. Member did not avail himself of simultaneous translation that is his problem. It seems to me that he should have raised the issue when it was stated yesterday and not today in some political sham to try to take away their own blame on the issue of slighting Italian Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it there are two points of order. One is with regard to referring to Hon. Members by name and not by constituency. There are two practices toward which we are moving and that is regrettable. One is the practice of calling Hon. Members by name. I must remind Hon. Members that that is contrary to our traditions and rules. I might take the opportunity to say at the same time that we are beginning to move closer toward referring to people as "you". This is a good time for me to remind Hon. Members that questions and answers should be put through the Chair.
Our practices with regard to complaints about language arising out of Question Period, whether they are in English or French, is that they are supposed to be raised at the end of the Question Period. Notwithstanding the representations made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I therefore would have to find that the reason we have the translation is so that Hon. Members will be able to do that and will be able to know what is going on. I must therefore find that the point was not raised at the time when it should have been raised which was at three o'clock yesterday. I am afraid that is all the Chair can do with that.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, am I then to understand that the official translation of the House is when I hear it or when 1 read it?


Mr. Speaker:: No, no. The issue of unparliamentary language or of disorder that is caused by unparliamentary language, in order to be dealt with by the Chair, has to be raised at the time. The issue of language, aside from what one thinks, and I have said some things about that, is whether a disorder is caused by that language at that time. That is the issue the Chair has to resolve. It is for that reason, in order that it be fresh in the mind of the Chair, that the matter should be raised as close as possible to the time it occurs. Otherwise, it is difficult to argue that a disorder occurred, if I may put that to the Hon. Member, because a disorder is not caused in print; a disorder is caused at the time, if there is a disorder.


Philip Derek Lewis: If you condone it, that is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking the Chair to condone the language. The Chair would never condone unparliamentary language whenever it was used. However, the
March 18, 1986

Chair has been asked to rule whether it is in a position at this point to cope with a matter which may or may not have been unparliamentary at the time. Because of our practices, the Chair finds that it is not in a position to make a comment on that. Those are the rules.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time because I believe this is the first day on which we will move a motion under the new rules dealing with opposition days. I put to the House that our intention in moving the motion today is in the hope that the Parliament of Canada might in fact agree that these issues are vital and that we could transmit the view of Parliament to the Congress of the United States.
The motion was written in traditional form; it condemns the Government. However, if during the course of the day it were deemed advisable by all Hon. Members that such a message could be transmitted to the Congress of the U.S., we would be willing to withdraw those words in condemnation or work out some other satisfactory wording in order that the message could in fact be sent as a clear message from the Parliament of Canada to the Congress of the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: The House is aware that that is not strictly a point of order.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: That this House recognizes the dire circumstances faced by Canadian forest workers by impending legislative initiatives of the U.S. Congress and the equally dire circumstances faced by Canadian farmers as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill and condemns this Government for its failure to adequately protect the viability of these two vital sectors of the Canadian economy.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the forest issue in particular. Many Canadians forget from time to time that it is the largest industry in Canada by far. In terms of the agricultural industry, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) will lead off by referring to the problems which are likely to emanate from the legislation presently before the United States Congress.
I am pleased to see the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) present in the Chamber because they at least in so far as the government side is concerned, are aware of how dire the circumstances are becoming in the United States in relation to the forest issue. I am sure you are aware of the situation as well, Mr. Speaker, having attended similar meetings with our counterparts in the United States.
Supply
It appears that most Members of the U.S. Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have now dropped the positions which they had historically taken on subsidies and on Canadian stumpage. It looks like the Seven Veils of Ali Baba are gone now. In fact, the Americans have made quite clear that they intend to move unilaterally with some kind of embargo action, very likely in May, this being a mid-term election year. I should like to deal with some of the things which have been said both in the American Senate and in the House of Representatives. However, before doing so, I want to talk a little about what has been happening on our side of the issue here in Canada in relation to the Estimates first, because it is symptomatic of how federal Governments and provincial Governments, one after another, have dealt with Canada's largest industry and have basically treated it as a milking cow. They have used it as a cash cow rather than reinvest any substantial amount of capital back into it.
We see in this year's Estimates that in 1985 the forest industry produced $25.9 billion and that the total for forestry in the 1986-87 Estimates is $217 million. That amount is far less than a 1 per cent return by the federal Government on the value of the industry to our economy. If we look at any other sector in the Canadian economy, we find that it is dramatically higher. The forest industry alone has again been chosen to bear an unfair burden in terms of the Canadian economy. Also in looking at the Estimates we see that there is in fact $14 million less for 1986-87 than there was for 1985-86, and that there has been an actual cut in person-years from 1,337 to 1,266. I think this indicates the priority which the Government places upon the forestry, even in terms of its own campaign promise in 1984. As recently as just a few weeks ago, it was again brought to our attention in Montreal in a story entitled "Name Minister, Forestry Group Asks Government". In part, it reads as follows:
The President of the Canadian Institute of Forestry says the federal Government should fulfil a campaign promise and set up a Department of Forestry. Jack Toovey said better forest management was a 1984 campaign pledge of the Conservatives but the industry is still awaiting the creation of a ministry.
"Many people resent the fact that we have only a Ministry of State for Forestry tucked away, like a franchise farm team, under Agriculture," Toovey said.
I certainly agree with that. It was an issue on which the Government campaigned strongly and forecefully in British Columbia. It was believed that in fact there would be some kind of new move in Canada toward a full ministry and toward bringing in a national forest act, something which has not been done as yet. However, at least I have a copy of the one which is circulating in the Department. There were many proposals. We should move ahead rather than spend five cents out of every dollar collected in taxation in relation to the forest sector on reforestation, silvaculture and so on. In fact, as we see in the 1986-87 Estimates, we will in fact move backward. It will be worse than it was under the years the Liberals ran our federal forestry.
1 should like to return to the axe which is falling in the United States. It is really an ominous move, coming from both the Republicans and the Democrats. It has become a very

March 18, 1986
Supply
bipartisan issue, whether we are talking about how it is being handled in the Senate or in the Congress. In relation to hogs and fish, we have seen how the United States plans to move. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is down in Washington supposedly talking about free trade, freer trade or enhanced trade on these ever-shifting grounds of the trade issue. However, our American colleagues have advised us that they have no intention of moving with any speed on the issue of free trade. It will be several years in negotiations, as they pointed out. In fact, Sam Gibbons indicated that it will be 10 years, if they go ahead, before there is any substantial move in terms of free trade.
There are 300 protectionist Bills in the United States. The issues in respect of what is happening with Gibbons' Bill, Bonker's Bill, Larry Craig's Bill, Baucus' Bill, and all forestry related protectionist measures, should be receiving a much greater degree of attention by Members of the House in a multi-partisan way rather than the ad hoc approach of a little of this and little of that from our Embassy in Washington and through various trade connections in the United States.
I see the Minister for International Trade leaving the Chamber. I am sure he will be right back to hear me tell him very soon how to save the forest industry.
We have to get down to the brass tacks as a nation and deal with these protectionist Bills. The forest industry and its workers have spent $10 million down in Washington fighting the Section 332 investigation, dealing with the Department of Commerce, dealing with Members of the Senate, dealing with Members of the Congress and trying to do the job alone, while the Government of Canada is sitting idly by.
Just a few days ago I attended a Canada-U.S. meeting and Senator McClure from Idaho gave me a letter. I think it is worth reading part of it into the record today because it gives Canadians some idea of how deeply felt is the issue of Canadian penetration of soft wood forest products into the U.S. market. It is dated February 27, 1986 and read in part as follows:
Dear Mr. Fulton:
As we gather this weekend to discuss issues of mutual concern, I wish to bring to your attention a problem that is straining the long-standing relationship between our two countries: the record level of lumber imports from your country that is severely depressing the timber industry throughout the United States.
Talks between your Government and mine on this issue do not appear to be moving toward any acceptable conclusion. The longer that such negotiations continue without any resolution, the more likely it becomes that the Congress of the United States will take action to restrict your country's exports of lumber.
The day before that, I think as you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, in the U.S. Senate some very hefty proceedings took place, all related to Canadian wood, i must say that I do not take too seriously this particular process that went on in the Senate. I think what the Senate is saying and the steps it is taking have to be taken in the context of the manoeuvring the Americans are taking us into in May. In May when they do drop the guillotine, which they tell us they are going to do, they will point back to these kinds of things and say that they
gave us lots of opportunity to do something. I know what we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, and I will be coming to that in a moment.
Let us take a look at what the special order in the Senate was on February 26, 1986. Senator Baucus was the first to speak. In a Special Order Session on Canadian Lumber Imports, he said:
Mr. President, today is a historic day for several reasons. One of them is because today the largest number of Senators are assembled here this morning in the history of the Senate to speak out under the special order section of the today's proceedings on one issue: that is, subsidized Canadian lumber imports. I repeat: The largest assembly of Senators to speak on one issue in the history of the Senate - 41 Senators.
It includes the leadership on both aisles: Senator Doyle, the majority leader; Senator Byrd, the minority leader.
It lists Senator Packwood, Senator Danforth, Senator Long and 11 members of the Finance Committee. He points out not only are there members from the Northwest, from Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California, but from every region.
We have that kind of information and material coming out through the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House, and we have a long-standing Bill of Sam Gibbons, which I hope I have a chance to deal with this morning because it proposes something that I think will be very difficult for us to deal with should the Bill be passed.
A year ago now, Dan Smith, the President of the Canadian Lumberman's Association, estimated the loss of 75,000 jobs should we cut to 25 per cent of the U.S. market, which was a proposal put forward by several members of the U.S. Congress.
Let us now take a look at how seriously the Government side takes this issue. I know the Minister of State for Forestry takes it seriously, but let us take a look in the Estimates at how serious is serious. On page 4-18 under the Canadian Forest Service, it reads:
Of particular concern during this period will be the current threat of United States' trade sanctions on Canadian lumber and the need to assure that access to this key market is not restricted. Approximately $500,000 and 14 person-years will be used for this purpose in 1986-87.
That is the kind of bell-ringing support we see coming from the Government side when Canada's largest industry is under attack from the United States.
There are two real problems at issue here. There is the supply crisis on our side, and the issue of what the U.S. may, or hopefully may not do in May of this year. Let me quote again from the Minister's Estimates: It reads:
The lack of systematic forest management in the past has resulted in a depletion of the forest resource. Canada's total area of productive forest land is about 220 million hectares. Of this amount, approximately 12 per cent has not been adequately restocked and this is increasing by 200,000 hectares, or almost I per cent per year.
It goes on:
Canadian exports of forest products are highly concentrated in a few market areas with 72 per cent going to the United Stales, 12 per cent to the European Economic Community, and 6 per cent to Japan. Consequently, Canada would be particularly vulnerable to the imposition of protectionist measures which would jeopardize exports and the Canadian share of the international markets.
March 18, 1986

The next is crucial, Mr. Speaker:
Over the past 10 years, the rate of unemployment in forest industries has dramatically increased from 19.4 per cent to 36.4 per cent and has increased from 21.3 per cent to 41.5 per cent in forestry and logging operations, compared with the current national average of 10.4 per cent.
I went back through the rest of the Estimates to find out whether the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) or the Ministers responsible for Finance or the Treasury Board have bothered to read these vital statistics from the Minister of State for Forestry. There are no new programs to help those loggers who have been laid off or to help those saw-mill workers who are in a state of transition. There is no new money to help with the dire statistics which the Minister put on the record in terms of the growth of NSR land, not satisfactorily restocked lands.


Mr. Benjamin:: It is something like the Department of Youth, no department.


James Ross Fulton: There are a few other figures we should have a look at. One-fifth of the forest land in Canada is in British Columbia, but one-eighth of the productive forest land in Canada is now NSR. It is not growing anything but a few weed species, perhaps there are cobblestones or the soil is running away or whatever. We have an area almost the size of the productive forest land in B.C. that is now NSR. That report comes from the Science Council of Canada.
Sweden, Finland and Norway, with one-quarter of the productive forest lands of Canada, produce the same amount of timber. We have to start asking ourselves what is going on. We are now getting our telephone poles from Finland, and our railway ties from Malaysia. We have three million hectares of NSR land in British Columbia growing at a rate of 50,000 hectares a year. Not only that, and let me say both to this House and to the U.S. Congress about one of the problems being faced in the largest timber producing region of Canada, British Columbia, we have lost 20,000 permanent forest industry jobs in B.C. due to hydro flooding and the setting aside of reserves for further flooding. We are going to lose, between now and the year 2000, 30,000 more jobs in the forest sector because of log exports at new and unprecedent heights. We have already lost 31,000 jobs as a result of the one-third fall-down effect we have had already. We are going to lose more as we face further fall-down effects because our reforestation process is so bad, so dismal.
Let us take a look at an article called "Canada's vanishing forests". Let us take a look at the history of what the federal Government response has been to the largest industry in Canada. I quote:
In 1983 forestry accounted for an $11.7 billion foreign trade surplus, twice as large as the revenue produced by agriculture and exceeding the combined revenue from mining, coal, petroleum and natural gas operations.
But what went back? Less than 5 cents on every dollar did. That is true at the provincial levels and true at the federal level, Mr. Speaker.
Under a section headed "Lunatics", a good strong parliamentary word, we find the following:
Supply
According to the Science Council of Canada, between 1979 and 1984 the federal Government spent only $80 million on domestic reforestation and $430 million for reforestation aid to the Third World. Said Jack Wallers, a professor of forestry at the University of British Columbia: "They arc lunatics."-
Currently, there are 50 to 60 million acres of logged and unrcforcstcd land in Canada. And that figure is growing. Indeed, each year Canadian forests arc reduced by almost 2.5 million acres-an area approximately the size of Prince Edward Island.
We have an incredible growing crisis of supply right across Canada.
Let us take a look at where the Government is going and how we should be responding to the threat on the fast track south of the border. We know that the Prime Minister is not on a fast track anywhere in Washington today. There will be nothing new on acid rain. As a matter of fact, if that particular pact is signed, it will not benefit our forests at all because it is just for further research in the United States. That alone is costing us several hundred million dollars a year in lost forest resources in Canada, and that is not even talking about sugar bush and other associated things, just forest growth.
We have lost 20,000 jobs in the industry since 1982 in B.C. Twenty per cent of British Columbia's labour force is in the forest industry and service jobs, 75 per cent directly in falling, bucking and hauling and so on, and 150,000 in forest industry service jobs. Seventy-five cents out of every dollar paid to forest industry and service workers in British Columbia comes from exports. That figure stands true in a number of areas in Ontario and the country.
Let us deal with the U.S. issue. Presently we hold 34 per cent of the U.S. softwood market. That is 60 per cent of B.C.'s production. It is an issue of penetration. If one spends enough time talking to Sam Gibbons, Max Baucus, or any of the other Americans, after a while they finally admit that the issue is penetration. It is true that the amount of the market which we hold has increased marginally in the last few years. In 1979 we held 27.5 per cent of the U.S. market. However, as the Canadian dollar has fallen, it has tracked exactly the increase in the amount of the U.S. market we have to 34 per cent of today.
We should be getting the message to our American friends not to go the Smoot-Hawley route, the protectionist route. We should mobilize a large force of Canadians through trade consulates throughout the United States where Americans are running on this issue at a grass roots level. We must remind them that two million Americans are directly employed producing export goods for Canada. In the last eight years they have increased their share of our market in home appliances from 45 per cent to 95 per cent. The Americans are penetrating the markets for semifinished and manufactured products at an unprecedented rate.
We should be getting the message to Democrats and Republicans throughout the United States that if they start blocking our wood products they will unfairly, and illegitimately, under international law, punish Canadian workers and the Canadian economy. We must get our people to the United States to

March 18, 1986
Supply
explain to the Americans that they are getting good dollars out of our economy and should allow us to get our fair share with our raw resources as well.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House today and for raising it as forcefully as he has. He has done a service, not only to his own province and the people employed in the B.C. forestry industry, but to the country. Forestry has far too long not been given the recognition it deserves in terms of its contribution to the economy of the country.
One of the matters which has troubled me with regard to this debate during the last number of years, and particularly during the last 12 months, is a long-standing attitude of the Government that there is protectionist pressure south of the border vis-a-vis Mexican oil, Japanese cars, and many other products, and that Canadian lumber was caught up almost by accident in the protectionist flight of fancy which is occurring south of the border. For a long time that was the Government's position, both within this country and in its posture with the American administration and legislators.
As recently as July, 1985, the Minister of International Trade was talking about a possible exemption for Canadian lumber in protectionist legislation. He put the case publicly in the business section of The Ottawa Citizen that Canada was simply being caught up in a protectionist trend and that we should not worry because it has not been targeted at us. The Americans now have a Bill entitled "Limitation on the Importation of Canadian Softwood for Five-Year Period". I do not know what could be more direct.
Does the Member believe, as I do, that we have been fiddling while Rome-being the jobs in that industry-has been burning, and that the Government's posture has been much too soft?


James Ross Fulton: The Member has asked an important question. There is every variety of Bill one could possibly want. Larry Craig has proposed a tariff of 10 per cent. Jim Weaver has proposed a 25 per cent limit. I think the U.S. Congress will use the vehicle of Sam Gibbons' Bill, H.R. 2451. One of the main concerns which Canadians had was that handling the transportation costs were going to be included. Sam Gibbons always liked to talk about leveling the playing field. As a result of the 332 investigations and the work done by the Canadian forest industry in providing good quality material to the various trade people in Washington, he realized that was unfair because of the nature of our two forestry regimes.
The politics of the issue is changing. The Weavers, the Bonkers, the Baucuses, and the Craigs are no longer alone. They have some very strong spokespeople who are no longer silent, including people like Sam Gibbons who says that something is going to happen in May. All 300 of these protectionist Bills will not move, but lumber is very high on that agenda.
1 said a year ago in this House that we should be hiring a major group of well-informed Canadians related to the forest sector to be spanned out through the United States to deal with the issues of subsidy, stumpage, and so on. It would be
basically on informational process. We can identify very quickly those 2 million Americans who are employed full time producing goods which come into the Canadian market. They are a good group to target.
We did a good job in targeting the National Home Builders' Association which pointed out that the cost of homes in the United States would go up if there was an embargo on Canadian SPF because it is consumer preferential in the United States. American contractors and home builders preferentially buy SPF because it is stronger, better for rafters, joists, studs, and most basic construction. It is certainly far better than southern yellow pine for most of those processes.
As the Member who asked me the question knows very well, in some areas of the United States this is a very hot domestic issue. Mack Mattingly, the Senator from Georgia, made that very clear to us at our recent meeting. He indicated how difficult it would be for me to stand up during an election campaign and say that it is good that 50 per cent of the housing starts in Prince Rupert are being built with southern yellow pine from Georgia when I have buckers, fallers, skidder operators, and independent truck-loggers lined up outside my constituency office. Fifty per cent of the wood used in the State of Georgia in 1985 was from British Columbia. That is a tough grass roots issue for a Senator or anyone else running in the American political system to deal with.
However, an intelligent approach by Canada with regard to our largest single industry would be to fan out respected trade representatives through those states and get the information to those workers who produce goods and have penetrated Canada's economy. We must remind those people in Dallas who make coffee pots, toasters, and refrigerators of what happened with Smoot-Hawley, the wood related issue which brought about the depression in the 1930s.
We must get quality information into the United States, and we have very little time left. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) has allocated 14 person years to deal with it. That is not enough. We have to deal with the false, albeit well-intentioned, representations of people like Bonker, Craig, Weaver, and Baucus who are mis-stating the facts with regard to subsidies, Canadian stumpage policies, and the rates of penetration. There is all kinds of good, bilaterally agreed upon information available, but if we do not disseminate it, and if the U.S. Congress proceeds in May, even if they intend it to be only for a short term, it will do no good. The Canadian Lumbermen's Association says 75,000 jobs will be lost.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the three political Parties in this House are not taking this issue nearly as seriously as it has now been presented to us as Canadian legislators. They have told us point blank out front, and these are Republicans and Democrats from the Senate and the House who are friends of Canada, that this is a powerful domestic issue. There does not seem to be any quick and easy way to handle it, and that they are going to legislate it, and are going to do so in May. They say that we may as well know they are going to do it. They are not going to give us any more steam and hot air on subsidies and stumpage. The seven veils of Ali Baba are gone. It is a
March 18, 1986

hungry, nasty, political face that we are looking at down there in terms of looking for ballots to go in boxes. The way we can stop it is by a highly mobilized-it may be very expensive but we have a couple of months to do it-good group of forestry representatives in every state in the United States; get them in Alaska as we do not need to worry about Hawaii right now. There are 49 states we have to deal with and only about a dozen that are very, very serious. It is the only way we can do it. It is an issue of penetration, it is a bilateral issue, and if we do not do something pretty soon our largest industry that now employs a million Canadians may very quickly become our smallest industry.


Mr. St. Germain:: My greatest concern, and as the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) knows, is that the issue we are addressing logically has to be first and foremost in the minds of all Canadians, but especially British Columbians. The thing that I question is that the Hon. Member has this concern and speaks of a balance and gaining the confidence of the Americans, but as a Member of Parliament from western Canada I feel we have to deal with the United States of America in a broader spectrum, and quit criticizing them. I am asking him why his Party and a lot of his Members who sit over there, as well as some of the Liberal Members like the Member from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) are so critical of the Americans, criticizing them on every issue that they possibly can. I have run businesses and have never criticized my customers. These people are our best customers. I would like a short answer from the Hon. Member as to why they continue to knock the Americans when they need the Americans so badly?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A very short answer.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my view is that Canadians should never be a door mat to the United States. If you look, for example, at the boundary issues in my constituency you realize pretty quickly that the nicer we are the less we get. What have they ever done on acid rain? What have they ever done on toxic waste in Niagara? They do not do anything. If you do not legitimately criticize people you get nowhere.


Gerry St. Germain: There you go again criticizing. Sit down.


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


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the echoes of the conflict across the floor of the House of Commons with respect to what our position should be, vis-a-vis the Americans, I would attempt to make a few comments on this motion today by the New Democratic Party in the name of the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I said a moment ago that I supported the motion. I think all Members would support a motion recognizing the dire consequences faced by Canadian forest workers as a result of the pending legislation in the U.S. No matter what side of the House we sit on we would endorse a motion that would seek to draw the attention of the Members of the House,
Supply
indeed all Canadians, to the importance of that industry to workers in this country, a million people in all, directly and indirectly. I had not intended to address the matter raised by the Member opposite, but I cannot help but say a few words.
It seems to me that if Members of the Government are suggesting to Canadians that the way we do business with the United States is to take a position of simply echoing in every circumstance U.S. foreign policy, and therefore they will buy more lumber, then that is precisely the suggestion that has been made, that Canada sell her sovereignty, give it up totally in exchange for our ability to sell goods and services. I do not think many Members of the House, including Members on the government side would support that kind of approach to our relationship with the United States. It must be a relationship of mutual respect, mutual interest, and at times we must mutually agree to disagree. I do not think we can begin this debate by saying the reason we are having trouble with lumber is that we occasionally disagree with the U.S. position. I do not think Members in any of the Parties in the House would endorse that kind of position. That is not the debate here today.
The Government of Canada has been slow initially to recognize the seriousness of the situation we are seeing develop now in the U.S. Congress. They either have been slow to realize the seriousness of the degree to which U.S. legislators are prepared to go or, if they had recognized how serious the problem was they were slow to publicly acknowledge it. Whether or not they were slow, at this stage I think that as Members of Parliament we can say that all Members of the House on all sides, including Ministers of the Crown, recognize we have a problem.
As many as 75,000 jobs in Canada's lumber industry, primarily in British Columbia, are now in jeopardy. The assessment of the Member for Skeena is that as the snow melts and as the weather warms up we can expect to see a deep freeze placed on Canada's ability to export to the United States. That is a serious and sober assessment of what is happening south of the border. The Member has made an appropriate recommendation and suggestion to the Government. This may not be the most palatable comparison, but as a Newfoundlander I remember well the debate on the seal hunt. I remember well going to Europe with facts and figures. We left our hearts on the doorstep at home, left our emotions and went with a series of statistics about numbers, people's livelihood, the irrational trade view approach being taken by the EEC parliament and being confronted, after the committee meetings were over and we were having a glass of wine together over a meal, by European parliamentarians saying to us about the seals: We know you are right, we know that our Bill is irrational, we know the seal hunt is not in danger of extinction, but brother, my voters think it is. My voters are going to send me out of this place unless I vote to ban your seal hunt and the import of seal fur.
The same kind of situation occurs in the United States. I think we can go down as parliamentarians and engage in a discussion in that country with other legislators and we can set

March 18, 1986
Supply
out the parameters of this problem. We can deal with it in rational terms. We can dredge up the report of the International Trade Commission, which properly investigated the whole matter and came to a determination that, indeed, there was no unfair subsidy existing. We could set aside complaints by the U.S. industry and legislators that Canada's forest lands are owned by provincial Governments and that that constitutes some kind of subsdidy by pointing out that that is a jurisdictional question and a question of sovereignty.
We could look at the position of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar and see logically that that has given us an increased opportunity these last number of years to export our products, be it lumber, fish or iron ore. As legislators we could agree that the Bills that are being put forward by Mr. Weaver and Mr. Bonker and others are not well founded in fact. They are a political response to their constituents at home. They represent shortsighted one-dimensional trade position that ultimately could have the kind of ramifications that the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) suggests, that is, a trade war, the restriction of products from U.S. into Canada and from Canada into the U.S.
What the House needs to do, and what the Government of Canada needs to do, is continue to make the U.S. administration aware that we view this issue as not just a serious issue, but an extremely critical issue in this country. It is an issue for which there can be no negotiations in this country. We are not prepared to trade off 75,000 jobs in the forest industry to get a free trade agreement. That is not on the table.
In addition to doing that, we have to go to the constituents of those legislators who have put this draft legislation before the U.S. Congress. If the Government of Canada is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is and allow a non-governmental coalition to do an education job, because that is what we are talking about, then it will have refused to fight the first battle and will have lost the war.
The Canadian forest industry, in its contribution to our balance of trade, represents more than the fishery, the agricultural industry, the mining industry and, now more than ever, the oil and gas industry put together. Directly and indirectly it represents one in 10 jobs. Once you move away from the manufacturing belt along the border, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, the forest industry becomes the backbone of regional and local economies. Those who are listening to this debate and who live in the pulp and paper town of Stephenville in my riding, or in the pulp and paper town of Kenora in northern Ontario, or similar towns in Quebec, should not kid themselves that this is primarily a British Columbia issue. It is not. The workers of British Columbia are on the front line of a trade protectionist stance being adopted south of the border. If that stance is not blunted now, then those of us who make our living in the pulp and paper industry outside of British Columbia are going to be next. If they can rationalize this stance based on the stumpage system in this country, provincial ownership of forestry lands and a low Canadian dollar, the
Americans will be very quick to come to the conclusion they can rationalize restricting all other Canadian forestry products in the same manner.
This House needs to adopt a non-partisan approach to this issue. As I say, I believe the Government was slow-perhaps many of us were slow-in recognizing just how serious this issue is. We were slow in recognizing just how determined this lobby south of the border is, just how bereft of real information American citizens are about the consequences of setting up these kinds of trade barriers.
Having said that, surely it is the responsibility of the Government to provide the means, that being money, and the responsibility of all parliamentarians to provide the support, for representatives of this industry to go down to the U.S. and begin the intensive education process among American citizens so that they can take the political pressure off the legislators who are putting these Bills forward. The stark reality is that those legislators fear for their political lives. This legislation is not motivated by or grounded in a sound trade position. It is motivated by and grounded in a desire on the part of those U.S. legislators to be re-elected. Those of us who have had the opportunity to go to Washington know that. They acknowledge it privately.
I view this issue as being important enough that 1 would rather spend my time in this House endorsing a Government policy to provide the means required. I understand the nervousness on the part of the Government about being accused of politicking in another country's jurisdiction and so on. Yet the previous U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Robinson, was never reluctant to let Canada know how the U.S. administration, let alone the American people felt about FIRA, or our defence policy, or our providing incentives to business, or our regional economic policies. If the representative of the U.S. President in Canada can exercise that right, sometimes on matters that were purely domestic Canadian issues, then surely the Minister of International Trade would agree that on a matter which directly impacts on Canada and as many as a million Canadians we ought not to be nervous or reluctant to make the means available to go directly over the heads of the U.S. administration and legislators to the American people. We have to make them fully understand the consequences of an attempt by the U.S. Congress to pass this kind of legislation.
There is a constituency which exists in the U.S. and which can assist us in making our case. There is a coalition of U.S. home builders, a number of newspapers, unions, railroad companies and others who have already announced their opposition to this kind of trade legislation. We have other allies there. It is the job of the Government, in a more substantial way than has been the case, to go down and work with that coalition. It is our job to put whatever resources are necessary at the disposal of an appropriately developed organization to make Canada's case. If we do not, the lumber industry in this country will suffer the same irrational fate as the seal hunt. There is not a thinking, honest Member with an ounce of integrity in this House of Commons who truly believes, given the facts, that the seal hunt had to be banned to save the
March 18, 1986

species. There is not a thinking, honest member of the EEC Parliament with an ounce of integrity, given the facts, who believes the seal hunt had to be stopped to save the species. There is not one member of the EEC Parliament who, given the facts, believes that the seal herd was in any way in danger. But those EEC parliamentarians voted to ban the hunt nevertheless, because that was the view being expressed by their constituents who had heard only one side of the debate.
I was a member of the previous Liberal administration that in my view was wrongly advised to confront the protest organizations on that issue head on rather than going over their heads to the people who were being targeted by those protest organizations. Instead of a name calling exchange with Greenpeace, or whoever it might have been, the Government of the day would have been much wiser to go directly to the public of Europe with solid information and unemotional appeals. That approach was not followed vigorously enough in order to blunt what happened.
We learned a lesson as a result of that, despite our good intentions. Let us apply that lesson to what is happening with our forest industry today and take whatever means are necessary to speak directly to the American public. It is only in that way, with the determination to do the job right and use whatever means are necessary to make the case, will we be able to lift this cloud of uncertainty from over the heads of Canada's forest workers and, inded, an industry that has not had the best returns in the last six years that one would like to see.


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, today I heard the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) defending the interests of our forests and the forestry industry in Canada. I wonder how he can reconcile his party's attitude over the last twenty years with the statements he made today.
When the Liberals were in power, they promoted rapid and uncontrolled harvesting of our Canadian forests. At the time, you were granting subsidies aimed exclusively at supporting the cost of cutting, transporting and sawing lumber. At the time, it did not occur to you that Canadians would be better off with having the right balance between harvesting and renewal of our forests, but renewal was not one of your concerns. Reforestation provides a return in sixty or eighty years, and so it was not politically attractive. Here, as in other areas, you preferred to be consumers of our natural resources. You failed to consider the need for renewal.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member why this Government failed to respect the natural balance, except in a few marginal cases, and why his Government, and this cannot be denied, always promoted exports of our raw materials and never helped to establish, on a national basis, the processing plants we need to upgrade and enhance the value of our forest resources in this country.
Supply
It is useless to protest against the U.S. threat. You should have done so years ago and planned for the future, because in forestry, one must plan 60 years ahead.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only word I can use to describe the Hon. Member's intervention is "sad". We are in the House today to discuss a motion which simply states:
That this House recognize the dire circumstances faced by Canadian forest workers by impending legislative initiatives of the U.S. Congress and the equally dire circumstances faced by Canadian farmers as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill and condemns this Government for its failure to adequately protect the viability of these two vital sectors of the Canadian economy.
We stand in the House today in the hope of sensitizing Canadian parliamentarians and, through them, the people of Canada, to the situation facing Canada's forestry workers and to the real dangers to an industry that employs a million Canadians.
It is tragic that when I give a speech asking the Government to allow this to be a non-partisan issue so that we may work together to develop a means to prevent this threat, a Member who obviously knows little if anything about the forest industry is only motivated to stand on his feet and simply berate us and question what we did for 20 years. It is tragic that the Member, having heard the discussion, could not address the plight of Canadian forestry workers or what action we ought to take as a Parliament to find a remedy to that threat, but could only ask what we have done for the last 20 years. Is it not possible, in the so-called spirit of reform, that there are some issues of national importance about which Members could stand and participate in a constructive debate in the House? Is it not possible that we could put aside our partisanship on some issues, as we are learning to do in legislative committees, in order to write better Bills and assist the Government in formulating policy to deal with problems, rather than worrying about being blamed for mistakes?
It is not my purpose to stand here today and assign blame. Despite the comments of the back-bencher, I believe that the Ministers who are sitting in the House today are aware of the gravity of this problem and do not dismiss our concern as mere criticism of the Americans again. I believe Ministers are so aware that they probably spend much of their time trying to address the problem. I hope the reason they are in the House today is not to defend themselves-at least as far as my comments are concerned, because I do not intend to attack the Government-but to sense the consensus and the will of Parliament and the people of Canada to use all the legitimate means at our disposal to support our forest industry and the people employed in that industry.
Therefore, the Hon. Member's question is not worthy of comment except to say that he ought to pay more attention. Perhaps, as he spends more time in the House, he will sense the tone of Parliament and that on occasion Parliament can be a place where we can work together in mutual recognition that Canada's interests are at stake, and that we ought to make our best effort as parliamentarians to defend Canadian industry and Canadian employees in their time of need.
11606

March 18, 1986
Supply


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that our Government needs to be lectured by the Hon. Member in regard to the gravity of the situation. I firmly agree with the Hon. Member that this should transcend all political barriers and should be dealt with in a manner that is beneficial to all Canadians. I only want him to do one thing for the House. I want him to speak to his leader and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and ask them to stop criticizing the Americans.
If we are going to make any deal it will have to be done through conciliation, consultation and good sound business acumen. The actions of his leader and some members of his Party, as well as some members of the socialist Party, essentially destroy anything that could be construed as good business acumen. I simply ask him to speak to those Members so that we may get on with establishing a good sound footing to deal with softwood lumber and whatever other products may be involved.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to say to the Hon. Member who has just spoken, and to repeat what I said a few moments ago, any type of relationship, in particular a relationship between sovereign nations, is based on mutual respect. Running the Government of Canada is not like running a corner grocery store where one gives the guy who delivers the bread a break on a pack of cigarettes and he counters with a break on transportation costs for delivering the bread. That is not the way it is done. Canadian foreign policy is not negotiable or subject to blackmail on the basis of trade laws in the United States. We do not make foreign policy based on what actions may or may not be taken in the United States vis-a-vis our trade practices. The second one walks around with that notion in one's mind one has gotten rid of the whole question of sovereignty and the fact that we are a sovereign state. The second it is believed that that is the way business is done, even with respect to the question of threatened restrictive practice by way of legislation to Canadian lumber, we might as well make an application to become the fifty-first State. I would suggest that even some States maintain more sovereignty than that.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), if he were here in the House, or the Minister for International Trade, or the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) would endorse the comments which have just been made by the Hon. Member opposite. With sober second reflection, and after having examined the proposition which he has just put forward, I do not believe the Hon. Member would say that sovereignty is a barter proposition.


Gerry St. Germain: No one said that!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I do not believe that with sober consideration he would even endorse his own comments. Canada is not up for sale; we are a sovereign nation. As the Hon. Member for Skeena said, we are not a doormat for anyone. It is not just a
question of being someone's doormat; we are a sovereign and proud state whose policy, foreign or otherwise, is made with our conscience and with what best represents the views of Canada in terms of the criteria, morals and principles of the country in mind. It is not made in terms of what will get us another buck because of a threatened boycott south of the border. That type of politics is cheap and is below any suggestion seriously made by any Member of Parliament who has any notion of sovereignty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Resuming debate with the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher).


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say with some certainty that nobody in this House is more aware than I am that Canada faces serious and continuing problems in preserving our access to U.S. markets for our lumber and farm products. I have spent a good part of the past year and a half fighting a running battle to keep that market open. So far it has remained open.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I am more than a little surprised that Members on the other side of the House can maintain straight faces when they accuse the Government of ignoring the issue of access to the U.S. market. We are the only Government in recent history to give it the attention it deserves. We are the ones who proposed bilateral trade talks with the United States for the express purpose of securing and enhancing that access. Where is our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) today? I believe all Hon. Members know that the Prime Minister is in Washington at the Shamrock II Summit talking about, among other thing, access.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: So I suggest that it is this Government which is moving to resolve our problems of access. We are doing so in spite of, and certainly not because of, the efforts of the Opposition.
Perhaps I should start out by explaining a few facts of life to Hon. Members who have just honoured us with their comments. The first fact is that despite its great dependence on Canada the United States is still a sovereign nation. We are not yet in a position to dictate to its Congress on trade matters. The second fact is that the United States Government is organized somewhat differently from ours. Down there they have a separation of powers; Congress acts independently of the administration. The third fact is that Canada does not have diplomatic relations with the U.S. Congress. We have informal relations which are, for the most part, warm and friendly. However, our only formal diplomatic relations are with the administration, and those are excellent. The fourth fact is that the U.S. administration is known for its opposition to protectionism everywhere, including the U.S. Congress. However, that protectionism still exists, and it threatens Canada on a great many fronts.
March 18, 1986

Let us consider some of those fronts. In recent years maritime potato farmers have had their access to the U.S. market threatened by an anti-dumping action. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is currently considering a proposal which would reduce by more than one-half the number of customs ports on the Maine border through which potatoes can be exported. This action is transparently protectionist in its intent.
Canadian hog farmers are faced with a countervailing duty on their exports to the U.S., a measure which depresses prices for all sales on the Canadian market, thus reducing returns to the farmers. There is not only that to consider but one of the states, the State of South Dakota, has arbitrarily imposed what amounts to an outright embargo on the imports of Canadian livestock into that state.
Manufacturers of food products containing sugar have had their access to U.S. markets severely curtailed by quotas. British Columbia raspberry growers have been hit in succession with anti-dumping duties, the threat of countervailing duties and an assessment imposed by the State of Washington. Over the years our beef producers have had their access to the U.S. market curtailed as a result of trade restrictive action under the U.S. Meat Import Act.
As regards lumber, Members of the House are all too aware of the intensity of the protectionist pressures in the U.S. aimed at restricting our access to a $3 billion per year export market. These threats are not new. In recent years our lumber exports have been subjected to two investigations by the U.S. International Trade Commission, and yet another one, of extraordinary complexity, by the Department of Commerce. None of these investigations by U.S. agencies under U.S. laws provided any substantiation for the persistent myth that Canadian lumber exports are subsidized. They all found there was no subsidization and that Canada was trading fairly.
This Government came to office a year and one-half ago determined to put our relationship with the United States on a better basis. The record is one of solid achievement. Trade featured prominently in the Prime Minister's discussion with President Reagan in Quebec City. The trade declaration which was released one year ago today reflected a firm commitment to halt protectionism in cross-border trade in goods and services and established an ambitious work program aimed at reducing and eliminating existing barriers to trade. While protectionist pressures are strong in both countries, both Governments can take some satisfaction over a creditable performance in avoiding introduction of new trade barriers.
In addition, we have made some progress in resolving irritants and removing impediments to trade. For example, we have made fundamental changes in foreign investment policy and the national energy policy. The U.S. has moved to terminate restrictions on exports of oil to Canada permitting a more rational allocation of energy resources. Both Governments have taken action to eliminate tariffs on computer parts. This record of achievement provided the basis for the Government's decision, announced in the House by the Prime Minister last September, to pursue a new trade agreement with the United States.
Supply
I would suggest that the resolution we are debating today is evidence that the "New Dinosaur Party" or, if you will, the "New Demagogue Party" is desperately trying to have it both ways. They accuse us today of not doing precisely what they attacked us for doing yesterday, trying to secure and enhance access for all Canadian exports to our most important export market.
Maybe a good sign, from which I can take some encouragement is that Members opposite are waking up to the fact that the constant threats of trade restrictive action are extracting a heavy price, not only in the legal costs to defend against these actions but in the investment climate in Canada. May I also take it that this resolution reflects a belated recognition of the fact that we need a better set of rules for the conduct of our trade and economic relations with the United States, or is that too much to assume?
I might add that the protectionist threat extends beyond lumber and agriculture. Other products currently threatened by trade restrictive actions include fish, shingles and shakes, castings, fork-lift arms and uranium. The Government is taking each of these threats seriously and is working closely with the affected producers and provincial Governments concerned to safeguard our access to the U.S. market.
Let me talk for a few moments about the specific threat posed to lumber by Bills before the U.S. Congress. My colleague, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), will discuss other aspects of the lumber issue. It is quite obvious that Bills now under consideration in the U.S. Congress would, if implemented, impose unacceptable costs to the Canadian economy. Indeed, they could imperil the whole Canada-U.S. trading relationship. I can understand the basis for the concerns of the U.S. Congress, and my hon. friends have alluded to that.
The American lumber industry has experienced a protracted period of unprofitable operations. The result has been closures and layoffs. These problems are not unique to the U.S. There have been shutdowns and layoffs in Canada too. Only a market turnaround will provide a solution to that problem. In this environment, it is easy to understand the concerns of the U.S. Congress for the American lumber industry. What 1 cannot accept is that Canadian lumber should be made the scapegoat.
Our access to the U.S. market has been bought and paid for in previous rounds of miltilateral trade negotiations. It has taken time for Canadian producers to establish their position in the States. They have done so by being competitive and providing a product the customer wants.
There are now about a dozen Bills before the U.S. Congress designed to restrict entry of Canadian softwood products. The one that is the most serious threat is the one introduced by the representative from Florida, Mr. Sam Gibbons, the Chairman of the House Sub-committee on Trade. The Gibbons Bill is most likely to be rolled into an omnibus trade Bill.

March 18, 1986
Supply
The Gibbons Bill and a companion Senate Bill sponsored by Senator Baucus would modify U.S. countervail law to deem that a subsidy existed where Canadian stumpage prices, the price a lumber company must pay the Government for cutting down a tree on Crown land, fell short of an arbitrary figure based on American stumpage prices.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is taking the threat posed by these Bills very seriously. One of the things we have been doing is dealing directly with the author of the Gibbons Bills. I first met with Representative Gibbons in Washington in June of last year and set out our position with respect to his proposed legislation and the situation facing the North American lumber industry. At my invitation, Mr. Gibbons and a Congressional delegation visited Vancouver for a briefing by industry and Government, both federal and provincial, on Canadian forest management policies. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is well aware of this meeting. He was there along with other Members of the House.
In response to a suggestion made by Representative Gibbons at the conclusion of the meeting, I provided him with detailed written comments on his proposals. That critique clearly demonstrated the basis of our opposition to the concepts embodied in his proposed amendments to U.S. countervailing duty law.
In addition, a comprehensive and well co-ordinated Canadian campaign of private and public diplomacy has been maped out and has been under way for some time. This strategy runs along the following lines. First we are trying to neutralize the U.S. campaign of misinformation. We are doing this by actively disseminating in the United States the Canadian perspective on this issue, by ensuring that the administration understands our position and by conducting a co-ordinated campaign in Congress.
We are also gaining allies in the U.S. by alerting American constituencies that would suffer from restrictions on lumber imports. Among those, of course, is the housing industry. The campaign involves the co-ordination of a large number of players including the Embassy, all 13 Canadian Consulates and the Washington representatives of Canadian industries and federal and provincial government Departments.
The Canadian message in the U.S. has been a firm one. Our arguments are that we are fair traders, that we are not benefiting at U.S. expense and that our success in the U.S. market is based on competitive market factors including a favourable exchange rate, consumer preference for Canadian wood products and superior productivity. These arguments, by the way, were essentially supported by the U.S. International Trade Commission's recent Section 332 report. This message has been and continues to be communicated through slide presentations to Congressional staffers, press briefings, speeches, testimony to Congressional committees, information kits and briefing sessions with Congressmen and administration officials.
The strategy we have been employing has enjoyed a number of successes. For example, we have received strong editorial
support from major newspapers across the U.S. We have an excellent organization in place that links the federal Government, industry and the provinces. We have mobilized U.S. interest groups including transport interests, lumber dealers, home builders and the like, and they have coalesced in clear and vocal opposition to restraints on Canadian softwood lumber. We have, in other words, succeeded in stalling the momentum for Congressional legislation that would affect Canadian lumber exports.
We also have the support of the administration in resisting linkage between the lumber issue and bilateral trade negotiations. Nevertheless, there still remains a very real threat of Congressional action or a trade remedy petition. The Canadian Government is working with the administration to help manage the lumber issue. To that end, Canadian and U.S. officials have recently resumed a new round of talks at the request of U.S. trade representative, Ambassador Yeutter, to review the factors affecting competition in the North American lumber industry and to clarify Government policies and practices in Canada and the U.S. that affect lumber trade. The first meeting was held in San Diego on January 20, 1986. A technical session took place in Prince George on February 12 and 14 and discussions took place again in Washington on March 12. A further meeting will be held in Ottawa next month.
The Canadian Government will continue to commit the resources that are required until this, our number one trade problem with the U.S., is resolved. The Prime Minister is addressing this issue in his discussions this week with President Reagan and the Congressional leadership. I can say with some confidence that no Canadian Government has ever mounted a campaign as broad, as intense and as persistent on any previous Canada-U.S. trade issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Francis Kelleher: I am equally confident that our softwood lumber campaign is yielding results. The American lumber industry has been trying to restrict our exports for several years and the Gibbons Bill itself has been before Congress for more than a year. Yet our lumber still crosses the border unrestricted and we believe that talks between our two Governments on the matter will, in the long run, produce a satisfactory resolution to this issue.
The Opposition is quick to criticize but offers no concrete alternatives other than the status quo and ad hoc responses to rising American protectionism. Unlike the Opposition, the Government believes that it is neither very self-respecting nor very sovereign for Canada to run down to Washington hat in hand every week to appeal against yet another protectionist threat. We believe that the best way to resolve the trade dispute with the United States is to negotiate a binding agreement backed up by a joint dispute settlement mechanism, a mechanism in which we will have an equal voice.
March 18, 1986

It is now six months since the Prime Minister informed the House of the Government's intention to pursue a bilateral trade agreement with the United States. Opposition Members have been railing loud and long against this approach. They have been railing and they have been wailing but they have also been failing. They have failed to come up with any viable alternatives because they have none. Indeed, Canadians are still not clear where the Liberal Party stands. Its external affairs critic says that he agrees with the recommendation of the Macdonald Commission that Canadians negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement with the U.S. However, its trade critic disagrees. Who knows where the Leader of the Opposition stands on this critical issue? Some day I assume he will let us know. As for NDP Members, they appear to be leaning toward a policy of heavy-handed Government intervention in the economy, nationalization of some industries, central planning, import controls, price controls and currency exchange controls-a policy of economic barricades. It would isolate Canada from the rest of the world. It would decimate our trade with the rest of the world and throw many Canadians out of work. Policies such as these have never worked in the past and they would be catastrophic today in a world in which countries have becomes interlinked by trade and investment. A state controlled economy is repugnant to a majority of Canadians today.
Finally, let me reiterate for the benefit of Hon. Members opposite that the Government has launched a major initiative to negotiate a better framework for the conduct of our trade relations with the United States. If those Members are genuine in their concern for lumber workers and farmers, they will lend their support to this important endeavour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who wrote the Minister's speech, but I found it to be both naive and nasty. Certainly one could have put it together by reading press clippings. I expected something more. As the Minister read it, I was surprised that he could not go on the record with a few of his own words. I could tell that he had not listened to what had been said on this side of the House. I gave my speech in what 1 thought was the good interests of the country, looking for some kind of multi-Party support to do something in the United States. I do not think the Minister truly understands even what he just read.
He said that he did not have any direct relations, diplomatic or othersie, other than with the administration of the United States. I attended the meeting in Vancouver when the Minister offered to provide amendments to a Bill before Congress. I have read the document which was sent to the United States. It dealt with handling and transportation. It did not deal with the issue which is now very clear in the minds of both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives. They have a grass roots political issue; they are concerned about the degree of penetration, and they want to put their workers back to work. They have
Supply
dropped the stumpage issue and the subsidization issue. The Minister is probably well aware of what are the implications for British Columbia of the section on competitive bidding and the rules for removal rights in HR-2451.
I should like to hear him comment on whether he agrees that it is high time to get a major delegation of well informed Canadians down into those areas of the United States where there is a continuing dissemination of inappropriate, misleading and at times false information about the issue, and to deal with the two million Americans who produce commodities which come into the Canadian market. We know the reason for the editorials in the U.S. newspapers. Approximately 57 per cent of the newsprint used in that country comes from Canada. Obviously they will protect their own vested interest of $3.4 billion last year in Canadian newsprint. We know why home builders will continue to be publicly supportive of Canadian SPF. It is because they buy it competitively and they know that it is a better quality product for construction.
We as a Parliament and as a country are not dealing with a matter with which Members of the U.S. Senate and House are prepared to deal. I am referring to the grass roots politics of the matter. Short of doing what I suggested in the House today, I should like to hear what else the Minister proposes. A continuation of the model of simply going through Washington, our 13 trade outlets and our provincial trade outlets in the United States will not get to the grass roots issue in the U.S. and will not get the political signal back to the Republicans and Democrats before they go on the floor of their House and pass a protectionist Bill. I think the Minister agrees that it will be based upon Sam Gibbons' HR-2451 model. It will have more in it related to various other commodities such as natural gas. However, the issue is not being dealt with by the Government, and I find it incredible that the Minister's speech was nasty-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I point out to him that neither I nor any member of the Government ever offered or gave to Mr. Gibbons and Congress suggested amendments to his Bill. In fact, what we sent down and submitted to him was a critique of the legislation, in which we quite clearly said that in its present form it was not acceptable to the Government of Canada. I am sure it would not have been acceptable to the Hon. Member for Skeena.
Also I point out that perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of what arose from our last meeting in Washington. I should like to advise him directly that the Americans have not abandoned, nor have they dropped their claims about our stumpage practices or their claim that our industry is subsidized. I want the Hon. Member to know that both those claims by the Americans are alive and well.
Also I would point out that indeed we are attempting to do something. I have already listed for the Hon. Member and for other Hon. Members opposite the number of meetings we have had and are continuing to have with the U.S. administration in attempting to resolve the problem. We are continuing to meet

March 18, 1986
Supply
on an individual basis with influential Members of the House of Representatives and of the U.S. Senate. We are continuing our efforts. We are meeting throughout the United States with lobby and pressure groups. For the last six months we have already been doing the various things which the Hon. Member suggested. Obviously, since we are doing them, I think the Member should be agreeing with our efforts and assisting and applauding us, not sitting here and being critical of us for doing nothing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the Minister. It is with a great deal of disappointment that I rise today. The Minister was given an opportunity to take this issue out of the narrow confinements of partisan debate and to respond in the manner in which the matter was raised by opposition Members. It was not raised in a way which would warrant attempts at amateur poetry, talking about opposition Members railing and wailing and often failing. My goodness, a grade two student would receive an F for that attempt at being poetic. That attempt shows that the Minister has failed to grasp the opportunity to put aside partisanship this day, to seek and to build some consensus on what ought to be the Canadian position.
How can the Minister continue to cast the resolution of lumber difficulties and of threatened walls to be put up in the context of a comprehensive free trade agreement? It is time that we faced reality. A comprehensive trade agreement for all intents and purposes is dead. The U.S. Congress has said repeatedly, even specifically on the narrow issue of lumber, that it will not enter into and will balk at a comprehensive free trade agreement with Canada until the lumber issue is resolved.
The Minister tells us that he wants to resolve the lumber issue in the context of a comprehensive free trade agreement. Whether the Minister likes it or not, and whether I like it or not, it is becoming more evident every day that there is a lame duck president in the United States. How can the Minister continue to relate the resolution of a problem that threatens one million jobs directly and indirectly in Canada to a free trade agreement that is dead?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat chagrined and saddened to hear the Hon. Member suggesting that I of all people am partisan in replying to this matter. I would only ask the Hon. Member to refer to the resolution before this House. It seems awfully partisan to me. It ends by saying:
-and condemns this Government for its failure to adequately protect the viability of these two vital sectors of the Canadian economy.
That does not sound to me like a message delivered at a tea party. It sounds very partisan to me.
I am trying to tell the Hon. Members in a non-partisan manner about the steps we have been taking to look after this growing threat to our lumber and agricultural economy. It is well known that we are trying to combat it.
The U.S. Congress has not said there will be no U.S.-Canada trade talks until the lumber issue has been resolved. There have been some members of Congress who have been saying that, but there is no word from Congress as a whole, nor do we expect any. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Government has been moving ahead very forcefully on all fronts and it is doing an excellent job. I just wish that once and a while the Opposition would recognize the good job we are doing in our Canada-U.S. relations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is one minute remaining.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Let it be known that there is no praise like self praise.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The Minister concentrated to a great extent on forestry in his speech today. I want to ask him about the American farm Bill.
In the House last Thursday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) what our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would be saying to President Reagan about the American Farm Bill. Can the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) enlighten the House as to exactly what the Prime Minister will be saying to the President about the U.S. Farm Bill? It is a question of great importance to farmers across the country, but particularly to those in western Canada.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that speakers from our Party who will be following me will address in particular detail the concerns and the aspects of the Canada-U.S. agricultural trade. I did not think it would behoove me to cover all areas in one speech. I thought that it would be best to leave that to our agricultural experts.
I can tell the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister has been extremely well briefed on our concerns respecting Canada-U.S. agriculture and the various Bills presently pending in the United States which pose a threat. The Prime Minister will be addressing those with the President and will be reporting to the House in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 10 minute period for questions has expired. Resuming debate.


James Ross Fulton: Could we call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Gerry St. Germain: Continue with questions and comments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerry St. Germain: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we possibly get unanimous consent to continue with questions and comments?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. Is it the will of the House that we continue until one o'clock with questions and comments?
March 18, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 take it there is no unanimous consent. Debate.


Mr. Merrithew:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps with the concurrence of the House, because of the lateness of the hour we could deem it one o'clock and continue the debate after lunch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has had a request to call it one o'clock and it has been refused. The Chair has had a request to call questions and comments for a further period and that has been refused. Resuming debate. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew).


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that 1 welcome the opportunity to debate an issue like this. 1 do not mind debating with the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), because he has been knowledgable and supportive generally. I have to state however, that this motion today is perhaps opportunistic and is an exploitation of a very sensitive issue, and is perhaps ill timed because of what is going on in Washington today.
My colleague, the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), has told this House that our officials are currently involved in very delicate discussions with their American counterparts. These discussions have been very frank and have included a comprehensive investigation of the factors affecting our lumber exports to the United States. But, by the very nature of these discussions which 1 must remind Hon. Members are being held at the official level, I cannot give in detail what has transpired until they are concluded.
I think it is encouraging to note, Mr. Speaker, that the next meeting will be held in mid-April. The meeting will be very close to the final deadline for Congressional approval of the U.S. administration entering into negotiations on a comprehensive trade agreement with Canada.
Unfortunately, we now have on the floor of the House a motion from the Opposition which is motivated, in my view, for transitory partisan advantage. The most offensive part of the motion, and I think I must put this on the record, is that part which reflects adversely on labour and on the work done by our provinces and industry. It is a bogus allegation that nothing is being done on this issue.
Before 1 get into that, Mr. Speaker, I want to-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure the Minister has the motion, worded as required under the rules of the House of Commons, before him. It does not refer to anything he has just spoken about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure what is that point the Member has raised, but he has not yet raised a point of order.
Supply


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that. I have been speaking on the comprehensive trade negotiations and the kind of circumstance that exists today.
The Hon. Member for Skeena alluded several times to the efforts of the Government regarding forestry. I think it is important we set the record straight.
I was appointed some 18 months ago. The scenario we found was that the Canadian Forestry Service was buried in the Department of Environment. There had been a series of Ministers who really did not care or know much about forestry. During the 1970s we had a Department, an agency of the Government, that was essentially cut apart, had its Budget reduced and person-years cut almost in half from what existed in the previous decade. It was demoralized. There were modest forestry agreements with four or five provinces. Basically haphazard part-time attention was paid to Canada's largest industry. I have talked to many in the industry and all provincial Ministers. They felt that there was no one in Ottawa speaking for their sector around the cabinet table. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in September, 1984, corrected that situation. There is somebody at the cabinet table speaking for that sector and speaking very forcefully.
Through the appointment of an associate Deputy Minister, we have increased the ERDA agreements, that is our commitment in dollars to the sector, from $223 million to $1,057 billion. That is an increase of over four-fold. Surely that gives an indication of the kind of attention the Government is paying. We had laboratories and equipment that had been run down. The Government was able to encourage the Treasury Board to increase funds by 1,500 per cent. We were able to continue an $80 million expansion program. We formed a forest sector advisory committee which reports to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and myself. We continue to show a continuing commitment to the human resources program, and we have shown a continued commitment to research and development. It seems to me that we have made a very strong commitment to the industry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock p.m., 1 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.
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1986


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter from Mr. Thomas Booth to my Leader. It reads in part as follows:
Having just received my income tax forms for 1985, I was curious to compare them with the ones for 1984. I find that on a taxable income of $4,000 in 1984, the federal tax was $332 on the new ones, and for 1985 it is $426, an increase of $94. On a taxable income of $24,000, the tax in 1984 was $4,439, but in 1984 it was $4,477, an increase of $38.
Now 1 ask you which taxpayer is in a better position to pay a larger increase, the taxpayer who has a taxable income of $4,000 or the one with a taxable income of $24,000?
Thousands and thousands of Canadians are today doing their income tax returns, comparing both years, and asking the same question.



CHILDREN


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, after three years of study the Badgley Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youths released its report over a year and a half ago. The national tragedy which the Committee documented in its report has still not been addressed by the Government. The Committee's findings were very disturbing. They presented appalling statistics showing the extent and nature of sexual abuses against children. The report showed that young people are particularly vulnerable to acts of sexual abuse and, therefore, require special legal protection.
Despite the clear need articulated by the report, the Conservative Government has still not seen fit to propose adequate protective measures for children. What is the Government waiting for? The Government has had enough time to study the recommendations in the report. We in the New Democratic Party have consistently been pressing the Government to protect children. It is long past time for action. Let us get on with it.

[ Translation]



JOB CREATION AND TRAINING-GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the present Government's record is quite remarkable for what it has done for young people, especially with respect to job creation and training.
Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous Government which not only was not concerned about young people but neglected them and let the number of youth jobs drop by 285,000 between 1980 and 1984, the present Government has taken steps to improve the situation. Seventy-three thousand jobs have been created since 1984, for young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and that is not all.
This summer, we will be supporting youth even more by spending S210 million on Challenge '86. This program does not offer young people some vague kind of work but gives them a chance to acquire experience related to their field of study or to their career plans.
Furthermore, 25,000 jobs out of 40,000 available for the Census will be reserved for students-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The sixty seconds are up.



TERRORISM


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, when announcing the recent formation of a new RCMP emergency response team, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) spoke of the need for meetings with the nation's media to seek views and advice on how the media can deal with terrorist incidents. Most journalists and responsible news gathering organizations understand the need for self-enforced guidelines on the coverage of events involving terrorism. While responsible journalism must include the public's right to know, the media know that they should not be open to exploitation by terrorists who desire free publicity.
However, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), and other Liberals braying in the background, are quoted as saying that the Solicitor General, by wishing to consult, is contemplating press censorship. What absolute rubbish! The Hon. Member in the Liberal Party is the same person who sat in a Cabinet which considered Government-established press councils. He is one to defend a free press!
The media of Canada are, by and large, responsible, and through self regulation, can and should work with the Solicitor General to develop appropriate measures to deal with terrorism.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this letter. I think it is self-explanatory:
Dear Mr. Mulroney:
March 18, 1986

It is with deep concern that we learn you have not responded to a letter regarding Mr. David Nickerson (M.P.-West Arctic) dated 21 October 1985.
This lack of response is particularly distressing given the serious problem of wife-battering in Canada. You and Mr. Nickerson could take this opportunity to raise the level of public awareness on wife-battering. Instead, it appears that the Government of Canada is content to dismiss the issue without even the courtesy of a reply. This neglect conveys the attitude of tacitly condoning a criminal act.
Prime Minister, your silence is shameful. Your contempt for the women of Canada is implicit in your refusal to respond to straight-forward, constructive suggestions from a national organization-
This letter is from a transition house in St. John's, Newfoundland. 1 urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to respond.



DISASTERS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the cattle producers south of Hixon, British Columbia, were, for some reason, omitted from the drought relief program offered to other western cattlemen. In many areas of southern British Columbia, especially at certain elevations, the feed losses related to extreme drought conditions were severe. The provincial Agriculture Minister has agreed to extent drought assistance to those drought-stricken areas on a cost-sharing basis with the federal Government. B.C. has offered $2 million and has asked the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to match that amount. To date he has not offered any support and has not responded to B.C.'s request.
These drought-stricken cattlemen are only requesting that they be offered what other western cattlemen have received, nothing more and nothing less. They ask only for fairness and equity. Show some concern and compassion for these cattlemen, as you have shown for others, Mr. Minister.

[ Translation]



PRICE OF GASOLINE-GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted Canadian consumers are starting to get a taste of lower gas prices as a result of our policy of intervening in energy matters.
I hope that all those who criticized us, and others who adjusted prices of goods and services upwards as the price of gas rose, will follow our example and reduce their prices.
1 hope these changes will not be too long in coming, because if within the next few weeks there is no downward adjustment in consumer prices, I will feel obliged to point an accusing finger at every one of those people who were so quick to criticize us at the time.



INDUSTRY


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, a report prepared for the Petroleum Resources Communication Foundation indicates that over 650,000 Canadians from coast to coast are dependent upon Canada's petroleum industry for their livelihood. That is approximately one in every 20 working Canadians. Research undertaken by the Canadian energy Research Institute indicates that two jobs in Canada's petroleum industry create three jobs in other parts of Canada, primarily Ontario and Quebec.
Canada's petroleum industry maintains over 650,000 jobs. It produces our country's leading export commodities, generates billions of provincial and federal tax and royalty dollars, and explores for oil and gas in a nation where energy self-sufficiency is an important national objective. With these solid facts who can doubt the contribution of the energy industry to the nation's well-being?
* *
*



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is shocking the way Liberal Members and Members of the New Democratic Party conduct insidious attacks against members of the Government, using language of the worst kind and taking advantage of their parliamentary immunity.
This is the kind of behaviour described by Lise Bissonnette in her article in Le Devoir last Saturday, and I quote:
Senator Allan MacEachen told a Toronto reporter about the advice he gave young Liberal members, advice he himself was given in 1958 by one of his predecessors in the Senate, Chubby Power. When one is in the Opposition, the best strategy is to "aim at vulnerable targets in the Government and shoot them down." This is not very subtle, but it works, as we saw under John Dicfcnbakcr and as we are seeing now under Brian Mulroney.
Is that the Opposition's only role, Mr. Speaker?



EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS-PRIME MINISTER S LETTER

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in his letter to Senator Hebert the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) attempts to justify the Tory Government's betrayal and abandonment of our youth. He fails to mention that funds for youth programs went from $40 million last year to $17 million this year, and that employment offices on university campuses were cut by 30 per cent. He fails to mention that the LEAD

March 18, 1986
program was eliminated, that institutional training was cut by 25 per cent, that the skills growth fund was terminated, that the critical trade skills training funds were cut in half, and the Government is examining a withdrawal of federal payments for post-secondary education.
[DOT] (MIO)
To top it off, the Prime Minister forgot to mention the elimination of the Youth Ministry and proved his ignorance of what Katimavik is, the special role it plays for Canadian youth. Katimavik was not a job-creation program and therefore did not create jobs. It taught self respect and respect for others. It taught how to work as a team, how to be motivated independently. It taught social responsibility. In short, Katimavik prepared people for life.


Mr. Speaker:: Sixty seconds.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, volunteerism and the voluntary sector are significant to Canadian life, not just because they provide opportunities for personal growth but because they also provide a direct benefit to our communities and contribute to social justice.
Volunteers and the agencies which they staff and fund generate an estimated five billion dollars in economic activity in Canada, which in turn would be equal to 2 per cent of our Gross National Product. A "wage bill" for work voluntarily rendered in one year alone would cost two billion dollars. Those figures illustrate the impact volunteerism has on Canada. Community minded people in Canada should be applauded for their dedication and commitment to helping fellow Canadians.
While a member of the other place sits to attract attention through undemocratic means, tens of thousands of unheard-of Canadians are receiving little recognition for their work and commitment. We applaud those volunteers and deplore unfounded opportunism.



AIR TRANSPORT


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am concerned about the inability of the Hamilton-Wentworth Airport to provide adequate service. I want to suggest to the Government that it take into consideration three possible ways of making better use of the facilities.
First of all, I suggest that it offer to Air Ontario the opportunity to provide the service that it wants to provide; second, that it seek out the charter operators from among the
major carriers and give them the opportunity to operate out of that excellent but under utilized airport; finally, that it make a determination that foreign carriers which have landing rights only in Mirabel be given an extension to Hamilton as a way of entering the southern and southwestern Ontario market.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Society of Canada recently released its study of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, prior to the awaited third biennial report of the International Joint Commission.
In its review the Society reports that the sources of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin are larger and more diverse than anticipated in the 1978 agreement, and concludes that control programs need to be much more comprehensive.
Given the serious nature of this issue and its probable effects on humans using the resources of the Great Lakes, and the clear danger to marine and wildlife, I urge the Canadian contingent on the Commission to press for the adoption of the Society's recommendation that components be put in place to deal with contamination at its source, and that compliance with any forthcoming guidelines be mandatory.



NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION


B. Keith Penner: 

CANADIAN SOFTWOOD EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I sadly learned in today's debate on the Canadian forest industry the Con-
March 18, 1986

servative Party still does not understand the nature of the protectionist sentiment in the U.S. on softwood.
Members of Congress in the House and Senate, Republican and Democrat, have spoken out one after another against Canadian softwood in their States, districts, and Legislatures. Now there are close to a dozen Bills variously proposing quotas, tariffs, and measurements for countervail. The facts of the matter seem to be incomprehensible to the entire Mulroney administration. Let me simplify the issue. Canada now holds 34 per cent of the U.S. softwood market. American politicians are running in the mid-term elections. It is popular to put workers back on the job and companies in the black. There are many closed mills in the U.S. that could reopen if Canada's softwood exports were restricted, thus driving up price and demand for U.S. produced softwood.
Our target to stop the protectionist urges of politicians running for election or re-election must be expanded to include those that produce goods in the U.S. for the Canadian market. The more than two million jobs-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. On February 6 in the House the Deputy Prime Minister promised special new programs "that will employ far more young people directly". On March 3 in the House the Prime Minister promised "very important" new job creation iniatives for youth.
Yesterday in the House the Secretary of State said that any new initiative "is not necessarily a job-creation program". Why would he, at this late date, contradict both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in respect to Government initiatives for young people?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the Government's priority has been to develop job creation through the programs introduced by the Department of Employment and Immigration, and we are now working on programs that will not necessarily,- although I do exclude the possibility,-be job creation programs, but in any event will reflect some of the specific concerns of youth. In any case, these is nothing here that contradicts previous statements by the Acting Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
Oral Questions


SUPPRESSION OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: am sure I understand. My next question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why did the Government terminate certain youth programs without announcing new ones, at a time when 700,000 young people are unemployed in Canada today? Does the Deputy Prime Minister think our young people can be satisfied with a phantom Minister and an utterly confused Secretary of State?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, Canadians love it when they hear the Liberal Party talk about employment. It is really something else!
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has created or introduced job-creation programs to replace Liberal programs that were aimed at only one out of forty young unemployed Canadians, programs that cost so much money it was impossible to use the money for the purpose for which it was appropriated: $6 million out of $20 million in the Katimavik Program was used to pay for administration costs. Is that what you call job-creation programs?


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister had the right instincts when he wanted to get up in the first place. I will give him another opportunity.
Will he confirm to the House that new programs for young people are being withheld at the moment for strictly political reasons?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we have repeated many times that we are now working on a program that will cover a number of areas that are not necessarily related to employment. For a whole month you people have been screaming for a change from job creation. That is what we are looking at. The Leader of the Official Opposition referred earlier to the matter of programs.
I am sorry, but as far as providing programs is concerned, before this Government introduces new programs, it must have consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State. The principal recommendation to cancel the Katimavik Program is found in the Nielsen task force report on job creation which was in the hands of the Government in March, 1985. Why was it not possible for the Government to
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1986
Oral Questions
have a new program if it had one year in which to develop it? Why was that not possible?
[ Translation]
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the cancellation of the Katimavik program has nothing to do with the Nielsen report. The program was too costly. Whether or not it is mentioned in the Nielsen report, we are trying to make you understand that our country cannot afford this kind of program, regardless of what the Nielsen may or may not recommend. That is all.


TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that the same task force report warned of an adverse reaction if Katimavik were cancelled during International Youth Year and the funds were not redeployed immediately for a similar program? Why was action not taken on the warning in the task force report? Has the Minister even read the report?
[ Translation]
Benoît Bouchard: After Question Period, Mr. Speaker, I will be at the disposal of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace to give him the necessary information and make him understand that the decision concerning Katimavik and other youth programs flow from a policy whose aim is to stress job-creation. Katimavik is not a job-creation program, so it is excluded. However, we will soon come up with projects designed to fulfil some of the Katimavik objectives. But again I repeat that the cost of the program was not consistent with the number of young people out of work.


OFFER OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Youth. Will the Minister of State for Youth make an attempt to clear up the confusion caused by her colleague and tell us precisely what program is being entertained to replace Katimavik? What other programs will be offered to the youth of the country?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, a great many different options are being looked at. When the Government is ready with programs, they will be announced.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: The youth of the country are mobilized in response to your inaction. Will you not give them an answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Will you not give them an answer with respect to the recommendations of the report of the Senate, and other reports, which demand immediate action? Will you not respond to them now?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the youth of Canada have never been as well served as they are being served now by such good job-creation and training programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville suggests giving $5,500 per year to young people. He has said himself that $5,500 a year for an ordinary Canadian will not even pay for a decent holiday. 1 wonder what rich people do.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question through the Chair, please.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: My question is directed again to the Minister of State for Youth. Is it the policy of the Government to continue to sing its theme song, " Who's Sorry Now?, or will it respond to the needs of young people?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the Government is responding to the youth of the country by creating jobs instead of seeing jobs lost. It will be helping young people to go through this part of their lives, which is very difficult following 20 years of Liberal administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT KATIMAVIK PROGRAM BE REINSTATED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Youth. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown may think the hunger strike is a joke-we do not!
Does the Minister agree with Katimavik supporter, and P.C. Member of Parliament for Ottawa-Carleton, who has said this about the program:
-Canada will reap the benefits from the better understanding of this country that young people will derive from their nine months with Katimavik.
March 18, 1986

If the Minister does agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton, then will she reinstate the program today?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, no one takes a hunger strike without a great deal of seriousness and sadness. It is a sad example for the youth of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrée  Champagne: Katimavik had some very good aspects. It has been said, and repeated many times, that in this day and age, in this country, it is not something that the Government can afford for one-twentieth of 1 per cent of our youth population.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. How can she talk about cost effectiveness in government programs when last week the Government announced a grant of almost $40,000 to train a dog-catcher and kennel assistant? Does she really believe that dog catching is more important than the future of the young people of Canada?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know the project to which the Hon. Member refers, but if it creates jobs, I am for it.


PRICE OF CRUDE OIL
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that the OPEC meeting in Geneva today broke down again and it now appears that the price of oil could quite realistically reach $10 per barrel. He is also aware that this will create rack and ruin in the western economy. Does the Minister plan to stand idly by and watch literally tens of thousands of jobs in the Province of Alberta and other parts of Canada go down the drain? What action does the Government plan to take?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been put in the House on a number of occasions before, and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has responded to it. She has been talking in particular to representatives of the Province of Alberta. We have had meetings with the industry. Once this situation settles a bit more, then we might be in a better position to make decisions.
Oral Questions


IMPACT ON ENERGY INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. A senior official from the Government of Alberta was quoted today as saying that there is fear in the streets that every major oil project is now threatened. Do the Minister of Finance and the Government plan to stand idly by and simply watch the people of Alberta bleed while they do nothing about this tremendously horrible situation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, as I and my colleague have said, about the impact of lower oil prices on the energy industry itself and about the peripheral impact on communities, particularly those in the Province of Alberta. However, as we have said, and as representatives of the Province of Alberta and the industry have said, during the very volatile situation in which we are right now, this is not the right time to make long-term policy decisions.


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As a result of the evasive remarks he made in the House and to the media yesterday, and the alarm this is now causing one million people who are directly involved in post-secondary education, is the Secretary of State prepared to identify with the Canadian Federation of Students and the youth of Canada by stating clearly that Canadian universities and colleges are deteriorating and that post-secondary education is critically under-funded?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, a meeting with the provincial Ministers of Education is scheduled for Friday morning and the issue of provincial education financing may come up for discussion. The federal Government already contributes a significant share of the funding and, generally speaking, I expect the discussions to be very constructive.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, that is very helpful, but since the Secretary of State is not willing to support them is he then prepared to say that he disagrees with all of the student organizations and faculty organizations in Canada, and with the Premiers of all of the provinces who say that universities are under-funded?

March 18, 1986
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the associations of students and universities have expressed their views.
I must remind the Hon. Member that there has been a considerable increase in federal Government transfer payments, and the established programs financing has not been frozen or cut back. It has been increased by tens of millions of dollars and, as a Department and as a Government, 1 think we generously support post-secondary education in Canada.
Of course it is always possible to spend more money for everything, but the funds must be there and, under the present circumstances, we consider that the funds made available are geared to the Government's financial resources.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he aware of the fact that a delegation of five Tory MPs, led by the former President of the Conservative Party, left yesterday for a secret, two-week clandestine visit to South Korea?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Murta:: How do you know about it, then?


John R. Rodriguez: If so, does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is appropriate that members of his Government should be accepting the largesse of the regime in South Korea?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the rather colourful circumstances described by the hon. gentleman. If Members of Parliament are on such a visit or trip, they are so without any sanction or approval or authority of the Government of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Do you disapprove?


COST OF VISIT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the House and to the people of Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister undertake to have tabled in the House the total cost of the trip and who paid for it? What is the purpose and what is the quid pro quo of the visit?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I guess reforms have left the hon. gentleman behind, because he seems to be unacquainted
with the requirement of the Standing Orders which fully cover this situation.


APPLICATION OF STANDING ORDER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader who is responsible for the general area of conflict of interest of Members of Parliament, and it follows on the question asked by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. The five Conservative Members travelling to South Korea have not declared their interests in the registry, as required by Standing Order 105. How can the Minister tolerate this obvious and contemptuous violation of the rules of the House which he himself introduced-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is a question. 1 said: "How can the Minister"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is in some difficulty finding that it is a question to the Government within the Government's responsibility when the Hon. Member is talking about the rules of the House. Does the Hon. Member have a question to the Government about the Government's responsibility, please?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am putting my question to the Government House Leader because he, as Minister, is responsible for conflict of interest in the House. How can he tolerate such an obvious breach of our rules and regulations?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to the Standing Order which applies to the registry of travel by Members, if he reads it, he will understand that there is no requirement to register travel before one goes on a trip.


Some Hon. Members:: That is obvious.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Standing Order is quite clear. There is a registry available for Members. The Standing Order speaks for itself. I am not aware of the circumstances in respect of private travel by individual Members of Parliament regardless of Party, but the Standing Order is there and they can register when they return or before they go.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, given the answer of the Minister, will he undertake at this time to refer the question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for appropriate disciplinary action?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not a governmental question. If the Member is raising questions with regard to a breach of the rules, he may want to raise a point of order at some point on the matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I give you notice.
March 18, 1986


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Since the Minister will be meeting with textile workers in Sherbrooke tomorrow, could he answer a very simple question which the Government has been avoiding for nine months? Is the Government now prepared to act upon the Textile and Clothing Board recommendations to stop the loss of thousands of jobs in that important industry?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's comment as a representation. Of course my trip to Sherbrooke tomorrow is designed to meet with various industry representatives, union leaders, and company officials, so that we will be better acquainted in respect of the policy we hope to enunciate and what the industry and its workers would like to see us adopt as policy.


LOSS OF JOBS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the workers in the industry have made it very clear that, having lost 22,000 jobs in the last four years, they want action to protect their industry. Will the Government take action to stop the loss of jobs in this industry, yes or no, and why the long delays?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised the Hon. Member did not mention that 112,000 jobs have been created in the Province of Quebec.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not in textiles.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I remind him that the jobs to which he is referring were as a result of rather sensational increases in textile and clothing imports in 1982 and 1983, which went as high as 25 per cent jumps under the former Government that was aided and abetted by his Party.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board and it concerns the Western Grain Stabilization Plan. With prairie farm incomes at a very low level this year, will the Minister tell us whether there will be a stabilization payment this spring and, if so, when?
Oral Questions


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that, as a result of the Government amending the Act last year, we were able to make quite a substantial interim payment prior to spring seeding. We are presently doing calculations to estimate what the payment might be, if any, for 1985-86. Indications are that there will be a payment and, as it looks presently with preliminary calculations, we intend to make another sizable interim payment prior to spring seeding, as we did last year.

[ Translation]


KATIMAVIK PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. It is increasingly obvious to all observers that the Minister keeps improvising about the programs. In fact, there are three Ministers and three different versions, that is how they react. Mr. Speaker, his colleagues are too noisy, the Minister can hardly hear me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question, please.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. Since the Minister improvises as he goes along and since he has not done his homework, why does he not simply extend the Katimavik program instead of trying to dream up a program at the last minute?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy watching the Hon. Member for Shefford, the former Minister of Youth who did not accomplish anything at all when he held that portfolio. The Hon. Member for Shefford knows very well that when he suggests we should reinstate Katimavik and drop-I did understand what you said, you said we should forget about the improvised programs we are preparing. Let us be serious: either we establish the job creation programs wanted by young Canadians, or we do as you did-nothing!


Jean-C. Lapierre: I can tell the Minister I am not embarrassed at all, but I am one of the Department's godfathers ...


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A supplementary question?


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE CLARIFICATION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Secretary of State has asked employees to work overtime, but they have nothing to do and are just trying to save face. Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not tell us right now: We
have nothing else, so we will extend Katimavik for another year
until I can do my homework. That is what he should say.

March 18, 1986
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: The
answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Unlike your Government, we are going to use those $20 million to create jobs, and that is what is important to us.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. In the event that the U.S. Farm Bill passes and there is a downward pressure on the price of domestic grain, will the Western Grain Stabilization fund be able to continue payments, even though there has been a large drain on it because of the drought situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have to find that that is a hypothetical question.


Mr. Blenkarn:: He should have answered that question.


Arnold John Malone: Yes, it was a good one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South and the Hon. Member for Crowfoot should go and have a discussion somewhere else about the quality of questions.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Prime Minister would continue to undermine the credibility of the former Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South, by stating to The New York Times that he, the Prime Minister, sought that Member's resignation when, in fact, the Member himself said in the House of Commons that he offered it?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 will remind the hon. gentleman that today is March 18, 1986. He is speaking about events that occurred in this House in September, 1985, and are long since behind us.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER'S INTERVIEW REPORTED IN NEW YORK TIMES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that the Prime Minister himself raised the issue in an interview given to The New York Times recently, and in that interview he claimed that he sought the Member's resignation when the Member himself, a long-standing Member of Parliament, indicated to this House of Commons that he offered it? Why would the Prime Minister do that to that Member?


An Hon. Member:: Because he is not a nice man.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the matter is of record. Last September there was published, from the Office of the Prime Minister, an exchange of letters between the former Minister and the Prime Minister. I do not see what is to be gained, except wasting the time of the House, by rehashing events of last September.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It has been reported that a private firm carried out a seismic survey of the bed of the St. Clair River and found what it believed to be large deposits of mercury as well as possible deposits of other toxic substances. What investigation is the Minister carrying out of these findings, and can he tell us today whether or not they are accurate?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is making reference to a small Vancouver-based company called Thalassic that, quite independently, on its own, without any reference to my Department or to any departments of Government, undertook certain investigations into the bottom of the St. Clair River. The company is trying to sell technology to my Department and, for that purpose, is attempting to generate as much publicity as possible.
I have asked my officials to look into the report that the company tendered to the media and not to me. I understand the investigations were very hypothetical and tentative. Neither my Department's officials nor those of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment were impressed with those investigations.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister report to the House as soon as possible on whether the findings are accurate and, in particular, will he tell the House whether the findings indicate that mercury is on the bottom of the St. Clair River? If so, will the firm be allowed to
March 18, 1986

mine or extract that mercury? If that is the case, what steps will the Minister take to ensure the health and safety of the public in the area?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the company in question has not made available to me nor to my Department, nor to any of my officials, the detailed results of its investigations.
I have a memo, which I would be quite prepared to share with the Hon. Member, from my officials outlining in considerable detail the weaknesses those officials found in the relevant technology. Until 1 can be convinced otherwise, I hold the view that the matter is not worth pursuing, but I have an open mind on the subject.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have just been informed that the Minister and her Department went on a paper shredding binge just hours after the misuse of UI recipients' names was made public, that is, the giving of those names to the Peat Marwick company for a survey.
How could the yet to be completed studies and investigations by both the Privacy Commissioner and the Minister's own Department have full and complete access to all the relevant information when the paper shredder started just hours after the question was raised here in the House of Commons?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, the material in question was recalled from Peat Marwick. That material is now awaiting the investigation of the Privacy Commissioner.


SHREDDING INQUIRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister precisely whether she could tell the House what material has already been shredded, and does that material include the information received from Peat Marwick, including the computer tapes?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to find out in detail about every single piece of paper. This did, of course, involve the names and addresses of some 30,000 people. It involved questionnaires that went to some 6,000 people, I believe. 1 will find out in detail exactly what has happened to every piece of paper and I will be glad to get back to the Hon. Member.
_____________________________11621
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS


CARRIAGE BY RAIL THROUGH METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I understand the Minister met yesterday with officials of the Metro Toronto Residents Action Committee with regard to the lowering of speed limits for trains carrying toxic waste through Metropolitan Toronto. What action is the Government prepared to take in order to prevent he derailment of trains carrying dangerous goods through heavily populated areas?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I did meet with the officials to whom the Hon. Member has referred, including representatives of the MTRAC organization. I did undertake to advise them that we were actively looking at the issue of lowering speed limits of trains going through a particular section of Toronto to 25 miles per hour.
I should remind the Hon. Member that a special task force to look at the issue of the transportation of dangerous goods through the Toronto area has been established. This will clearly be one of the priorities which the task force will consider. I hope we will be in a position to have a decision on that matter very soon.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: VIA Rail is already doing 25 miles an hour.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the construction of a maximum security prison in the Prime Minister's own riding.
In view of the fact that the Nielsen report recommended a moratorium on all future prison construction, would the Solicitor General not agree that, based on correctional considerations, it is inappropriate to spend $60 million to construct a prison in a remote part of the Prime Minister's riding and, indeed, anywhere in Quebec where there is no double-bunking?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps have to wait until tomorrow to get the translation of the Member's question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: As far as the Nielsen task force recommendations are concerned, those have been sent to a parliamentary committee. It would be inappropriate of me to try to pre-empt discussion on those.

March 18, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION MORATORIUM
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the prison is under construction. In view of the recommendations coming out of the Nielsen task force, would he not declare a moratorium on the construction of that prison, which has been referred to as a misguided exercise in pork-barrel politics, and will he not redirect the $60 million to fund Katimavik for a further period of three years?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is a novel proposal which the Hon. Member has made, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether he feels it is appropriate for the Solicitor General to be funding Katimavik, but it would be something to which I would expect his colleagues to be very much opposed.
While we are waiting for discussion by the parliamentary committee, plans go on and continue to be made, and we intend to continue with business as usual.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. It concerns what the Government is calling increases in cultural expenditures.
Would the Minister confirm that the $75 million mentioned in the Budget is an increase in lieu of the cost of living increases which were promised by the Conservatives in the election campaign, that there is no replacement of the monies cut last year for cultural spending and, therefore, there is a net decrease in the money available from the federal Government for culture in Canada?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are better with four-letter
words.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the additional $75 million allocation for the Government's cultural policies will be spent on programs on which consultations are already being held with the provinces and cultural bodies. The Canada Council, for instance will see a 22 per cent increase in its present budget, so that the Council will become the Government agency receiving the highest increase in funding under the last Budget.


DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister confirm that the 2 per cent which is being cut from every Department will not, in the case of his Department, affect any of the cultural agencies, but will be absorbed by his own Department rather than affecting independent agencies?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for all the cuts imposed on cultural agencies by the previous Government. What I am trying to define is a new budgetary policy, in agreement with the provinces and the cultural bodies concerned.


PENITENTIARIES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the answer which the Solicitor General gave to my colleague, is he saying that the issue of whether the prison will be built in the Prime Minister's riding is in the hands of the committee to which the Nielsen report has been referred? Is that still an open question, as he has just suggested?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, Mr. Speaker, it was his colleague who suggested that should be the case. I am not going to prejudge the committee discussion with regard to the recommendations of the study group. In the meantime we have a responsibility to continue running the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite ask questions and then shout throughout the answers. Could they give us the courtesy of allowing us to respond to their questions?
We have an obligation to continue with our responsibilities in the meantime, and we intend to do that.


PAROLE CASE LOADS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, is that the reason why the Solicitor General is sabotaging the country's parole system by allowing parole case loads to have grown so large since he took office that parole officers themselves are saying that street supervision is presenting an undue risk to the Canadian people?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that is the most tenuous supplementary question I have ever heard. There is no intention or action on the part of the Government to sabotage the parole system. Indeed, we are
March 18, 1986

considering significant reforms to the parole system which I hope will help to cut the case loads. They will also help to ensure that the public is better protected.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and is with regard to the rapidly growing shortage of fish in Nova Scotia. Will the Minister tell the House what he plans to do to redress the unbalance in fish allocation between the inshore and enterprise allocations, and when he intends to do it?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, an express concern by the inshore fishermen of the Southwest Nova area with regard to the allocation which was extended to the offshore fleet under the five-year enterprise allocation plan. When that plan was discussed with my provincial colleagues for the present fishing year, it was agreed by the Minister for Nova Scotia that that plan should remain in force. However, we are reviewing the division of access to that allocation, and I expect to have a response to the concerns of the inshore sector in Southwest Nova before Easter.


POSSIBILITY OF CONFRONTATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, last weekend there was the beginning of a confrontation between enforcement officers and the fishermen. Does the Minister plan to resolve this imbalance on a permanent basis, thereby attempting to prevent a clash between fishermen and enforcement officers in that area?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, our first objective is to determine if, indeed, there is an imbalance. There has been a suggestion that the inshore fleet is vastly over capacity and has been fishing beyong its normal allocations. We must look at that allegation in light of the important needs of those inshore communities. As I have informed the Hon. Member, I will be making an announcement soon with regard to a resolution of this problem.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR MINISTER OF EDUCATION
Mr. Speaker:: 1 wish to advise Hon. Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Loyola Hearn, Minister of Education of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions YOUTH


JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Could she advise the House whether her Department has any programs dealing with the youth of the country? If so, how many programs are there, and how many young people are involved in those programs?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: See him in caucus tomorrow, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the Hon. Member. This year some $700 million is being expended on job-creation and training programs for young people. That is considerably more than was expended by the former Government at the height of the recession in 1982.


Mr. Allmand:: Not true.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: At that time far less than $700 million was spent, although the unemployment rate was 21 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Minister promised to investigate the $4,000 a year buy-a-job scheme implemented by All Cap Baggage Service at Pearson International Airport. Have the Minister's officials conducted private and confidential inquiries with the porters involved at Pearson to determine whether those porters who signed a petition in support of the company did so, as reported, under threat of losing their jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House and the Hon. Member yesterday, regional officials are investigating the matter in detail. As of this date I have not received a report. I repeat as well that 30 or 32 of the 40 have disassociated themselves from the dissenting view of the 10 or so who find the arrangements unsatisfactory.


REPORTED THREAT OF LOSS OF JOBS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that a number of those who have signed the petition and, in the Minister's words, have

March 18, 1986
Oral Questions
disassociated themselves, have claimed that they did so under threat of losing their jobs if they did not support a company-written petition to associate themselves with the company's practices. Will the Minister reject this buy-a-job scheme in Canada's airports which is immoral and archaic?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the matter is being investigated is to look into the allegations which the Hon. Member has just made. I would not want to draw any conclusions based on the allegations made by the Hon. Member, because he has been wrong in this House more than once.


SKI TEAMS' INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Does the Minister still think that the insurance industry has responded positively to his challenge with regard to coverage for Canada's ski teams since that so-called positive response has resulted in the coverage being cut in half while the rates have been increased by 500 per cent? Is he aware that those increased costs will result in a reduction in the amount of money used for the development of skiing in our country?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Muiticulturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the critic from the New Democratic Party has finally awoken and is asking some questions. He is aware that the challenge which we put out to the industry has had very positive results. The ski team is now insured. In the meantime I have taken the initiative of establishing, for the first time ever, a special committee which is utilizing the best know-how in the industry to ensure that these sorts of problems do not arise in the future.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, that know-how has resulted in a 500 per cent increase in rates.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Iain Francis Angus: Is the Minister aware that in the past five years 50 national sports governing bodies have only had $23,000 in liability insurance claims awarded against them? Is it not time for the Government either to provide the funding for the ski association and the sports governing bodies, or to provide the required insurance coverage?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member cares to check with the sports governing bodies he will find out that they are delighted with the initiatives which this Minister has taken to help them in their
efforts to get insurance. In the meantime, since most of the jurisdiction lies with the provinces, my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, and others, are working with the provinces on a more global aspect to ensure that the concerns of the sports and insurance industries are satisfied.


INCOME TAX
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. What kind of message is he getting from the fact that over 15,000 readers have responded to an invitation from a Toronto newspaper to express their dissatisfaction with the unfair burden his Budget places on middle-income taxpayers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are those who would like to have taxes not increase. However, I think the majority of Canadians recognize that we have a very serious deficit problem, which they know we are addressing predominantly through reduced spending. Seventy per cent of deficit reduction is through spending reductions. A portion must be borne through tax increases, and we are carrying that out in the broadest possible way.


POINTS OF ORDER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could give us your guidance on a matter which transpired in Question Period. Questions were put to the Government House Leader with respect to the Registry of Members' Foreign Travel. There was a suggestion that this could not pertain to a Minister's responsibility but was, rather, a matter of House Business. The questions were placed to the Minister because the travel registry concept was presented to the House by the Minister as a Government initiative. Under the circumstances, I respectfully ask for your guidance whether this would be, therefore, a matter that the Minister could be properly questioned about.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can deal with that. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wants to respond?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the point of order. This provision was announced some months ago and was ultimately adopted by the House unanimously. Whether or not it was initiated by myself or the Hon. Member, we all accept responsibility for it because there was no dissenting voice heard when the matter was put to a vote.
March 18, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on the same point of order.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 ask for your indulgence in letting me finish because I think it could be helpful. You may remember I have always favoured this kind of registry. I find now there may be some difficulty in coming to terms with this provision because there is no time limit. Maybe now the time has come to re-evaluate Standing Order 105 to see whether we should not come together to arrive at a timetable. The Standing Order now says "shall register" and "shall maintain a public registry". It is very vague. Someone could register in a year and it would still be all right. The Standing Order was made in good faith, but perhaps the time has come to re-evaluate it because, as it stands now, it does not say when you should register. 1 hope that some day Your Honour would like to take some time to look into it.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on the same point of order? We have to be clear. The Hon. Member is speaking to the point of asking the Government House Leader questions. It is not the question of order that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis said was the same, but which is different?


Marcel Prud'homme: A suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: On a different point of order? All right, on the same point of order with regard to questions? Then let me try and resolve that one.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) makes the point that the matter originated with the Government. But, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) says, it ceases to be a Government matter once the House adopts it as a House rule. It then becomes a rule of the House. Therefore, questions with regard to the implementation or application of the registry may or may not be questions of order, along the lines the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is putting, with regard to the registry. However, it is difficult for the Chair to find that questions to a Government Minister about the Government's administrative responsibility could apply to a matter which, by the rules, is under the administration of the Clerk. I instinctively found it difficult to find that question in order. Perhaps the Hon. Member may want to persuade me at some other time on that point, but that is why I ruled that way today. 1 am open to representations on that question.


S O. 105-ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to Standing Order 105, which was mentioned previously by my colleague from Saint-Denis. There is a strong desire on the part of all Hon. Members that these new rules be workable and serve the Members of the House well. Naturally, with new Standing Orders there is bound to be some looseness or loophole which was certainly
Point of Order-Mr. Penner
never intended to be there in the first place. The way in which a matter like this can be handled is not to rewrite the rules every time we see an escape hatch or some possibility for abuse. The way we handle it is for the Chair, seeing a problem, to rule on the Standing Order and thereby build up a body of precedence which would have equal authority with the Standing Order itself. Therefore I would ask whether Your Honour intends to rule with respect to the time when a Member of Parliament shall register foreign travel which is not wholly paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Mr. Speaker:: That is clearly a separate point of order. I have a feeling there may be some people who wish to address that matter prior to the Chair ruling. The only way it could be dealt with by the Chair would be for the Member to raise a point of order, claiming that somehow this rule had been breached. May 1 suggest, therefore, that is the proper time for the argument to be put, as opposed to the general way in which the Hon. Member is trying to put it right now. If he wishes to do that, that of course would be his right at an appropriate time. Can we end it there?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I entirely accept the point you make. I find myself in some difficulty in saying there is a breach. However, in the minds of many Members and observers of Parliament, it would seem there was a breach of Standing Order 105 if the registry does not take place prior to the trip. That is certainly the position I would take and I would hope Your Honour would rule that this registration should take place before, not after.


Mr. Speaker:: We are now into the dilemma, because if that is the case, then I must hear argument. The Hon. Member is raising that as a point of order today and asking me to rule on that matter, therefore the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wishes to respond.


B. Keith Penner: May I be clear on that?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation I would give to Standing Order 105 is that a Member of Parliament, upon accepting an invitation and making plans to go, before departure would place his or her name in the registrar. This should not be done at some later date, or even perhaps in some other Parliament, it should be done prior to the trip. I think that is the intention of the Standing Order and I would argue that there should be a clear and precise ruling from the Chair that that is the intention of Standing Order 105.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as much as I have respect for the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and his reputation as a Member of Parliament, I am sure he would be the first one to acknowledge that, if he is making a specific suggestion that there has been a breach, whether in advance of travel or not, in all fairness he should first find out what the facts are before making any suggestion of a breach.

March 18, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Penner
During Question Period I said, and this is the truth, that I am not aware of the circumstances with respect to the travel of certain Members of Parliament. I know, for example, that on many instances I travel with Members in the Opposition Parties during the course of parliamentary delegations I have, therefore, knowledge that people are on particular trips, and I am in a position to stand in the House and say that such a trip was under the auspices of an interparliamentary association, or paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is quite a different proposition that standing in this place and, on the basis of a newspaper report, suggesting that something is taking place, without first ascertaining whether or not this travel is done at the expense of the individual Member of Parliament, which is exempted from this particular provision, or that there is, in fact, no obligation on the part of the Member to register. That is the important thing to determine at the outset.
The point I want to make in pursuing this particular matter is that I know that newspaper reports are very often the basis of questioning in the course of events, but it seems to me that the Standing Order is very clear. It requires and obligates Members under certain circumstances to enter certain details with respect to foreign travel into a registry maintained in your office, Sir. It says nothing more, nothing less. There is no imputation that it has to be done before, during or after. Indeed, it seems to me rather preposterous, if you want to get the fullest detail with respect to travel, to suggest that a Member before they take the trip give the full details of a trip that is yet to be undertaken. It would be far more appropriate in my way of thinking for the Member to come forward after returning from the trip to disclose the full details as required under the Standing Order.
I do not want to prolong this, because it is an Opposition Day as I respect the right of the Opposition to have the fullest debate. But let me simply say this. This particular provision has been on notice to Hon. Members who have had a chance to cogitate on its implications for some months now. It was accepted by unanimous resolution of the House as a provisional order of the House. The purpose of a provisional order, and rules adopted on an experimental basis, is for us to benefit from the experience that will transpire.
I recall when I first introduced this matter by way of resolution, if we want to bring this to its logical conclusion, that the resistance to this proposal for a registry was not from this side of the House, but rather from the other side. I find it rather curious now to find members of the Opposition complaining about this very reasonable proposition and now wanting to have you rule in advance of any particular allegation that this is travel that might come within this rule.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order, please. It is clear that the matter was adopted by the House. Let me suggest-


Ian Deans: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a technical matter I must deal with before I hear more argument. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has raised a point of order. I must go to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and ask him precisely who has breached the rules and in what way? He has raised a general point of order. I am in a dilemma in that in order to investigate what the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior is claiming as a breach, I think I should have some facts.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that we need to play cat and mouse in the House of Commons. We know that there is a delegation that has made a trip to the Republic of South Korea, and we know that one Member has placed his name on the registry and that others have not. This is a confusing, uncertain situation. It is one that I am sure Your Honour cannot tolerate, and it is one about which Members of Parliament should have some clarification. That is what the point of order is about and what I am asking the Chair to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will be next. The Hon. Member will know that the Chair had to have that information in order to proceed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I had not intended to even enter into this debate. However, having listened to it, there is some confusion that I want to try to clear up, at least in my own mind. As I understand it, after looking at the rule, the requirement is that if a person travels on other than parliamentary business paid for out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it is necessary for that individual-


An Hon. Member:: Or on his own account.


Ian Deans: I'm sorry, or on his own account, I bet your pardon. You are correct. It is necessary for those individuals to list the trip together with the name of the sponsoring person or organization which paid for travel to and from Canada. That is a very simple requirement and, in fact, ought to be able to be adhered to in advance of the trip taking place. It is not necessary for the person to have taken the trip to know who is paying for it. Surely that question would be asked at the time the trip was offered. The decision as to whether or not the individual Member might accept the offer would be, at least in part, determined by the source of the funding.
I want to make just three points. The first is that it is the practice for parliamentary organizations to announce in advance that there is a parliamentary delegation going to a particular place. That practice has served us well, and I think that that practice should become the rule. It is not followed in every instance, but it has been a practice. The reason I say that is that there is circulated among the Members the announcement of the opportunity to take the trip. With that in mind, I think we ought to try to do two things. We should try to establish that as a practice for all trips that are paid for either out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or funded by someone other than the Member.
March 18, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are debationg what the practice should be as opposed to hearing representations on a point of order, which is the Chair's dilemma at this point. Can the Hon. Member conclude on the point of order, please?


Ian Deans: On the point of order let me then say that you will recall, Sir, that at the time the provisional rules were put in place there was an understanding arrived at among the Parties that as matters such as this arose the House Leaders would meet, they would attempt to resolve those matters and they would come back with some satisfactory solution. I was going to end by saying, I am confident that if the House Leader for the Government, together with the House Leader for the Official Opposition were to meet with myself we could easily enough determine how this could be arranged to meet the requirements of everyone in the House of Commons without asking the Speaker to make a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest, please, for the sake of everybody involved, that that suggestion by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) seems, from the Chair, to make the most sense so far. I take the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior's concerns seriously, but I think that given the newness of this and given the importance I think the House should place this on the experimental period, it would be wiser if the House Leaders were to discuss this matter prior to the Chair having to make a ruling, which the Chair may later have to do if there is no possibility of agreement. May I suggest, therefore, that 1 intend to leave it that way for the moment and wait for the House Leaders to meet.
If a Member wants to put a motion on the floor as to what the matter should be he has every right to do so, but not on a point of order. It would therefore be out of order now to do so. No motion is in order at this point. This is a point of order arising out of the Question Period. My view is that that is the wisest course of action. Did the Members want to object to that? Then I will have to rule, and I will rule now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Since I am at the centre of this whole thing may I just put a point to you and to the House. Indeed I agree that this matter should be taken up by the House Leaders of all Parties. But I also think Members in this House should be able to put their points of view to the Ministers in question, in writing or verbally, otherwise it is just going to be a party of three persons navel gazing.


Mr. Speaker:: They have every right to. The Hon. Member knows that we are here on a point of order. That is all that is before the House at the moment.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, in raising the point of order I was motivated by a strong desire to see the new Standing Orders work, and not to cast aspersions on any Hon. Members. Therefore, whatever route, whatever avenue will resolve the problem will certainly have my full support and agreement. I agree with Your Honour that if it can be done among the House Leaders, that is perfectly acceptable to me. If it is in order, Sir, at this time I would seek unanimous consent, if that is necessary, to withdraw the point of order.
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. No such consent is necessary.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was going to seek the unanimous consent of the House. I was ordered, as Chairman of the Committee on Management and Members' Services, to write to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to refer this matter before it was printed. I realize that the matter that has been dealt with by the House is exactly what we wanted to study in the Management and Members' Services Committee. We wanted to adopt the rule and have a registry. I may say, with all indulgence, that I do not agree with some of my colleague's remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has representations to make and I believe he knows where to make them. Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House recognizes the dire circumstances faced by Canadian forest workers by impending legislative initiatives of the U.S. Congress and the equally dire circumstances faced by Canadian farmers as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill and condemns this Government for its failure to adequately protect the viability of these two vital sectors of the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to the Hon. Member for Skeena and all Members of the House that we welcome the debate on his motion regarding this issue. I am aware of his personal interest and the interest of other Hon. Members about this issue.
This is a sensitive issue at this time because of the negotiations and the impending decision in the United States about whether to proceed with the bilateral negotiations with Canada. However, I believe it is important to state for the record what progress we have made to date.
If the Hon. Member were to talk to Jack Munro of the International Woodworkers of America, or Mike Apsey of COFI, any of the mill management or labour groups, or the industry, he would find that they are very well aware of the Government's efforts to ensure that we work together in dealing with this very real threat.
Let me review for the House the strong united front that we have forged with all segments of the forestry sector in defend-

March 18, 1986
Supply
ing Canadian interests in this issue. I was involved in the 1982-83 countervail issue. In my opinion, the leadership shown by our Government is far ahead of what was shown in 1982-83 in terms of bringing together all of those interests who stand to lose from possible actions taken in another jurisdiction.
The lumber industry in all parts of our country have come together in CFIC, the Canadian Forest Industries Council. Of course, the provinces are key players, given the nature of the charges against their timber pricing and resource management policies. One of the first issues discussed by the Canadian Council of Forestry Ministers was Canadian response to the protectionist threats in the United States. We have closely involved the provinces during every step in dealing with this particular issue. In fact, in the recent meeting in the Flon. Member's Province of British Columbia, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec were directly involved in the second meeting of the series of current Canada-U.S. talks which were held just two weeks ago.
The International Woodworkers of America have made a tremendous contribution to a better understanding of this issue on both sides of the border by their comprehensive analysis of the productivity differences between American and Canadian sawmills, which is a major cornerstone of our argument that Canada's market share results from market factors, not some Government manipulation of the market-place.
Through our Washington embassy and our U.S. consulates, as mentioned this morning, we have undertaken a concerted educational effort to explain the Canadian case. I believe it is extremely important that we ensure that the arguments made on both sides are based on fact, so that this does not evolve into an emotional issue as a result of what is happening in those particular jurisdictions.
The Canadian industry has mounted a major defence in the United States against protectionist pressure in the Congress and with the administration. The industry has also worked closely with the federal and provincial Governments to ensure an effective defence of the Canadian case in the United States. I believe that our industry, through COFI, has effectively mobilized U.S. home builders, lumber wholesalers, shippers and other interests to lobby Congress against protectionist pressures.
All of the various members of the forestry community which I have mentioned, including the lumber industry and its workers, the provinces and the federal Government, have been working in very close harmony on this issue. Moreover, I do not see this changing in the very near future. Let me review some of the facts in this issue because I believe it is important that Hon. Members, Canadians and others understand the argument from our perspective.
The U.S. industry and some members of Congress are alleging that all of the problems associated with the North American lumber industry are due to our over-production in Canada because of our stumpage and forest management policies. Let me present our viewpoint on this issue arising from the recent fact-finding meeting held in Prince George in February.
It will come as no surprise that we disagree strongly with the intimation that certain provincial resource development practices may have a significant market distorting impact on North American lumber trade. It was our broad conclusion following the technical briefings in Prince George last February that there is no evidence of distortions as a result of Canadian provincial policies that could be said to be providing their producers with unfair advantage. Despite the attempts by the U.S. industry to discredit the argument, it remains our firm contention that market factors explain most if not all of the competitiveness enjoyed by Canada in the market-place. In particular, we would point to the exchange rate advantage enjoyed by Canadian mills over the past decade, and species preference that favours Canadian species in the North American stud-framing market. These factors have been the major determinants of Canadian competitiveness and of the growth in its market share over the past decade.
Let us briefly revisit the facts. The impact of the exchange rate can be viewed in one of two ways. On the cost side, the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar has more than offset a slightly higher rate of inflation in Canada. As the recent report from the U.S. International Trade Commission points out, the net result of this real exchange rate effect was equivalent to giving Canadians producers a production cost advantage of 11 per cent in 1984, compared with 1977.
It could be argued that it is more meaningful to measure the impact of exchange rate movements from the demand side. It is, after all, the different price signals sent to Canadian as opposed to U.S. producers that influences their respective decisions to produce. In this sense, the effect of the exchange rate movement has been to consistently send a higher price signal to Canadian producers than U.S. producers of similar lumber.
I have already referred to productivity studies by IWA and others. While we had severe reservations about the methodology employed by the U.S. ITC study, I believe it is important that Canadians are aware that the study showed that Canadian mills produce almost twice as much on average as do U.S. mills. Furthermore, the average Canadian worker produces
100,000	board feet annually, or 26 per cent more than each U.S. worker. Third, on an hourly basis, the average Canadian produces 29 per cent more than the average U.S. worker. Finally, the productivity increase between 1978 and 1984, both of which were peak years, was 40 per cent in Canada and only 26 per cent in the United States. We understand that the productivity advantage over U.S. sawmills may close and we will have to take steps to ensure that we maintain an advantage.
We must also deal with species preference. There is no question that in all markets in the United States, American consumers prefer Canadian spruce-pine-fir. There are many reasons why they prefer Canadian spruce-pine-Fir over southern yellow pine. Even the Southern American Forest Products Association has recently confirmed that excessive warp, crook wane and moisture content are fairly common complaints from specifiers and users of southern yellow pine. I think there is a
March 18, 1986

preferential issue which must be dealt with in respect of the fact that they would prefer our species rather than theirs.
We must address the issue of whether or nor there are any Government policies which have had a significantly distorting effect on north American lumber markets. The technical briefings which were held recently with the U.S. administration will bring this issue out. In terms of Canadian provincial policies and practices, it is important to note that while unique institutional arrangements have been developed in Canada in response to ownership patterns and a resource base which differs markedly from that in the United States we share with the United States certain fundamental resource management objectives. We are not that far apart in terms of our objectives. There are common elements in our approach to resource pricing.
With respect to resource management, all provinces are committed to sustained yield. It has been brought to our attention that perhaps we do not have a sustained yield. We adhere to that policy while recognizing the difficult transition from an over-mature resource which we have in Canada to what might be termed, perhaps, a normal forest. There has also been an increasing commitment to reforestation in Canada over the past decade to ensure sustained yield in future years.
Besides that our producers have extra costs and much more difficult access to our resources, for example, in terms of road building activities. Even if there are allowances for that they are additional costs to our producers. I think it is significant that in both countries reforestation expenditures are viewed as an investment to be recouped from future stumpage and other revenues. We would conclude from the written and oral answers provided by the provinces to the U.S. question that there is no basis to suggest that provincial Government policies or practices have a market-distorting effect.
I could dwell on some of the U.S. policies but since time is at a premium I will not. I could deal with some of the American legislation and policies which have negatively impacted on their industry. Because of time constraints I do not think that I will get into that issue at this time. However, it is a major concern of their own producers that some of their own legislation works against their interests. Both Canada and the United States agree that there is clear evidence of significant tariff and non-tariff barriers in Third World markets which restrict access of North American lumber products offshore which can be dealth with on a joint basis. We agree that this is the way we should go with respect to this issue.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) mentioned this morning the political dimension. Their points are well taken. It is a regrettable truism that it is the squeaky wheel which gets the grease. While the levels of rhetoric by Canadians on the lumber issue has been much more restrained than that of certain elements in the U.S. industry and its Congressional allies, it would be a mistake to underestimate
Supply
the degree of political sensitivity and depth of political passion in Canada which would result from any untoward U.S. actions by its Congress or administration.
We are talking here about an approximately $3.5 billion industry on the lumber side alone. It is a big stake which Canadians have in this industry. Our forest products earn $15 billion annually for our economy. When one considers that the contribution of the forest industry to GNP is five times larger in Canada in proportionate terms than it is in the U.S., that there are 300 communities which are solely or almost solely dependent upon it for their livelihood in the forest product sector, and that there are about 300,000 jobs directly at stake in the forest products industry, it can be readily appreciated just how sensitive the issue is to all Canadians. It can be recognized how important it is to try to deal as carefully and as judicially as we can with the protectionist sentiments in the United States. It is important to point out how extremely disruptive they would be to the future course of Canada-U.S. relations.
In conclusion, the Canadian viewpoint is being presented to key Congressional and U.S. administration people at every opportunity. It is done on a political level, as the Hon. Member knows, through our parliamentary committees, private meetings, tours of our facilities, our Members going to see theirs, and through our industries sharing information. Moreover, we have brought together all of the sectors of the lumber industry including labour, government, industry and the provincial Governments in order to bring their talents to bear on the common defence of the Canadian position in the United States.
I would like to conclude by saying that our Government has put all the facts to the U.S. It has made a major effort to educate Americans on this issue. The question is-and I know it has been brought up before and will probably be brought up again-to what extent will they listen? Hon. Members must realize that this issue is a political one in the United States. As members of the Opposition have pointed out, some U.S. Congressmen are up for re-election. They are responding to the concerns of their constituents by trying to protect them against what they pereceive to be injustices. Therefore, it is my view, and the view of the Government, that the best strategy we have in dealing with this issue is to continue to put forward the facts as clearly and as concisely as we possibly can, as we have been doing, jointly and collectively with our partners. It is important to build good relations with the U.S. administration, relations which were seriously damaged by the previous Government. That is how we will protect our efforts and our jobs. Hopefully, we will succeed. The next few weeks will be crucial for all of us. I know we can count on the best efforts of all Members of Parliament as we try to deal with this very sensitive issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Minister. However, I am afraid 1 have the same

March 18, 1986
Supply
comment for him as I did for the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher). That is to say that he seems to be looking too closely at the facts. Because of the ruling with respect to 332, the update with respect to it and investigations which were made by the Department of Commerce for the International Trade Commission, the Americans seem to have dropped their ongoing arguments in relation to subsidy at our most recent meeting just 10 days ago. They seem to have dropped their ongoing arguments in relation to our stumpage programs. I am sure the Minister has taken a close look at Sam Gibbons' latest Bill and what it means, for example, in terms of bidding up in British Columbia. The most recent wood that was released under one of the small business programs there brought about a price per unit ten times that of what the forest company right next to that same sale was paying in terms of stumpage. The direction which the Gibbons' Bill is taking is quite different from the direction taken in the past. It has deleted the handling and transportation costs.
The question I wish to put to the Minister is this. Does he not think that now is the time, the only time, that we have to go to the United States, not we as parliamentarians but instead well trained and well-informed people who can deal with those 2 million plus Americans who derive their jobs directly from trade with Canada? This is the only window, as it has been said, which is open to us. We are the two largest trading partners in the world. The Americans tend to forget that. I think we should target them as a group. We should get the house builders, contractors and newspaper companies which receive 57 per cent of their newsprint from Canada on side. The forest industry, the workers and the Governments have done a good job-a damn good job-in mobilizing that type of factual material with respect to the differences between our two forest operations. What is at stake here is politics. It boils down to the lowest common gutter denominator in North America. It is politics and mid-term elections. The Republicans and the Democrats are figting for control of the U.S. Senate. They will do almost whatever is required to gain that control. Do you not think, Mr. Minister, that since in your own Estimates you have 14 more person years and $500,000 and since a $26 billion indusry is at stake, now is the time to deal with this issue? Do you not think your cabinet colleagues should say to you: "Gerry, go for it? Take the money and staff and whatever you need. Open a trade consulate in every single one of those States"? In this way we can get to those other target groups. We can get them going to save the Canadian industry from the slaughterhouse which I think we will see in May.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the pessimistic view that there will be a slaughterhouse in May. The indications we have been receiving are, of course, that the administration is still very sympathetic to moving in. It will not let the lumber issue and the whole negotiation be held hostage in terms of settling this dispute.
1 do not think I need to remind the Hon. Member that in this case we are a sovereign nation. That is a political reality of which we are aware. I have been dealing with these issues
since 1982 or 1983. We are aware that the type of debate is changing. We are aware that the 332 investigation and the ITC have proven that we are not giving undue assistance to our industry to make it more competitive.
I wish I could share the Hon. Member's view that everyone listened and learned from those two investigations. However, we think it is important that we continue to make sure we have well established, proven facts and that representatives are brought here to examine our industry through and through from every aspect. We must make sure that every decision they make in their Congress, as a sovereign nation, will be based on facts.
The Hon. Member suggested that we intensify the lobby. Believe me, the private-sector and political groups from Canada have been intensifying their efforts on the widest possible basis as they try to deal with this particular threat. We have tried to point out to the Americans that the kind of protective legislation they may very well bring forward will probably have a far greater job-loss effect in their country than in ours. That must be pointed out. Members of the House of Commons are pointing that out, as are members of industry, labour and provincial Governments. We are doing it as effectively as we can and at some considerable cost.
I might point out to the Hon. Member that we do share with two or three different Departments the costs and efforts put forward in order to deal with this problem. We are expanding the trade consulates in the United States and will continue to do so. We have to make a very broad based effort to put forward the facts as we know them in order to make sure that the Americans make their decision on the right basis.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a small supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister could touch on the point to which I found 25 Members of Congress responding just 10 days ago while they did not respond to a lot of ongoing, well researched evidence in relation to the forestry sector that we have continued to put forward. We simply reminded the Americans that in the home appliance industry, their market penetration increased from 45 per cent of the home appliance industry in Canada to 95 per cent in just eight years. It is an issue of penetration. They are concerned about the 34 per cent of the market we hold in the United States but when they are reminded about some of the degrees of penetration they have achieved in the manufactured and semi-finished products sectors, it seems to take them aback a little. 1 think we might be able to focus on that and get the American people themselves to have the legislators shift ground, because they have definitely dropped the seven veils of Ali Baba. Does the Minister think that that might be a way of helping to remind Americans of what our huge trade relationship is all about?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond very quickly to that. We are very much aware of the political reality of what is going on and the changing nature of the discussions between our two countries, particularly at the
March 18, 1986

political level. The kinds of facts the Hon. Member brought up along with other Members of Parliament are the kinds of facts we have to bring up with the Members of Congress in the United States. 1 believe those Hon. Members are serving a very useful purpose and will continue to do so. I very much appreciate that kind of help.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make to the Minister, who I know is very interested in his job and is looking out for the best interests of forestry. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether or not the tougher fibre of Canadian softwood is a big plus when it comes to competing with the softer texture of the fibre of trees which are rapidly grown in the southern part of the United States. Will that factor help negotiate the free trade deal? What measures are in place to help promote the sales of Canadian sotfwoods to the United States?
My second point is in relation to the research facilities in Canada. The Hon. Minister from Sault Ste. Marie, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher), knows that the Petawawa National Forestry Institute is a sister operation to the research facilities located in Sault Ste. Marie, and the two work very closely together. Does the Minister see us putting more money into Canadian forestry research facilities in order to promote further the quality, texture, and more rapid growth of our own forest products so that we will be in a position to compete even better with the United States on the basis of quality products?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, I did touch upon the issue of consumer preference, and there is no question about that. The American consumers think that our spruce pine fir, because of its fibre and strength, is preferable to their southern yellow pine. I do not think that there is any question about that. We have to continue giving that kind of message to the American consumer because it is important.
The second point the Hon. Member brought up was whether or not we could find some mechanism through which we could help to promote and find new markets. We are prepared to do that with our American neighbours. We recently signed an excellent renewal of the Co-operative Overseas Market Development Program agreement, an agreement shared by the Province of British Columbia and two other provinces. It was signed along with the Council of Forest Industries. The first thing I heard when I went there was how important that program is as we try to find new markets. In the last 25 years, our trade with the European Economic Community has dropped by half and our trade with the United States has increased dramatically. We have to find new markets out there, so we put together that particular program and will continue with those kinds of initiatives.
The last point the Hon. Member made was to do with the importance of research and a continuous commitment to that. We are committed to research. It is very difficult in times of restraint to put all of the money we wish into that, but we are helping the private sector through FERIC, Forentec and PAPRICAN, and four laboratories out of six are undergoing
Supply
expansions. I have tried to upgrade the minor capital programs of these laboratories and in fact we have been remarkably successful and have upgraded by 1,500 per cent. We are trying to direct our attention to improved research and to direct that research to the kinds of things the industry really wants.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)- Trade-Provincial fresh water rights. (b) Grand Canal Company proposal; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Health-Exposure of workers to cigarette smoke. (b) Smoke-free offices-economic savings; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)- Customs Tariff-Tariff placed on product not produced in Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House recognizes the dire circumstances faced by Canadian forest workers by impending legislative initiatives of the U.S. Congress and the equally dire circumstances faced by Canadian farmers as a result of the U.S. Farm Bill and condemns this Government for its failure to adequately protect the viability of these two vital sectors of the Canadian economy.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in debate on what I think is a very important issue facing our country today. The motion talks about the problems we are having with trade in the forest industry and in the agriculture industry.
The problem in the forest industry is a bilateral one with the United States because our trade is taking place with the United States and our problem is protectionism in that country. Regarding agriculture, the problem is slightly different because the United States Farm Bill subsidizes exports of American grain and it subsidizes American farmers. The

March 18, 1986
Supply
problem with the Farm Bill is that it will disrupt world agricultural markets. Those are the two problems we face.
Today's motion speaks directly to a very important issue our country is debating today while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is in the United States, and that is the whole issue of free trade with the United States. I want it to be very clear that 1 oppose a comprehensive free trade arrangement between the United States and Canada because it is more than just economics. A free trade arrangement will create a level playing field where economic integration will mean that the same rules that apply in Alabama will apply in Saskatchewan, and that will eventually lead to cultural, social and political integration.
Free trade is a question of independence for this country. It is a question of our sovereignty and our very nationhood. If we have a problem now with so much of our economy owned by the United States and 77 per cent of our trade with the United States, just think of the problems we would have if we had a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. We would always be going cap in hand to Washington.
When the Prime Minister was running for the leadership of his Party, he said in Thunder Bay that he opposed a free trade arrangement with the United States. He also said that the Liberals tried it with Laurier and lost an election, and that a free trade arrangement with the United States was like a mouse going to bed with an elephant, in that the mouse might feel very secure until the elephant rolled over. I agreed with the Prime Minister of the country when he said that. I think he was right then but he is wrong now. It is really a question of the mouse and the elephant.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, this motion is extremely important. It is very important in the forestry industry, a sector vital to the creation of jobs here in Canada. It is also very important for Canadian farmers across the country. The problem for us in Canada is the protectionist policies of the United States. With protectionism in the U.S., we have unemployment here in Canada, a lot of it in the forestry industry and among our Canadian farmers. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said three years ago, it's like a struggle between a mouse and an elephant, because the population of the United States is now over 200 million, while Canada's population is only 25 million.
To me, free trade is not just a matter of economics. It is also a matter that involves Canada's independence, Canada's sovereignty, and forestry is a vital industry. I hope that today and tomorrow, our Prime Minister will have a serious discussion about this matter with President Reagan in the United States. It is important for Canada. It is important for Quebec and British Columbia and Ontario. It is important because 300,000 people work directly in this industry. There are also 700,000 people working indirectly in the forestry sector here in Canada. There are many lumberjacks and a lot of other people
that depend on this industry. It is Canada's most important export industry, and last year, its economic value to Canada was $25 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Wilson Budget contains a cut in Government spending on the forestry sector.

The other issue is the U.S. Farm Bill. I cannot help but use the rest of my remarks asking colleagues on all sides of the House to rally with us in trying to point out to the Americans the danger of that Bill to Canadian farmers. Let us look at the headlines which have appeared in newspapers over the last few days and weeks. An article in the Manitoba Co-operator was entitled "U.S. Farm Bill will hurt". One in The Globe and Mail was entitled "U.S. Farm Bill could hurt Canada". In a story in The Toronto Star, the following was indicated: "Moves toward U.S. export subsidy may prove worrisome for Canada". Finally, an article appeared in The Western Producer which was entitled "Situation may lead to subsidy battle". Newspaper after newspaper are starting to tell Canadians about the danger of the American Farm Bill to our country.
I should like to spend a few minutes talking about that Bill. It became law in the United States toward the end of 1985. It is to become effective in June, 1986, or in about two or three months. It is a big threat. Why is it a big threat? What will it do? It will allow the American Secretary of Agriculture the power to reduce the export price of American farm products to other countries around the world. Also it will allow the American Secretary of Agriculture to increase subsidies to American farmers. Why are the Americans doing that? It is because of their sagging exports, because of their increased inventories of grain, particularly wheat, and because of massive subsidies by the European Common Market in what is amounting in reality to an all out trade war between the Treasury of Europe and the Treasury of the United States of America.
What will be the cost of this American Farm Bill? Mr. Speaker, even though you are not from a western Canadian riding, I am sure you will realize our problems. Over the next three years a conservative estimate, if I could use that word, of the cost to the United States will be $52 billion. That is what the Americans will be spending to subsidize the export of American farm products and to subsidize the income of the American farmer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So much for free trade.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Free trade for whom? We are living in a fool's paradise if we think seriously that the Americans want free trade with Canadians. I think the Prime Minister is starting to realize that. Now he talks more about enhanced trade than he talks about free trade. In any event, the Americans will spend $52 billion in the next three years, and perhaps more. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is estimating that it will be over $60 billion in the next three years. What will the Americans do? First, they will subsidize the export of American food products to various countries around the world.
March 18, 1986

Second, they will subsidize the price of a bushel of wheat and the price of other farm products to American farmers.
Who will suffer? It will be the farmers of Canada, Australia, Argentina and New Zealand; they will be the victims of the American farm Bill. Our Treasury cannot compete with the Treasury of the United States or with the Treasury of the European Common Market. It is important for the Prime Minister to take a message to Ronald Reagan saying that the farm Bill is wrong and that the problems of the international grain economy or of the farm economy cannot be solved by building huge protective walls around the United States and having a trade war with the European Common Market.
How will the Bill work? The system in the United States is similar to ours in terms of advancing money to farmers before they sell their grain. In Canada it is called cash advances. In the United States it is called a loan rate. The only difference is that the American Government takes possession of the grain, whereas we just make an advance on what a farmer will receive when his grain is sold. The loan rate for wheat in the United States this year will probably be set, according to agricultural economists, at $2.40 per bushel. The loan rate automatically becomes the floor price of wheat, not just in the United States but on a global basis, because the Americans have 25 per cent of the world share of wheat production and we have only 5 per cent. If the price of wheat falls to $2.40 per bushel, how many Canadian farmers will survive? We do not have a program to subsidize our farmers like the one of the Americans. The United States now has a support level for wheat of $4.38 per bushel. If the world price is $2.40 per bushel on one hand and the support price is some $4.38 on the other hand, there is a difference of $1.98 which is made up by the Treasury of the United States. In other words, a subsidy of about $2 per bushel will come from the Reagan administration to the grain farmers of the United States. The victims of this will be the farmers of Canada because the Canadian Wheat Board cannot compete under any circumstances with $2.40 per bushel wheat anywhere in the world. Many of our importing customers will be waiting until June until the American farm Bill becomes law. Asian countries, African countries and even the Soviet Union will be looking to the United States where they can buy grain for $2.40 and $2.50 a bushel instead of paying a higher price here in Canada. We are in very serious difficulty, Mr. Speaker.
I checked the Chicago futures market for the price of wheat. In the month of March wheat is quoted at $3.40 a bushel. Do you know what it is for the month of July, Mr. Speaker? It is down to $2.50 a bushel, a drop of 90 cents a bushel. I ask you, how will farmers survive with the price of grain at $2.50, $2.40 or $2.60 a bushel, which is what the indication now is from the U.S. farm Bill and the Chicago futures market?
The Canadian Federal Grain Marketing Bureau spokesperson, Gary Moore, said recently that we can anticipate a drop in the price of wheat of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent in the calendar year 1986-87. You can anticipate a drop in the
Supply
income of wheat farmers of $1 billion in the next crop year because of the American farm Bill. This farm Bill applies not only to wheat but to many other commodities. They are all listed in those summaries that we have seen accompanying that legislation. It works the same way. For example, there will be a subsidy of about $1 a bushel for soy beans.
What is the purpose of the farm Bill, Mr. Speaker? It is to try to drive down the price of grain in the world because the Americans feel that the European subsidy is too high. The Americans are trying to drive down the price of grain to break the backs of the European countries, a bit of a daredevil's war of who is going to say "uncle" first, the Europeans or the Americans. It is a battle of two Treasuries. It is a bidding war between the Europeans and the Americans.
The farmer in Kamsack, the farmer in Lethbridge, Yorkton or Kindersly is caught in the middle of this bidding war between the United States and the Europeans. The question is, what can we do about it? There are a couple of things. The Prime Minister is in Washington today. He must look at Ronald Reagan eyeball to eyeball, square in the eye, and tell him that his farm Bill will bankrupt thousands upon thousands of farmers across Canada and that he must not proceed with the U.S. Farm Bill. Second, the Prime Minister must initiate discussions with the President of the United States toward the beginning of an international wheat agreement, an effective and comprehensive international grains agreement where the price of wheat will have some reflection on the cost of production for farmers around the world.
We used to have such an agreement. It broke down in 1969 when the United States of America started to sell wheat below the agreed upon floor price. Because the Americans are the biggest producers of wheat in the world, they broke the agreement and destroyed the whole guaranteed pricing system for farmers around the globe.
What we have now is the law of the jungle. What we have now is the law of Rambo. If you are big and strong, if you are muscular and have all the devices of a massive Treasury behind you, you can subsidize your farmers and screw farmers in other countries. That is what we are seeing with the United States Farm Bill. This Parliament must speak as one, loudly, clearly, emphatically and aggressively. We must say that that is not good enough.
We have to support agriculture in Canada because if the farmer is better off, then we are all better off. If the farmer is better off, there are jobs in towns and cities for the young people of Canada. If the farmer makes $2 or $3, he will spend $7 or $8. That is why we have to defend agriculture.
This is a very important debate today. This Parliament must say to our Prime Minister, as this country said to Laurier many years ago, "We don't want a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. We know that a free trade agreement between the two countries will affect more than just economics, it will affect our very political sovereignty, our very independence as a nation". Our vision of trade in the world must go beyond the shores of North America. Our vision must include China, the developing world, Japan and

March 18, 1986
Supply
the Pacific Rim. Our vision must include as well increasing production for Canadians. If we have free trade with the United States of America we will see a loss of jobs and a loss of some of the social programs that we know and we will see a loss of the very autonomy and the very nationhood of our country. We will see it affecting the farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the poultry industry and the dairy industry.
The time has come for Canadians from coast to coast to rally behind the flag of this nation, this great country of Canada, to stand up and to fight for ourselves with the patriotism that other countries such as the U.S., France and Britain have shown for years and years and years.

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter that involves Canada's sovereignty and Canada's independence. It is time to act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gervais):: Are there any questions or comments? If not, we will continue debate. The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pern broke (Mr. Hopkins).


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the debate taking place in this House today is of the utmost importance to Canada and to our future. Ever since the pioneer days of Canada, agriculture and forestry have been two major staples of the Canadian economy. Fewer and fewer people are participating in agriculture now, but the industry has certainly grown in great bounds of production right across the country.
We have had other staple crops, such as, for instance, fish and fur. But to drive the point home as to why today's debate on forestry today is of extreme importance let me say that 11 per cent or more of the Canadian labour market work in the forest or forest related industries. There is no way we can go into trade negotiations thinking that we are going to come away with a pat on the back and everything will be all right. We have to do our homework ahead of time. Hard bargaining is simply good business. The U.S. understands that very well. The Americans have been good bargainers over the years and that spells their success.
I suppose bargaining can best be illustrated by using the case of the cattle drover. He goes out to buy cattle and he goes to those farmers from whom he got the best deal last year. If we as a nation end up being a poor bargainer, then we will be had and more people will take us for a ride.
The Americans will not respect Canadians any more if we are the soft-touch in any free trade agreements. They understand hard business bargaining and will respect us more if we are tough than if we take everyting with a smile.
In relation to the jurisdictional structure of the forest industry in Canada it is important to point out that in my view one of the greatest weaknesses of the Canadian Constitution is the fact that the national Government in Canada does not have direct control over the natural resources of the country. They
are, rather, under provincial jurisdiction. In the United States natural resources are under the jurisdiction of the national Government in Washington. That allows more direct action. Can you imagine having to deal with every state in the United States if those resources were under the jurisdiction of the various states?
On the very basis of our Constitution we have great difficulty dealing with forest-based industries and the management of our forests. The management of our forests in crucial to this entire argument. We must have good quality timber in the years ahead to compete favourably.
This morning during a question and comment period the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) condemned the Government for not having reforestation programs and for selling lumber without putting the proceeds back into the Canadian forest industry. He was saying that natural resources in Canada are under federal jurisdiction, which they are not. The forest resources in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. I wonder what the Quebec Government would have done if the federal Government had gone into the Province of Quebec and started doing the work which legally belongs to the Department of Natural Resources of that province. We would have a real constitutional wrangle.
Let us get it straight. The provinces have always been in charge of managing the forests of the country. We all realize that some of them have done a very poor job. Based on its forest resources, British Columbia should be in far better shape than it is today. The forests in the Province of Ontario were the milch cow of a Conservative Government for over 40 years until the recent change. The money made from the forests were not used for the renewal of natural resources in the Province of Ontario. I suspect that you will Find the same situation in many other provinces of Canada. In order to compete favourably, we must have our own house in good order.
The free trade issue is one of the most critical issues facing the Canadian economy today. There is no sense in denying it. There is a great deal of concern within the farming community across the country. There is a great deal of concern among sawmill operators, lumber dealers, and all forest-related industries. There should be concern in the labour community of Canada as well as in the business community. As I just said, over 11 per cent of the labour population of Canada works in forest-related industries.
The Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) must sell their ideas to the forest-based industries of the country. They must talk to the farmers of the country who are very ill to ease and need real assurances. Free trade has implications for all regions and all economic sectors of Canada. How well we conduct the negotiations and how well we achieve the objectives of those negotiations will have an enormous impact on all of us for years to come. A closer analysis of a free trade agreement shows that some Canadians would gain and some would lose. It shows that some of the losers would be the textile and the agricultural industries.
March 18, 1986

A previous speaker in this debate talked about the problem between the European Economic Community and the United States. It certainly is a battle in dollars between the United States subsidization of their agricultural industry and the subsidization by the European community of their farmers. It remains to be seen who will win that dollar battle. We suspect that it will be our neighbour to the south. The European countries are already suffering from the high cost of subsidizing their agricultural community. They would desperately love to get out of that situation and lower those subsidies, but they do not dare to do so because the Party which does it will lose the next election. Farms in Europe are still small and farmers have a lot of clout. With so many political Parties, every vote is important.
Paula Stern, the United States' chief watchdog on trade, is not sure of the benefits of free trade with Canada. Free trade is clearly not supported by a majority of Canadians. Liberals have always supported freer trade, but not free trade, that is, a reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers, but not at the expense of our sovereigty, cultural identity, or ability to make our own economic decisions. If our economy is such that we are the captives of an international agreement, we will certainly be giving up a large part of our sovereignty and the right to make major economic decisions.
Any discussions must recognize the unique needs of the Canadian economy and Canadian society. The danger of being railroaded into a hasty decision now might later prove to be damaging to Canadian interests. Can we trust the Government's negotiating abilities? That question is on the mind of many Canadians. Time and again we have seen the Government cave in to the slightest pressure. The meeting in Quebec City between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) one year ago was seen as a meeting of total agreement followed by a good bash. Canadians reacted to that with suspicion of this very close liaison. They were worried about what was really being given away. The facts are there, Mr. Speaker.
The other thing which started the spirited national debate between the United States and Canada in recent months was the issue of the Polar Sea. When the Polar Sea was going through the Northwest Passage there was no comment from the Government of Canada. That led Canadians to believe that the Prime Minister was indeed too cosy with the President of the United States. It again comes down to good business bargaining. You cannot have good business bargaining if you are willing to give anything away just to be a friend.
To date the Government has not provided us with an assessment of the costs by sector and region. Hundreds of questions remain to be answered. Some of the provincial Premiers have caused the Government to accept provinces as part of the negotiations because the provinces have too much at stake. They have too much at stake for the very reason I mentioned a while ago. The forest resources of the country are under the jurisdiction of individual provinces. That is a big source of income for provincial Governments and naturally
Supply
they are going to be very concerned about what type of deal this Government strikes with the U.S. on the forest industry.
Farmers throughout the country are strongly opposed to free trade. The cultural industry is in a state of confusion and concern over free trade. Thousands of jobs could be lost if negotiations are not handled carefully and with resolve. If we look at the possible effects on agriculture, we have to look at the subsidization of some sections of the industry such as the dairy industry. We must make certain that agriculture is not on the negotiating table. How do you prevent this? I suspect the Government will put it on the table. If I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) correctly, he recently said that if there was not a good agreement on agriculture with regard to free trade, there would be no agreement. Those are very brave words and I hope he means them. Farmers throughout this country will be watching the Minister very carefully to make sure he backs up those words.
Federick Stokelo, Director of International Business Relations for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said:
I hate to say this, but U.S. business with Canada is treated as business in California.
He means that Canada is indeed treated like the 51st state. That statement comes from an American, not a Canadian.
The potential loss of supply management and agricultural marketing boards would prove disastrous. Twenty-five per cent of all Canadian farmers are in serious financial difficulties and the industry needs to be protected. Not only that, it needs to be supported. In the recent Budget we saw $700 million set aside for loans to the agricultural community. At the same time there are from 50,000 to 60,000 farmers who are facing financial risk if not bankruptcy. In farming today $100,000 is not very much when it comes to equipping the farm and putting it on a solid footing. Even if you lowered the amount of a loan to $100,000 on average, that money set aside will only go to service about 7,000 farmers. There will still be more than
50,000	with the same problems.
This is indeed a big challenge and it must be looked at seriously. Agriculture in Canada can no longer be looked upon as a way of life where people live on the farm because it is their home. It is not only their home, it is a place of business. Agriculture today is serious business. You can drive along a country road and see a large farming operation and not realize that there is more money invested in that farm than perhaps in a factory that you had just passed going through the local town. I use that example in order to emphasize the fact that we have to protect the agricultural industry as well as the forest industry in these negotiations. Until the Government gives those two industries some realistic responses to these problems, the people concerned cannot have any real faith in these negotiations. People who have been working for years to build up a farm or a sawmill operation are really going to be behind the eight ball if they see that these negotiations could mean the failure of their operation.

March 18, 1986
Supply
The Prime Minister said that sleeping with an elephant is terrific until he twitches or rolls over. Perhaps that phrase has been used enough. He also added that this is why the question of free trade was decided in the election of 1911, when it was defeated. It affects Canadian sovereignty, and we will have none of it, not during leadership campaigns or at any other time. That is what he said. Canadians are going to be watching closely to make sure he lives up to what he says.
I will not go over the time allowed me but I wish I could take a minute to talk about the U.S. Farm Bill and how some of its provisions will affect Canada. However, the bottom line is that those provisions are certainly going to affect Canada's trade. They are certainly going to affect our capacity to maintain a strong base in the farm industry. Hopefully we will be able to upgrade our forests and get some good research going in Canada, but the bargaining in that sector will have to be tough.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gervais):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) who talked about international trade and the particular implications concerning our neighbour to the South, the United States.
Surely the Hon. Member knows that 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is now duty free. The Hon. Member also knows that the discussions we are having now with our southern neighbour have to do mostly with the irritants which developed on either side of the border when the previous Government was in office. All those irritants can be traced back to the Liberal Government, and that is why today the American Congress is questioning American imports of Canadian products.
The Hon. Member ought not to forget that those irritants are due to his own Government. I would like to hear his opinion on the difficulties we experienced when we tried to export pork. If our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had not intervened at that time, our pork exports would have gone down.
Because you failed to take proper action when those irritants were developed, we have to pay additional taxes on salted fish, not to mention the fact that they create problems with respect to manufactured goods generally and forest products.
I would therefore ask the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipiss-ing-Pembroke if, in the document he got from the Liberal Party research service, he can find an answer to the healthy climate they created for the development of the irritants which, to this day, hamper our trade with the United States.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my researcher is upstairs. However, having been here a number of years, I know some of the incidents about which the Hon. Member speaks. I will say to
him that as this Government goes along you are going to find that everything is not a bed of roses. You are going to run into a few irritants too.
The Hon. Member mentioned the question of the fish. That was a battle to protect the fishermen of Canada. I see nothing wrong with that. I originally mentioned in my speech that the Americans are tough bargainers and that this is why they are successful. They are not going to consider us anti-American if we are tough bargainers. If someone is complaining because we are too tough to deal with, 1 do not think that is a complaint, I think that is a plus factor.
If you want to talk about irritants, let me point out that because we have bought a lot of defence equipment from the United States our defence-sharing agreement ledger shows today that Canada is behind by $2 billion on defence trade.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Why? I will tell you why, because the former Liberal Government purchased 138 fighter aircraft from the United States and because we purchased a considerable amount of other defence equipment from the United States. The Americans have always had their defence-based industries. You might say, "Well why don't we?" Well, my answer would be that, in order to maintain a full capacity shipbuilding industry in this country, we would have to build at least one ship per year to keep everything in place. However, this Government is not even able right now to find the money to build an icebreaker.
You ask why? I say it is because the former Liberal Government bought a lot of defence equipment to build up our conventional forces, contrary to what we have heard from Members opposite, and certainly contrary to the defence budget that the Conservative Government has come out with lately and the estimates of the past year, which show a growth of minus .2 per cent in the defence budget of Canada after its promises in the election campaign of a 6 per cent growth.
To finalize my answer to the Hon. Member I say, sure, there are irritants. I would like to find out where there are no irritants at all between two countries that do so much dealing over the years. Do you think that if you are going to have 70 per cent of your trade with one nation in the world there are not going to be irritants? There is no great, pure society out there. You are going to have these irritants and you can debate them, but in debating them you are not going to get rid of the debate simply by giving away the kitchen and the dishes in it as well. If the other person is going to be tough on some of those points you have to be tough too, otherwise you are not representing or protecting the people of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gervais):: Further questions and comments?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) can compare the enhanced trade negotiations that we are trying to under-
March 18, 1986

take with the United States with the reciprocity of 1911. Right now 85 per cent of all the goods that flow from Canada into the United States are tariff free. Sixty-five per cent of all the goods that flow from the United states into Canada are tariff-free. It is a completely different situation. We are trying to get along with the United States, we are trying to make a deal.
I heard him bring up the matter of the Polar Sea. How can he have the nerve to bring up the Polar Seal How can we be expected to defend our sovereignty in this country when we do not have a canoe or a peashooter to do it with? He spoke about his researcher being upstairs. I think he had better get his researcher down here.
I know the Hon. Member would not try to mislead this House, but he has misled the House. He talked about 50,000 to 60,000 farmers facing bankruptcy. The latest figure I got was that there were 1700 farmers facing bankruptcy. 1 do not know where he got that number of 50,000 to 60,000. I would like him to explain that, please.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Well, I thought I was being sufficiently above-board and drew a fair enough picture for the Hon. Member to understand, but obviously it went right over his head. I did not say that 50,000 to 60,000 farmers in this country were facing bankruptcy.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Check the "blues", that's what you said.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will check the "blues", I certainly will. I said that 50,000 to 60,000 farmers in this country are having serious financial difficulties, and some of them are facing bankruptcy.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: We are all having financial difficulties.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am just answering your question. Mr. Speaker, can you call the Hon. Member to order? He is getting a little over-enthusiastic here. He says he does not know how I can bring the matter of the Polar Sea into it. Well, my goodness, it is part of U.S.-Canada relations and I simply did it because the arrival of the Polar Sea was only debated in this House months after the event. I said that there was no comment made on the Polar Sea at the time and that that simply gave Canadians another reason for saying that the Prime Minister of Canada was cosying up too much to the President of the United States. That is certainly a basis for some of their suspicions today on free trade, because they feel that if he is cosying up too much to the President of the United States then we are going to get a bad deal on free trade. That is on the minds of Canadians.
The Hon. Member mentioned the Polar Sea issue. I would like to ask him to stand up in the House at this time and tell us what Government Department is going to build an icebreaker and who is going to manage it. We want to hear that too.


Mr. Mantha:: 1 think the Hon. Member is deceiving the House and the Canadian people. He said they bought 138
Supply
aircraft, or whatever was the figure he used. They might have bought them, but we had to pay for them.
I also want to remind the Hon. Member that our Armed Forces, 83,000 strong, if I might say to him, were professional fixers of used equipment, and they have medals for this. The purple Voodoo that is in North Bay is on loan from us to the Americans. Can he tell us the purpose of that purple Voodoo? What does it do for our defence?
The military, as you know, have always supported the previous Government. Last September 4, as you are well aware, between 71 per cent and 80 per cent went completely against you people because the previous Government did not give any equipment or any assistance to our Armed Forces as far as modern high-tech is concerned.
I know that the Hon. Member going to say that we are all in a fog, and I don't want him to do that. I just want him to answer the question: Why did you not keep up our defence? Is it so that you could use a truck to travel across the country and pour out the money for different assistance, for different beautiful buildings and everything?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I use the trade with the United States in defence matters in order to talk about the balance of trade. Now the Hon. Member from Nipissing is getting all mixed up with his Voodoos and he wants to go on. He said that nothing was done. We have the long-range patrol aircraft in this country which were purchased by the Liberal Government and produced at that time. The tanks that we have in the Canadian Armed Forces today were purchased by the former Liberal Government. The 138 fighter aircraft were purchased by the previous Liberal Government, and you said you are paying for them? A large amount of that money had gone into the deal before you even got into power. Let me remind the House that it was a Conservative Prime Minister of this country who cancelled the Arrow. If it had not been for that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gervais):: I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that time for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, 1 would like to make a few additional comments on the motion introduced by my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
With respect to the American Bill on agriculture, the Farm Bill, the Government is seriously concerned about the unfavourable impact this legislative measure might have on the Canadian agricultural community.
Just for the record I would point out that President Reagan signed the Farm Bill last December 23 when it became law after a protracted debate in Congress.
Basically the Bill deals with the levels of price support and income for various products, and some of its provisions are
11638

March 18, 1986
Supply
trade related. As in the case of a number of domestic American legislative measures, the Farm Bill has had a serious impact on Canada's agricultural community. Our Government conveyed to the American authorities our deep concern about these provisions which will have negative repercussions on Canadian exports and farm income.
Generally speaking, we expressed concern about the over-all approach of a legislative measure which is likely to isolate American producers from the international marketplace.
The Bill guarantees support prices above market levels for American producers while exports would be subsidized in certain cases. We are concerned about American measures aimed at stimulating production artificially and overemphasizing direct export assistance to such an extent that it would depress world prices even more and perhaps be detrimental to Canadian exports.
We have expressed our deep concern about the extensive use of export subsidies to increase American exports of agricultural products. We are especially concerned about the Export Premium Program and the Targeted Export Assistance Program, both of which we consider direct export subsidies. Under the first, $2 billion in surplus public stocks must be placed at the disposal of American exporters at no cost as premiums to promote business sales and the development of export markets. The second program requires that $325 million in cash or in surplus public stocks be used for targeted export activities.
We have indicated to the American authorities that we believe these programs to be inconsistent with the support given by the United States to multilateral initiatives aimed at bringing about agricultural subsidies under control, and especially at preventing export subsidies for unprocessed agricultural products. In addition, to the extent that these programs would apply to processed agricultural products, they would be inconsistent with the commitments of the United States under GATT.
We have expressed our concerns about various other forms of export assistance which could have a detrimental effect on world markets, such as the continuation of short term export credit guarantees; the creation of a renewable credit fund for farm exports; the extension of intermediate credit for exports; and the development of pilot program to barter farm products for strategic resources.
We have also spoken about the dairy herd reduction program, which could cause an upheaval on the North American processing beef markets.
We have strongly protested against a number of provisions in the Bill which could eventually restrict access to the American market. In the case of sugar, for instance, we have expressed deep concern about the provisions which would have removed the Canadian allocation in the American quotas for
sugar imports. We have told the American authorities that we consider these provisions inconsistent with the commitments of the United States under GATT. We have raised the issue of a possible application of the regulations on chemical residues to limit Canadian cattle and cattle product exports. We showed concern about prescribing discriminatory assessments on some cattle imports. We made it known that such measures did not conform with United States commitments under the GATT. Finally, we raised objections to a provision which was definitely aimed at restricting the potato trade by requiring spot checks and ongoing inspections of Canadian potato shipments entering through Northeastern ports.
The U.S. Government shares some of our concerns respecting the trade provisions in the Farm Bill and has attempted to have them removed. In some cases, efforts made by the Administration and our representations have been successful.
For instance, we succeeded in obtaining the removal of a provision that would have resulted in the loss of Canada's quota of sugar exports. Furthermore, we are convinced that the provisions concerning chemical residues will not hamper Canadian exports of cattle and cattle products.
The Administration has indicated it still is concerned about some of the trade provisions. Upon signing the Farm Bill, on December 3, President Reagan expressed some reservations. He indicated: "This legislation commands export subsidies that could well turn against the United States''. The President added that he intended "to try, in conjuction with Congress, to correct those problems, especially in the area of trade".
In response to those efforts, the Congress has now passed the Food Security Improvement Act of 1986, amending some provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill. The President should be signing the new Act soon.
On the trade level, amendments to some provisions in the Farm Bill are now under way. For instance, the value of Government surplus commodities required for the grants in kind program is reduced from $2 billion to $1 or $1.5 billion. The value of Government surplus products or monies required yearly for the targeted export assistance program is to be reduced from $325 million to $110 million during fiscal years 1986 to 1988. Although those reductions are a step in the right direction, subsidizing levels still are high and we will maintain our pressures for a more satisfactory solution.
This Government continues to make representations to the U.S. Administration suggesting that they look with Congress for a solution that would alloy our concerns.
The concerns raised by the Farm Bill once more show that bilateral and multilateral trade talks are important if we are to study those issues and, more importantly, prevent other protectionist bills from coming into force.
As it has been indicated by American authorities, a major part of the trade provisions in the Farm Bill are based on the inability of the Administration to reduce what is perceived as
March 18, 1986

unfair trade practices on the part of the United States major trade partners. In that respect, one of the goals supported both by the United States and Canada, which is sprucing up before entering into bilateral and multilateral trade talks, is improving on the rules governing farm trade and strenghtening the access of farm products to markets.
Mr. Speaker, let us hope that this Government can rely on the support of the Opposition parties when it enters into those negotiations.
Turning to lumber, my colleague the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) referred to a criticism levelled in the House of Representatives against Canada's Natural Resources Subsidy Bill, a criticism that was referred to the Chairman, Mr. Gibbons. In view of the particular concerns expressed by Members of the Opposition regarding the proposed legislation, I think it would be useful to advise them of the Government's views concerning it. Since the criticism is short and to the point, I will read it in full.
The dual pricing provision of the Bill would amend the countervailing duty law of the U.S. to expand unilaterally the definition of subsidy to include situations in which a natural resource is made available to foreign producers of downstream products at a price lower than the world market price or export price. The dual pricing provision has the following main shortcomings. First, proposals to define dual resource pricing policies as countervailable subsidies represent a fundamental departure from longstanding U.S. practice under legislation reflecting agreed international disciplines. These recognize that domestic programs which are generally available to more than a specific enterprise or group of enterprises do not constitute a countervailable subsidy. A radical departure from this approach, such as envisaged by H.R.-2451, would establish a precedent which could be extended to a wide range of policies and programs which differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, for example, tax policy, education and other social programs, irrigation and conservation. Generally available benefits, such as controlled oil prices in the 1970s, have been defended by the U.S. as not constituting a countervailable subsidy. Canada and the U.S. share a common interest in ensuring that the general availability concept is not eroded.
Second, to require that resources be sold in resource rich foreign jurisdictions at international prices established by export cartels, or less competitive producers, would be anticompetitive and perverse in its consequences. For these reasons the dual pricing provision is unacceptable to Canada.
The removal rights provision would amend the countervailing duty law to permit a finding of subsidization where no subsidy exists. This provision is not intended to deal with dual pricing policies. Rather, a determination of subsidy would be based on a finding of whether a Government's price for the right to exploit a resource is lower than the fair market value of that right, arbitrarily defined. Fair market value would be
Supply
determined by simply using the price paid for removal rights in the country with the largest number of arm's length sales of such rights outside the country under scrutiny. In the case of forest products, Canadian prices for trees would be compared to U.S. prices for trees. If the Canadian prices for a comparable right in a comparable region are not as high as U.S. prices, then the difference would be deemed a countervailable subsidy.
The key question is why the U.S. price should be the bench-mark. First, this proposal presumes to deny other jurisdictions their legitimate right to pursue policies which differ from those pursued by the United States. To suggest that such policies should be deemed to confer a countervailable subsidy simply by virtue of the fact that they differ from U.S. policies is neither reasonable nor acceptable.
Second, the price of a natural resource in situ in one country tells us nothing about what the price for the same type of natural resource should be elsewhere. In the case of softwood lumber, the U.S. Commerce Department's decision, after a thorough investigation, demonstrates why the proposal in H.R. 2451 would be unfair. The decision states that it would be "arbitrary and capricious" to compare Canadian stumpage prices with U.S. stumpage prices in view of, inter alia, "the wide differences between species composition; size, quality and density of timber; terrain and accessibility of the standing timber throughout the United States and Canada; and the additional payments which are required in many provinces in Canada but not generally in the United States". In other words, comparing the price paid for Canadian trees-which tend to be smaller, harder to log and less accessible-with the price of U.S. trees totally ignores the realities of the marketplace. Yet the removal rights section would require this comparison to be made.
For all the reasons outlined in this critique Canada concludes that the removal rights proposal is wrong in principle and unwarranted.

Mr. Speaker, this shows clearly that the Government has spared no effort to defend Canadian interests and that we will fight not only to protect existing jobs, but also to create new ones in our country.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today expresses our concern with respect to two resource areas which are important to many parts of Canada. In fact, every province of Canada has some investment in these two resource areas.
My constituency of Prince Albert is basically an agricultural constituency. However, in the constituency there is a pulp mill. A large proportion of the population of the City of Prince Albert have jobs related to that pulp mill. So we are talking about two resource areas which are directly affected by action, in this case legislative action, by the great friendly giant to the south. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has covered the effects of the possible legislation

March 18, 1986
Supply
coming up in Congress with respect to forests. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), expanded on the issue. He pointed out the effects of the U.S. farm Bill, which has just been passed, and which is just starting to affect the markets of the world. He also pointed out how it affects Canadian farmers. I, too, wish to spend a few moments on the effects of the 1985 U.S. farm Bill on Canadian farmers.
During 1985, U.S. farm commodities became uncompetitive in world markets. The declining farm income contributed a great deal to the already severe financial crisis faced by farms in the United States. This was a financial crisis which was matched, and which was perhaps even worse, than ours. As a result of sagging exports, since they were not competitive, large volumes of American grains were allowed to accumulate over a fairly long period of time. Those stocks, along with declining farm incomes, became an issue in the United States which forced the passage of the U.S. farm Bill. I suppose it should be pointed out that the farm Bill was not a favourite piece of legislation of the present administration. In fact, it was reluctantly signed by the President. The Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce market prices to a more competitive level. At the same time it allows him to protect farmers' incomes by increasing the prices paid to farmers. In other words, even as the price of commodities is decreased across the world, the price paid to the farmer will continue to increase.
It would appear that Canadians are not the only program junkies. We see that the American farm Bill includes many very lucrative programs in some cases and programs aimed at reducing the amount of product on the market in other cases. It contains programs like the parity price programs, the soil bank, the acreage reserve, the conservation reserve, the payment in kind program, target prices and loan prices. These are all programs which are a part of the American farm Bill.
As 1 mentioned previously, the motion before the House is in two parts. One part deals with forestry and one with agriculture. There is one difference between these two industries as far as the problem is concerned, though both industries have a problem with trade and export. In the case of the forest industry, the problem is due to our penetration of the American market. We have increased our portion of the United States softwoods market to approximately 45 per cent. That is greatly resented by the lumber producing states and they have taken action against it. We feel a certain amount of compassion for that action. I hope that we would do the same thing if it happened to us.
The challenge facing agriculture is a little different. In agriculture, we are not penetrating the U.S. market to any extent except perhaps in the red meats area. Here the U.S. legislation is affecting the international markets. In the agriculture sector, Canada is a price taker rather than a price setter. In a great many sectors which concern us particularly, the United States is a price setter. Consequently, it is important that we deal with the United States and its relationship to the world market.
There are three points which should be made regarding the U.S. farm Bill. These are the three points which affect us. When looking through the technical Bill, we find that a number of products are affected, but a great deal of concern has been expressed about the use of land in the Bill and the attempts to reduce production by paying surprising subsidies under certain conditions.
The points in the U.S. farm Bill which affect Canada are, first, the way the Bill affects the price of grain overseas. The second point is that the aim of the farm Bill is to assist in the increase of U.S. exports to the markets of the world. This is done first by affecting the price. Lowering the price would directly affect the income of Canadian farmers. Second, because the Americans are increasing their exports to the markets of the world, they are moving into markets which we have traditionally accepted as being our markets. Therefore, that reduces the amount of commodities we may sell into those same markets.
Americans seem to be overwhelmed by the drop in their market share. They used to have about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the world market. Beginning in about 1974, that share of the world market rose considerably and averaged something over 50 per cent for a short period of time. That share of the grain markets of the world has now dropped back to approximately 35 per cent to 40 per cent.
The third point with which we have to deal when looking at the farm Bill is that it reduces the cost of feeds in the United States and consequently reduces the cost of feeds in Canada. This will affect all meat producers. There is likely to be an increase in the production of red meats in particular both in the United States and in Canada as well as in the production of poultry and other so-called white meats. There is likely to be an increase in the production of livestock in the United States and that will reduce the amount of exports that we will be able to make of those products into the United States. It reduces our penetration of the U.S. market for those products and consequently we cannot expect to take advantage of the reduced cost for the price of feeds to increase income from the production of livestock.
How does the U.S. farm Bill affect the price of grains? I think that question has been covered to some extent previously so I will deal with it very quickly as it is a point which needs to be made because it is the basis of our concern. The U.S. loan price, which is technically a floor price for world grain prices, has been reduced by 27 per cent for wheat. It is down to approximately $2.40 per bushel. The price of Canadian red spring wheat can be expected to fall by an equal amount. These prices will probably fall by 30 per cent. This means that the price of No. 1 grade would fall to approximately $145 per tonne, a drop of $45 per tonne. The price of the lower grades will probably fall to $3 per bushel. The price of Ontario wheats may go as low as $115 per tonne. This price is far below the cost of production.
March 18, 1986

There is a further aberration in the export market caused by the American policy of increasing exports from the United States. As the previous speaker mentioned, last May the Government of the United States made available $2 billion to increase exports from the United States. Of course these subsidies were aimed at certain countries and certain markets, particularly the North African market. That United States grain was equal in quality to our No. 2 and No. 3 western spring wheat, and it was exported to Egypt and Algeria at approximately $100 per tonne. That is a level with which no farmer in the world can compete. 1 know it was aimed at the European market, but it had the effect of reducing the sale price of wheat around the world.
I could provide the same type of technical information on barley, coarse grains and corn. Corn will be reduced by 25 per cent on the loan rate. The effect on barley in Canada will be approximately the same. We can expect approximately $2 per bushel or $90 per tonne for western barley after the U.S. farm Bill comes into effect. Of course there will be slightly higher barley rates in Ontario. Oil seeds will not be affected because the soya bean reduction in the U.S. farm Bill was only 5 per cent. Soya bean and canola reductions will probably be 10 per cent or thereabouts. However, the producers of every one of those grains will experience a reduction in income.
The Bill will also affect the livestock industry. Chase Econometrics has indicated that possily the livestock industry will remain the same or be a little better. However, the statistics of the Government of Canada and those of the Government of the United States do not indicate that. Because of the lower price of feed and because of higher production in the United States and in Canada, the result will likely be lower prices in the livestock industry. There will possibly be less of a chance to sell livestock, which will also force down the price. The projected income of cattlemen because of the U.S. Farm Bill will either remain the same or be forced downward. The situation will be the same for hog production for exactly the same reasons. There may be an increase in the number of hogs, but the result will probably be a lowering of the price.
In summary, grain prices will be pushed down. Livestock prices may not be pushed down as much, but they will be affected negatively. The United States is putting some $52 billion into farm subsidization over a three-year to five-year period, and Canada cannot begin to compete with the Treasury of the United States.
What can be done? I should like to take a few minutes to put forward some possibilities. We must first recognize the problem immediately. We must ensure that the United States knows the effect of its actions on us. Also we must negotiate for more favourable action on the part of the United States. Then we must take action in Canada to ensure that we have adequate programs in place to allow for the survival of the family farm and the agricultural industry. They will be attacked by the effects of the U.S. farm Bill which was put in
Supply
place to protect its farms. We must do something to protect our farms as well.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) was speaking, I could not help but think that the U.S. Farm Bill is important and vital to Canada and that it might be wise to get all three Parties together to come up with a unanimously supported joint resolution in the House expressing our concern about that Bill. I see that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has just left the Chamber. Perhaps he could get together with spokespersons in the other two Parties to see if we can come up with a joint resolution. The wording of our resolution might not be exactly what the Minister wants. It has been worded in the parliamentary context of condemning the Government; that is the way we do things around this place. 1 see the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) across the way. Perhaps he is in agreement with what 1 am saying and could take the initiative before the afternoon is out to try to come up with something of that sort.
It is important to impress upon Americans that we as Canadians feel very strongly about the U.S. farm Bill, which will subsidize their grain and other agricultural exports by $52 billion over the next three years. This will hurt Canadian farmers, as will a war between the Treasury of Europe and the Treasury of the United States. When exported grain from the United States is subsidized massively in places such as the Soviet Union, Asia and North Africa, and when the American farmer at home is subsidized as well, the price of grain falls. As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the price of grain on the Chicago futures market has already fallen to around $2.30 per bushel. It will fall by another 90 cents between the month of March and the month of July.
If I am not mistaken, shortly we will hear an announcement in the House by the Minister of State for Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) of a drop in the initial payment to farmers. Farmers are in serious difficulty. They call upon the House to exert some leadership, to put aside some of our petty partisan differences, and to speak with a united voice to the United States of America and to President Reagan. They call upon us to say that when the farm Bill comes into effect in June it will hurt Canadian farmers. It will mean that farmers from one part of the country to another will go broke, and it will mean a loss of jobs.
I wanted to make those comments. I appeal to the Government across the way. Perhaps there is some way to come up with a joint resolution of the House. I see the Minister for International Trade is now present in the Chamber. For his benefit I repeat briefly that it would be very nice if we could come up with a joint resolution of the House to express to the American Congress and the American Senate how we feel about the American farm Bill. I know there is a consensus on the matter. Perhaps we in all three Parties, over the next couple of days, can come up with some way of expressing it unanimously to the American administration; it might be very useful. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Prince Albert could comment on it.

March 18, 1986
Supply


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology rises on a point of order.


Claude Lanthier: On two occasions, Mr. Speaker the Hon. Member mentioned the fact that one of our colleagues was absent from the House. I point out to the House that first it is quite out of order under our rules, and second, that it is possible to follow the proceedings closely without actually being in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The point of order which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has raised is well taken.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has the floor.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with that approach. We owe it to the farmers of Canada, not only our grain farmers, but all other farmers as well. Every productive area will be affected. The United States took the action it took for exactly the same reasons that we are now asking this Parliament to do. First, we must recognize the problem. The farmers expect that of us. Second, we must make sure the U.S. knows what its Bill will do to Canada. We must then get together with the Americans. Either on an international or a bilateral basis we should come to some kind of an acceptable arrangement where we reduce hurt to both countries to the lowest possible level. We cannot start competing with the U.S. Treasury. We can certainly make sure by action on an international basis and on a national basis that our agricultural industry and our family farms particularly can survive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments? If not, we will resume debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see that the New Democratic Party is now starting to see the light of day. It is nice to see that the New Democrats know that all is not evil that comes out of the United States. For so long they have been critical of our neighbour to the south. When President Reagan came into office they did much talking about Reaganomics, but you do not hear New Democrats using that word any more because Reaganomics are working. It is good to know that the New Democrats are finally coming around. They even want to change the resolution which they tabled last night. They have seen their mistake. I hope they keep coming in that direction-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the only way we could do it. Read the rules.


Thomas Gordon Towers: -because that is the direction we should be taking. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) will perhaps lead his Party in a slightly different direction and give us all the support we need.
I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to the motion because I know the U.S. farm Bill is on the minds of many Canadian farmers. I am also pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight on the inaccurate assumptions upon which the motion is based.
The last time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and Mr. John Block, former Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, met in Canada they announced the formation of a joint horticultural committee composed of representatives from Canada and United States industries to correct and resolve existing trade differences between the two countries. The process has already started.
We have to recognize that we are dealing with a new phenomenon today. The Opposition seems to be looking backwards, looking at things that have passed instead of looking to the future, a glorious future that we may have in world society. We do, however, have some problems which world society has not had to face before, the European Economic Community and also a very strong United States economy. We have to make sure that we are not hurt in the process. That is what this exercise is all about.
There is no question that the U.S. Farm Bill carries with it serious consequences, not only for Canada but for producers in other countries as well. I think it would be fair to say the provisions are aimed at the Europen Economic Community, yet countries such as Canada are bound to experience some fall-out. We have to make sure that that fall-out will do us as little damage as possible.
The United States is a huge trading nation. Thus it has the ability to influence world commodity prices in a way that Canada, and most other trading nations, cannot. It would be a mistake to assume anything different. We have neither the level of trade nor the treasury to compete in the subsidy war.
We in Canada, however, can benefit from being a good neighbour to the United States. Perhaps members of the Opposition are not aware that before you can have a good neighbour you must first know how to be one. Respect and trust cannot survive and last for any length of time on a one-way street.
The U.S. Farm Bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce U.S. loan rates per bushel of wheat and feed grains to a maximum of 20 per cent below the basic rate in 1986-87. The formula for setting loan rates in the following years is being finalized. In essence though the Secretary can reduce the loan rates a further 5 per cent each year. This has placed severe downward pressure on world grain markets. Further pressure is also resulting from the two export assistance programs.
In the longer term, the Farm Bill may tend to reduce U.S. wheat production toward the end of the 1980s. In the shorter terms, "payment in kind" from Government stock as part of deficiency payments and as export subsidies will maintain
March 18, 1986

downward pressure on gain prices. U.S. grain stocks are expected to remain high for the balance of the 1980s unless export demand strengthens marketing.
The United States Government tried to control production somewhat, Mr. Speaker, by bringing in what they called the payment in kind or the PIK Program. The Government of the United States did not achieve the success it hoped it would under that program because farmers were paid to take a percentage of land out of production. The land they took out of production was the poorest producing part. They increased fertilizer and chemical use for weed control and produced just as much grain. That is why the PIK Program was not as successful as the United States Government had hoped it would be.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke with the former Secretary of Agriculture at considerable length about this Bill when he visited Canada recently. The U.S. administration is well aware of our concerns, and the lines of communication remain open. In fact, even as I speak, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is in the United States meeting with the President, and I am confident this issue will be raised.
I might just bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, an excerpt from Parliamentary Alert, a publication which many Members get. I would like to read it for the benefit of the House. Under the heading "Prime Minister in Washington", it reads:
Ottawa interest will shift from Parliament Hill to Washington this week as Prime Minister Mulroney travels to the U.S. capital for talks with President Reagan. Trade and acid rain are the main subjects of interest on the agenda.
The Prime Minister's Washington visit has been stretched to cover four days.
This is significant because when foreign diplomats journey to other countries visits are only for one day, but this one is for four days. The article continues:
He arrives from Montreal Monday evening, to be greeted by Secretary of State George Schultz.
Tuesday morning he meets with President Reagan for an hour in the Oval Office. Following lunch at the State Department he travels to Capitol Hill to meet members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The day will end with dinner at the White House. Wednesday morning he has breakfast with Vice-President George Bush, and then returns to Capital Hill to meet members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Back to the White House he joins President Reagan for a working lunch in the family quarters. He will then visit Arlington Cemetery and end the day with dinner at the residence of the Canadian ambassador A. E. Gotlieb. A farewell ceremony will take place at the Reflecting Pool Thursday morning.
That makes sense to me, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure it does to a lot of Canadians. That is the way to deal on tough issues and that is the way to create understanding and goodwill. If there was ever a time in Canadian history when we needed good understanding with our friends south of the 49th parallel, it is now. There is no question that the subsidies contained in the Farm Bill are not helpful to Canadian grain growers, but the Government is doing all it reasonably can in response.
In that regard, I would like to commend my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), for the initiative he has shown on behalf of Canada's grain farmers. He has initiated a series of meetings with four
Supply
other major grain and oil seed exporters: Australia, Argentina, the United States, and the EEC. Together, through negotiation, perhaps we can sort out the concerns about trade and subsidies that we are discussing today.
One fact that will always speak well for Canada in international markets is the quality of our grain. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards. In doing so, we are protecting an international reputation which will continue to serve the industry well. It is still unclear how, or if, the Farm Bill's dairy herd termination program will affect Canada. We may know more by April as the administrative details are worked out.
At this time, however, we have obtained assurances from the United States Department of Agriculture that the program will be managed in such a way as to minimize disruptive effects on the North American beef markets. For example, the American Commodity Credit Corporation is required to buy 400 million pounds of meat under the program, half of it for domestic food programs. This should reduce the chances of a sudden massive glut on world markets. We are continuing to monitor this program closely and, as I said, are keeping the lines of communication open between our two countries. This is very important.
My colleague, the Member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mrs. Landry), mentioned the problem we have with regard to beef producers. Beef producers in Canada form one component of our agricultural industry which is competing well with its counterpart south of the border. This is why enhanced trade is so important to beef producers in Canada. One thing we can do is to produce beef well.
We cannot control world commodity prices. Canada certainly cannot win a subsidy war with the United States, or the European Economic Community for that matter. However, through domestic programs we can assist producers who are faced with low commodity prices. Of course, we must be careful to strike a balance between the need for assistance and the need to keep the borders open to our key export markets.
Our most recent domestic program to respond to low commodity prices is the $700 million Commodity Based Loan Program. This program recognizes the fact that a farmer's ability to meet his loan payments is tied to the rise and fall in commodity prices. This program was one of several important provisions for farmers contained in the last Budget.
One of the things which many people seem to forget is the benefits which will accrue to farmers as a result of the latest Budget introduced by the Government. It is our stabilization programs which primarily serve producers during periods of low commodity prices. Due to the Government's initiatives, our agricultural stabilization network is stronger and more effective than it has ever has been. For instance, we amended the Western Grain Stabilization Program to trigger a record initial payment last spring. We anticipate another significant pay-out this spring, as the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board mentioned today in response to a question during Question Period.

March 18, 1986
Supply
Tripartite stabilization for the red meat sector is now a reality and a success story in the country. That is again due to the leadership shown by the Government and the faith it puts in consultation. Stabilization plans for red meat now represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of a hog, fed beef, and lamb production in the country. I am confident that more provinces will sign for more commodities in the future. For the first time in Canada, thousands of red meat producers have the opportunity to participate in an equitable national plan which cushions them from downward price swings. Other types of producers also benefit from payments under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. In fact, since we have been in government more than S483 million worth of payments have been made to Canadian producers under this Act.
Now and in the future Canada's farmers will reap the benefits of the actions the Government has taken to strengthen the structure of the farm industry through better, more effective stabilization programs. This brings me to the second part of the motion. Far from failing to take measures for farmers, the Government has in fact introduced far more agricultural initiatives of far greater significance than Canada's farmers have seen in many years. I am going to take a minute to list a few in order to refresh the memories of the Members opposite.
We introduced a $500,000 capital gains tax exemption on the sale of farm property. The NDP fought that. It did not want to give farmers that break. We introduced farm fuel tax rebates. In the February 26 Budget we extended the rebate program to 1988, and we are getting rid of some of the red tape. Farm Credit Corporation interest rates have dropped to their lowest level since 1979. We extended the small business bond program. We earmarked $80 million to reduce interest rates on about 5,400 Farm Credit Corporation loans. We are establishing farm debt review panels and are supplementing them with effective legislation aimed at strengthening the farmers' negotiating position. We provided drought assistance to prairie farmers amounting the $200 million in 1985, and we are working with the provinces to improve crop insurance coverage for producers who have endured consecutive years of drought. This program is moving ahead for the benefit of farmers. Crop insurance will certainly be a great benefit to farmers in the future.
We placed a high priority on agriculture at the First Ministers' Conference, and there have been productive follow-up discussions with provincial Governments on ways in which we can work together to serve farmers more effectively, such as the crop insurance plan I just mentioned. If that plan is to work, it must be carried out in conjunction with the provinces.
We acted to halt the flood of subsidized beef from the European Economic Community in 1985 reducing imports to less than half of the 1984 level under the previous administration. We have taken further action on behalf of Canada's beef industry for 1986. We doubled the size of loans for advance payments on grains. We introduced a long-term dairy policy representing a federal commitment to Canada's dairy farmers of close to $300 million annually.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Government has introduced nearly 200 agricultural initiatives worth more than $4 billion-since it has taken office. The Budget of February 26 singles out the farm sector, perhaps more than any other, for further assistance. That is action, that is delivering, that is commitment. We are going to keep on taking action, keep on delivering and keep on placing a high priority on agriculture because we are determined to see Canada's farmers through to better and more prosperous times. I thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Agriculture for their assistance in helping us to put those programs inplace for the Canadian farmer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments?


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to comment, given the importance of this debate, on the fact that there is not one Liberal in the House and, for the first time, three NDP Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 think the Hon. Member knows full well that such a question is not in order. Questions or comments? Debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Here is one of the three NDP Members.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is quality.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know, and you do not have it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not only quality but proportion. 1 think the hon. gentleman really should not say anything at all.
It escaped my friend from Red Deer that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), pointed out a few minutes ago that the only way under our rules that you can put forward this kind of resolution is to word it so that it is against the Government. That is the only way we can do it. The hon. gentleman has been here long enough to know that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Old Conservative rule.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: However, my colleague made an excellent suggestion. The agriculture and trade and forestry critics from all three Parties could get together and come up with a resolution that we can send out of this House unanimously to the Government and the people of the United States.
The argument for free trade which has been going around for the past couple of years is that if Canada can negotiate free trade with the U.S., then the Americans would cease bringing in protectionist legislation, as they have in the past and as they are doing now. Anyone who believes that, including my good friend from Red Deer, is either naive, ignorant or plain stupid.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe all three.
March 18, 1986


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How many times do we have to learn our lesson? Anyone who thinks that American producers, processors or manufacturers will hold still, along with their legislators, for either Canadians or other countries maintaining or obtaining a larger share of the U.S. market is dreaming in Technicolor. I want to remind my hon. friends opposite of the experience over the past 15 years with cattle and beef products. Do you remember 1969-1970 when the Cattlemen's Association and feedlot operators told us to leave them alone? They wanted a free and open market. They did not want anything to do with orderly marketing or market management. Yet when the Americans shut down the border-and I was here at that time as was my colleague-who were the first ones down here in Ottawa crying their heads off for help? Do you remember?


Thomas Gordon Towers: It was Trudeau who shut the border down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no. The Americans closed the border. Then there were hog and pork products. We still have some of that going on. We had countervailing duties last year. In fact, an individual state in the U.S. can, for any reason under its jurisdiction, prohibit the import of a product from Canada. They are doing that with Canadian hogs right this minute.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Pork.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Pork, hogs, what is the difference? I think you make pork out of hogs.
There are a few other things. I have a little list here. They grow a lot of raspberries in Quebec and British Columbia. There is countervailing duty there. There is saltfish, lumber, steel and steel products. One often wonders, given this 4,000 or
5,000	miles of undefended border with our good friends and neighbours for over 200 years, whether a good fence would not make some good neighbours.


Mr. Comeau:: Is that what you are suggesting?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is not a case of being anti-American. It is a case of being pro-Canadian. It is making a stand on our traditions, culture, experience and our ways of doing things. I remember someone who used to grace this House of Commons for many years starting in 1935. He was premier of our province for 17 years and then came back here in the early 1960s. He was accused of being anti-American. Tommy Douglas said: "I like Americans. They are nice people. They are good neighbours. They are good friends". He said: "I like my relatives, too. I like my friends. But I don't want them taking over my house and my having to live in the garage."
Canada, by itself, cannot do very much to stop any decision that the U.S. administration and Congress decide to make. We can, however, do more to remind our good friends and good neighbours to the south about our traditions and practices. They have said over the past number of years, in fact I think since my hon. friend from Red Deer came here, that the Canadian Wheat Board was somehow subsidizing to grain producers and therefore it was unfair. Bless his dear departed soul, although there was not much good we could say about
Supply
him it was R. B. Bennett who started the Canadian Wheat Board. It was not put into practise until about 1939 or 1940, and that was just because of the war, but he started it. It was a principle of orderly marketing. Yet Americans are saying they want the issue of hog marketing agencies in our provinces on the table.
You can ask hog producers in Saskatchewan and la belle province about the system they have devised, totally under provincial jurisdiction, to help protect the marketing capacity and incomes of hog producers. That has always been questioned by our friends south of the border. Our dairy, poultry and egg producers have always been challenged by U.S. Governments on those organizations which they collectively and voluntarily set up for themselves through their provincial and national Governments to try to protect themselves. It was to try and make their industry and the results of their labour a lot more viable.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is in Washington right now. That is fine. We enjoy it. They are going to have him over for a steak dinner, and perhaps in the swimming pool tonight. Who knows? That is nice. It is good that leaders of countries get together in a friendly, informal manner. It is not a case of being anti-American; it is asking our national Government and this Parliament to remind the Americans and to ask them to show some respect, regard and understanding for our rights, traditions, history and methods of doing things, many of which are historically different from theirs, just as they would like to receive from us, our respect for them, for their nation and their people for exactly the same things, their rights, traditions and history. It is a two-way street. Just because they are bigger than us-if they really are, and 1 believe they are-a nation that gives first place to showing respect for the independence and the sovereignties of other nations, they have to be persuaded, by whatever means we can find, not to do the things they have done in the past and what they are proposing to do now. My colleague the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), pointed out very well earlier today just what is in store for us in the forest industry alone.
I believe that an overwhelming majority of the American public do not know or do not understand what is happening, and that is what we have been asking in this resolution. There are groups who think that you can negotiate a free trade arrangement between a small nation and a big nation. If one considers Canadian history and the history of other countries in the British Commonwealth, in the southern Pacific, in Asia and in Africa, one finds that in the days when we were colonies we all got what was called the empire preferential tariff treatment. Even after 1930, after the statute of Westminster, there were still countries in the British Commonwealth that were colonies that got that preferential treatment. Right up until the Second World War even Canada got that preferential tariff treatment. We had most of our eggs, at that time, in Great Britain, our trading eggs.

March 18, 1986
Supply
Up to and during the Second World War we provided Britain with most, if not all, but certainly the largest part, of their butter, cheese, bacon, ham and beef. When the war was over, so much for having all of our eggs in one basket. Most of that market we lost within a very few years. What are we doing? We are in the process of putting our eggs in one basket again. It seems to me-and I say this to the Minister in all sincerity-that we could do more on a commodity by commodity basis, bilateral agreements in terms of quantities, minimum maximum prices, and let the market play around from there for a given period of time by agreement with a number of countries in a host of commodities. We should not rely on the economy of some large power. Even the Hungarians have got out of being totally dependent on trade with the Soviet Union. There have been some very complimentary articles in the North American press about their moving out into trading with other countries of the world. We are in a similar position economically, not ideologically.
I get a little tired in the middle of February of paying $2, $3 for a head of cauliflower and a buck and a half or $2 for a pound of tomatoes at the supermarket. 1 went to Mexico for a couple of weeks about a year ago now. There is a country which desperately needs some hard currency. In this country you ought to see the tomatoes they grow and the cauliflowers. Those people may be poor but they are mostly not hungry and they produce.
Why do we not make a deal, perhaps a straight barter arrangement, with Mexico on things such as purebred cattle, dairy herds, apples or Canadian wine in exchange for fruits and vegetables, especially in the five or six-month period of the year when we cannot grow anything here except snowballs? You could make a deal with Mexico, the Caribbean countries and Central America.
I must even fault the co-operative movement, of which I am an ardent member and supporter. I found out that the Federated Co-Ops from Thunder Bay to the Pacific Ocean do not buy their own fresh fruit and vegetables; they buy them through Scott National. Who is Scott National? It is a subsidiary of the multinational corporation that has all those farms in Arizona, California and Florida. We could not even sell the fresh vegetables grown in the Qu'Appelle Valley north of Regina to the local supermarkets in Regina. We had farmers in the Qu'Appelle Valley up to here in potatoes, turnips, cabbages and corn who could not sell them 20 miles away. Why? Because somebody else controls what is coming into this country, at what price and when. How long are we going to hold still for that? I hope all my colleagues find that somewhat embarrassing in terms of what we can and should be doing ourselves, among ourselves and with many other nations in the world.
Caribbean and Southeast Asian countries grow things that we can use and there are things that we have that they could use. We do not have to be in a situation where 80 per cent of our exports are to the United States.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Seventy-seven.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Seventy-seven per cent, all right. Sixty-five per cent of our imports from Americans come here. The trouble is that the other 35 per cent that they do not export to Canada is handled by U.S. corporations in Canada, and the heads of the U.S. companies in Canada get their orders at the end of a telex. So much for your economic sovereignty and independence.
I believe very sincerely that the United States administration and Congress and the American people would fully respect and recognize Canada speaking up and standing up for itself in that full, frank, firm and straightforward manner, whether it is our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meeting with the United States President or MPs and Senators meeting with U.S. Congressmen and Senators, or businessmen here meeting with businessmen there. They will understand and respect that because they expect the same kind of understanding and respect themselves. They get that from us. They have no respect for this hands and knees syndrome in which we crawl down and plead and beg them to honour and respect us as a sovereign and independent nation. Again, it is what Tommy Douglas called many years ago, "this supine acquiescence". If the American administration and Congress tell us to jump, we ask how high. I find that demeaning, i don't blame the Americans for that, I blame us. The time is overdue that we told not only the United States but other nations that we are willing to negotiate, to bargain and make deals because we respect how they operate, but we expect the same from them.
I recall the years of the international wheat agreements that marked a milestone in international trade and understanding among many countries. Who killed those agreements?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Americans.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who killed the international grains arrangement? As soon as it infringed on what the Americans believed were their rights, they killed an agreement that was a milestone for the grain trade in Canada. We must continue to fight for our rights as a nation on behalf of Canadians and our national independence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that in accordance with Standing Order 82(12), the proceedings on the motion have expired. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has the floor.
March 18, 1986



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question that I want to pursue at this time is extremely important. It concerns the health of Canadians, particularly those who work in areas under federal jurisdiction.
The question I raised with the Minister of National health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) specifically dealt with two studies which documented the extent of lung cancer deaths among people who are not smokers, but involuntary smokers. These are studies which show how very expensive smoking is in the federal workplace and how much money would be saved by introducing controls.
It is not only very interesting, but shameful that the studies were obtained by the Non-Smokers Rights Association under the Access to Information Act because they had not been published. The Minister said that at least one would be published. One of the studies dates back to January, 1984 and certainly could have been published. The sad fact of the matter is that the harm caused to involuntary smokers and the deaths among involuntary smokers as a result of smoking is much greater than imagined.
Let us consider that the so-called acceptable risk of developing lung cancer from involuntary smoking is 6 to 7.5 per
100,000	smokers every year. While I will not go into the details, that is a reasonable calculation. The amount of contaminant required to produce a rate above that acceptable level is reached when one person out of 60 smokes one cigarette a day. Consequently, it does not take an excessive amount of tobacco smoking to reach a level above what is considered acceptable.
One can understand the seriousness of the problem when we consider that the average level of exposure to smoke in the workplace is 270 times this acceptable risk level. The study concludes, in very cautious and conservative language, that habitual exposure to the smoke from one or more cigarettes per 60 employees per day would expose employees to risks of developing lung cancer from involuntary smoking greater than risks currently considered acceptable by American regulatory agencies for involuntary exposure to carcinogens in air, water or food.
That is the cautious and scientific way of saying that many people are being hurt. These include people under our jurisdiction; every federal employee of a Crown corporation or a company regulated by federal law. All of our employees at the House of Commons and the Senate are exposed to risks that would not be tolerated with other substances. The Government has suppressed this study. When I have raised the question, I
Adjournment Debate
have been told that either no legislation is necessary-that it will all be worked out in some type of friendly fashion-or that I should just be patient. I will not be patient with this level of damage that is being caused.
The other question is with respect to the costs. If the Government is not concerned about the health of Canadians, and it has shown precious little concern thus far, it should be concerned about the deficit. It should be concerned about the amount of money which is spent every year as a result of cigarette smoking. We know that $3 billion in taxes comes in every year from tobacco. However, the pay-outs are more than $8 billion a year to cover the costs of medicare, absences from work and so forth. In other words, every time a smoker pays $2.50 for a package of cigarettes, other people are paying $3.50 for the damage which is being done.
My concern is with the very specific costs incurred in the federal workplace. It is interesting to see that millions of dollars could be saved every year. The staff side of the National Joint Council has proposed to restrict smoking to smoking areas only with separate ventilation. One estimate has been done as a result of this proposal which assumes that there would be costs in doing these renovations. Such renovations would take five years to pay off. After these costs are paid off, the excess of annual benefits over cost would be $33 per employee. This comes to a total of $6 million a year for Government alone. If we add federal Crown corporations to this, it is another $12 million a year. If we look at the federal private sector, there is another $9 million a year to consider. Of course, if no smoking were permitted in the workplace at all, the savings would be enormous. One estimate in this respect amounts to over $2,000 per employee per year. There are others which are lower at $305 per employee per year and around $550 per employee per year. In other words, there are enormous costs involved. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars a year which could be saved by not permitting smoke in the workplace. These are just money savings. I am not even talking about the savings in terms of suffering and the harm which is caused to families of people who are hurt through tobacco-related diseases.
I call upon the Government to take this problem seriously and to bring in legislation to control smoke in the workplace. The level of 35,000 deaths per year from tobacco is unacceptable. A responsible Government would act promptly and vigorously to deal with this very serious problem. It is Canada's number one preventable health problem.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that when tobacco was first introduced in Europe in the 16th century it was recommended for medicinal purposes. But it soon became apparent that the smoking habit was harmful because it was associated with health hazards.

March 18, 1986
Adjournment Debate
The fact that our diseases-lung cancer, myocardial infarct, peripheric vascular disease, and obstructive and chronic respiratory syndrome-have been directly linked to tobacco has caused deep concern among health specialists.
Tobacco smoke is a complex mixture in which more than
3,000	chemical substances have been identified. It is so complex that it is practically impossible to single out one specific substance as being the main factor with respect to any given disease caused by smoking. Still, a number of chemical substances known to be carcinogenic have indeed been detected in tobacco smoke.
In February 1985, the International Agency for Research on Cancer gathered a group of experts to assess the risk of cancer from smoking. In their judgment, there is enough evidence to say that smoke inhalation causes cancer in laboratory animals, and that it has been amply demonstrated that tobacco smoke is a carcinogenic agent in human beings.
With these findings in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to point out that significant progress has been made in recent months to restrict smoking in the workplace. Employers realize that they can apply those restrictive measures at little or no cost, and that they stand to gain considerable benefits with respect to employee motivation and productivity in a saner and safer work environment.
The list of companies which apply a restraint policy is impressive and gets longer every day. Here are some of them: the Office of the Auditor General, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Boeing of Canada Limited, Halifax Insurance, and Maritime Telephone and Telegraph.
In many cases, sections reserved for smokers are equipped with independent ventilation facilities.
In addition, some airlines have already banned smoking on all flights and VIA Rail has separate cars for non-smoking passengers.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has ongoing studies on the hazards of tobacco smoke. The Government will continue to rely on sound scientific data to draft its policies and plan its action concerning smoking and tobacco smoke.


CUSTOMS TARIFF-TARIFF PLACED ON PRODUCT NOT PRODUCED IN CANADA
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, I raised a question in the House which essentially asked of the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) why it was that central Canadian steel suppliers and mills like Stelco and Algoma were allowed, because of their industrial practices, to smother new technology and companies using new technology on the West Coast. Actually, the issue is much older than some of us might suspect. It is probably as old as Confederation. For me the issue is at least nine years old.
In approximately 1977, because these companies suspected and only suspected that there would be a glut on the market of wide-flanged steel, they applied for and received from the Government an additional tariff of about 30 per cent which had the effect of almost destroying the fabricating industry in British Columbia. At that time, because of those additional tariffs on imported steel, it was possible for fabricating companies in Ontario to supply that kind of steel to a building company in Edmonton cheaper than it could be supplied from Vancouver. The companies in central Canada, because they had an unnecessary paranoia about pricing, almost destroyed the industry in British Columbia. New technology has now been added to the industry in B.C. and that has added a new wrinkle to the problem.
There is a company in my riding called Titan Steel and Wire. It has up-to-date, state-of-the-art technology for creating the kind of wire that is used in bridges and concrete works. The company cannot get raw materials from the Canadian steel mills as the Canadian product is inferior for its requirements. If you do not accept my word for that, Mr. Speaker, let me read telexes from the supplier in question. A telex dated November 21, 1985, from Stelco to Titan reads as follows:
Can meet all your requirements as specified except that we cannot guarantee tensile .. . our max coil weight is 1600 lbs-
Those are the two critical factors in the manufacture of this wire. A telex of November 26, 1985, from the same company to Titan reads as follows:
As far as coil size is concerned Stelco's is admittedly below that of new rod mills. As you know the rod mill was in the forefront of technology when it was installed. Newer mills around the world use the Stelmor process and gain competitive advantage from the production of larger and larger coils. However I doubt there is a rod mill in North America that could both produce the steel grade you require and process 4000 pound coils. Bethlehem might come the closest.
There is not one mill in North America that can do it, yet these companies refuse to allow the Department to change a tariff item so that Titan Steel and Wire can get the product from offshore and remain competitive.
It is a fact that the eastern mills are not interested in supplying this product. There is not even a salesman out on the West Coast who is trying to sell products from the East. Second, the eastern mills cannot supply the product, as these telexes have pointed out. Third, these mills are expecting new production lines to produce inferior products to suit the supplier rather than the new technology. I find that offensive to the market system. Since when does the open market system allow the supplier to dictate to the user what kind of products he can use? How in the world can Canada be on the cutting edge of new product lines if the supplier can dictate to the user?
March 18, 1986

According to the notes from the mill itself, the benefits of foreign suppliers are as follows: A 4,000-pound wire bod bundle is more efficient to use and results in a better quality finished product because there are less welds in a length of finished product; aluminum killed wire rod provides a better grain structure in the steel which results in a better quality finished product; and the chromium addition in the wire rod reduces tensile variation in the steel and improves the inner structure of the steel. When it comes to quality, why should the user not dictate what should be the quality rather than the supplier?
I guess what 1 find most offensive is that the officers in charge in the Department go to the supply companies in question for direction because government Departments do not have the technological expertise to determine whether or not there should be a change in tariffs. They go to Stelco and they go to Algoma for a definition. 1 find that offensive. If it is not conflict of interest, why do the heads of the tariffs division go to the user for a definition rather than to the supplier? Why do they go to Stelco? Why do they not go to Titan Steel and ask what the definition ought to be?
If we do not do this, we will surely move into a period of industrial stagnation. If the supplier can dictate to the user, we will never come to the cutting edge of technology. I have been on this issue, as I said, for about nine years; I am not about to quit now. I am looking to the day when the Department will recognize that the regions of the country have special needs which either the tariffs or the mills recognize.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make regarding the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). The Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) who is responsible for tariff policy, as my colleague is aware, has examined the application made by the manufacturer of wire products in the Hon. Member's riding.
As my hon. friend pointed out, the company, Titan Steel & Wire Co. Ltd. in Surrey, has asked for a reduction in customs duty on the wire stock it imports to manufacture metal products such as strand screens, for use in pre-stressed concrete, and gravel screens. The Minister realizes that Titan wants to reduce its costs, and it would like to be able to help the company by granting it a tariff reduction.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now provide some general information that is very relevant to this particular case. Titan's request was considered in the light of legislation allowing the Governor-inCouncil to reduce or remove customs duty on items imported for use as manufacturing stock in Canada. The legislation is
Adjournment Debate
aimed at reducing the cost of the materials Canadian manufacturers need, in the event they cannot obtain such materials from Canadian producers, and if they can prove they need a tariff reduction to increase their competitive position. However, Mr. Speaker, tariff reductions of this kind are not granted when other Canadian companies might suffer adverse effects.
Regarding the tariff change requested by the company in my hon. friend's riding, when the Department of Finance asked the opinion of the parties concerned, as is usually done in such cases, two Canadian wire producers objected to the request being approved. They informed the Department that they produced wire stock that was directly competing with the kind of wire imported by Titan. Moreover, both companies felt that since they were also manufacturing metal products using the wire stock they produced, it would not be fair to remove customs duty on imported stock.
According to these two companies, this would give Titan a competitive edge which would be unfair, as you will understand, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, they have offered to provide Titan with the type of wire it needs, and Titan has indicated its willingness to discuss the matter with them.
In view of these two points, the Minister of State for Finance has decided to reserve her decision following the request of the Hon. Member to give the parties involved enough time to examine the possibility that an agreement may be reached with Titan, which could then obtain the milled wire it needs from these Canadian producers.
The Hon. Member has indicated that Titan manufactures metal products mostly for export. In this regard, 1 must point out that, under certain provisions of Canadian law, companies can obtain a rebate or refund or fees paid on all material imported to produce goods for export. Titan can therefore obtain a refund of the duties paid on imported milled wire it uses in the manufacture of metal products for export. It seems to me that such a rebate does in fact reduce tarif costs as requested by Titan.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will recognize that the position taken by the Minister as concerns the request made by the company through my colleague aims at solving a difficult problem and finding a solution which will be fair and equitable for all parties involved.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 19, 1986