1986-10-27

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to the House for any offence that remarks attributed to me in the press last week may have caused. I regret that what I said may have left the impression that I and some of my colleagues do not support the role of Canadian women in today's society. Such is not the case.
I made a personal apology to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), whose work on behalf of the women of Canada is well known. I fully support their efforts and those of the Minister responsible for the status of women. They are all working diligently to establish true equality for women in our society. As one who has a daughter deeply involved in her own professional career, I can assure the House that I fully support the goal of improving opportunities for women in Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages, further Orders in Council reappointments.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present the report of the Official Parliamentary
Delegation which represented Canada at the 76th Interparliamentary Conference in Buenos Aires October 6 to October 11, 1986, in both official languages.


EXCISE TAX ACT AND EXCISE ACT
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 1 will be answered today.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	What was the total cost of producing the Via Rail publication "Directions", Volume 1, No. 1, Summer 1986, including typesetting, printing, distributing and any other cost?
2.	How many copies were printed?
3.	What was the purpose of the publication?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: The
management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
1.	The total cost was $83,138.50.
2.	One hundred and fifty thousand copies were printed.
3.	The main objective of the magazine is to promote tourism in Canada and to encourage Canadians to travel by train.

October 27, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice among our publications today we have one entitled "Status of Bills" which is a new document, to which, I suppose, Hon. Members will have access. Will this be available every day or once a week?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. I understand it will be available each day at Hon. Members' desks. For clarification, it is published weekly but will be available each day.
[DOT] (mo)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for confusion, lack of direction, and secrecy in its trade policy, and specifically, condemns:
1.	the misguided efforts of the Minister for International Trade to present a unilateral proposal to the United States which undercut the Canadian position before the Commerce Department's lumber countervail decision;
2.	the weak and contradictory response of the same Minister to that lumber decision, by which she has neglected firm Canadian action and possibilities and used mere rhetoric and legal appeals within the very U.S. system of countervail she criticizes;
3.	the failure of the Canadian Government to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the U.S. Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian farmers;
4.	the weakness of the Canadian Government in its response to the customs surtax and the differential U.S. tax on imported as opposed to domestic oil;
5.	the way in which this Government's free trade talks with the U.S. have made Canada a target of U.S. countervail and congressional action rather than helping this country escape such actions;
6.	the lower priority given by this Government to GATT negotiations rather than to comprehensive bilateral talks with the U.S.; and
7.	the failure of this Government realistically to assess the massive constitutional roadblocks in the way of a truly fair bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that this is not the first speech on the subject I have made in the last year. In fact, there have been a number of attempts to put a case against freer trade across the country, from Vancouver to Quebec, from Hamilton to Lethbridge, from Sault Ste Marie to Winnipeg and on and on. However, never have I felt more angry and ashamed of the Government than I have in the last few months as the Government has contradicted itself, surrendered before the fact, fumed with empty rhetoric, exhibited complete weakness and inaction, and has stepped up its campaign to confuse the Canadian people completely with respect to this issue.
In my speech I wish to deal with the great trade initiative and then to talk about the alternatives that we could have pursued. Finally, I will focus on the present record of incoherent incompetence that the Government has shown. In doing so I wish to assure the House and, indeed, the country, that it is not an anti-American speech that I wish to make.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Steven W. Langdon: Indeed, it is not that at all. It is an antiConservative speech that I wish to make.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: I say that because that is the target which deserves attack, especially at this stage.
In her speeches the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) has claimed that those of us who oppose free trade are not interested in economic arguments. As usual, she is wrong. She has not been listening. In fact, there is a strong and powerful economic logic against the course on which the Government is taking us.
Let us follow that logic. To begin with I would like to deal with the question of economic policy. At the heart of economic policy, in a country with unemployment rates at the levels that we have, it is crucial that the potential job implications of free trade be looked at most carefully. The Government has launched studies to do just that. For instance, it launched a study, undertaken by the University at Maryland, which was finally released for public consumption last year, which suggested that an immediate, comprehensive free trade pact with the United States would cost us 131,000 jobs. This is directly contrary to the claims of the Economic Council of Canada in its recent report.
I attended a recent committee meeting to try to get the Economic Council experts in this area to explain this difference. Frankly, they could not, except to say that they have left out various important considerations since that is part of the nature of economic modelling. If it were just a question of contradiction between two different sets of econometric studies, then one could raise one's eyebrows and say: "So what?" But what we have here is not just that. What we have here are studies that have come from the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario and, indeed, from the Province of
October 27, 1986

Manitoba. All of them have been made available to the public, unlike the federal Government's studies. All of them have raised severe doubts about the job impacts of this great project which is before us.
Besides looking at the job question it is important to look at the basic argument which the Government made just a few months ago when it tried to sell this project to the people of Canada. It said-and members of the special joint committee looking into international relations heard it so often-that we would escape U.S. protectionism simply by entering into negotiation with the United States on free trade. It has become clear that rather than finding an escape-hatch we have become a target of U.S. action by entering into these negotiations. In case after case of countervail, in action after action in the U.S. Congress, we have seen Canada attacked. It was attacked recently through a whole host of points that are noted in our motion, including a 15 per cent duty imposed on lumber, including a differential tax on oil imports and a customs surtax.
If we talk about the economic logic of this great project, we have to see a basic economic divide which exists here in Canada. It is the difference which exists for those who say that some kind of free market continentalism is preferable to government leadership which, in countries like Japan, Sweden and Austria, has led to much better economic performance than that which we have experienced in the two years of Conservative Government. The Minister herself has admitted that the first and foremost goal of the U.S. in the negotiations is to reduce our capacity to act directly through economic activity by the Government and to provide assistance, whether it be for farmers, regions or people, which the United States interprets as being subsidized by what is taking place.
[DOT] (U20)
Fourth, we have to stand back and look at what is actually happening within North America. We have to see that the drift in this continent is very much to the southern part of the United States and the West Coast. It is a drift which is moving in that direction because of lower wages, better weather and economic advantages caused by union legislation which is freer in terms of employer rights than that which exists in Canada.
Just as has happened with the United Kingdom when it entered the European Economic Community, what is bound to happen if we enter into a free trade arrangement with the United States is that we too will become an exploited margin within this continentalist drift. That will leave us in a position just like that of the north of England, of Scotland and of Wales. We will be a part of the world which is very much in decline rather than able to move ahead with drive, dynamism and excitement.
Fifth, we have to look at the economics of bargaining itself and we have to ask about the quid pro quo. Assuming we did get a free trade arrangement with the United States, what would we have to give up in order to get that arrangement?
Supply
Anyone who has looked carefully at the economics of bargaining with the United States and who has followed these trade negotiations knows that the potential sacrifices are immense. There are potential sacrifices in our entire regional development program package, in our agricultural policies, in the safeguards in the Auto Pact and indeed in our social programs and in many of the safeguards which protect a certain cultural integrity in Canada. Those are the things we stand to lose in the economics of the bargaining that is now occurring.
The economic logic which stands against a free trade thrust is powerful, clear, and to many people in Canada, compelling. Perhaps it is not compelling to the Minister and the Government but I think to many in Canada it is ultimately far more persuasive than the economic logic which the Government is attempting to pursue.
We have to face the fact, however, that if we are not to follow the free trade course, there must be an alternative. The alternative is one that we have often tried to outline. It is an alternative which demands first that we withdraw from comprehensive talks, talks which themselves have ignored the various disputes which are so crippling to our economy. For instance, the lumber dispute has not even reached the table despite its seriousness to our economy. It has not been discussed as a point at issue at the free trade talks despite its importance.
If we had pulled out of these grand talks and instead concentrated on the bilateral disputes that divide us, we would have made so much more progress and we would now not be facing the threats that face us from every direction, threats facing steel, lumber and fish, commodities that affect every part of Canada. If we had taken the route which those of us on the joint committee from our Party recommended, which is to talk about the disputes themselves and to try to work those disputes through, we would be so much further ahead.
We could as well benefit from an advisory dispute settlement mechanism. This would help us at least to keep statistics on which we are all agreed. Perhaps it would help us through conciliation to come up with solutions to some of the disputes we face with the United States.
In addition to that, there are sectors like the automobile sector for which arrangements with the United States could be developed, arrangements that give us safeguards, that protect employment and that protect the chances for small business. I am thinking, for instance, of chemicals, computer and mining machinery for which potential sectoral arrangements could have been explored. However, that chance too has been lost by this comprehensive reach for the sky of which the Minister has been a part.
We believe that we must take seriously and implement Canadian-content legislation. This legislation has shown in the case of the Auto Pact to be powerful in getting jobs, safeguards and opportunities for our workers and producers. For instance, the potential is very much there for Canadian content legislation in the aircraft industry and agricultural machinery

October 27, 1986
Supply
sectors, if that had been the goal instead of this great, misguided dream. By this point, we should have implemented the recommendations of the special joint committee with respect to providing assistance to small and medium sized businesses to try to improve their export performance. As well, we need to give restructuring help to enterprises and workers to assist in the transition process which changes in trade policy inevitably bring about. Finally, we would have taken the GATT round which started in this past month as the heart of our approach. That would have permitted us to deal with the United States, not as a country one-tenth the size of the United States, but instead as a country forming partnerships with others in an attempt to have the United States back off on its aggressive use of countervail legislation, and its attempt to take the notion of subsidy and expand it so far that it threatens completely the sovereignty of this country.
There is very much another direction. At the heart of that new direction there has to be a competence and a coherence which Government policy to this stage has missed completely. To use the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) jargon, the Minister has: "Indeed picked up the ball and scored a touchdown for the opposition team".


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: You don't even know the field yet.


Steven W. Langdon: Look at the record. She has first undercut our own position with respect to the lumber countervail before that decision was even announced, by running the white flag of surrender up and saying that we would be prepared to recognize that our stumpage fees were indeed too high.


Mr. Speaker:: I rise to remind the Hon. Member that his time has nearly expired and perhaps he could judge the remainder of his remarks accordingly.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have to talk about the weakness which has persisted in the responses to that decision itself. We have to focus on the continuing incapacity of this Government to put its act together and shape out a direction for the future and give this country a sense of hope. Instead, we have a Government that has said that the only hope is abdication and joining with the United States in a free trade pact. We say the opposite: It is time to take a different direction. I appeal to the Minister and to the Government, and ultimately I appeal to the Canadian people, to change the direction which has been taken so far and give us a sense of hope which this country so badly needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brisco:: I am disturbed by what I have just heard in the context of-


An Hon. Member:: Or didn't hear.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Or didn't hear, that is right-in the context of a number of areas, and I would like to touch on a couple of those. First, I would like to reflect back to the last time the countervail issue seized the House of Commons. That was in the period 1982 to 1983. While it may not be engraved in stone or found in the records, in terms of the unanimity of the House to fight that issue, pull together, and see this problem resolved to Canada's satisfaction, that circumstance clearly has not prevailed this time around.


Mr. Riis:: Thanks to Mr. Vander Zalm.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Members of the NDP have broken ranks repeatedly right at the outset. All they have to do is to read the record of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and they will see the evidence clearly there in Hansard of attempts to undermine the efforts of the Government and of the industry of Canada.


Mr. Murphy:: You guys threw in the towel.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Then we have the Liberal initiative when we were debating the tariff on shakes and shingles. That was an amusing debate triggered by the Opposition. We found that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) refused to answer what his position was on the export of cedar logs to the United States. He said that it was a debate for another time. Then we had another member of the Official Opposition who said that of course they do not support the export of logs. They would not condone that kind of action: Ship jobs to the United States? The debate concluded, in terms of speakers from the Opposition, with an Hon. Member saying that he fully supported and endorsed the shipment of cedar logs to the Unites States in spite of all the efforts of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) to dissuade him from taking that political route, that statement of farce, but he made it and stuck by it.
What is most germane to this issue today is, what are the alternatives? We have heard a litany that I would not want to repeat anywhere else for fear of embarrassment-an embarrassment of riches in my case and an embarrassment of desperation in theirs-and yet they have not put forward one valid proposal in terms of an alternative. Why do they not lay out their position on this entire issue? Tell us what they would have done. Tell us what Jack Munro would have done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are trying to figure out what you would do.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Clearly, they do not know. I think it is time they got down to the business of the House and offered credible alternatives, instead of sitting back there and whining and complaining, which is the tradition of their Party in any event.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Belsher:: I have listened to the debate of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) this morning and talk about confusion-
October 27, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should have permitted the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor to reply to the last intervention. I do so now. I know that the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) will agree with that ruling.


Steven W. Langdon: I want to suggest first that the Hon. Member has clearly not listened this morning. At least a third of my speech was an attempt to set out whole sets of alternative policy directions. Many of them were recommended by the special joint committee which took testimony across the country in the summer of 1985. If they had been taken, that would have put us in a position far superior to the vulnerable and very difficult position in which we find ourselves at the moment.


Mr. Kempling:: You are a dreamer.


Steven W. Langdon: Somebody says I am a dreamer. I think that is only possible to say when you recognize the nightmare into which this Government's policy has taken us.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: The clear point that I want to respond to is the suggestion that there should be some clear unanimity with respect to countervail. There was complete unanimity of support throughout the House with regard to the countervail action until the day the Minister for International Trade stood and waved the white flag of surrender. At that time she said that we would not defend any longer the principle we had defended through three cases, that our stumpage fees were our business, that they were not too high, and that they were the business of the provinces to set as they wished. When she took that position, she, not us, destroyed the sense of unanimity or the sense of complete co-operation which existed throughout the House in respect of the countervail fight. That is certainly true as far as the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is concerned. I will not speak for members of the Official Opposition. They can speak for themselves; I am sure they will. I do not want to suggest that they are absent from confusion. My first point is that there is an alternative, and my second point is that there was complete unanimity until the Minister destroyed it.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) it has been clearly demonstrated that members of the NDP do not know what they are talking about. Talk about confusion! Along with their counterparts in the Official Opposition, they talk about free trade when we talk about an enhanced trade agreement. Let us talk about what we are trying to do instead of confusing the people of Canada.
The Hon. Member and his Party represent labour unions and talk about how they want everything out in the open. Does he really think that we can negotiate in the newspapers and on the streets in the open? Is that the way he thinks collective
Supply
agreements should be arranged in the future? Is this what he is advocating?
We have seen opposition Members take different sides. In fact, they have taken both sides. One day they say that we should keep up the trade talks and not let up. The next time they say that they should be stopped. When it comes to the lumber issue in British Columbia and in other parts of the country, the Government is showing leadership. It is speaking on behalf of each province and on behalf of the industry. The provinces and the industry are welcoming the leadership which the Minister has shown to the people of Canada.
Why do they not stop their rhetoric and get on with offering help and support for the clear direction of the Minister?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, if a clear direction could be discerned in the salamander-like wanderings which have characterized the Minister up to now in respect of her policy directions on these issues, it might be possible either to say yes or no. In fact the position has veered from left to right, from empty rhetoric fuming at the United States, to positions which have defended the course wherein she says that the only way to deal with the lumber issue is in fact to deal with it in United States courts and in the United States system. It has been a contradictory, confusing, and quite frankly bewildering performance on the part of the Minister. That is absolutely the case.
Regarding the specific questions raised by the Hon. Member, there is no suggestion that collective agreements or bargaining should take place out in the open. In the United States, as the Hon. Member should know very well, it has been possible to talk publicly with the negotiator who is carrying forward with the negotiations. It is also possible to get into the open what is the mandate of that negotiator. That has not taken place here. Instead, the public has been kept in complete darkness about the whole strategy or approach which the Government attempts to have Simon Reisman follow. That secrecy is damaging, not just to the country but to the Government's own attempts at achieving some kind of solution. In respect of the Flon. Member's last point about our demonstrating confusion over the trade talks, we have said consistently from the start that we should not be part of those talks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the Hon. Member that the allotted time has expired. There are other Hon. Members seeking the floor. If it were the unanimous wish of the Chamber to allow one more question, I would do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member who is a spokesman for the New Democratic Party clearly set out that Party's view? We must bear in mind that the Tokyo Round of tariff negotiations will be completed next year with a reduction of our tariffs to the lowest level ever and indeed the reduction of the tariffs of the rest of the world to the lowest

October 27, 1986
Supply
levels ever. Also we must recognize that non-tariff barriers are now the principal problem between states in terms of trading.
Does the Hon. Member believe that we should abandon all negotiations with our largest trading partner now if those negotiations involve tariff and non-tariff barriers? Does he believe that we should let things stay without negotiation or that we should negotiate a reduction of non-tariff barriers, a removal of those barriers, and a reduction of tariffs at the same time?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. My speech dealt with the broad alternatives we would have followed. In respect of the specific point raised by the Hon. Member, of course non-tariff barriers have to be dealt with. However, there are two choices in how one deals with them. One can deal with them on a bilateral basis from a position of weakness, in which one may be badly outbargained simply by the power and weight of the partner with which one is dealing. I think that is the course the Government has taken. The other alternative would be for one to deal with them through the next round of trade talks, which has already started, involving countries throughout the world. Those talks-and I speak from having seen their start in Uruguay last month-seem to have the likelihood of bringing to our country a fairer, clearer, and better bargain with the United States than we would be likely to get through bilateral negotiations.
[DOT] (USO)


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity once again to outline our trade policy in the House, since this is a great issue that affects many Canadians. Having listened to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), I think I can sum up his speech in three words: negative, negative, and negative.
He has shown once again that the New Democratic Party is out of touch and out of date. There is nothing constructive in his speech. There is nothing that shows that trade employs one out of every three Canadians. There is nothing that shows that our trade policy must be aimed at securing and enhancing jobs for Canadians. There is nothing that recognizes that Canadians must compete, they do compete, and they want to compete. Confusion is the game plan of the NDP.
I have stated in the House our Government's record in international trade initiatives. It is the opposition Members who must defend the positions they have taken. I need only repeat our clear policy directions and our clear accomplishments.
Let me begin by explaining the background of this Government's approach to trade policy. Our approach realizes the global changes that are taking place in the world today, such as changes in technologies, the changing players in the world economy, and the unsatisfactory state of rules that govern international trade today.
The program outlined today shows that the Opposition is still living in the stone age. The Opposition is not in the 1980s, nor is it aware that changes are taking place in the world. These are changes that challenge Canadians. The New Democratic Party wants to scare Canadians, but Canadians are confident of their ability to live and work in the world of change in which we find ourselves.
We on the government side of the House understand that trade, investment and technology have created an interdependent world. Countries rely on each other as never before as lenders, as borrowers, as buyers and sellers. However, nations and businesses situated within them also compete as never before. Since global competition is increasing, Canadian business must respond to the challenge and Canada's trade policy must foster our ability to meet that challenge. This is particularly true because we have a small domestic market and Canada needs foreign markets to sell our goods. Our trade policy must always reflect that fact. This is something the New Democratic Party never recognizes.
The Hon. Member talks about the GATT. He failed to recognize that we have initiated a two-track trade policy strategy. On one track we have our bilateral negotiations with the United States, by far our most important customer, which takes more than 70 per cent of our exports. The other track that is equally important in our policy is the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Let me discuss the Uruguay Round first. The result of Punta del Este was a ministerial declaration concluded in the early hours of the final day of the conference. It is an impressive declaration. It is far more ambitious and comprehensive than anyone would have expected, in view of the pressures that surrounded its drafting. The Uruguay Round will be one of the most far-reaching set of negotiations ever held under GATT's auspices. Key matters of importance to Canada were placed on the agenda by Canada. What did we obtain?
First, the Ministers committed their countries to a standstill and a rollback of protectionist measures and provided for better surveillance measures to strengthen the GATT. That is important today because the GATT system has been weakened.
Second, agriculture was given a high priority. Here, Canada's participation in the Cairns Group of fair agricultural traders helped to get wide-ranging language in the agriculture negotiations on the agenda because we want to bring an end to the subsidy wars. We do not cause the wars, we are victims of those subsidy wars. We cannot play "break the bank" like the United States and the European community. We are striving to put an end to that.
Third, Canada's need for more secure market access was highlighted. In this area, Canada formed a coalition with a number of other resource-producing countries and succeeded in getting the special problems of trade and natural resources and resource-based products on the agenda.
October 27, 1986

Fourth, we agreed to deal with the new issues of services, trade related investment measures, and intellectual property. These issues have not been addressed in the GATT, and services in particular are a very important part of the Canadian economy.
This is not an exhaustive list of accomplishments but they underline our strong continuing commitment to the GATT.
The Punta del Este negotiations were a great success both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they will help to stem the forces of protectionism, and to the extent that the upcoming negotiations strengthen the international trading system, they will improve Canada's trading prospects.
The negotiations were a domestic success as well. For the first time since Canada started participating in multilateral trade negotiations, about 40 years, ago a contingent of provincial ministers as well as opposition MPs was present to see the proceedings. The Canadian delegation was also accompanied by private sector representatives. This is a good illustration of the kind of consultation and collaboration that the Government is fostering.
I think all Members will agree that the multilateral approach of our two-track negotiating policy is firmly in place. I have described it before in the House.
Let me turn now to the other track, the trade negotiations with the United States. This initiative arose from the realization in many quarters of Canadian society that Canadian exports were increasingly going to one foreign market, the United States market, and that protectionist pressures were growing all over the world. What do we want to achieve in these negotiations? We want to redefine the rules that presently govern trade between our two countries. We want to secure and enhance our access to the U.S. market, and we want to lock those rules and that security of access into the form of a long-term, binding treaty.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor keeps saying that this is a secret deal and that we never tell anyone what we are achieving. I have said over and over again that we are achieving security of access, enhancement of our growth and a longterm binding treaty.
We want to end the kind of harassment we have faced in the United States. We want to shield important sectors, such as our forestry industry, from the forces of protectionism.
We want more certainty in our trading relationship, and a more confident environment for investors and producers in Canada. Those are our objectives and it is in our national interest to achieve them.
There are many trade actions taken by the United States with which we are unhappy. However, we on this side believe that it is wrong to walk away from the protectionist threat. Rather, we must address it in negotiations in the hope that we can provide a better framework for trade between us.
A graphic illustration of what Canadians view as trade harassment is the series of actions that led to the recent
Supply
imposition of a provisional duty of 15 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber exports to offset alleged Canadian subsidies. This decision has concerned us and should concern all of the United States trading partners, because we view it as an unacceptable attempt to impose U.S. views on how other Governments should manage their natural resources. Furthermore, we feel that this preliminary ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department has no basis in U.S. law, is badly flawed, and is inconsistent with the U.S. obligations under the GATT. That is why, following the meeting I convened last week in Toronto with my provincial counterparts, industry and labour leaders, we unanimously agreed to fight this case to reverse this decision. I am pleased that our coalition has remained strong and united.
The Hon. Member keeps suggesting that we waved the white flag in seeking to make an out of court settlement. Again, I tell the House that because of the gravity of this kind of decision and its importance in U.S.-Canada relations, and because of the precedence that it sets for other industries in Canada, it was the unanimous view of the provinces who owned the resources, the industry who manages them, the workers who work in them, and the federal Government to try to seek an out of court settlement so that we could avoid the kind of legal situation we are in now.
While there have been other recent actions in the United States which concern us, and we will have to deal with these unfortunate developments, let us not forget our successes where, through diligent efforts, measures that would have had an adverse impact on Canada were successfully opposed. These successes are rarely reported and never given credit in the House by the Opposition.
Let me list just a few. We have fought off restrictions on uranium inports from Canada; restrictions on potash imports from Canada; amendments to the Department of Defence procurement policy; the Miscellaneous Tariff Bill which would have changed various tariff provisions to our disadvantage; the sugar quota reallocation amendment; and the steel import quota legislation. We have fought off the buy America and domestic content elements of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act; the buy America provisions of oil regulations; and the buy America preference on NASA procurement. We have fought off those harassments and changes to our situation and we will continue to do so, with or without the support of the Opposition.
Let me return to the trade negotiations with the U.S. Despite the tremendous growth in trade between Canada and the U.S., and profound changes in our commercial relationship, there are those today who oppose an attempt to improve our relationship. The echo of "no truck nor trade" with the Yankees is still heard and the same old arguments are being made. Our opponents are asking us to believe that freer trade with our largest partner is against our best interests. They oppose us for a variety of reasons, some because of fear of

October 27, 1986
Supply
change, some because of fear of the unknown, some because of narrow self-interest, and some because they think, wrongly I believe, that they can score political points.
It is time for the Opposition to defend the inconsistent and frequently contradictory positions they have taken. We read them every day and hear them in the House every day. We have heard them once again from the NDP today. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said last June that there is nothing wrong with trying to obtain freer trade with the United States as long as Canada also works to achieve freer trade with everybody else. I have already explained that this Government is not putting all its eggs in one basket, as our role in ensuring a clean launch at Punta del Este shows. Later on, the Right Hon. Member said that the Canada-U.S. negotiations might be "contributing to the breakdown of the international trading system by encouraging a regional trading bloc in North America". Just a few days ago he said "to walk away now may unleash damaging countervail actions against us". He cannot have it both ways. Either he believes we should take advantage of every opportunity to advance Canada's trading interests, both bilaterally and multilaterally as we are doing, or he believes we should turn our backs on securing the best possible advantage on all fronts for our future prosperity.
It is no wonder that Canadians are perplexed. They understand that a whole pie is better than half a pie. They understand that a negotiated agreement with the U.S. could be accomplished in one year or 18 months, whereas the GATT negotiations will take four or five years. Canadians understand that U.S. trade laws are of general application and only through a bilateral agreement can a special new regime be established with Canada.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) apparently does not seem to agree with his own Leader. He wants Canada to walk away from the U.S. talks in a fit of spite. He seems to be pushing an alternative to the trade talks by advocating something called an industrial strategy. I wish to point out that this whole notion of an industrial strategy, that you can deal with trade between the two countries by sectors, was advanced by his party when it was in government and it was rejected by both Canada and the U.S. He has recycled the same old thing and brought it forward again.
I will not dwell on the history of that Member's Party with respect to co-operation. Our trade policy is based on cooperation with all the parties involved. I will not remind this House of the Liberal Party's raised fingers to the West, the imposed disaster called the National Energy Program, and of sentiments like "why should I sell your wheat?". I will simply point out that national reconciliation has been one of the foundations of the Prime Minister's Government, and the cooperation we have fostered through the softwood lumber dispute is an excellent illustration of that fact.
Let me now turn to the NDP whose motion is before the House. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) would have us walk away from the table as if that would accomplish
anything. Well, it is a big, cruel world out there and petulance does not count for much. It would be easy to walk away from the negotiations, but that would not protect Canadian workers' jobs. It would not secure future growth and prosperity. It would not enhance our world community and our standing in it. We will not take the easy course and run away. Canadians understand that, even if the Hon. Member does not.
Yet even here the NDP is not clear. On the one hand NDP Members call for the talks to be called off. On the other hand, we had the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor calling for them to be suspended, and then presumably resumed. Not only is there confusion in the public mind over whether the NDP wants the talks called off or pursued, there is confusion as to why the NDP is not whole-heartedly supporting negotiations which will secure and enhance job opportunities for Canadians.
Every major Canadian economic analysis, including last week's report of the Economic Council of Canada, has shown that a trade agreement will produce jobs, thousands of jobs. Yet the NDP opposes this. May I remind you that the Economic Council, in running its scenarios and examining free trade, suggested there could be as many as 321,000 net new jobs if we pursue the free trade option? It also pointed out that if the protectionist forces succeed and we continued down the road of increased protectionism, Canada could lose more than half a million net jobs. While we are fighting to secure and enhance jobs and job opportunities, the NDP wants us to walk away. Yet it does not offer any useful alternatives. Instead of dealing with the long-term binding trade treaty that would resolve the problems between us in a permanent and lasting way, that Party wants us to deal with a laundry list of irritants between Canada and the U.S which evolve year by year in our trading relationship.
Our objective is to deal with that situation and those irritants through a long-term binding treaty that either dispenses with them or puts in place methods of settling disputes between us. To have us involved for years and years, into the 21st century, arguing about a laundry list of trade irritants is not the constructive way to deal with the problem. The constructive way is to deal with the underpinnings of our trade relationship and put in place a proper framework that will deal with them.
Unlike the two Parties opposite, the Progressive Conservative Government has great faith in the productivity, ingenuity, competitiveness and resourcefulness of Canadians. Unlike those two Parties, we do not seek to smother this country in a self-defeating, protective, government-imposed cocoon which tries to insulate us from the world. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that if it is a bad deal, there will be no deal. We have the courage and confidence to try. We believe in Canada, and in doing so we are working together with our partners, the provinces, industry and labour, to ensure that future generations can look back with pride at the initiatives the Conservative Government is undertaking today.
October 27, 1986


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest when the Minister indicated the number of jobs that free trade could create in Canada. However, I recall that she was the Minister who stood in her place many, many times and promised
200,000	jobs as a result of the Western Accord. That would come as rather surprising news to people in Alberta today. Perhaps when she talks about the jobs being created here, we have to take it with a grain of salt.
My question is twofold. The U.S. Senate saw fit to provide open public hearings so people could ask questions about the implications of the talks taking place. Why do we not do something similar to that in Canada at this critical point?
In addition, would the Minister suggest how I should respond to my constituents when they ask me the following two questions. Free trade exists in lumber and shakes and shingles, yet in Canada today, particularly in British Columbia, we have been hard hit in those two areas. If we are successful in our free trade talks, does that mean the countervailing duty threat will remain in place and in effect nothing will change? How would she suggest I respond to my constituents when they ask me what the implication of these talks will be to the Okanagan fruit industry and our fledgling breweries and wineries in British Columbia? What will this mean with regard to live cattle trade with the United States? As a parliamentarian I feel a little embarrassed when those serious and legitimate questions are put to me. I feel sad that I am unable to respond specifically with regard to the likely outcome of these negotiations in critical areas. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me and my constituents at the same time.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the need to consult, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) ignores the fact that we have a very impressive consultative process in place. I remind him that a royal commission on our economic future spent two years listening to Canadians on this subject and reported in favour of this initiative. He ignores the fact that the parliamentary committee headed by the present Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) travelled the country with MPs from the opposition Parties to hear comments on these areas.


Mr. Axworthy:: And we recommended against what you are doing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do you follow their advice?


Pat Carney: The Member failed to point out that there are approximately 300 Canadians from every industrial and cultural sector which could be affected who are part of our consultative process. There are 15 of these groups which meet regularly to review our progress on the free trade initiative.
Supply
ITAC is our major industrial consulting group which represents the major companies in Canada. We meet regularly with ITAC for advice in these areas.
We are getting an unprecedented inflow of ideas, comments and suggestions in this area. At the appropriate time these negotiations will be ratified in the House. The Member will have lots of opportunities to examine them.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is terribly frustrating to sit on the left of the NDP as I do in this section of the House. The converse is that they are on the right of me.
The Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) indicated that a new trade deal with the U.S. might result in 150,000 lost jobs. After our Economic Statement in 1984 his Leader said that there would be tens of thousands of jobs lost. As we all know, quite the contrary was true.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Visit Alberta.


John Barry Turner: Does the Minister agree with the Member for Essex-Windsor that a new trade deal with the U.S. will actually result in a net loss of jobs for Canadians?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the comment made by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). When we dismantled the National Energy Program, the industry in Alberta had its best year ever in terms of new jobs and new investment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I was talking about 1986.


Pat Carney: When international oil prices resume their upward path, as they will, those people will be free of the red tape and strangling regulations which drained them of the cash flow they needed to survive downward cycles in commodity
prices.
With regard to the question of the Member for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner], I do not agree with the NDP argument that free trade will lead to job loss. What is equally important, the Economic Council and other major Canadian economic groups do not agree. The numbers show that freer trade in the past has always led to new and more secure jobs. That is what the economists are telling us now. The NDP is quoting American studies to suggest that there will be job loss.
There is job loss every year in a changing society. Every year Canadians change jobs. As a matter of fact, the Economic Council says that every year nearly 3 million Canadians change jobs. We now have an opportunity to see where those job changes will take place, plan ahead and ensure that Canadians are upgraded, trained and ready to take on those new jobs in order to move into the 21st century.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister wrote to the U.S. trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, asking the U.S. administration not to approve the import surtax. Shortly

October 27, 1986
Supply
thereafter the President approved that Bill. Does that reflect on the ineffectiveness of the Minister in Washington or on the ineffectiveness or insensitivity of Mr. Yeutter? Is that to be attributed to the postal service in the U.S., or is it perhaps a demonstration of the great regard in which President Reagan holds the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney)?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States certainly holds the present Prime Minister of Canada in higher regard than he did the previous one who represented that Party.


Mr. Marchi:: You can't buy respect.


Lloyd Axworthy: Steel, softwood lumber, shakes and shingles and the fishery.


Pat Carney: I indicated previously that we opposed the oil import restriction which applies to all countries rather than only to Canada. It is a waste management program, and I am surprised that a former Minister of the Environment would speak against an American program aimed at dealing with nuclear waste and all sorts of environmental problems which are to be funded through that Bill. We are opposed to it being applied to our exports to the U.S. We lost that. However, I have today listed all of the areas affecting MPs on both sides of the House in which we successfully fought against such restrictions. We should get support from the opposition Parties for those efforts.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister listed several areas in which we successfully fought such arrangements. I would like to add two more which are very important to Guelph. They are our successful fight against forklift tariffs and our even more successful fight against iron casting tariffs which would have affected most ridings of the country. The Minister and her Department should be congratulated for the way in which they handled both of those issues.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I will take this opportunity to congratulate all our officials and negotiators who worked so hard in these complex areas. They are seeking a long-term binding agreement to deal with these issues.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would sum up the Minister's speech as "cliches, cliches, cliches".


Lloyd Axworthy: Touche, touche, touche.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I would like to ask the Minister two questions. In view of the success reported by the Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), why does the Minister feel it does not make sense to concentrate on the areas of dispute and attempt to work out a response to them as the New Democratic Party and the committee to which she referred, headed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), have argued? Why does it not make sense to make that our first priority at a time
when the United States itself is facing a tremendous protectionist surge throughout the country?
Second, why is it considered petulant to take the position that this country deserves to keep its freedom to make policy, which it could lose very, very quickly in a free-trade arrangement, and we should, therefore, walk away from comprehensive free-trade talks in favour of this attempt to deal with the disputes themselves?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the first question offered by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, and that is what I call his "laundry list" of trade irritants. He asks why we do not sit down and talk about potash or uranium or steel. We do that all the time. We have consultative committees, as Hon. Members on this side of the House know, meeting all the time on steel. That does not resolve the problem. That attracts disputes.
The Hon. Member asks the question. Surely he would give me the courtesy of answering. We feel that that approach of dealing with irritants under the U.S. trade laws attracts disputes because any industry under the U.S. law can file a countervail or launch a trade action. We feel that that is dealing with the symptom. We want to deal with the whole area and the cause of trade law remedies through a comprehensive trade agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to begin on Monday morning to make comment and criticism of the policy of the Government on trade is a little bit like doing a Monday morning post-mortem on a football game played by the Ottawa Rough Riders.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Hey, careful.


Lloyd Axworthy: What one is talking about is no offence, poor defence, lousy coach and no crowd.


Mr. McDermid:: Oh? Look behind you, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps the worst weakness we would have to analyse is when the ball was handed to the new full back and she somehow decided that the most advantageous form of offence was retreat. She will now go down in history in the game of trade football as "Wrong-way Carney".
The Minister raises a question of confidence. I think that is the right and proper question to raise, confidence in the Government's ability to design effectively a trade strategy and then to carry it out. We have no lack of confidence in the Canadian people and their abilities. We have seen over the years their willingness to respond to the challenges of change in the global environment. We also know they have done that by way of partnership. There has been a full and coherent arrangement of co-operation between Government, industry and labour in achieving that. However, the starting point of this Government is a total lack of willingness to co-operate
October 27, 1986

with the key elements of our industrial sectors to meet new industrial challenges. One can ask the farmers in western Canada who have lost markets by the tens of thousands of tons of produce in the last two years if they have confidence in the Government's ability to deal with them. The scientific and research communities know they are the ones who will have to provide the innovation, the new development and new products, and they see their budgets being slashed, their scientists being fired and the lay-offs. One can ask them if they have confidence that they can go forward and create the kinds of conditions which will enable Canada to compete. Does the scientific community have confidence that it has a Government which is prepared to defend its interests and promote its ability to move ahead?
The Minister told us to look at all the trade cases we won. In the last two years the Government has been in power, close to $5 billion worth of Canadian products have been put under countervail or anti-dumping or anti-trade actions. That is more than in the previous 10 years. This is the Government which was going to change the climate. The people who have the least confidence in the Government are the people in the United States of America. I believe they laugh at the Government. They have no respect nor admiration for it, and they know they can at will get away with what they want to impose upon the Canadian people. That is the end result of the trade strategy by the Government which said its strategy was going to be the centre-piece of its economic program. The Government makes Napoleon's march back from Russia look like a victory by comparison because all we have had is one step backwards after another.
We have the record to which the Minister points as a sign of accomplishment. When the cedar shakes and shingles issue arose, what is the first thing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did? He asked for compensation. The Americans said: "No compensation". The Minister of Finance said: "Okay. I will then go to retaliation". Then, in a brilliant move, he hits teabags, Christmas trees and books. That was a brilliant trade strategy. It really hurt the Americans when we put tariffs on our books so that when they go into a bookstore it costs an extra $3 or $4 to read a book. That is the sign of a brilliant trade strategy at work.
The Minister said to the House again today that when she plea-bargained in front of the Americans on the softwood lumber issue: "I was doing it because they wanted me to do it". The question we ask is, where is the leadership of the federal Government? It is supposed to be responsible for the entire coherent trade policy. Surely the Minister should have known and understood that what was at stake in the softwood lumber issue was a fundamental principle. We were being challenged by the United States. It was going to fix our resource prices. As soon as the Minister conceded and said: "All right, Your Honour, I think I am innocent but I am prepared to take 10 years", she gets slapped with 15 years. How does she expect anyone in this country, in the American administration or in the international trade body to treat this Government with the
Supply
kind of respect and confidence which is required in order to have an effective trade strategy? Of course, all this is about confidence. This debate is about a total lack of confidence that the Government either knows where it is going or how it is going to get there.
I could go through the sort of ups and downs of trade policy we have witnessed over the past two years. The Government has been busier than a toilet seat going up and down. It just does not have any idea of where it is going or how it is going to get there.
I am glad to see the Minister once again is not prepared to engage in full democratic dialogue. That is again a proper sign of how serious the Government treats this issue. It says: "Let's have a dialogue", until the dialogue starts happening and the truth starts coming out, then once more we have a retreat.


John Horton McDermid: Where is the retreat? I can handle you, Axworthy.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us examine the question put forward at the base of the talks. At the Quebec Summit and later in the television speech Mr. Mulroney gave to the nation on trade-


John Horton McDermid: The Prime Minister to you.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Prime Minister. I keep forgetting, Mr. Speaker, as do most other Canadians. The fact is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) introduced what I think has to be the basic principle around which this debate is taking place. He did not shilly-shally as do many government Members in talking about enhanced trade and so on. He came out full square. He said we are after a comprehensive trade agreement based upon the principle of national treatment. I will give him credit for that. At least he was prepared to say we were going for a comprehensive trade agreement. He also clearly underlined that the objective would be the achievement of "national treatment". That is a little bit of a jargon word in trade language which means there can be no special program, policy, advantage or preference given to a Canadian manufacturer, region or business which is not available to an American, and vice versa. He said that it was a level playing field, and that underlies the entire negotiations. No one should make light of how important a principle that is. What it means is that no Canadian Government, federal, provincial or municipal, can provide any policy, any initiative, which would give an incentive to a Canadian firm or organization which it did not also make available to an American firm or organization.
I would like to give Hon. Members an example of what that means. It was clearly outlined in the report handed down by the U.S. Commerce Department on softwood lumber. If one reads the entire report one will see that not just stumpage fees are being challenged. What is being challenged? Economic regional development programs which we pioneered and which provide economic development assistance are being challenged. That already forms part of the decision of the U.S. Commerce

October 27, 1986
750_______________________________
Supply
Department based upon the principle of national treatment. If the wish is to sign an agreement to aid the forestry industry in British Columbia through an ERDA, then that will now be considered an unfair trade practice. If Quebec wants to sign what is called a general agreement on science and technology, then it will now be considered to be against national treatment. The point of the matter is the incredible cost that will ensue from accepting an agreement on trade using the principle of national treatment in a total and complete elimination or reduction of a wide variety of initiatives that we have used over the years to provide for the equal and fair distribution of goods and benefits.
In this regard I would like to give Hon. Members an example that is, perhaps, horrific and which demonstrates most graphically why the present negotiations run against the job interests, the employment interests and the growth interests of Canada. This summer a proposal was put forward by a group of federal and provincial civil servants which was designed to achieve two major accomplishments. The first was with respect to finding a way in which the Province of Ontario could reduce its acid rain emissions by 50 per cent, which the province must do by 1991. The task force said the province has but two choices. It can either introduce very expensive scrubbing equipment into the Ontario Hydro smoke-stacks or bring in western low-sulphur coal from Alberta and British Columbia. The second option has incredible economic benefits. It would create 200,000 jobs and an additional net capital of $4 billion as opposed to the continued importation of U.S. coal from the Midwest and the necessity to build in expensive scrubbers.
The only policy change which would be required to implement this option would be to write down freight rates. That is a very traditional Canadian way of dealing with the fact that we have big geography. We have special maritime freight rates. We have special freight rates for moving grain to export markets. We recognize that in order to ensure the proper and equal distribution of goods we have to have a freight arrangement which will allow us to move our goods at a competitive level. In this regard I have done some quick calculating. In order to bring in western coal it would cost about $14 a ton. Over a five-year period the amount of money involved would be $300 million, which is half of what we pay to move western grain. Some $300 million over five years to obtain $4 billion of new capital investment and 200,000 jobs, especially in the depressed regions of British Columbia and Alberta, is not a bad deal. However, the Government cannot carry this out. It says that it has study committees but it cannot do it. It is impossible to carry out because the solution of underwriting freight rates runs absolutely counter to the principle of national treatment. It runs totally counter to providing a special transportation incentive to western Canadian coal producers which is now provided to midwestern coal producers. And the Americans would have a legitimate right to complain. They would say that we are negotiating free trade and taking away their coal markets by giving a writedown in freight rates to western coal producers.
The Government talks about jobs. We are simply throwing
200,000	jobs out of the window because of these negotiations. When Members and Ministers opposite get up and wave their brave documents saying that they will create more jobs I must say to them: "How about those 200,000 jobs in western Canada that you have just blown down the drain? How about the $4 billion of capital investment that you are throwing away because of these negotiations?" I ask Members opposite to answer these questions. I ask them to tell me how we can bring in a new underwriting of the freight rate to move western coal east for Ontario Hydro and still honour the principle of national treatment that the Prime Minister has put at the centre of his free trade discussions with the United States. I ask Hon. Members to answer that question for the 75,000 workers in Alberta who are unemployed. Tell those people that this free trade deal is a good deal for them. The Government is knocking out of the box one of the most important national initiatives that we can undertake, which is what the country is buying. It is buying a total and complete restriction of action. It is buying the fact that it can no longer at the federal or provincial level take initiatives to respond to economic disparities. These are the types of problems which we face.
Let us now consider the other issues. The Minister has said many times, as have other members of the Government, that the reason we are negotiating is so that we can stop the harassment from the United States on a number of trade issues. However, in the letter which President Reagan wrote to Senator Packwood he said: "We will not change our trade legislation". Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, said: "We are not negotiating countervail powers". When the United States signed a free trade agreement with Israel any reference to a limitation on countervail powers was explicitly eliminated. The Government is spending its time in Fantasy Garden. Members of the Government have spent too much time with Bill Vander Zalm in his Fantasy Garden. There is no such thing as a limitation on countervail powers. Of course they will continue. The only measure that really limits the application of countervail is the international trade rules. It is the international trade rules which place the discipline on what countries can use and what they can complain about as being unfair trade subsidies.
The Government is engaging in the big lie. It is saying to the Canadian people: "You allow us to do the negotiations, we will not have softwood lumber cases". Says who? The Americans say that that is not on the table. Ministers say that they will not give away our countervail powers. They say that we will now have a dispute settlement mechanism, something like a trade forum of IJC, except that we all know the way the IJC works. It has no mandatory requirements. It is a body of recommendation. No one is opposed to that, but will it end these harassments? No. The way to stop harassment is to strengthen the GATT, strengthen the international trading system and ensure that discipline is applied, not just because of leverage between the United States and ourselves but because of leverage within the entire international community against the United States. That is the way it works.
October 27, 1986

I then go to the next point raised by the Minister who says that we have no argument, we have a two-track strategy. To paraphrase Robert Frost, those two-tracks are diverging in the woods. They are not parallel. They are going off in separate directions. When tracks go off in separate directions pretty soon the train will run off the rails. That is exactly what is happening right now. It is not possible to undertake a two-track strategy. I am reminded of the U.S. two-track strategy of arms control in Europe. On the one hand the Americans said that they would negotiate and on the other they said they would bring in Pershing missiles. We know what happened. We got the Pershing missiles but not the negotiations. This is the same problem we face here.
Simon Reisman, the chief trade negotiator, says that GATT does not work. He says it takes too long, it is too complicated and too awkward. The former Minister for International Trade, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), says that we cannot rely on GATT. He says that it does not work, that it takes too long and that it is too awkward. We know what the two-track strategy is. On one track we have a full-blown locomotive pouring down with all its energy trying to get a bilateral agreement signed. On the other track we have a group of people tiptoeing about in their ballet slippers saying that perhaps we can get an agreement signed in the future.
When we attended the negotations in Uruguay we spoke to people in the GATT Secretariat. We spoke to representatives from the Pacific Rim nations and to delegates from Latin America. They all said without any equivocation that if Canada signs a deal that is discriminatory against them-and how can a free trade deal not discriminate against other nations?-if we sign that deal then they will form their own regional blocs. They will make their own regional arrangements and we will be right back where we were in the 1930s with internecine guerrilla warfare going on between regional blocs of nations. Of course, GATT says that one can sign a regional agreement. However, just because it is legally right does not make it economically or politically right. When these countries see Canada heading for cover, scurrying inside a North American arrangement, that sends the message out to all other countries that the Canadians are giving up on GATT. We had better find some security blanket as well.
The fact of the matter is that we must provide a leadership role for international trading nations. Country after country has asked where Canada is providing leadership. The Minister said we are providing leadership in agriculture. That is not so. Leadership was provided by the Australians and Argentinians. We spent much time in Uruguay not fighting for the interests of Third World nations, not trying to provide a counterbalance to the bullying tactics of Americans but trying to get Third World nations to go along with us.
A nation cannot provide a second track if it is seen as being nothing but a sycophant of one of the largest trading partners. It must be independent. We are not being seen as being
Supply
independent but are seen as trying to cut the quickest and best deal for ourselves while abandoning the national trading system.
The reason we have raised these criticisms is that we want to show that there is a major change taking place in the global trading strategy. There are major new challenges to Canada, but we want Canada to respond in a global way, as a world trader, and not to run for cover or to cut a deal that will work against the interests of Canadian workers and the country's ability to develop a fully competitive, productive international trading strategy. That is what we want Canadians to provide.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has risen in the House today along with his coalition partners in the NDP to preach fear, negativism and pessimism and to try to scare Canadians. If this country had been run by men and women like those who represent the Liberal Party and the NDP today, we would still be sitting on the edge of the St. Lawrence River. We would never have built a railway across Canada.
I find it very surprising that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry would try to defend British Columbia and Alberta when he sold them down the river with the national energy policy. He was one of the designers of that program. It is a shame.
The Hon. Member spoke of the shake and shingle industry. Eight-five per cent of that industry is in my riding. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) did not know what their positions on logs, bolts and blanks should be. Jobs would have been destroyed had we not put the exportation limitations on cedar at that time. The Hon. Member is now saying that we did nothing.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) showed leadership on the shake and shingle issue, but members of the Opposition said that he over-reacted. When I asked that restrictions be put on the exportation of cedar logs, bolts and blanks, they were put on immediately. That was the leadership our Government showed. It preserved the jobs in the shake and shingle industry. Certainly we lost a few but we preserved most of the jobs and today the Americans want to remove the tariff.
The Macdonald Commission, the BCNI, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Chamber of Commerce have advocated proceeding with a free trade deal. Mr. McGuinness, the new President of the Chamber of Commerce, said that we have no choice, we must proceed. He said that those who choose not to proceed with free trade will be walking with the turkeys while those who choose to proceed will be soaring with the eagles. I would like to know the Hon. Member's reaction to the position taken by these major organizations along with Jack Munro of the IWA. He said that we must proceed with free trade negotiations immediately-

October 27, 1986
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about which Party was responsible for opening up Canada's trade opportunities to the world. Who was in government and provided the architecture for establishing the GATT system back in 1948? Who introduced and built up an international trading system? Who opened up the transportation system called the St. Lawrence Seaway? Who had the guts during the last administration to change the railway system in western Canada so that we could move commodities at a lower price? Who provided the leadership and initiatives designed to make sure that we would invest in the infrastructure of Canada so we could move our products, goods and commodities? If the Hon. Member wants to know who has provided leadership, I would ask him with the greatest of respect to extend the speaking hours of the House for another 10 hours so that I could complete the list.
The fact is that the difference between our Party and yours is that we do not limit our trade horizons to the continent of North America. We see our trade as being with the world. That is where we wish to pursue our trade strategy. We want to protect the mining industry of British Columbia-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 wish Hon. Members would direct questions and comments through me.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in deference to your sensitivities, 1-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) finish his remarks? If so, I now recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid).


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's usual bombastic style. He spoke for 20 minutes this morning and made one suggestion in his entire speech. The rest was negativism, pooh-poohing and saying, "Down with what the Government is doing". The only suggestion he made was that we should work with GATT. Right now, the leader in GATT, the country that participated very actively and successfully in Uruguay, is the Canadian Government. Certainly Canada participated in co-operation with other countries. That is what GATT is all about. Members of the NDP do not understand that co-operation is what it is all about.
Was the Hon. Member speaking for himself or was he speaking for his Party? We hear one point of view from the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) who is all for trade negotiations and we hear another from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who is against the negotiations. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) agrees with both of them. Which position did the Hon. Member enunciate today, his Party's or his own?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to know exactly what we will do about trade, I suggest that he does not have very long to wait. The next election will be in about 18 months. Then the Hon. Member will see exactly what a Liberal Government will do to promote trade. If he would cool down his impatience for a while, he will see what we are putting together.
We would be glad to tell him exactly what we are doing now, but the problem is that if we put it all on the table now, the Tories would try to steal half of it but they would bungle that half of it and we would end up worse off than ever. There is no point in giving good ideas to buffoons. They will do with those good ideas what they have done in the past. They will simply stumble over themselves going around in a revolving door.
The Hon. Member wants to know where we stand. I speak for a combined position that was derived from a series of extensive debates in caucus. A paper outlining the position we have taken and will continue to take has been issued. I would be glad to send a copy of it to the Hon. Member at any time.


John Horton McDermid: Send it over.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would be more than pleased to do so. I would be happy to send the Hon. Member the entire portfolio of statements that were made while building up a series of trade strategies.
What I would like to point out is very important. The Government itself failed at the outset to follow the recommendations that were put forward by the joint committee, a committee of all Members of Parliament. Part of the problem is that the Government failed to deal with the major trade irritants. It also failed to provide a proper debate in the House of Commons. Such a debate should have outlined exactly where the Government wants to go and how it would get there. It is no wonder that there is confusion.
There could be nothing more important for this Government to do than to provide the House of Commons with the opportunity to examine fully what this trade strategy could be. The Hon. Member was the Parliamentary Secretary last year and he recalls, when the papers were released, that they were supposed to outline the research, the various strategies and the position adopted by the Government. When we got them back, it was as if the John Crosbie pornography Bill had already been applied to them. There was more left out than there was left in. It was like a colouring book. You had to supply your own pencils to fill in the blanks it was so empty. What we can assert, and what we said today, is that the Government's approach to trade strategy is wrong. It is time to reassess that trade strategy. It is time for the Government to sit down with President Reagan and take a look at what the basic premises of the negotiations are, because obviously the Americans are not following them.
October 27, 1986


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in his excellent speech made a reference to national treatment, which is a very important aspect in this policy. I would like the Hon. Member to comment very briefly on the statement that has been attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said that national treatment means that goods from Manitoba will be treated exactly the same as goods from Minnesota. How will that affect the economy of the province where the Hon. Member comes from?


Lloyd Axworthy: This partly goes back to the question that was asked before. I would refer to a study which has just been released by the Canada West Foundation. This study goes sector by sector in terms of the impact of free trade upon the western provinces. What they point out is that in a province like Manitoba the furniture industry is basically wiped out; the service industry is on a decline; the poultry, egg, turkey, chicken, and all the feather trades, are basically wiped out; and major parts of the textile industry are wiped out. I would be glad to quote from the study when they talk about the service industry. They say that,
In short, free trade offers considerable downside but little upside to Western Canada's service industries.
There is one example of a highly reputed economic organization in western Canada that says that unless the Government is prepared to make a great deal of change and maintain a system that is there, then serious problems will ensue. The problem is that under national treatment all the substructures put in place, for example marketing boards, procurement policies that protected the industries of western Canada will be wiped out, therefore, those industries will be wiped out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order! The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. The Minister of State (Forestry and Mines) (Mr. Merrithew).

Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to make a few comments on a debate that is so important to the future of Canada.
In reading the motion of the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon) 1 was rather surprised. I would like to quote what he said here, because I think it is quite important:
That this House condemns-
1. the misguided efforts of the Minister of International Trade to present a
unilateral proposal to the United States which undercut the Canadian
position-
I would like to assure this House that the Hon. Member does not have his facts right, I am afraid. The decision to make an offer to the United States as the basis for a possible settlement came with the unanimous support and encouragement of the provinces, industry, and organized labour.
It was also clear from the signals that we were receiving from the United States that Secretary Baldrige and the
Supply
Administration were continuing to look for a resolution to this issue outside of following the normal routes.
It was clear that the political environment in the United States was such that it was definitely in our interest to try to find a solution to this issue. It was clear to Canadian industry and labour who urged us to pursue this course. It was certainly clear to the Canadian provinces which participated in this initiative. It was clear to the Government that this issue is of such importance that its resolution could not be left entirely to the vagaries of the U.S. quasi-judicial process.
It was clear to the most informed political commentators both in Canada and in the United States that this was a helpful initiative pursued by the Government. The provinces, industry, and organized labour thought so, and urged us to try to settle this dispute out of court, if possible. We made our best effort to do so. It is unfortunate that the U.S. industry did not accept what in our view was a fair and reasonable compromise. What is not clear is why the Hon. Member cannot see what everybody else could see at the time, that is, that it was a useful and helpful initiative on the long road to managing this threat against our $4 billion industry trade in lumber with the United States.
Let me address the assertion that this offer undercut the Canadian position before the Commerce Department's preliminary determination. One only has to read the flawed and contrived preliminary determination brought down by the International Trade Commission to see that this contention is obviously unfounded. The Commerce Department has resorted to unprecedented and highly controversial interpretations of the law to arrive at the findings in the preliminary determination. There is no relationship between what we see in that flawed determination and our efforts to diffuse this situation in September.
To comprehend fully the background to this issue, we should pause and review the circumstances leading to this preliminary determination. Over three years ago, some U.S. lumber interests initiated a countervailing duty investigation against Canadian softwood lumber imports. They alleged that the Canadian industry was subsidized. Three years ago, the Commerce Department cleared Canada completely of wrongdoing. I was there and very much a part of that as a provincial Minister of Forestry at the time. Unfortunately, that did not put an end to the issue. The U.S. lumber interests, encouraged by growing protectionist pressures in the U.S. Congress, continued their attacks on Canadian lumber. They lobbied Congress for changes in the widely accepted rules governing trade. At the same time, they initiated another countervailing duty case. This time it was skillfully timed to capitalize on the upcoming mid-term elections in the U.S. To quote the recent comments of the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), in the United States:
They created a political environment that could only enhance their own narrow interest, to the detriment of the other interests in the United States. This time, although the facts were the same, the U.S. Administration has chosen to reverse its earlier decision. We in Canada find the basis for this reversal deplorable and badly flawed.

October 27, 1986
I am sure that the Elouse appreciates that given the environment surrounding this issue, it was only prudent for the Government, provinces, industry, and for organized labour, to pursue all avenues open to resolving it. Given the political environment surrounding the issue in the United States, it was clear to all parties involved that the actions pursued were only prudent and certainly not prejudicial to our long-standing position.
If the Hon. Member still cannot see the validity of our action, I can only again refer to the preliminary determination and ask him to read it carefully this time.
I see that the time is approximately one o'clock. Perhaps I could continue after Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister will have 14 minutes left in his debate, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Canadian craftsmen who for 50 years have set an example of professionalism of which this country should be proud.
Mr. Speaker, you probably have guessed that I want to draw the attention of the House to the fiftieth anniversary of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Fifty years of serving Canadians, in whatever capacity, is a feat that deserves to be mentioned here in this House.
When in addition to the Corporation's longevity, we consider the quality and professionalism these communications professionals have taught us to expect, I believe there is a case for drawing very special attention to this event. That is what I want to do today, and I would like all Members of this House, whatever some of my Tory colleagues may think, to join me in extending our best wishes to those Canadian men and women who have contributed to the Corporation's success for half a century.
In many ways, Canada owes its position as a world leader in communications to the CBC, which I think should get the credit for this.



RE-ELECTION OF SOCIAL CREDIT GOVERNMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday British Columbia voters made a choice of how they wish to be governed. They chose to be governed by a Premier who did not promise them the moon but has promised them an open Government, a Government which will work cooperatively, a government for the people of British Columbia and by the people of British Columbia. B.C. voters chose a Government which promised to consult the people rather than be governed by the NDP who adopted a Doomsday approach.
To Premier Vander Zalm and his colleagues we say congratulations and best wishes, as we work together for the common good of Canada and particularly of B.C. To each of the winning candidates who are part of Fraser Valley East, I should like to extend my personal congratulations. I look forward to working with them in the best interests of our constituents in British Columbia.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Desmarais task force on Canada's development assistance program recommended reducing our contributions to international development organizations such as the United Nations. This is directly opposite to the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations which affirmed "the Canadian tradition of treating multilateral and bilateral aid channels as complementary". Canadians do not want our development assistance program to be just a front for dumping Canadian goods on poor nations.
Instead of cutting back on multilateral funding, we should be looking at more effective vehicles for that funding, for example, the International Fund for Agricultural Development. IFAD has low administrative costs, works effectively to improve the living standards of the world's poorest people, and places special emphasis upon programs for women. We should be raising, not lowering our multilateral contributions.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
October 27, 1986


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, last week, Commissioner Willard Estey made public the report of the Commission of Inquiry in the Collapse of the CCB and the Northland Bank.
Mr. Speaker, in his 750-page report, Judge Estey exonerated our Government of any blame, adding that there was no justifiable basis for criticizing the Ministers responsible, nor were they blamed in any of the submissions.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition did not wait for evidence, and throughout the sequence of events it did not hesitate to lay all the blame at the Government's door, although today, the facts reveal that the situation had existed since 1982.
If anyone is to blame today, it is the former Administration which, although well aware of irregularities in the system, never took steps to save one billion dollars in taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents will remember this irresponsible behaviour on the part of the Opposition.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, those Tories have done it again; yet another broken promise for Canadians. During the last election campaign the Conservatives promised, among their 338 promises, to increase expenditures on research and development to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product during the first five years of a Tory Government. Luckily they probably will not be in power for five years.
However, after two years the NRC, our own national research arm, has been savaged three times by the Tory Government, first on November 8, 1984; then in the Budget, and now so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can satisfy his space age fetish. The result is that hundreds of researchers, scientists and others will lose their jobs at the National Research Council, and much needed research will come to a grinding halt because of the ridiculous policies of the Tory Government.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday Judge Estey released his report into the insolvencies of the CCB and Northland Bank, finding in each case that the banks were practically insolvent by 1982 or 1983, that both banks adopted tactics to increase earnings and assets, and that the auditors of the banks unconditionally approved these tactics.
Last weekend the Liberals seemed to have forgotten when the insolvencies occurred, and all three auditing firms denied that they participated in any actions which resulted in overstating earnings or assets.
My purpose in rising today is not to place blame on the previous administration or on the auditors, but to press for new standards of bank accounting and auditing as outlined in Recommendation 7 of Judge Estey's report, since the current standards are so inadequate that no Government or supervisory authority can adequately supervise troubled financial institutions.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, there exists in several remote reserve communities across Canada a situation that defies logic and certainly annoys those who watch television.
For example, Fort Hope is a native community located some 250 miles north of Thunder Bay, on the beautiful Albany River system. At the end of a day, reserve residents, like us all, sit down to watch their favourite TV shows. Most of us take for granted that when we watch the news or the weather, or a documentary, that it will be geographically and linguistically relevant.
Not so in Fort Hope. The Crees of this community receive the CBC Northern Service, with news and weather from Newfoundland and Labrador, Baffin Island and northern Quebec.
What is more, none of them know Inuktitut and therefore cannot understand much of what they see and hear.
Canada recently hosted a world exposition with the theme of transportation and communication. The Government and the CBC would do well to look at examples like Fort Hope and do something to meet the communications needs of our northern residents. Let CBC start its second half century by extending culturally relevant progamming to all.

October 27, 1986



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the exhaustive report of Mr. Justice Estey has basically confirmed the conclusions of the Commons Finance Standing Committee which, in May, 1985, examined the Canadian Commercial Bank and noted first: "CCB's accounting practices overstated income and understated loan losses"; second, "it would seem appropriate to raise as a matter of public policy the question of what responsibility the external auditors of financial institutions have vis-a-vis the public at large"; and third, "management accepted risks beyond the realms of prudence-the question then becomes whether supervision in this instance was adequate."
The basic problem is inadequacies in the structure of the supervisory establishment.
Last fall the Finance Committee tabled 134 recommendations concerning financial regulatory reform. Now that the Estey Report is in, it is time for action to update and modernize the regulations governing the financial institutions of our country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the construction of the toxicology centre, announced in 1983, in response to a request by the Toronto and Guelph Universities, was scrapped in 1984 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Yet warnings about the scale of the toxic chemical problem in the Great Lakes were raised in reports released by the Niagara River Toxics Committee, the International Joint Commission, the Royal Society and the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation.
I call on the Government to reinstate the Toronto-Guelph Toxicology Centre to give Canada greater knowledge about the volatization of PCBs, Mirex, benzenes and other highly toxic chemicals discharged into the Great Lakes, and how they are returned through the atmosphere to the soil, considering that their presence has been measured in cattle, milk, and crops. The health implications of this toxic cycle require the research that would be conducted at such a centre.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, where does the Liberal Party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, really stand on the issue of Canadian trade negotiations with the United States? Is it against any negotiations whatsoever, as repeatedly implied in the House by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), or is it in favour of negotiations as called for by the same Leader of the Opposition on October 20?
Is it for suspending the talks, as demanded by the Liberal trade critic, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), on October 20, or is it in favour of continuing the talks, as stated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition the very next day? Is the Liberal Party engaged in a trade policy war of its own? Or, do Liberals really have a low regard for the intelligence of the Canadian public?



TRUST COMPANIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this week's winners of the grand prizes for untaxed companies are the trust companies. Today, our prize winner is Montreal Trustco, which enjoyed tax credits for the years 1981, 1984 and 1985, with profits totalling over $37 million. This was possible thanks to lucrative tax rebates provided by Liberal-Conservative tax measures.
If the tax system had been fair, and if Montreal Trustco had been made to pay 25 per cent tax on its profits, the tax bill for Canadian taxpayers would have been $9.3 million less.



SALUTE TO RICK HANSEN-DONATIONS FOR SPINAL CORD RESEARCH

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in a unique gala event fit only for heroes and champions, wheelchair champion Rick Hansen was honoured by his fellow Canadians last night. One of those Canadians was none other than the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who agreed to be both toasted and roasted in order to raise more than $100,000 for Rick's cause, that of spinal cord research and rehabilitation. Yesterday as well, the Right Hon. Prime



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
October 27, 1986
[Stage Direction]
Minister (Mr. Mulroney) added to this event by presenting a cheque for $1 million to Rick's fund.
Our young hero has learned not only to cope with disabilities but to excel in spite of them. Now two-thirds of the way through his Man in Motion tour, Rick will salute the people of the Ottawa region and continue his 40,000 kilometre trek around the world. It is now our turn as Members of Parliament to salute this young man and remind ourselves and our constituents to give, give, give to the cause of spinal cord research and rehabilitation. Good luck, Rick Hansen, and may God be with you.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, when this House recently agreed to a package of parliamentary reforms it was, in part, to give standing committees more freedom and independence from the Government. That being so, you will understand my astonishment when late last week the Chief Government Whip showed up at the organization meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to impose upon it, as Chairman, a new MP who has never before served on this committee. The ranking Conservative member, a man of experience and empathy with Canada's indigenous peoples, was passed over. What goes on? Simply, Sir, the Government has decided to cool down native issues, to dampen expectations raised by the previous Minister responsible.
In my nearly two decades as a Member of this House I have never felt quite so discouraged and despondent about the possibility of progress being made toward the recognition and implementation of aboriginal rights in Canada.



POLLOMANIA


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, have you ever been called in a poll? I have not, no one in my family has, and neither have my neighbours. There are real polls, anonymous polls, private polls, and public polls. They do polls to ask people what they thought of recent polls. They ask questions about your age, sex, and serial number, about what you ate for breakfast, lunch or dinner, about what you watch on TV, listen to on the radio or read in the newspapers. They ask if you are happy with the Government and its Leader, as well as with the performance of the Opposition and its
Leaders. Before this month is out there will be a poll to see if MPs are pleased with your performance.
Canadians are polled out by poll junkies. They are too frequent and too futile. Leave us alone and let the Government get on with the job of running the country.



DISARMAMENT


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in New York the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told the President of the United States that he was right in not abandoning star wars for an arms control agreement. This is typical of the Prime Minister's double-talk on this issue. Several months ago he said his Government was opposed to star wars but now he says it is all right for the United States to continue.
This is Disarmament Week. There are now approximately
50,000	nuclear weapons in the world, 30,000 with the United States and NATO and 20,000 with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, which are one million times more powerful than the bombs which fell on Hiroshima, and represent 4 tonnes of TNT for every person in the world. Will the Prime Minister use the occasion of Disarmament Week to reconsider his position on nuclear disarmament and star wars and press for a superpower agreement to control and reduce all nuclear weapons, including star wars?



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I call upon all Members of the House to join with me and my colleagues in condemning the offensive and degrading references which were made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to homosexuals who seek to work within the RCMP. The offensive and degrading stereotypes-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think all Hon. Members would agree that the Chair's intervention in that particular statement was sufficient. It was made in the interest of not having an exchange of comments which might lead to some disorder in the Chamber. I would ask the Hon. Member, having made his point, to leave it there.

October 27, 1986
House of Commons



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, MR. JEAN-CLAUDE PAYE

Mr. Speaker:: Order! I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Jean-Claude Paye, Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, who is on an official visit to Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After a weekend of study and consultation is the Government of Canada ready to accept as conclusive the evidence from Great Britain of the complicity of the Government of Syria in terrorist activities?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know that I have called Canada's kAmbas-sador in Damascus back to Canada for consultations. I believe we have been in touch with representatives of the Hon. Member's Party and representatives of the New Democratic Party to offer them the opportunity of a briefing with the Ambassador and other officials of the Department.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE IF RECOGNITION GIVEN TO SYRIAN COMMITMENT AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF TERRORIST ACTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Terrorism must be condemned, in the name of whatever causes it is claimed to have been perpetrated.
Yesterday our ambassador said on television: "I will be back in about two weeks."
Here is my question. If Canada acknowledges that Syria did commit or encourage acts of terrorism, what other steps, what other diplomatic, economic or political measures is the Government prepared to take?


Charles Joseph Clark: One thing is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, namely that certain elements of the Syrian Government have been directly involved in terrorist activities. What the Canadian Government wants to do is to encourage other countries to support, as we did, the action taken by the Government of Great Britain against acts of terrorism abetted by certain elements of the
Syrian Government. A meeting is scheduled for this afternoon between officials of my department and representatives of European Community countries to urge the Europeans to support the position of Great Britain.


GOVERNMENT MEASURES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government has accepted the evidence given in an open court in Britain. The Government is committed to responding in positive terms against acts of terrorism. So far our Ambassador has been recalled for consultations only. Other than the heavy rhetoric of the Minister and of the Prime Minister when attending the United Nations in New York, what concrete steps is the Government of Canada really going to take?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of calling the Ambassador home for consultations is to discuss with him and others the actions which it would be appropriate and effective to take. At the moment the most important and effective thing for us to do would be to try to encourage members of the European Community to join with us in supporting the position of Great Britain against state terrorism by elements of the Syrian Government. It would also be our hope that the cumulation of these pressures will cause the Government of Syria to cause Abu Nidal to move his operation entirely out of Syria.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. While the Canadian Commercial Bank bail-out was agreed upon in March of last year and the money paid out in April, the Government did not begin to find out what it had bought into until it appointed Mr. Hitchman at the end of June. By August 1, according to the report of the Estey Commission, "the only question which remained unanswered was how long this bank had been disguising itself as a solvent bank". Why then was the Government still sending out letters to shareholders on August 9 advising them that the bail-out had ensured the bank's viability?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear from the report of Mr. Justice Estey that there was an understanding of the problems with the bank. But we also had to be very careful as to what messages we sent out during the course of this period until we were absolutely sure of the final predicament of the bank. That status was found
October 27, 1986

out towards the end of August and the Government acted quickly once it was apparent to us.


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Estey Commission Report has confirmed that the banks participating in the bail-out last March wanted a comprehensive, independent review of the loan portfolio, but that the Government made no effort to press for an early examination of the loan assets of the bank. Why was the Minister content to gamble taxpayers' money on an uninformed rescue attempt which, according to Mr. Justice Estey, "was ill starred from the outset and had no chance of success"?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think Mr. Justice Estey makes it clear that we were entitled to rely on the information which was provided to us. We probed that information, and during the course of the time following the putting together of the support package and into the summer there was a considerable amount of work which was coming on.
When we called in support through the help of Mr. Hitch-man, we did so because it was apparent that the problems were becoming greater. We responded very much to that information which was provided to us, and acted accordingly.


DELAY IN EXAMINING BANK'S ASSETS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directly supplementary to the question just answered by the Minister. It is true that Mr. Justice Estey's report exonerates the Government from any wrongdoing in the period up to March, 1985, when the original bail-out decision was reached. However, Mr. Justice Estey goes on and states:
Clearly there was a complete inadequacy of follow-through in obtaining the information necessary to produce the final Participation Agreement and to properly monitor the progress of the rescue program. In particular, the Minister of State appears to have made no effort to press for an early and organized hands-on examination of the loan assets of the bank.
Would the Minister not agree that this wording effectively condemns the former Minister of State for Finance for failing to exercise her ministerial responsibility?


Geoff Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I would disagree entirely with that conclusion. The Estey Report makes a very clear statement. There is nothing in the evidence which leads to criticisms of these Ministers. The Ministers gave the officials adequate guidance and support and properly left the execution to the administrators. I think the report speaks for itself.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a verbal game with the Minister about
Oral Questions
ministerial responsibility. I want him to give us his understanding as the senior Minister involved. The cost to Canadian taxpayers during those summer months went from the original estimate, which was just over $ 130 million, to a final cost of $ 1 billion. During that period not only chartered banks but other major depositors were making withdrawals from the Canadian Commercial Bank. During the same period of time a proper loan portfolio assessment had not been done.
Considering that Mr. Justice Estey states that there would have to be other forums to make a final judgment with respect to the question of ministerial responsibility, does the Minister not think that his junior Minister failed to do the proper job under the circumstances?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no, not at all. I think that the Hon. Member is either reading very selectively from the report or that he has not read the report at all. It is important for the Hon. Member to understand the total spectrum of comment that has been made. I have indicated very clearly that the report speaks for itself. The conclusions that are being drawn by the Hon. Member, or those which might be drawn by me, are less important than those found in the report of an objective and independent judicial inquiry. That was the purpose of the inquiry. That is why we went ahead with it. I believe it is important that we abide by the conclusions of it.


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that we made an attempt in the House to have referred specifically to Mr. Justice Estey the idea of ministerial responsibility and that the Government refused to add such words. He knows that Mr. Justice Estey, and other judges in that position, are reluctant to become involved in making essentially what are political judgments. Considering that there was a failure after the March period to supervise the activity of the officials, a failure to understand the seriousness of the portfolio loan problem, and a failure to watch the millions of dollars that were being withdrawn, does the Minister not think, for future reference, that a Minister, male or female, exercising proper responsibility ought not to make that type of mistake?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I refer specifically to the words of the report: "There is nothing in the evidence which leads to criticisms of these Ministers". How clear could Mr. Justice Estey be?
The Hon. Member talks about supervision. In the words of Mr. Justice Estey, "the Ministers gave the officials adequate guidance and support". Surely the Hon. Member can understand the import of the conclusions reached by Mr. Justice Estey.

October 27, 1986
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


ALLEGED INTERFERENCE IN PLANS FOR USE OF FORMER CANADIAN FORCES BASE IN MANITOBA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister personally investigate the circumstance in which the Department of Indian Affairs has withdrawn its Treasury Board submission that would have transferred land at the Canadian Forces Base Beausejour to the Long Plain Indian Band in the honouring of a major commitment, because of the interference of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in trying to promote a prison in his own riding? Will the Prime Minister personally investigate this matter?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in question is in Winnipeg today meeting band councils. I will take the question under advisement.


USE AS PRISON PROPOSED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thought that in light of the Auditor General's Report and the well known experience the Prime Minister has in these matters he might be prepared to undertake a response to this fact. Will the Prime Minister give us a commitment that no additional federal funds will be used for the promotion of this prison unless there is a proper alternative site found for this Indian band in fulfilment of its long-standing commitment?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the Hon. Member that the Minister in question is not in the House to answer his question. I will take the question on notice, and we will supply the Hon. Member with an answer in due course.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance arising out of his actions and the actions of his colleagues which have cost the Canadian taxpayers close to $900 million because of their failure to act between March and September of 1985 when the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank were going down the drain. Is the Minister aware that in his report Mr. Justice Estey quite clearly related to the fact that he had not been asked to look at the matter of ministerial responsibility and stated: "It may be that other forums and tribunals
having different objectives will reach different conclusions with respect to duties and obligations of the participants in these events"?
Is the Minister saying that, regardless of this disclaimer, Mr. Justice Estey's opinion is the only one that should apply? Will the Minister on his own behalf and on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance accept that they are responsible in the parliamentary system for this loss of $900 million to the taxpayers?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very large report. I am sure the Hon. Member has read the entire report.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, no.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Probably not. However, it says very clearly that there is nothing in the evidence which leads to criticisms of these Ministers. The Ministers gave the officials adequate guidance and support. I could repeat a number of other elements of what Mr. Justice Estey has said in the report, but surely the Hon. Member must accept that the report speaks for itself.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I can point this out to the Minister of Finance.
Is he aware of the fact that many times in his summary and in his report, which I have read almost in its entirety since Friday, Mr. Justice Estey is quite critical of the Government and its Ministers? He specifically states that the action they took was altogether inadequate to make sure that they would monitor the program to bail-out the bank which began in March.
Now then, is he prepared to accept the criticisms of Mr. Justice Estey and assume responsibility for the loss of $900 million, yes or no?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is quite clear from what Mr. Justice Estey has said that the Ministers did in fact undertake to be informed about the consequences and state of the portfolio and that we did give direction to the officials involved and supported them in the acitivities they were undertaking. Mr. Justice Estey says that the information that was provided was inadequate, but we got on top of that information with the work done by Mr. Hitchman and made our decisions accordingly later on in the summer.
October 27, 1986


THE ECONOMY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The economy of northern Ontario is at its lowest ebb since the days of the Diefenbaker Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: Already extraordinarily high unemployment will be made even higher as a result of the U.S. tariff on lumber. Is the Prime Minister prepared now to reveal to the House and the people of northern Ontario the details of the so-called recovery package for northern Ontario, details that were shrouded in secrecy when the Conservative caucus met in Sudbury this weekend?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell the House that, perhaps for the first time in the history of northern Ontario, cabinet Ministers visited the area to deal with the real issues affecting northern Ontario. It was a very positive meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Very many suggestions were made. There is a clear opportunity to build upon the natural strengths of northern Ontario. The Solicitor General is taking a leading part in stimulating the discussions and the policy development in that area. Just watch us. We will bring forth a very good policy which will be good for northern Ontario and for Canada.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INQUIRY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he would not be frank and admit to the House that this so-called recovery package for northern Ontario is nothing other than a philosophical statement on regional development which lacks substance? It is nothing but a little soft sound and fuzzy fury that signify nothing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been a Member of the House since 1968. He represented a Government that had been in power from 1968 until 1984. He should be the last guy to criticize by pointing out what is missing in that area because he has failed to do his job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Am I frank? The answer to that is yes. Even my second name is Frank.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: One might say that's the only thing frank about you.


PATENT ACT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I have a confidential document sent by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to delegates at the Conservative policy conference in Calgary. In it the Minister says about the proposed generic drug law changes that they "may benefit from trade discussions with the United States". Can the Minister tell the House the nature of the linkage between generic drugs and free trade? The statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare contradicts the statement made in the House on April 14 by the former Minister for International Trade who said that "generics were not in any way tied to the present discussions".


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member and the House that the proposed changes to Canada's patent law will be made for the benefit of Canada and Canadians and for the benefit of research and development that will affect the health of Canadians. When he sees the entire package and analyses the facts, I am sure the Hon. Member will agree.


CONTENT OF TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
David Orlikow: That answer does not deal with my question at all so I would like to put a further question to either Minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare also said in that document that "the recommendations contained in Dr. Harry Eastman's report on pharmaceuticals are under review by the Government and may form part of the discussions with the Americans". In the discussions on free trade, is the question of the patent law with regard to drugs being discussed-yes or no?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should be aware, there have been discussions on Canada's patent laws since 1969 when the patent laws were changed. All of our trading partners are vitally interested in this question. As the Hon. Member may surmise, there is a great deal of interest in intellectual property generally, but in terms of the specific proposal we are making it is because it is of benefit to Canada and Canadians that we are proceeding with it.

October 27, 1986
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, could the Prime Minister answer a question that is being asked by thousands of Quebecers, namely, what kind of investments will the Government make to stimulate Quebec's economy? There have been no announcements to date for Montreal East and none for the Matane region about the paper mill. The Government only seems interested in building the penitentiary at Port-Cartier.
I want to ask the Prime Minister when an announcement will be made about the federal Government's participation in the paper mill project for Matane?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the Hon. Member's question, because when I look at the facts, 149,000 new jobs have been created in Quebec since we were elected, compared with the
41,000	created over four or five years by the Liberals. We have created an average of 6,200 jobs per month, eight times the Liberal average for job creation spread over five years. Now that is the kind of remarkable progress we have made in Quebec and across Canada.


IMPATIENCE OF MATANE CITIZENS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Prime Minister is refusing to give the people of Matane this information.
I want to ask him why the people of Matane should wait much longer for a decision on the paper mill, when the Government hurried through a decision to transfer a penitentiary to the Prime Minister's riding? Why should the people of Matane, just across the St. Lawrence, have to wait any longer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the people of Matane should realize that the Hon. Member is a member of a party that, when it was in power, said no to the people of Matane for 15 years. They will realize that it was the Liberals who always said no to regional economic expansion, especially in Quebec's remoter regions, including Matane. And the people of Matane realize that this national Government is going to make decisions that will benefit their economy.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister has read part of a sentence from the report of Mr. Justice Estey's inquiry. I would like to read to him the beginning of that sentence which is as follows:
Apart from a delay in formulating government policy as to the intervention with public funds in the rescue program of the banks and a tardiness in responding to the request of the major banks for a detailed and comprehensive loan portfolio assessment-
Will the Minister admit that the Government has some responsibility in the fiasco, that indeed Ministers did blow it? A billion dollar blow-up?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Now answer that, Michael.


Geoff Wilson: Again, the Hon. Member is being selective himself on what he draws from the report. The report also goes on to say that the seeds for the failures of the banks were sown in the late part of the 1970s, as improper and imprudent lending practices by the banks themselves led to the problems that ultimately resulted in the failure of the two banks. Surely the Hon. Member can acknowledge that in the course of his next question.


USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY
Simon Leendert de Jong: Again, Judge Estey called the bail-out half-baked, ill-starred. He compared it to the Government letting a toboggan run down a hill without any control. This is his criticism of the Government's bail-out. We admit that the previous administration is also at fault. Surely the Government of today has to accept some responsibility for the billion dollars that it lost of Canadian taxpayers' money.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: The report speaks for itself.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, it sure does.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have repeated on a number of occasions the conclusions that Mr. Justice Estey drew from the extensive amount of review that he undertook during the course of this investigation. I asked the Hon. Member to read the conclusions that he draws.
October 27, 1986

[ Translation]


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lise Bourgault: Last week, Mr. Speaker, the National Council on Welfare stated in their annual report that the situation of elderly Canadians had improved considerably, whereas the condition of single women and heads of families was lagging far behind. My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women.
Since six out of ten single-parent families headed by women are poor and make up the only group in our society whose poverty has worsened since 1981, I should like to know what our Government is doing or intends to do to improve the condition of women in our society?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. This is an issue that this Government takes very seriously. It is a problem that has been very serious in our society for some time, and it can only be dealt with on a variety of fronts. That is why we have taken action in some of the areas like employment equity. That is why we have taken action in terms of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. That is why we appointed the Parliamentary Task Force on Child Care. The only way we are really going to get at this very serious problem for low-income women is to ensure that there is equality of opportunity throughout the system. That means a whole range of policies and programs.


AGRICULTURE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, maybe Frank will choose to reply.
Can the Minister confirm that the delay by Revenue Canada in rendering a decision from September 30 to November 14 in the case of a tariff on U.S. corn was no accident, and that this delay was caused by a desperate and futile attempt to please the Americans on the softwood lumber issue?
Finally, can we get the information from this Government as to why the interests of Canadian farmers have been sacrificed again to please the Americans?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to caution my friend opposite that he should not misinterpret an administrative process. If he studied the situation, he knows that on May 12 the Ontario corn producers filed what was found to be a properly documented complaint, which is now being looked after by the
Oral Questions
Deputy Minister of Customs and Excise exactly in the way that is set out under the Special Import Measures Act.


CONSEQUENCES OF DECISION CONCERNING CORN PRODUCERS
Don Boudria: Does the Minister know that, in this case, a delay concerning the countervailing tariff at this time of the year, harvest time, means that he might just as well say no to farmers right now, because by November 14 the decision will be meaningless since all imports will already-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member ask his question, please.


Don Boudria: Does the Minister realize that the delay will cost Canadian corn producers SI50 million, and that the delay until November 14 amounts to a refusal this year? What does he intend to do to expedite this matter?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, once more I want to point out to my colleague opposite that these procedures are set down very clearly. There is a purpose for the deliberations that take place. There is a lot of material to be studied. These matters have to be carefully weighed. There will be a decision made in due course.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what protection he plans to give federal employees in the workplace from hazardous substances, now that we have the decision from Friday by the Federal Court of Appeal? Is he satisfied with the present situation, namely, that hazardous substances are acceptable in the federal workplace as long as they are introduced by other employees and not by management? Isn't this hair-splitting and not protection?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, our Department, of course, is following that situation very carefully. We are obviously subject to court decisions that are being made. We will continue to monitor the situation and will do what has to be done in due course.


CANADA LABOUR CODE AMENDMENTS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister: Will he tell us if the new Canada Labour Code with

October 27, 1986
Oral Questions
the amendments just recently in effect will be an improvement? Will they give the necessary protection against hazardous substances? I remind him that the court did not dispute that secondary smoke constituted a hazardous substance. Will the new Canada Labour Code give the necessary protection?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, all amendments to the Canada Labour Code are obviously improvements.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I would like to ask the Minister why his office doctored seven of the twenty-eight resumes of applicants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission so that all references to the Progressive Conservative Party were removed before the resumes were sent to parliamentarians for investigation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thank the Hon. Member for that question. I have been waiting for over a week to be able to set the record straight and say that the allegation is completely false.
A week ago last Thursday while I was in Toronto at the Aboriginal Constitutional Conference, the Hon. Member made an allegation that I was censoring material and interfering with the work of the Committee. After she made that allegation she called my office and asked for a copy of the resumes which were on our file. I am informed that my office immediately sent them to her. There is absolutely no basis of fact in her allegation and, I wish she would withdraw it.


ALLEGED REQUEST TO COMMISSION OFFICIAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Can the Minister confirm why, before I raised this question in committee, Mr. Michael Glynn, the Administrator of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, was instructed by his legislative assistant to send copies of the resumes, which at that time included the P.C. connections, not to the committee as was the original request, but to the office of Mr. Hnatyshyn? In the words of his assistant: "No resume would be released without having it personally reviewed by the Minister." In the meantime, the P.C. connections were lost in the shuffle.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not accept that version of the facts. When the Hon. Member and another Hon. Member made an inquiry at my office, I am advised that the curricula vitae were
sent directly to those Members. My office called the Commission to find out what material they had. They sent over copies which arrived after the other document had been sent to the Hon. Member.


PROJECTED LOSS OF JOBS IN ALBERTA ENERGY INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be well aware of how bad the situation in Alberta is and will know that last week in Alberta the Minister for Manpower released a report indicating that the Government of Alberta projects that 55,000 Albertans will lose their jobs in the next 12 months. The Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that this was an alarmist figure. My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is: Do you believe the Government of Alberta in its projections of unemployment in that province, or do you support your fellow Minister?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I don't think we should make a contest of analyzing the number of people who are experiencing economic problems personally, as a result of the international energy situation. The situation in Alberta is catastrophic, and it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta to do everything they can to improve the situation, and that is what we are doing.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL COMPANIES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister called the situation catastrophic. Two weeks ago he turned down an invitation to intervene and provide support to small producers and small exploration companies in Alberta. With the new figures indicating that 55,000 people will be losing their jobs in that province in the next twelve months, is the Minister now prepared to intervene and provide the necessary support to small companies?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, a catastrophic situation demands a response, and not just any kind of response.
For several months, various associations in Alberta have been working with the provincial government, as has been the case everywhere else in Canada, to develop policies. Just because we refused to provide a solution to a general problem does not mean the Government is insensitive. In fact, we felt
October 27, 1986

this particular solution was not appropriate for the people concerned, and that is why we are seeking better solutions.


PENSIONS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General's Report revealed that only some 40 private pension plans out of some 750 had been reviewed in the past 15 years by federal regulators. Does the Minister truly believe that that is a sufficient review? Does he have any specific plans for improving the review process of private pension plans?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as indicated last week, we felt this was an important recommendation of the Auditor General. We do not believe that there is an immediate problem. In fact it was found that it was necessary to review, as the Hon. Member pointed out, only 40 of some 750 pension funds. The Department is looking into the advisability of increasing the regulatory nature of its work and will be responding in due course to the useful recommendation of the Auditor General.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return, with the Minister of Justice, to the subject raised by my colleague. He knows that the Canadian human rights tribunal often has to protect the rights of individuals against a Government. He also knows that this week the national Bank of Canada is challenging the independence of that tribunal and arguing that it is not independent on the grounds of the partisanship of some of its members. Is the Minister of Justice prepared to review these partisan appointments of individuals who have bragged about their credentials and loyalty to the Progressive Conservative Party, and appoint people who are truly independent, so that the commission will be able to stand up to scrutiny by the court?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of deference, I do not have to be lectured by the Liberal Party and the Hon. Member about partisanship and appointments. The reality is that it is a very important tribunal. No one takes it more seriously than I do. I want to ensure that the people are of the highest competence and quality. Indeed I have never seen any reference on any material which has come before me,
Oral Questions
in terms of the appointments for which I was responsible, in respect of political affiliation. Is the Hon. Member saying that people involved in politics should not be appointed? That is what I want to ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think Hon. Members will know that when a question verges on the argumentative, often the response is much the same.


INTEGRITY OF COMMISSION MEMBERS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize how particularly vulnerable are commissions such as this one and how important it is that the integrity of the members be patently clear, so that they will not be struck down by courts and the administrative procedures will survive?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is a good one. As we now sit here in the House, the Department and my officials are consulting widely on amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act respecting the operations of the commission. There are defects in its operations, as we all know and as was pointed out by us in opposition. I am prepared to receive representations and will continue to consult to ensure that we have the best Human Rights Commission in the world.


EXEMPTIONS SECURED BY COMPANIES FROM UNITED STATES COUNTERVAIL DUTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines. I am sure the Minister is aware that some lumber producing companies have been given exemptions from the 15 per cent preliminary countervail duty imposed 10 days ago. Could the Minister indicate why no efforts were made at the federal level to advise Canadian companies of their possible exemption from the 15 per cent countervail?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the trade rules are well known by most companies. It was widely covered in the media. It has been talked about widely by myself and by other members of the Cabinet. Many companies applied and many were given exemptions.


NOTIFICATION OF COMPANIES ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTIONS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. As I am sure she is aware, the Government provided to U.S. authorities a list of companies certified by the Government of Canada as eligible for those exemptions. Would she explain to the House why, at the same time as she was advising American
766

October 27, 1986
Oral Questions
authorities she did not notify companies in Canada, so that all eligible companies could have obtained the exemption?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the responsibility for informing the members of the forestry industry was assumed by the Council of Forest Industries which speaks for the entire forest industry. In that way those companies would have learned about it. A lot of companies did seek and get exemptions, which showed that the process was working.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his report last Friday, Judge Estey found that from 1982 or 1983 the managements of the CCB and Northland Bank took steps which overstated both the assets and the income of the banks with the unconditional approval of the banks' auditors. He also found that bank auditing and accounting guidelines were clearly inadequate. Will the Minister take steps to establish immediately an advisory committee of bankers, representatives of the accounting and auditing professions, and representatives of the Inspector General, to establish new, effective accounting and auditing guidelines as recommended by Judge Estey, so that the public of Canada can again place confidence in the financial statements of our banks?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Estey made very clear that the Canadian banking system was sound and that Canadians should have confidence in it. With regard to the specific question of the Hon. Member, Mr. Justice Estey has made quite an interesting proposal. There have been some informal discussions along the lines which Mr. Justice Estey pointed out. It is a proposal into which we are looking more carefully. Hopefully we will be able to respond to it specifically in due course.
 * *


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I understand that tomorrow he will meet with Lee Thomas, head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Will he
undertake now, when he meets with Mr. Thomas, to press that official to take every possible step open to the American federal Government to ensure that the Detroit incinerator is not built without the necessary environmental protection equipment, in order not to put at risk the health and safety of people in the city of Windsor and in many other parts of southwestern Ontario?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. I will be meeting with Mr. Thomas all day tomorrow. I have a list of about seven bilateral questions with which I will be dealing. The Detroit incinerator matter is the No. 1 question on that relatively short agenda. Mr. Thomas and I do not disagree on the environmental dimensions of the question. In fact we see eye to eye. The EPA was set back in the courts on procedural rather than on substantive grounds. The Ontario Government, the federal Government, and the U.S. Government are planning a full court press to do the very thing for which the Hon. Member has called.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. If Canada and the United States see eye to eye on this matter, will he agree to obtain the consent of the United States for a reference of the matter to the International Joint Commission on a specific basis, which is not the case at present? Will he also join with the Province of Ontario in going to the United States courts in a new action to seek an injunction against the City of Detroit to prevent the incinerator from being built without the necessary air pollution equipment?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is because Canada and the United States agree on the environmentalism of the issue that it would be inappropriate to send it to the International Joint Commission. Matters on which we disagree are normally the ones which are sent to the IJC to have an independent arbiter for the purpose of resolving them. We are pursuing every possible legal and diplomatic route. We are linking arms with Queen's Park and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to see if we can resolve it. The problem is essentially with the State of Michigan and the City of Detroit, not with Lee Thomas, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Government of the United States. That is why we are proceeding in the way that I have described.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville; one question please.
October 27, 1986


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I have in my hand one of the orginal biographies of those appointed to the Human Rights tribunal Panel. There are 10 lines in it referring to Progressive Conservative involvement. I now have in my hands the document sent to the Human Rights Committee of the House of Commons, from which all 10 of those lines have been deleted. Would he not agree that that would raise a strong suspicion of an effort to mislead?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely reject that out of hand. The fact of the matter is that we received a request for the information for the first time a week ago last Thursday. We gave everything that we had in our office with respect to these appointments, and the basis upon which I had made the appointments. The Hon. Member knows that I brought in changes to the rules here which allow scrutiny of appointments. This Government and this Prime Minister, for the first time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVILEGE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result of the decision by Your Honour to interrupt the statement which I was attempting to make pursuant to Standing Order 21 of the Standing Orders of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know that Hon. Members would agree that when a Member of the House has risen on a question of privilege, all Hon. Members would want to hear the argument and give that Hon. Member the courtesy that would of course be extended to all other Members. Would the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) please continue.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the decision of Your Honour to interrupt the statement which 1 was making pursuant to Standing Order 21 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Surely there can be no privilege more essential or fundamental to Members of the House than freedom of speech. I respectfully suggest that the decision of the Speaker to vet, in effect, the contents of a statement which is made pursuant to Standing Order 21 in the manner in which Your Honour's decision was made, flies in the face of privilege not just of myself but of all Members of the House.
Privilege-Mr. Robinson
I was attempting to raise an issue of serious concern with respect to comments that had been made, after all, under the same Standing Order 21 on Monday, October 20 last, by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). In his comments to the House the Hon. Member for Bow River referred to certain suggestions that had been made by the New Democratic Party with respect to a policy of non-discrimination in hiring at all levels of federal jurisdiction, including the R.C.M.P.
The Hon. Member made certain comments which I think not only gays and lesbians but all Canadians who believe in human rights and minority rights would find deeply offensive and insulting. The Hon. Member referred to fairies and lesbian R.C.M.P. fairies, and hitting people over the head with powder puffs.
I suggest that it is entirely in order for another Member to rise in his or her place and suggest that those kinds of comments have no place in Canada today, in a Canada which respects minorities. That was the intent of my submission and the intent of my remarks under Standing Order 21.
While Your Honour in fact interrupted the Hon. Member for Bow River in the course of his remarks, Your Honour pointed out, as reported at page 510 of Hansard, that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Bow River:
-might cause a question of privilege or point of order in the Chamber.
Indeed, I suggest that according to Citation 325 of Beau-chesne, Your Honour has an obligation to insist that the Hon. Member for Bow River withdraw, retract, the offensive expressions which he has made and apologize to the House and all Canadians for those offensive expressions. I submit that as a point of order.
In conclusion, my question of privilege is that surely Members of the House have the right to seek to rise in their places pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 21 to point out in a respectful and appropriate manner that the kind of language and stereotypical and homophobic rantings of the Member for Bow River have no place either in the House or anywhere else in this country. That was my purpose in seeking to remind all Members of the existence of a Charter of Rights which protects minorities in Canada. I hope, upon reflection, that Your Honour might recognize that such a statement is indeed entirely within the Standing Orders of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if one looks at Standing Order 21, the qualifying section of that Standing Order is that a Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of the Standing Order. That is precisely what you did today, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely what you did on Monday, October 20, 1986, with the suitable admonition.
I believe what you are trying to do is to apply the rules in a consistent manner. What is good for the application of the rules on this side should apply to the application of the rules on the other side.

October 27, 1986
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 21 which was referred to by the Hon. Government House Leader. Standing Order 21 says that the Speaker may order a Member to resume his or her seat if, in the opinion of the Speaker, improper use is made of the Standing Order. I believe the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has indicated very clearly that there was no improper use of the Standing Order and that it was in fact being adhered to. That is the point he was attempting to make.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief point to make in response to the comment by the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that the treatment which was accorded by the Speaker to the Hon. Member for Bow River on Monday last should have been accorded to me as well. I point out that the Speaker, on Monday last, did not in fact proceed with the Hon. Member for Bow River pursuant to Standing Order 21. Standing Order 21 would have required the Speaker to ask the Hon. Member for Bow River to resume his seat, as I was ordered to do. The Speaker did not do that but allowed the Hon. Member for Bow River to continue after an admonition.
I suggest that at the very least, if the argument of the Deputy Prime Minister is to be accepted, the same treatment should have been accorded to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any further Hon. Members rising on this question of privilege?
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has raised an important matter in the Chamber, referring to statements made by another Member during the period set aside for Statements by Members several days ago.
The House will recall that when that earlier statement was made, the Chair interrupted the Hon. Member and, I believe in gentle but firm language, indicated that what the Hon. Member was saying and what he might be saying would be offensive to Hon. Members and Canadians, and furthermore that the Hon. Member, as all Hon. Members would want to do, ought to be cautious in the use of language which would possibly lead to a point of order or question of privilege in the House, or to disorder which, of course, defeats the very freedom and rights to which the Hon. Member for Burnaby has most properly referred.
The Chair did interrupt the Hon. Member for Burnaby in the last few seconds of the period set aside for Statements by Members. It was the Chair's purpose to urge all Members again, including the Hon. Member for Burnaby, to be careful in the choice of words on an issue which, while legitimately raised in this Chamber, if raised in words which are inflammatory or apparently derogatory will lead to disorder.
I suggested to the Hon. Member for Burnaby that, under the circumstances, in view of the intervention by the Chair several days ago, which I think had the general approval of
this House, perhaps that was all that needed to be said about it. I must indicate to the Hon. Member that I do not think that, under all the circumstances, it is a question of privilege, but I do think it is an important matter. Legitimate matters are raised frequently in this Chamber, sometimes in language which perhaps borders on the offensive, but nonetheless the issues are important. I invited the Hon. Member several days ago to continue the statement, taking into account the admonition which the Chair gave to that particular Member. The Hon. Member for Burnaby will consider that the remainder of the statement was of a different tone than the earlier part which I felt was possibly getting close to creating some difficulties in the House.
The Chair would prefer not to make a hard ruling at this time. Perhaps the Chair can carefully consider Hansard and bring the matter back to the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House condemns the government for confusion, lack of direction, and secrecy in its trade policy, and specifically, condemns:
1.	the misguided efforts of the Minister of International Trade to present a unilateral proposal to the United States which undercut the Canadian position before the Commerce Department's lumber countervail decision;
2.	the weak and contradictory response of the same Minister to that lumber decision, by which she has neglected firm Canadian action and possibilities and used mere rhetoric and legal appeals within the very U.S. system of countervail she criticizes;
3.	the failure of the Canadian Government to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the U.S. Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian farmers;
4.	the weakness of the Canadian Government in its response to the customs surtax and the differential U.S. tax on imported as opposed to domestic oil;
5.	the way in which this government's free trade talks with the U.S. have made Canada a target of U.S. countervail and congressional action rather than helping this country escape such actions;
6.	the lower priority given by this government to GATT negotiations rather than to comprehensive bilateral talks with the U.S; and
7.	the failure of this government realistically to assess the massive constitutional roadblocks in the way of a truly fair bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) had the floor.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, just prior to lunch we pointed out as graphically as we could the fault in the first part of the motion we are debating today. In every case, every strategic move made on this issue was with the full support of industry, labour
October 27, 1986

and the provinces. That of course included the initiative taken to settle the softwood issue before the October 16 ruling.
Let me now turn to the second point in the motion. The Hon. Member says the Minister:
-neglected firm Canadian action and possibilities and used mere rhetoric and legal appeals within the very U.S. system of countervail she criticizes;
The wording of this motion strongly suggests that the Hon. Member and his Party are willing to ignore one of the more important avenues open to us to continue putting our position forward as strongly as possible in the U.S. We do not propose to pick up our marbles, as some opposition Members imply they would like us to do. The stakes are too high for Canada with regard to jobs and revenue. Contrary to the Hon. Member's assertion, this Government, with our partners, continues to be consistent and forceful in its approach to dealing with this threat in a unified and cohesive manner. For the Opposition to suggest that our response is weak and contradictory is a clear indication they have a weak understanding of both the intricacy and delicacy of this issue, and the means by which we can resolve it. We intend to resolve it to Canada's satisfaction if at all possible.
I would remind Hon. Members that the preliminary determination of subsidy made by the Commerce Department on October 16 is not the end of the road at all. That preliminary determination must be verified and a final decision made by December 30. I think they will have some difficulty in verifying their own figures. Even if the preliminary determination is confirmed, countervailing duties would not be applied unless the U.S. International Trade Commission finds injury in its final determination due in mid-February. If either of these rulings are negative or ruled on in Canada's favour, the case is terminated. In addition, both sides have the right to appeal the outcome to the U.S. courts.
It should be clear to everyone by now that we have a long way to go and we have no intention of giving up. We will continue to consult with industry, labour and the provinces, as we have all along. It is important that Hon. Members understand there is a unified front in Canada to continue our fight in the U.S. Last week the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and I met with the provinces, labour and industry in Toronto to review in detail the basis for the preliminary determination by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and to plan our own strategy for the next phase. As I said earlier, it was the view of all parties concerned that the basis for the preliminary decision was badly flawed. It contained numerous examples of misinformation and confused analysis, and in some cases included double counting of costs and values. The unanimous decision of the meeting was to continue our fight through all avenues available to us under U.S. trade law. I am also pleased to note that support for this position was articulated by certain other members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Let me assure Hon. Members that we are not confining our efforts only to the U.S. In fact, the preliminary determination on lumber is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the
Supply
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We will not weaken in our efforts to argue forcefully against the U.S. decision through GATT. We have invoked GATT dispute settlement mechanisms and our initial arguments have already been made to a GATT panel established at Canada's request.
The most troubling aspect of the U.S. ruling for us, and for many other countries, is the implications it has for the sovereign right of Governments to manage and establish the conditions for the exploitation of the advantages conferred by their natural resource endowments. This new twist in the interpretation of U.S. countervailing duty law has made our lumber dispute with the U.S. of particular concern and interest to other countries around the world. I can assure Hon. Members that the position Canada has taken to GATT has the support of many other countries, particularly those with important resource industries such as we have here in Canada.
Today it is lumber, tomorrow it could be pulp or newsprint or a number of other products or resources. This is not the way to conduct business between the world's largest trading partners. There is a better way and we must change the rules in order to stop the harassment by U.S. interest groups against competitive and fairly traded Canadian exports. Furthermore, the softwood lumber case points up a disturbing reluctance in the U.S. to accept the verdict when U.S. interests do not win a case. There appears to be a growing propensity in the U.S. to blame imports for problems which are the result of domestic policies, not foreign competition. There is an unfortunate tendency to assume that every foreign product which manages to compete successfully in the U.S. does so only because it benefits from government assistance of some sort or another.
An even more troubling assumption is that policies and practices which differ in any way from those used in the United States must, by definition, be unfair. Some down there have gone so far as to suggest that all foreign practices are unfair and the U.S. is the only country which still abides by the rules of international trade. Oddly enough, such suggestions have been accompanied by attempts to change certain of these rules unilaterally in the interest of more effective protection. In my view the demand for a level playing field can take some very strange forms.
We have seen that in graphic terms in softwood lumber. We won the case in 1983. We then faced a number of legislative initiatives seeking, in one way or another, to limit our exports to the United States. We then faced a fact-finding investigation and then yet another countervail this year and the threat that if the U.S. industry does not get what it wants there will be a likelihood of more Congressional action.
Where will it all end? This is why we seek new rules, Mr. Speaker. We seek a better shield against the forces of protectionism. We want more certainty, a more confident environment for investors and producers in Canada. This, in turn, will generate the jobs and economic growth which Canada needs.

October 27, 1986
Supply
I wish to conclude my remarks by reiterating several points. The Government has reacted strongly to the preliminary decisions of the U.S. Commerce Department a week ago last Thursday that Canadian provincial stumpage programs convey countervailable benefits to the Canadian softwood industry. We deplore this decision which cannot be justified either under U.S. law or GATT rules.
My hon. colleague, the Minister for International Trade has registered the Government's deep disappointment that Commerce Secretary Baldrige reversed his earlier decision in the previous softwood lumber countervailing case that provincial stumpage programs were not countervailable. In our view the U.S. ruling has no basis in U.S. law and is inconsistent with the U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Further, we have kept open every available avenue which we might wish to use. Our co-ordinated and forceful approach is going to carry us through and we intend to win this dispute. As I have said repeatedly, we have the commitment of organized labour, the industry and provincial Governments to work with the federal Government to get the U.S. Government to reverse its preliminary determination and to cease any further investigation. We are using every means at our disposal, both within the U.S. legal system and under the dispute settlement mechanisms available to us under the GATT. In fact, one of the major objectives of the Government in the new trade round launched in Uruguay last month is to strengthen significantly these international dispute settlement mechanisms. Time alone will tell us whether we have followed the right course. We believe it will show that we have acted with foresight, determination and courage.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister say in this House, as he did a few minutes ago, that the free trade negotiations have the support of labour when it is on record in at least a dozen press releases that the Canadian Labour Congress is opposed to the free trade negotiations? How can he make such a statement?


Mr. Merrithew:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) referred to the question of free trade generally. We are talking of this particular dispute. We know exactly what is in the opposition motion. I sit in on all of those meetings. There are members of labour there although not all of labour belongs to the CLC. We know full well what the official position of labour is with regard to trade. However, on this particular issue they are fully in accord with what we have done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the 15 per cent tariff, the small Canadian lumber producers have been discriminated against. They simply were not aware of the exemption provision. Despite the earlier comments of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), these companies were not informed of the procedures to follow. I have spoken to many companies personally. Their chief executive officers have informed me that they had no idea that this provision was
available. They have no idea how to get on the list if there is still time to do so. Could the Minister tell us whether there is still time for companies to apply for exemptions? If so, how do companies actually apply?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, this tariff is a result of an industry in the United States petitioning its Government. The traditional response of the Canadian industry has been to fight it. We have worked with the industry, the provinces and labour to try to co-ordinate as well as possible a response to that and to try to get the Canadian picture across. The Canadian Forest Industries Council and its arm, COFI, centred in the Hon. Member's province, took the lead on that. There have been dozens and dozens of opportunities for information on that to go out. There was very wide media coverage all across Canada, a good deal of which started in my home province. It is possible that this was not pursued as aggressively as possible by COFI or CFIC because many small companies do not belong to the Canadian Forest Industries Council.
As we indicated before, we are going to try to get the United States to allow additional applications under that particular section of their trade law. I suspect that the companies which failed to respond to something which has been on the front page of the papers for four years will have to carry some of the responsibility for that. I am very sorry that many of the small companies do not belong to COFI or CFIC, but it was certainly widely publicized that this option was available to companies.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) has done an excellent job of reviewing the International Trade Commission's process of hearings, preliminary rulings, review, testing of data and final appeal of the final ruling. He indicated that the U.S. ruling was inconsistent with its commitment to the GATT agreement and also inconsistent with U.S. law.
Given those inconsistencies, can he explain why the Government has not spent more time in the talks with the United States on dealing with improvements to the dispute-solving of a mechanism by way of an international bilateral disputesettling mechanism rather than continuing, as the U.S. insists upon doing, to use U.S. law, the U.S. International Trade Commission and, when all else fails, appeals to only U.S. courts? Why did the Government of Canada not attempt to break that deadlock since most of our products are tariff-free in any case?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, the point has been made many times inside and outside the House by the Minister for International Trade, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and myself that one of the concomitant benefits of going through this process will be that we will have a better mechanism for resolving disputes. At the time the initiative for freer trade arrangements was commenced it was made very clear that while these discussions were ongoing a sovereign nation like the United States was not going to throw its own legislation out the window. What has been done there for the last two

October 27, 1986

years is perfectly legitimate. Not all of its industry, but some of it, made a certain appeal to their Government to remedy something which they felt was unjust, using their own legislation.
I happen to sit on the Priorities and Planning Subcommittee on Trade which gives a mandate to our negotiators. I can tell the Hon. Member, as has been stated time and time again in this House, that something which will definitely be part of that, and must be, is a better way in which two large trading partners can resolve problems which they inevitably will have. What mechanism it will be, what form it will take, whether it is a commission, is another issue. We just hope that during the next 16 months or 17 months we can definitely negotiate a better deal and come up with better trade laws than we now have.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the situation which faced the Government when it initiated these discussions was that by the end of next year, 80 per cent of our products moving back and forth between our two countries would be absolutely free and clear of tariffs. The main stumbling block in trade between our two countries has been the building up of excuses for restrictions of trade by way of various non-tariff barriers.
The main irritant which exists between our two countries seems to be the process by which we solve these irritants. The ITC has accepted the lightning, so to speak, from both sides. Why did the Government not begin with that main irritant instead of throwing everything on the table for bargaining, leaving us with the possibility of losing some of the non-tariff commodities which are now traded between us? Why did the Government not focus on that particular problem, a disputesolving mechanism, and then worry about reducing tariffs after that was taken care of?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is fondly to be hoped that out of this will come a better mechanism. Unfortunately, when the two countries decided to take that historic step of deciding to try to negotiate a freer trade arrangement, a better trading arrangement, from that point on one could not expect a sovereign nation such as the United States of America to immediately drop all of its existing strategy. Its industry and political system would not put up with that, nor would ours.
We have trade remedy legislation. Something which will come out of that, undoubtedly, and must do so, is a better system. In the meantime, just because two countries are attempting this kind of initiative, it does not mean it will be successful even in the final analysis. We know one thing which will come out of it and that is that during the course of the next 16 months or 18 months, or whatever, as we work toward that better arrangement, we will be better able to deal with the kinds of difficulties we have been faced with and, I suspect, always will be.
Supply


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to dwell on two matters which have to do with paragraphs Nos. 3, 5 and 7 of the motion moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Paragraph 3, much of which is interconnected with some of the other paragraphs, condemns the Government for its failure to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the U.S. Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian farmers. The tragedy is that this Government, like previous Governments, has not learned any lessons from history, and I am speaking about recent history, that is, since the Second World War. When one examines the United States constitutional framework and the methods employed under its constitution, one realizes there is an excellent reason for the long history of the United States countervailing or even undermining and destroying international trade agreements. It has done that on many, many occasions, not only to Canada but to a number of other countries.
The U.S. Farm Bill means, of course, that while farmers in the United States receive $6 to $6.50 a bushel in Canadian dollars, Canadian farmers are receiving a maximum price of about $3.15 for No. 1 red spring wheat in Canadian dollars. The Americans are peddling their grain at around $3 a bushel for top grade grain to importers around the world, some of whom have been longstanding and faithful Canadian customers, and our Government expects the farmers of Canada to compete with the treasury of the United States and that of the European Economic Community.
If there was ever a time when the nation as a whole should pitch in and help in protecting our agricultural industry, it is now. The nation as a whole should share that through our national Government. When I speak about recent history, Mr. Speaker, I speak of the last 40 years during and following the Second World War, when there was an International Wheat Agreement by which the exporting and importing countries agreed on minimum and maximum prices year by year. It was working marvellously until the United States started undermining, undercutting and destroying the International Wheat Agreement. Then came the International Grains Arrangement as a follow-up. It was not as good as the IWA but it was better than nothing. Who wrecked that? I give you one guess, Mr. Speaker.
Year after year, since the Second World War, this has happened. It is not just in congressional election years or in presidential election times. Every year there has been countervail or we have had the borders slammed shut on us with respect to commodity after commodity, and Canada-and this is what is shameful about it-with its supine and servile attitude, continually crawls on bended knee to the United States and allows it to tell us what we should do with Canadian law or provincial rights, which is interference in Canadian sovereignty.
The present Government is in the process, I submit, of perverting the whole principle of what a deficiency payment is. It is not an acreage payment. It is not a payment on an amount

October 27, 1986
Supply
sold. A deficiency payment is the difference between what production costs and the price a commodity has to be sold for because agricultural producers are not price makers but price takers. Unlike the manufacturing industry or professional organizations, it has to take what it can get. A deficiency payment is the difference between the price they receive and their costs of production.
It is not just western grain. It has also happened to the corn and soya bean producers in Ontario and Quebec with the U.S. Farm Bill. A deficiency payment is required for agriculture right across Canada. We in western Canada agree with that wholeheartedly. The Government horses around with $1 billion spread out among a host of commodities. That is a picayune pittance. It is not a deficiency payment. It does not come anywhere near meeting the agricultural producers costs of production. No other sector of our economy is more efficient than our agricultural industry. They have "efficiency-ed" themselves to death. What thanks did they get for it? They received lower and lower prices in the face of higher and higher costs. We have lost tens of thousands of agricultural producers over the last 25 years.
The question is: How much for a deficiency payment? For $2 a bushel No. 1 red spring wheat, and proportionate amounts for other types of grains and their different grades, the bill will be $2 billion. To do something about other agricultural products such as corn and soya beans, for example, in Ontario and Quebec, as well as other commodities across the country, the bill will be another $1 billion. That is what will be required if something sensible and meaningful is to be done within the principles of a deficiency payment.
If we took $1 billion and spread it out among all the agricultural producers of all the commodities covered-then maybe our western grain farmers might receive a couple of hundred bucks-then we are back to the $1 an acre up to 200 acres proposition that Mr. Diefenbaker sanctioned when he yelled around the country about how they want parity and not charity. What they got was charity every other year. They received two payments and then that was cancelled. It looks as if we are in for the same damn thing again. The question is for whom? If it is to be for all producers, then it has to be a sufficient amount of money.
From where will we obtain the money? Some two months ago my leader proposed that if the Government were to immediatley assess some taxes for all those who do not pay any income taxes back to last April 1 for the current fiscal year and that if the Government did something about the loopholes in the corporation tax system retroactive to April 1, it could collect the S3 billion needed for a deficiency payment.
I have another solution which I have suggested to the House before. There is something in the order of $38 billion-with a capital "B" as in "Benjamin"-on the books of Canada in deferred corporation taxes. If those who owe these taxes were charged the bank rate of something over 8 per cent interest,
then there is the $3 billion which is needed. These are taxes which will probably never be paid and which have accrued since the early 1950s. This is a tax deferral which is perfectly legal for corporations.
I can name three corporations right now which, in total, have in the order of $5 billion to $6 billion worth of deferred corporation taxes. They are Bell Telephone Company, Inco and Canadian Pacific Fimited. They owe in excess of $1.5 billion each. If they were charged a modest interest rate-a rate no farmer would receive-we would have our $3 billion. I hope the Government smartens up in terms of that deal. If it does, it will have the full support of all Members of the House.
I now wish to turn to the matter of free trade, freer trade or free trade arrangement-the name has changed periodically over the past year. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks something about the constitutional road-blocks which face us as a result of the United States' system. In terms of roadblocks, not only is there the President and his administration, there is also the International Trade Commission. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), has raised questions repeatedly about this subject. There are also the constitutional rights of the U.S. Congress, the Senate and the individual states.
Over the last 10 years we have had countervail duties imposed-or borders closed completely-on saltfish, fresh fish, hogs, cattle, live and butchered, shakes and shingles, lumber, steel, and even raspberries. I did not know that we even exported raspberries. However, we now know that the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia export a great many raspberries. It is about time we gave the United States the raspberry. Not only did that country enter into an international wheat agreement, an international grain arrangement, it also entered into a fisheries treaty. It was ratified by the Government of Canada, signed by the President of the United States and rejected by the Senate of the United States. From then on it was downhill for us in terms of the Atlantic fishery. The United States also entered into the SALT II arms treaty. After years of negotiation it was agreed to, ratified by the Soviet Union, signed by the President of the United States and turned down by the U.S. Senate. How many times do we have to learn our lesson?
The other delusion, illusion-the dreaming in technicolor that the Government does-is this. If it thinks that U.S. producers and manufacturers in a wide variety of commodities are about to hold still for Canada, or any other country, increasing in any significant way their share of a particular commodity market in the United States, then they are dreaming in technicolor. The U.S. Congress will not allow it. It never has and it is not about to start.
I listened to cattlemen talk with visions of grandeur about how free trade measures would increase our cattle market in the U.S. Three times in the sixties and early seventies, when the Americans saw that we were sending more than 400,000 head or other volumes down to their country, they closed the border. The hog raisers and that carpet-bagger Pocklington,
October 27, 1986

who wants to build a big hog processing plant in North Battleford, have kidded themselves into thinking that the United States will hold still while Canada increases its share of the live and dressed hog market and pork products market in the United States. Do they think that the American hog producers and processors will hold still for that? They shouldn't kid the troops. If one believes that then one believes in the tooth fairy.
At the moment there is another constitutional matter to consider. I refer to the individual states-all 50 of them- which can prohibit a commodity from entering a certain state, mostly on health reasons, but there are others. For example, South Dakota still prohibits Canadian hogs from entering that state. For some time there were about five or six midwestern states which had hog prohibitions against our country. Who do these people think they can kid when we consider their constitutional prerogatives, and our supine acquiescence with the United States?
I would now like to refer to something else which is normally forgotten by the Government. Mr. Reagan received a tie vote in the Senate committee on the fast track on free trade. He received it only because he sent a letter to Senator Packwood which reassured the Senate, and that Senate committee, that there would be no denigration or reduction in the constitutional right of the United States Senate either to ratify or to order countervailing duties. There will be no change in that respect, and we can bet that there never will be.
It is merely a dream to consider achieving some type of broad free trade agreement with the United States and to believe that every year the Americans will not impose a countervail duty or close off any commodity market on which they think their own producers, processors or manufacturers need protection. Historically, that has been their record, and it will continue to be their record.
The question then is: What do we do instead? As we have done not only with the United States but with many other countries, I suggest we negotiate an agreement. We should negotiate a three-year, five-year or ten-year agreement, commodity by commodity, or groups of commodities, and I will use grain as an example. As we have done with many of our customers, we have negotiated contracts inclusive of minimum and maximum amounts. They can be negotiated year-to-year with respect to what the range should be between the minimum and maximum amount of exports to a certain country. I think of China and the Soviet Union in particular.
A minimum and maximum price are negotiated, and the price is negotiated each year between the floor and the ceiling. This is what we can do with the United States. It seems to me this is the only way we can do it. Then we will have a chance, for example in a ten-year contract, say in the lumber industry, to negotiate within that framework. Then our producers will know where they stand each year. They will know how to plan their production. This can be applied to any sector of the economy.
Supply
These types of deals should not be only with the United States. We have to quit putting all our eggs in one basket. Most of our eggs used to be in the Great Britain basket. I ask Hon. Members to look at what happened in that case. We lost almost all of it following the Second World War. These types of arrangements must also be made with Mexico, the Caribbean countries and Central America, especially in terms of fresh fruit and vegetables. These countries desperately need our purebred breeding stock, both dairy and beef. They desperately need expertise and technical assistance for agriculture. They desperately need hard currency. They are poor countries.
Hon. Members should go to Mexico to see the vegetables that are produced there. I visited three markets in Mexico City and saw beautiful vegetables there. The tomatoes were the size of cantaloupes. Why should we not have a three-year or five-year deal with Mexico amounting to $300 million to $700 million per year on vegetables? My wife is getting sick and tired of paying three bucks a head in February for cauliflower that was grown in Arizona or California and controlled by a multinational food company from the farm right through to the retail store in Regina. The situation is the same with fruit.
We can deal with a host of countries. It seems to me that that is the wiser course to follow. We would not be limited to one major market. We would not be dependent on the health of one country's economy. We would not be dependent upon the patronizing goodwill of a United States administration, be it Republican or Democrat, and we would not be subject to interference with our sovereignty by our big and powerful neighbour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? If there are no questions or comments, debate.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, earlier today when the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) spoke, she said that Opposition attacks on the Government's free trade policy were "negative, negative, negative". After hearing her speech, I think it is clear that what she had to say was empty, empty, empty.
The Conservative initiative to get a comprehensive free trade agreement between Canada and the United States is clearly an ill-advised and perilous undertaking. This centrepiece of Conservative Government economic and foreign policy will undermine our sovereignty and our ability to protect and enhance the cultural, social and economic wellbeing of Canadians. That is why we oppose the Prime Minister's initiative and that is why every day more and more Canadians say that this initiative must not be allowed to go ahead.
The Liberal approach to trade is to implement policies designed to secure and expand Canadian export markets throughout the global economy through the GATT framework. The Government speaks of following a two-track policy:

October 27, 1986
Supply
using the GATT and also talking separately with the United States. The fact is that the Government is downgrading our activity and influence in the multilateral GATT process. Instead of developing the necessary industrial and economic policies that will make Canada more innovative and competitive in world markets, the Conservatives have put all of their eggs in the basket of comprehensive bilateral free trade with the United States. This is nothing more than a new and dangerous form of continental protectionism.
The Conservative Government has failed in so many ways. It has failed to take effective action to help the more than one million jobless Canadians find productive and permanent employment. It has failed to address the financial problems confronting post-secondary educational institutions and in fact Conservative policy has made these problems worse. The Government has reduced expenditures on industrial and regional development programs. It has reneged on its promises to increase federal expenditure on research and development. In fact, it has gone in the opposite direction, as was demonstrated during the past several days when we saw evidence of how it has been savaging the National Research Council. Instead of cultivating Canadian sovereignty and our freedom to develop our own style and quality of life, the Conservative Government has rushed blindly into negotiations for bilateral free trade to integrate Canada further with the economy of the United States, weakening our capacities to develop policies to help our country become a successful and a first-class competitor in world markets.
In opening his free trade talks with Washington, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has dramatically raised Canada's profile in the current American national debate about trade. His timing and that of the Government could not have been worse. Business and Congress in the United States are in an absolute panic because they believe they are not selling enough in world markets. They want fewer rather than more imports from Canada and the world and this means that conditions are not right to get a trade deal that is a good deal for Canada. The only way the Government can get any kind of trade deal with the United States is to make concessions that will be unacceptable to Canadians generally.
While speaking for the Government today, the Minister said a lot about what she wants from the United States in a trade deal, but she did not say one word about what she is willing to give up in return. That is the problem. The silence of Conservative Members on this subject speaks volumes. It tells us quite frankly that there is no way we will get any kind of deal with the United States that is good for Canada without paying a price that Canadians will not want to pay.
We have seen how British Columbia shake and shingle producers have been damaged by President Reagan's imposition of a 37 per cent tariff. What happened there shows how the Prime Minister's alleged special relationship with President Reagan is meaningless when it comes to preventing the United States from taking steps to damage Canadian interests. Now there has been the recent decision made by American
authorities to impose a 15 per cent duty on softwood lumber. This is the latest evidence of the incompetence of the Conservative Government and its bad management when it comes to trade relations with the United States.
The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister have, since that decision, been trying to argue that it shows why we need a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. They say that such an agreement would mean that the United States would no longer be able to carry out harassing actions against Canada like the duties on shakes and shingles and on softwood lumber. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing could be more mistaken. President Reagan, in his famous letter to Senator Packwood, said very clearly that the United States will never give up its present laws enabling it to impose countervailing duties and other trade protection measures in any trade agreement with Canada. If that is the case, the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the entire Government are wrong. What is the point of seeking a general free trade agreement with the United States if it will not protect us against harassment by the United States of Canadian exports and will at the same time put at risk hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and our ability to make our own decisions about the future of our country and its people?
There is no doubt that American negotiators at the bilateral free trade talks have specific and well-defined goals. The Americans have already talked about seeking a level playing field in their relations with Canada. They have already talked about wanting national treatment in their relations with Canada. What is especially disturbing is that the Prime Minister, in a speech made last spring on trade, said that he and the Government are ready to give national treatment to Americans.
He spoke of seeking for Canadians national treatment in the United States and there is no way that could be obtained without giving the same thing to the United States. This means that we will no longer have the ability to develop our own policies to foster Canadian enterprise, to foster specific Canadian industrial sectors, to foster Canadian economic development in less developed parts of our country, unless we give exactly the same treatment to the United States, to its companies, and to its own regions.
It is clear that in these free trade negotiations the Americans will seek to curtail regional incentive programs which encourage industrial development in disadvantaged areas like the Maritimes. They will seek to weaken the unemployment insurance program and other social programs so important to Canadians. They will seek the dismantling of our agricultural marketing boards across Canada, requiring Canadian farmers to face stiff foreign competition during an extremely tough financial crisis in Canadian agriculture.
American trade negotiators will ask for commitments affecting investment that will prevent future efforts to
October 27, 1986

strengthen Canadian ownership of our economy. Particularly troubling and worrisome is that Americans apparently regard cultural industries as ordinary business enterprises. They will therefore be putting intense pressure to change our well-established policies encouraging the existence of Canadian books, magazines, theatre, broadcasting, and film. They will also be pressing us to give up our ability to set our own monetary and fiscal policy. Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, has already talked about seeking a higher value for the Canadian dollar. If this happens, it will remove a legitimate Canadian competitive advantage bringing at the same time higher interest rates for our economy.
What about the auto industry? It is central to the success of our economy, along with the forest products industry, I have to add. The auto industry is the basis for jobs for 120,000 automobile assembly and parts workers in Canada, and the basis for the jobs of hundreds of thousands of other workers in related industries.
Studies commissioned by the Conservative Government make it very clear that one of the targets on the U.S. negotiator's agenda could well be the removal of the Auto Pact safeguards that protect thousands of Canadian jobs, and make sure that there is an appropriate high level of Canadian content in cars assembled here. A month after the federal Government study on automotive trade was completed in November, 1985, Clayton Yeutter said:
I do not preclude alterations of the Auto Pact as a result of comprehensive negotiations.
The Conservative Government's conduct of trade policy has been marked by a lack of preparation and incompetent management. The evidence is clear. The Prime Minister, his Minister for International Trade, and his Cabinet, this Conservative Government cannot be trusted to defend and support Canada's best interests when it comes to Canada's sovereignty and its trading relationship with the United States and with the world in general.
I believe that the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, has a different and a better approach. As our Leader said, "We will look for Canadian solutions to our own and world problems, not just the fifty-first state approach of this Conservative Government."
This means above all that we must stand up for and defend Canadian sovereignty, something the Conservative Government has shown all too little inclination to do. Standing up for and defending Canadian sovereignty must continue to be the foundation for our national policies. These national policies must be aimed at defining and achieving the true potential of Canada. This will not come from this incompetent and wrong Conservative initiative. I call on this House and this country to reject this initiative, as I am sure they are going to do well before the next election and certainly when the votes are counted in that election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.
Supply


John Horton McDermid: I have a question for the Hon. Member. He is saying that we should not carry on with negotiations with the United States, that this initiative should now be cancelled. His Leader-he is the white-haired gentleman who sits to your right-said that we should carry on. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) says that we should carry on. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is not sure where that Party is going. The Hon. Member said this morning that there was a policy and that he would send it right over to me. He has not done that yet, so there probably is not a policy. That was another of his great speeches that he delivers off the cuff and then gets caught with his proverbial pants down.
I would like to ask my hon. friend from Windsor, who always delivers a delightful political speech full of rhetoric and no positive ideas, why Premier Bourassa, who happens to be a Liberal, is supporting these negotiations. His Leader the other day said that we must carry on with these negotiations. Why is he today advocating that we do not carry on, that we abandon it immediately? Or, is the headline in The Toronto Star editorial correct when it refers to: "Having it both ways?". Is that what the Liberals are trying to do?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Our Leader has stated very clearly, as recently as last week in a speech to the Empire Club, that we cannot support the Mulroney trade initiative with the United States. In that speech he said that if the talks are to continue, the United States must agree to stop the harassment of Canadian trade through steps like the duty on softwood lumber, and also that there must be a commitment by the United States to drop trade protectionist measures like countervail.
Furthermore, if the Hon. Member is asking me about what our Leader has been saying, I would like him to explain this statement made in June, 1983 by his Leader when he said, speaking of free trade: "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during leadership campaigns or at any other time." I do not often find anything to agree with on the part of the present Prime Minister, but what he said at that time in 1983 made sense and still makes sense. I am sorry he is not sticking with that very sound view that he expressed in 1983.


Charles L. Caccia: As you probably recall-and this is a question to my hon. colleague from Windsor West-the present Government decided to dismantle the National Energy Program when it took office and, shortly after, the Foreign Investment Review Agency. I would like to ask the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) what he thinks of these two steps that were taken before the trade negotiations were launched.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Those decisions by the current Government were wrong on their merits. Apparently the current United States administration did not like those measures. That was a very important reason for the haste of the current Government to dismantle the measures in question.

October 27, 1986
Supply
Well, if that was the case, it was the height of folly for the current Government to throw away what could have been two key bargaining chips in moving ahead to get this House to approve its dismantling of the NEP and FIRA, using its massive majority, without getting anything whatsoever in return from the Americans. This is a prime example of how incompetent this Government is when it comes to managing the country's affairs, whether it is the trade relations we have with the United States, or anything else.


William James Kempling: I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) a couple of questions. He mentioned the Auto Pact and safeguards in his comments. I would like to ask him to tell this House how many times in the last 10 or 12 years the safeguards have been implemented. What was the Canadian content in automobiles exported to the United States last year and this year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I can tell the Hon. Member that there were a number of occasions when Canada was part of the world-wide recession when the content level of Canadian production by the subsidiaries of the American based multinationals fell to the point where the safeguard levels were important. They were important before that, for example, on occasions which led to the building of the large van plant by Chrysler in Windsor some 10 years ago. If it had not been for the breach of Chrysler of the then safeguard regulations-and they are also the current ones- the plant would not have been built as a way of picking up the content required. I do not have at my fingertips the current Canadian content of cars exported to the United States, but I believe it is much higher than would be the case without the safeguard provisions.
I conclude by making the point that the inference in my hon. friend's question is strange. Some of his colleagues, speaking of contradictions, have said over and over again: "Don't worry, the Auto Pact is not on the table; the safeguards are not on the table; everything is okay". However, the clear inference in my hon. friend's question is that the safeguards are irrelevant and that we should not worry about giving them up. That is the Tory stand revealed out of the mouth of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are four minutes remaining in the question and comment period. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), followed by the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), and then the Parliamentary Secretary.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) did not write his speech. Knowing the integrity of the man and his knowledge, I am sure he would not make such a speech in the House. He spoke about shakes and shingles. I believe it was one of the Hon. Members of that Party from Newfoundland who initiated that debate on an opposition day. They did not have any idea about the industry whatsoever. They were prepared to continue exporting raw cedar to the United States. Now the Hon.
Member stands here like a defender of our cause. It is disgraceful. These people do not know what is going on in the country.
I should like to pose the same question to the Hon. Member as the one I posed to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Given that the Macdonald Commission, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), the International Woodworkers of America, the BCNI, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce advocate that we proceed immediately with free trade, how can he possibly rise in the House and say that we should use a two track method through GATT to negotiate with the United States and still advocate that we suspend enhanced trade talks with the United States? It behoves me. He is contradicting himself, and 1 would like an explanation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think what I said is quite clear. If my hon. friend takes the trouble to read Hansard when it is available, he will see that I spoke in a perfectly consistent and logical fashion.
My hon. friend referred to a list of people who are supporting the Conservative initiative. I could give him a list just as long, if not longer of those who question it-the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the brewing industry, the grocery manufacturing industry, and so on.
The basic point is that the more we look at what the Conservative Government is doing, the more we realize that it is on the wrong track. Never mind whether it is one, two, or three tracks, it is on the wrong track when it comes to defending Canada's interests. Now that the Conservatives have noticed that the public is cooling off on their initiative, it is interesting how they are afraid to use the term "free trade".


Some Hon. Members:: We never used it.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: They say: "We never used it". When the Prime Minister made his initial statement, he said that the Government would seek the widest possible reduction of trade barriers in the agreement with the United States. What else does that mean?
I should like to conclude by making the point that on May 29 President Reagan of the United States, in a speech to the National Association of Manufacturers, said: "Just last week we began negotiations with Canada, our largest trading partner, on a new comprehensive free trade agreement which should lower barriers to U.S. exports". There is no doubt in the minds of President Reagan and his people what they are trying to get, if they are trying to get anything from Canada. There is no doubt in President Reagan's mind about what this Conservative Government is willing to give the United States.
By the way, Mr. Reagan did not say in his speech that this agreement would lower barriers for Canadian goods going into the United States. He did not say that it would lead to them giving up countervail. All he talked about was lowering
October 27, 1986

barriers to United States exports to Canada. As the old Latin maxim says, the fact speaks for itself; res ipsa loquitur.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question or a comment, whichever you want to call it. The only time safeguards were used in the last 13 years was in the case of the Chrysler van plant in Windsor, of which the Hon. Member made mention in his comments. It was the only time that the safeguards were invoked, and it was because Chrysler in importing large trucks into Canada went beyond what was allowed under the Act.
Also I should like to tell the Hon. Member that in the last two years the Canadian content in automobiles exported from Canada has been pretty close to 80 per cent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member made that comment. It reminded me of another time the safeguards came into play. It was in the negotiation of the arrangement for a substantial investment of hundreds of millions of dollars to expand the American Motors plant in Brampton. I can speak from my personal knowledge of the situation. The safeguards were a factor, and they continue to be a factor.
Again I ask why the Hon. Member is contradicting his colleagues-


William James Kempling: I am not.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -especially the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and using language which indicates very clearly that he is ready to give up the safeguards. I say on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Canadian auto workers: "Shame on you".


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the House Leader of the Liberal Party. Earlier today his spokesman on trade matters, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, said that the Liberal Party had a policy on trade. He said that it was produced after a series of policy meetings, that it was in booklet form or in written form, and that he would be pleased to pass it on to me. I have not seen it yet. I should like to ask the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party if he would take it upon himself to ensure that I have in my hands the policy of the Liberal Party on the trade situation before the debate has finished today?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if I could have a page, I would be happy to send it to the Hon. Member. I hope he will read it. I hope he will support it. It is a lot better than that of the Conservative Party, which is dragging Canada down in its trade with the United States and with the world.
Supply



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Customs Tariff-Effect of tariff on book publishing industry; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-Disarmament- (a) United States position on Strategic Defence Initiative, (b) Request joint parliamentary resolution be drafted; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-Economic Council's projection.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon:
That this House condemns the government for confusion, lack of direction, and secrecy in its trade policy, and specifically, condemns:
1.	the misguided efforts of the Minister of International Trade to present a unilateral proposal to the United States which undercut the Canadian position before the Commerce Department's lumber countervail decision;
2.	the weak and contradictory response of the same Minister to that lumber decision, by which she has neglected firm Canadian action and possibilities and used mere rhetoric and legal appeals within the very US system of countervail she criticizes;
3.	the failure of the Canadian Government to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the US Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian Farmers;
4.	the weakness of the Canadian Government in its response to the customs surtax and the differential US tax on imported as opposed to domestic oil;
5.	the way in which this government's free trade talks with the US have made Canada a target of US countervail and congressional action rather than helping this country escape such actions;
6.	the lower priority given by this government to GATT negotiations rather than to comprehensive bilateral talks with the US; and
7.	the failure of this government realistically to assess the massive constitutional roadblocks in the way of a truly fair bilateral agreement between Canada and the US.
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great pleasure that I take part in today's debate. As a Member from a rural riding, I am particularly interested in this issue, and I intend to comment on paragraph 3 of this motion, and I quote:
3) the failure of the Canadian Government to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the US Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian farmers;

October 27, 1986
Supply
Mr. Speaker, the world market is now being influenced in ways that are affecting the incomes of Canadian farmers. We must fight on several fronts at once to put an end to this very disturbing trade development. We have shown that we can, and that we are able to take the necessary action.
Recently, in the Throne Speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sent a clear message to the farmers of this country: We will spare no effort to ensure the productivity and growth of our agricultural industry.
We realize that Canadian agriculture is faced with tremendous problems, and we must show our determination to protect the interests of our farmers in the face of this unfortunate subsidy war between the United States and the European Common Market.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may illustrate the impact of this war on our agriculture. According to the statistics provided by Agriculture Canada, for every dollar we spent in 1985 to help our wheat producers, the United States spent $2.57, expressed in Canadian currency. The European Common Market spent even more, namely $2.73, in Canadian funds. Instead of diminishing, the gap has widened during the present crop year, and it is estimated that the Common Market and the United States will spend nearly four times as much as we do, namely $3.75 in Canadian currency.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is absurd. The root of the problem is the Common Market's joint agricultural policy and the resulting US Farm Bill. This war of subsidies generates unrealistic world prices which simply cannot reflect production costs. Just think, Mr. Speaker, they now estimate that the U.S. Farm Bill will amount to a tax expenditure of at least $52 billion over the next three years, not to mention the $1.1 billion in export subsidies.
Right now the amount of export rebates-export subsidies, in fact-given to the European Economic Community is higher than the price of our wheat at Thunder Bay and, in some cases, this export rebate is twice as high as the initial price paid to western Canada wheat producers.
We all know that world market trends should not be dictated by government subsidies or measures, but indeed by supply and demand, by such factors as stocks and quality. This is why we must work hard, as other countries are doing, to eliminate this practice of resorting to subsidies and protectionist measures in the farm products trade. Painfully aware that the Canadian farm community is up against tremendous difficulties, we have made it quite clear that we intend to protect our farm producers against these unfair price-setting mechanisms.
Mr. Speaker, never before has agriculture been given top priority in the Speech from the Throne. We did just that. Never before either did a Government make such a strong and clear commitment with respect to men and women who belong to the Canadian farm community. We do live up to our commitments. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has proved to be a staunch defender of agricultural interests since we
came into office. Thanks to his support we have been able to make a most eloquent case for Canadian agriculture, and again Mr. Speaker, this is only the beginning.
All Members of this Flouse realize, of course, that Canadian farmers have been severely affected by the impact of unfair subsidy policies as practised by the United States and Europe. As the Prime Minister stated before the House, this deplorable situation may well undermine the very principle of free trade throughout the world. The Government of Canada is determined to stop this from happening. We are exploring every possible avenue at the international level in order to restore common sense and fairness, and once again, the case we have made shows our determination to help our farmers in this country.
Mr. Speaker, last spring, I was a member of the Canadian delegation that went to Washington to obtain some understanding of the US Farm Bill. We heard from the US Secretary of Agriculture himself that the United States would do everything in its power to regain the markets it had lost, and that they also wanted to teach the Common Market a lesson. Since, as I said earlier, I have a special interest in agricultural matters, I was also sent to Luxemburg for the annual meeting of European and Canadian Parliaments. We discussed the EEC joint agricultural policy, and they said, Mr. Speaker, that the Americans were subsidizing even more than they were, and that they could not do otherwise because of the problems of their own farmers. So it is a vicious circle between the United States and the European Common Market, and somehow we have to negotiate with these two superpowers. Hon. Members are all aware that we cannot afford to spend 70 per cent of our budget as the EEC does, on helping our farmers cope with the disastrous effects of this trade war. However, we are determined to fight with the resources we have, and we are confident, because our cause is just.
The issue of farm subsidies is high on the Prime Minister's priority list at the Economic Summit in Tokyo. As a result, agriculture has become one of the most important issues for the major trading countries. I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is taking every opportunity to explain Canada's position on the subject to his counterparts in other countries.
The Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) (Mr. Mayer) also co-operates very actively with countries opposed to subsidies, with a view to finding solutions to the agricultural trade problems. Recently, with the support of a number of countries, we made strong representations to have agriculture listed on the GATT negotiation agenda, and we were successful. However commendable these efforts, their results will not be felt overnight. Such is the context in which the Prime Minister's challenge becomes really meaningful. As he stated, preliminary estimates indicate that about $1 billion will be required to provide assistance to Canadian farm producers. Tossing such figures around will not make the problem disappear, far from it.
October 27, 1986

Canadian agriculture covers several products, several agricultural regions, and several different conditions. In fact, it has to be one of the most diversified sectors we can think of, so much so that we will have to come up with an innovative approach if we want our programs to be effective.
As we have said on many occasions, Mr. Speaker, our farm producers are up against a country-wide problem which calls for a fair solution on a national scale. The Minister of Agriculture is now holding a series of consultations with the leaders of Canada's major farm organizations and with his provincial counterparts. In weeks to come I will be meeting with farmers in my riding of Argenteuil-Papineau to discuss the future of family farming operations. Providing fair and effective assistance is not something which can be accomplished overnight, and the Minister of Agriculture stands ready to devote a little more time to meet and consult with major interest groups before taking action. He simply wants to offer the best program available and we share his enthusiasm in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, our commitment is unmistakable: we will intervene to help the farming community, and we will do so as soon as possible. We have no intention of slashing into existing programs to come up with this additional help. We will find the money without adding to the tax burden, and this help will be in addition to the funds already set aside for Canadian agriculture. This process will result in a national program that is fair and will give farmers the help they so badly need. It is the kind of measures to which the Government was referring in the Speech from the Throne when it undertook to spare no efforts to help Canadian farmers. And our farmers know we are supporting them. We have always done so in the past and we will continue to do so now.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on her very fine speech. I think it points out again that the Government is the friend of agriculture and knows agriculture inside out. There are many people in our caucus who are active in agriculture and represent the Government well.
I want to point out to the House that when I requested from the Liberal House Leader their policy on trade, what was presented to me by the-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


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


Mr. Oberle:: He can make a comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now commenting on a speech made prior to the speech of the Hon. Member who just spoke. I hope he will comment on that speech only.
Supply


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this period of time is for questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary please take his seat? I think he is well aware that when he rises for questions and comments, the questions and comments are to be on the speech of the Hon. Member who has just finished speaking, not on any previous speech. I hope Hon. Members will take that as notice.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that a brochure outlining Liberal policy on trade would be a "transcript of a televised address by the Right Hon. John N. Turner on the free trade initiative of the Mulroney Government", dated Ottawa, June 16, 1986, in which he criticizes the Government but in which there is not one word of policy which is supposed to be the Liberal policy on free trade? Does the Hon. Member think that the Canadian people are that gullible?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, of course 1 can hardly be expected to know the Liberals' policy on external trade since they don't have one.
The Hon. Member's question is quite apt, because today we are considering an Opposition motion that says the Government has done nothing to deal with the problem. I will restrict my comments to paragraph 3 and the U.S. Farm Bill, Mr. Speaker, since it was the subject of my speech.
The Government has taken this matter very seriously, and I can tell you that our Canadian grain growers, for instance, have been affected by the drop in world prices caused by the EEC's policy, while EEC producers have been shielded from these effects by their subsidies.
Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot tell the European Parliament what to do. Canada cannot intervene, because agriculture is not part of the GATT.
So, I would like to know- I think it has been pretty obvious ever since we came to Parliament, Mr. Speaker, that on the other side of the House, they may be criticizing the Government but, on the other hand, it is easy to criticize the other party when one has nothing to say. What kind of policy do they have on trade? We have no idea.
The Hon. Member who is the free-trade spokesman for the Liberal Party has a position that is entirely different from that of his leader, and every Member of the Official Opposition who rises in the House has a different opinion. Clearly, I cannot be expected to know their thoughts on the matter because they don't have any.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in her remarks, the Hon. Member indicated that the Conservative Government recognized the damage being done by the U.S. Farm Bill to Canadian grain producers. This damage was estimated by the prairie pools at $2 billion for wheat and barley, an additional

October 27, 1986
Supply
$1 billion for western oilseeds and rye, and an additional $1 billion for eastern corn and small grains and soya bean producers. That totals approximately $4 billion in damage this coming year, to which the Government has responded with a $1 billion package. Let us consider the damage to the dairy industry, which is very important to her riding, if full free trade in agricultural products results from these talks. Professor Warley, a well-known and rather conservative-type of economist, has estimated that fluid milk producers can expect a 20 per cent to 40 per cent reduction in price if Canadian prices have to be harmonized with U.S. levels. There would be a $1.5 billion loss in quota values. Industrial milk producers would have to deal with a 20 per cent loss in price and a loss of quota value of $3.5 billion.
In light of that, can she explain why she supports initiating this kind of discussion with the Americans when the effect is going to be so devastating on one other aspect of agriculture in this country?
[Translationj


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, right now we don't know, because talks are in progress. Farmers in my riding bring up the subject every time we meet. They are concerned about the possible impact of free trade, because they say the Americans are going to invade the industry. I am not so sure about that, Mr. Speaker. What about the status quo? Canada is an exporting country. We need markets. Today, throughout the world and not just here, there is an incredible surplus in agricultural products. Our Prime Minister has to find us a place where we can sell those products we know how to make so well in Canada.
I am not so sure that talks with the United States would be a disaster. But these talks have to start first, and I think it is too early to speculate on the outcome. As a Government Member, I will be the first to stand up for the interests of my farmers, when the time comes to say yes or no to lowering trade barriers with the United States in the agricultural sector.
The Minister says so and the Prime Minister too. Right now, we are engaged in consultations. We are trying to see what the impact will be of this new openness, and eventually, we will.
Mr. Speaker, the Lion. Member said that we have given- he said very specifically that our Government has made a commitment to Western farmers. We have brought in the money. Now, with the treasury we were left by the Liberals, we can hardly be expected to work miracles, but we did our best, and Western farmers and Eastern farmers as well received the benefits.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my comments this afternoon will be very short. I am by and large in support of the very thoughtful motion put forward by my hon. friend from Essex-Windsor. I am pleased to say I
had the opportunity to second this motion and I think its importance requires it to be read to Members of the House once again, so I will simply say:
That this House condemns the government for confusion, lack of direction, and secrecy in its trade policy, and specifically, condemns:
1.	the misguided efforts of the Minister of International Trade to present a unilateral proposal to the United States which undercut the Canadian position before the Commerce Department's lumber countervail decision;
2.	the weak and contradictory response of the same Minister to that lumber decision, by which she has neglected firm Canadian action and possibilities and used mere rhetoric and legal appeals within the very U.S. system of countervail she criticizes;
3.	the failure of the Canadian Government to eliminate the damaging trade effects of the U.S. Farm Bill which hurts so many Canadian farmers;
4.	the weakness of the Canadian Government in its response to the customs surtax and the differential U.S. tax on imported as opposed to domestic oil;
5.	the way in which this government's free trade talks with the U.S. have made Canada a target of U.S. countervail and congressional action rather than helping this country escape such actions;
6.	the lower priority given by this government to GATT negotiations rather than to comprehensive bilateral talks with the U.S.; and
7.	the failure of this government realistically to assess the massive constitutional roadblocks in the way of a truly fair bilateral agreement between Canada and the U.S.
I am sure that the people of Canada who are watching the debate today are feeling increasingly more perplexed and confused as they listen to members of the Government refer to these talks. As I have been sitting here, the talks which are ongoing with the United States have been called free trade talks, enhanced trade talks, enhanced bilateral trading agreements, the freer trade option, the comprehensive trade agreement and expanded trade with the United States. What is this free trade discussion?


Some Hon. Members:: All of the above.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I believe that my friends opposite choose the definition to meet their particular bias. People listening to this debate must be shaking their heads. The Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) said that we are really trying to negotiate "good trade". Well, who is not trying to negotiate "good trade"? We have confidence in the ability of Canadian manufacturers, industrialists, businesssmen and entrepreneurs to compete internationally. This has been proven time and again in telecommunications, transportation and high fashion, to name only a few. I could go on and on. Canadians have demonstrated that they have the ability to compete internationally. They had the ability to carve out 30 per cent of the American softwood lumber market through aggressive marketing, doing a good job at home, modernizing their sawmills and having hard-working employees and sophisticated marketing strategies. We have done very well.


John Horton McDermid: And have the tables turned on them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Mr. McDermid) says, and
October 27, 1986

now have had the tables turned on them. That is indeed the case.
What is it we are negotiating? We call it all kinds of things, but what exactly is Mr. Reisman negotiating?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A better deal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This individual has publicly advocated the negotiated transfer of Canadian water to the United States. That is his personal view. He is on record as favouring such an agreement with the United States. We do not know if that is what is being discussed behind closed doors. We do not know what he is negotiating with regard to our marketing boards. We do not know what our negotiator is saying with regard to UIC for our fishermen. This whole process is taking place in secret.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Of course it is.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend from Mississauga confirms that it is being done in secret. It is not being done in secret in the United States. The American Senate recently held public meetings to examine the impact that these talks are having on particular sectors.


John Horton McDermid: Did you watch them?


Nelson Andrew Riis: In my constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap I have been asked the following questions: What is the impact of these talks on the cow-calf operators in Kamloops-Shuswap? What is the impact of these talks on vegetable growers? What is the impact of these talks on the feather trades? What is the impact of these talks on the fledgling brewery and winery industries in British Columbia? We know what the impact of these talks has been on the softwood lumber and shake and shingle industries.
The most critical group at this point is the Thompson Nicola Manufacturers' Association, which is comprised of 150 independent manufacturers which are attempting to learn what impact this will have on their manufactured products. As a Member of Parliament, I cannot respond precisely to those inquiries. There is no place they can go for answers because we do not know what is being discussed. I do not understand how Members opposite can endorse this 100 per cent when they do not know what is being discussed, what is being negotiated away.
I guess it is the Peter Pan approach. If you really believe you can fly, you can fly. If you really believe that Mr. Reisman will do a good job, he will do a good job. After our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had his little singsong and meeting with President Reagan in Quebec City, he said that he had all the faith in the world that we would liberalize our trade with the United States to everyone's benefit. Within a matter of days the shake and shingle tariff hit us right between the eyes and closed down a number of mills in British Columbia.


John Horton McDermid: Are they working now?
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Parliamentary Secretary asks whether they are working now. Most of the mills that closed in my constituency are still closed. The people were all laid off.


Mr. Stewart:: Are their sales down?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course their sales are down. The Member asked if their sales are down. They are not operating, they laid off all their employees, they closed down the shop and boarded up the doorways. Of course their sales are down.


John Horton McDermid: Careful. When was the last time you were home, Nelson?


Robert Hylton Brisco: They couldn't have been very efficient.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Member from the Kootenays said they couldn't have been very efficient. I will talk to some of the sawmill operators adjacent to his constituency and remind them that they were not very efficient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I hope Hon. Members will have questions and comments after the Hon. Member's speech. It is a great speech and I would like to listen to it.


John Horton McDermid: That's debatable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) said that the shake and shingle operators who are not presently working were not efficient. I hope he will pursue that in the period for questions and comments later.
We are very concerned about what is happening. We have been asked to buy a pig in a poke. The Government is asking us to have faith in its ability to negotiate a good deal. That reminds me of Neville Chamberlain when he came back from Munich with a piece of paper in hand. He said he had a letter from Hitler saying, "peace in our time". Adolf Hitler said he would not invade the Sudetenland. Neville Chamberlain said that we could all relax because we had that piece of paper from Adolf Hitler.
There are some similarities between that situation and this in the sense that Mr. Neville Chamberlain was duped. 1 suspect that our Government was duped by the President of the United States when he said that their interest is really to facilitate our trade and help us whenever possible. The facts are exactly the opposite. Since this Government took over the administration of Canada, $5000 million worth of trade has had some kind of border penalty imposed on it. That has never happened before in Canadian history.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend says "wrong". Perhaps he could explain when we were so devastated by a foreign government at our borders. Is that the kind of deal that we can expect? Is that the kind of trading arrangement with the United States that our Prime Minister has been promising us? We all remember that when the United States subcommittee was deciding whether or

October 27, 1986
Supply
not to proceed with the so-called free trade talks, the President wrote to Senator Packwood, the chairman of that committee, asking him to give the free trade talks his endorsement and saying that if there were any problems in areas such as softwood lumber, he would intervene unilaterally if necessary.
That is exactly what has happened. We have a 15 per cent tariff on our softwood industry. How did the Government respond? I suppose it reflected back to when the American Government first slapped a tariff on our shake and shingle industry and we came back with that heavy hand to show how serious we were. We said "It is time we slapped a duty on teabags, on Christmas trees and we will charge more for books coming into Canada".
In our own constituencies, I am sure we have all noticed the petitions circulating in virtually every bookstore, begging the Government to reconsider that particular decision. After all, who is being penalized? It is the readers of Canada. Canadian citizens who enjoy reading American publications are the ones who are going to have to pay more for these books in our bookstores. That really got to the Americans. It demonstrated clearly just how tough and serious we are.
Then there was the 15 per cent tariff on our softwood lumber. What concerned and confused a lot of people in Canada was when the Government decided, prior to an actual decision by the United States, to say publicly to the American forest industry that it was guilty. We said "We are guilty, we do subsidize our softwood lumber". The Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, at that time started the discussion when he stood publicly with his Minister of Forests and agreed. He said: "Yes, we believe we subsidize our softwood lumber industry and, therefore, we should get the federal Government to make a case for us". The Government did. It said: "Before you come in with a verdict, we are pleading guilty". The Government said: "We have in fact given up on the case which is before the ITC or the Department of Commerce. We are a guilty party". It confused people that within days of the jury coming back with its decision, we pleaded guilty. We should have waited until after the decision came down, but we did not. We played right into the hands of the Americans on this particular issue.
Five thousand million dollars of trade has had some kind of tax levied at our borders. We have seen the mismanagement of the Government, particularly during the last few days with the report of the Estey Commission, which indicated a cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $1 billion. This is the Government which was supposed to do business better. This was the Government which was going to clean up the act the Liberals left us with. This was the Government which was supposed to be fiscally responsible. This is the Government where the Prime Minister intervenes and has a prison built in his own constituency, placing an additional $40 million burden on the taxpayers. Is this fiscal responsibility? Is this what Canadians can expect from the Government?
We lost on shakes and shingles. We are losing on softwood lumber. We lost on the fishing industry. We lost on finished steel. Is this what our free trade arrangement with the United States is all about? As my hon. colleague indicated earlier, we would like to see a different approach. We do not see at this time much point in continuing with these comprehensive free trade talks. I am not certain we are even talking about free trade any more. Members of the Government have not used that term today.
We should be dealing with the lumber dispute, considering the impact it has on virtually every region of Canada and the tens of thousands of jobs which are at risk. As early as this morning, in conversation with one of the largest sawmill operators in central British Columbia, I asked what they felt the impact of this 15 per cent duty would mean for them. He said it was difficult at this point to determine, but it would certainly mean that layoffs in the industry would occur much sooner than normal in the traditional cycle and that recalls would occur much later. He said that a lot of people might be unemployed for a longer period during the seasonal downturn in central British Columbia than what would normally be the case. That was the best case scenario. Then, of course, he recognized that there were many sawmills where the margin of success which allows them to remain in business is certainly less than 15 per cent, and anticipated some mill closures. We say let us deal with these problem areas whether it is lumber, the fisheries or the shake and shingle issue. Whatever it is, let us sit down with the American counterparts and arrange a solution in those critical areas.
As I indicated earlier, we have a great deal of confidence in the ability of Canadians; industrialists, businessmen and entrepreneurs, to compete internationally. Let us look, then, at the GATT round of discussions. There is an opportunity to not only improve our relationship in terms of trade with the United States, but with all countries, to develop aggressively on all fronts. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) spoke earlier of this two track system. However, it appears these two tracks are widening as we go further and further along. Let us concentrate on a general agreement on tariffs and the trade talks as they begin now in terms of long-term security of our economic sector here in Canada.
In closing, I would suggest that the kind of agreement we must look at is something like the Auto Pact, not a free trade agreement. The Auo Pact is anything but that. There should simply be an agreement between the two countries on how to maximize the opportunities both in the United States and in Canada. That is the kind of model we feel we ought to be looking at in a whole variety of sectors as we negotiate ways and means of improving not only our trade relations with the United States, but with all countries with which we presently trade.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I always listen to the Hon. Member very attentively and I always find his speeches most interesting and informative. However, I was not only surprised
October 27, 1986

but extremely disturbed at his comments this time, particularly when he talked about the fact that he did not know what was going on in the negotiations and that he was concerned they were being conducted in private. I wonder if the Hon. Member has ever negotiated anything himself in his career, either as a Parliamentarian or otherwise? I would be interested to know that. I certainly have and I can never remember a case where I have carried on those negotiations in public.
In addition, I know the Hon. Member's Party has a close association with the Canadian Labour Congress. I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us if he knows of any member of the Canadian Labour Congress who advocates carrying on its negotiations in public? I would be interested in knowing that. I hope the Hon. Member will tell us. Perhaps he could identify those members of the trade union movement who advocate carrying on negotiations with employers in a public forum.
The Hon. Member knows that when trade unions negotiate, they do it confidentially. They do it in private. When they arrive at the result, they announce it to their membership. It becomes public knowledge after the membership has had a chance to vote on it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have indicated that that is exactly the process which will happen here as well. I would like to know from the Hon. Member if he has ever negotiated anything in his life. Second, can he tell us what trade unions which support the New Democratic Party advocate carrying on their negotiations with employers in public?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I assume the question was put in a way that does not deserve a direct response because the answer is very obvious. One of the major differences with negotiating a contract, working conditions or wages is that the negotiators have the full confidence of those they represent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: In other words, the negotiators of the contract are chosen because of their proven ability in the field. They are chosen because of their expertise and because they have the confidence of the people they represent, both on the management side as well as on the labour side. The point I was making earlier is that such is not the case in Canada today. Canadians do not have confidence in the Government of Canada to negotiate a good deal for them. Hon. Members need only ask the cattlemen in my constituency if they believe the Government of the day is representing their best interests. I can tell Hon. Members what their response will be. It will be no.
As I indicated in my speech, I was on the telephone as late as today speaking with a number of large forest operators. I asked them if they know what is going on in terms of these free trade talks. I asked them whether or not they have confidence in the Government, and they told me that they do not have any confidence in the Government. I did not bother contacting the
Supply
number of small operators who have been betrayed by the Government. The small operators, and I am talking about small sawmill operators, perhaps those with 40 or 50 employees, were never informed or included. In fact, they were not even considered as part of the council, either nationally or in British Columbia. I say that they were not involved; they were not consulted. They were not involved in the process in any meaningful way.
In closing, the least the Government could have ensured was that all forest operators in the softwood industry, particularly in those areas which will be impacted by this decision, were made aware of the procedures so that they could be exempted. I refer particularly to those small companies that pay exorbitant stumpage rates under the small business program in the province of British Columbia. In a sense, they have been betrayed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I think the House Leader of the New Democratic Party ought to be advised that we have had three motions of confidence in this session. With respect to each motion the Government received the confidence of the House, which is the confidence of the people in our system. When the Hon. Member is talking to cattle operators, brewery people, chicken producers and timber operators in his riding, I hope that he will let them have some confidence in Canada. I hope he will give them the confidence that they will have access to a market 10 times larger than they presently have, which will make them more prosperous.
That is what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said, as well as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That is what the Canadian Manufacturers Association has said. That is what every economic group in Canada has been saying, from the Economic Council of Canada down to the Macdonald Commission Report which, as he knows, was a Liberal report. Why would the Hon. Member not have confidence in Canada? Why would the New Demcratic Party not have confidence in Canada? Why would the Hon. Member not talk to his people and give them some confidence? Perhaps if he gave them some confidence he would not have the unemployment that he has in his constituency.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, granted, there have been three votes of confidence in this session. However, the people of Canada will have an opportunity in 1988 to indicate whether or not they have confidence in this Government. As the polls indicate today, the people of Canada do not have confidence in the Hon. Member or in his Government. However, I will leave that point for another time.
The Hon. Member asked whether or not the suppliers and manufacturers-Canadian firms-want access to the United States market. We have access to the United States market in softwood. We have access to the United States market in shakes and shingles. The Americans have stopped access to these markets. What has the Government of the Hon. Member done about it? How has the Government reacted? We have access which is why these groups say: "What does free trade

October 27, 1986
Supply
mean? We have free trade in softwood." Have the Americans taken off the countervail? As part of the negotations have they said that that countervail will be taken off? No.


John Horton McDermid: You said it was a secret. How do you know that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Because I have heard nothing to the contrary. The only thing I can assume from what I have heard and read- and I have certainly not had an opportunity to have a discussion with the negotiator-is that the countervail will remain in place. We have free trade in softwood and it is not doing us any good. We have free trade in shakes and shingles, and it is not doing us any good in terms of the countervail threat which is always hanging over our heads.
In closing, I will simply say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), that we have access in these areas. But if he is saying to the wine producers and the small brewers in British Columbia that they have nothing to fear in terms of free trade, then 1 say that he is absolutely and totally misinformed and wrong.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I got a great kick out of the Hon. Member's speech. It was full of inconsistencies. The Hon. Member has great faith in the business community and in the ingenuity of Canadians, particularly Canadian entrepreneurs and so on and so forth in terms of their carrying on. That is right, and so do we. The business community also supports the initiatives of the Government in the trade negotiations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Even the breweries?


John Horton McDermid: Certainly. We have sectoral advisory committees, and the agricultural industry is well represented on it. In fact, all industries in the country are well represented on these advisory committees. They have input into negotiations, which is why these committees are in place. I am surprised that the cow-calf operators and the milk operators do not have that type of confidence since it is their people, the people for whom they vote in these various associations, who are sitting on these sectoral advisory committees. They are giving advice to the Government in this negotiation process and playing a very important role. I think that the Hon. Member is misleading his constituents when he stands up and says that they do not have confidence in the Government. When they ask him why they should have confidence in the Government, he should say because their representatives are sitting on the sectoral advisory committees which have been set up by the Government to protect their interests. That is the answer for his constituents. That is what the Hon. Member should tell his constituents when he returns to British Columbia. I know that they will feel a lot better then.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will give a very short response, which will allow time for more questions. My recollection is that the various provincial federations of agriculture have indicated without exception some deep concerns about these
negotiations. All the negotiations have taken place in secret. What is it that our negotiator is negotiating away? Is he negotiating away the dairy products marketing board? Is he negotiating away the various marketing boards which deal with poultry? These are the concerns that we as members of the New Democratic Party have. These are the concerns that have been brought to our attention by the various federations of agriculture. We are suspect whenever something as important as this takes place in secret, in camera, in private. If we have nothing to fear and if in fact the net gain to Canada will be obvious, then why the secrecy? What is it that the Government is attempting to keep from the people of Canada?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this morning and this afternoon. Having heard the interventions of two Ministers and the desperate efforts of the Parliamentary Secretary, I sense that the Government is in deep trouble, by the way it has approached the debate today in a desperate attempt to confuse the issue and by asking for policy direction from the Opposition as if it had not a mandate to set its own policy. I find the debate an indictment of a Government that is in deep trouble. The debate points to the confusion, the lack of direction and secrecy in its trade policy on the part of the Government. It is a revealing and welcome debate.
When one looks at the negotiation process alone, one cannot help but think that the Government really made a decision without thinking it through and without realizing what it was getting into. Why on earth would the Government come into the House in the fall and winter of 1984 and introduce Bills which would virtually dismantle FIRA? Why would it announce in November of 1984 the elimination of the National Energy Program? Why would the Government do that if it had in mind a few months later to enter into trade negotiations with the United States? The answer to that question escapes me. Perhaps one of the Ministers or the very eager-beaver Parliamentary Secretary will want to answer that question later on.
Why would the Government give away two major, important trading chips before the negotiations were even announced, let alone even begun? With the elimination of the National Energy Program, the Government eliminated something the United States did not like at all but something which we felt and still feel is in our national interest. The powers of FIRA were reduced, and that was something that the U.S. Government did not like at all. However, we thought that was in the national interest. Then, having done those two things, the Government embarked upon the trade negotiations.
In recent weeks, the making of another policy decision has raised questions as to whether or not the Government has its act together. I am referring here to cuts made to scientific research and development. How can we approach a more competitive North American market situation while reducing our knowledge in technology and scientific progress by way of
October 27, 1986

reducing the funds made available to that very important function? It does not make sense. It does not come together. It is a policy that does not seem to take into account the fact that if trade negotiations were ever to be completed, we would need even more to be scientifically and technologically equipped to compete in a more competitive market. How was that decision made? Not one government spokesperson has offered an explanation of that today.
In addition to the National Energy Program, FIRA and what has been done to scientific research and development, there is also the issue of the timing of these negotiations. Even the best friends of Tory Members would have to admit that it could not have been worse. The Government did not take into account or did not seem to realize how powerful Congress could be, how it could manoeuvre its own agenda to our disadvantage and how unwise it was to launch these negotiations just before a mid-term U.S. Congressional election.
That is not all. To launch trade negotiations at a time when we are enjoying a large trade surplus is certainly not the most advantageous moment to do so. We are not negotiating from a position of trying to arrive at a balance in trade. We are not trying to convince our trading partner that the time has come to give us a break. We are trying to negotiate with a partner who can ask at any time what Canadians are complaining about since they have a surplus and are selling to the Americans some $20 billion more than they are selling to us. The timing of these negotiations leaves one wondering about the thinking that went into the decision before it was made.
No matter how frequently questions are asked by Hon. Members opposite in the course of this debate, the conclusion is that this decision was not thought out. The entire measure was launched without preparing a strategy, without ensuring that we had certain chips with which to bargain and without ensuring that we had certain policies in place at home, policies that would make the transition manageable. It was done without ensuring that the American political process would not stand in the way of these negotiations. As we all know, Congress has now played a much greater role than it has at any other given time. Not only that but the U.S. Government now knows that it has a trade deficit with Canada, and that has never been so clear in the past as it is now.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of at-home domestic planning which is absent, the kind of planning the Government ought to have done in relation to these negotiations. The main debate here at home is about jobs. The preoccupation with jobs, be it in Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic region or the West, is a real one. The Government cannot tell people that it is good for the economy to have freer trade in North America if it cannot give those people jobs and the assurance that there will be a managed transition and a way of protecting both existing and new jobs. Statistics and studies have indicated that there will be losses in manufacturing, services and other sectors. People will face the kind of job losses that result whenever a market becomes more competitive and particularly when the quantities produced by the
Supply
American economy are such that it has all the advantages in retail pricing because of the volume of scale.
Why is domestic planning so evidently absent? Perhaps it has been kept a tight secret from the public and the Opposition. We do not know, for instance, of any adjustment program designed to protect some 520,000 workers who will lose their jobs as indicated by the Economic Council of Canada last week. What kind of protection will men and women who lose their jobs be offered as a result of the trade negotiations? We do not know.
That is not all. What kind of industrial restructuring will be put into place in order to strengthen our industrial capacities and lay the foundation for new industrial capacities? Where is the plan for facilitating the phasing out of certain industrial sectors in case we lose them? We do not know what will happen with the restructuring of industries in Ontario, Quebec and other parts of the country where industries exist. There is a big blank silence on that subject.
What will be our policy in research and development for facilitating our ability to compete once a free trade agreement of this kind is achieved? That we do not know. We all know, however, that cuts are being effected and that our research capacity is being diminished. We do not know what it will be compensated, offset or replaced by. In that kind of vacuum, with that lack of knowledge, it is no wonder the Opposition is opposing this measure. The Opposition has been kept in the dark. We do not know the answers to these three major questions.
I notice that the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is smiling about this. I remind him that this is very important stuff. We are talking about the jobs of several hundred thousand Canadians whose future is at stake. That is what the news release by the Economic Council of Canada published on October 20-


Alan Redway: Three hundred and seventy thousand new jobs. That is what it says.


Charles L. Caccia: -about 520,000 jobs would be lost by 1995. That is not a minor figure. Even if it were only one, we would have to be concerned about how we provide for the transition of the person affected by this change.


An Hon. Member:: Five million people change jobs each year.


Charles L. Caccia: What we are talking about here is the potential management of a change that could be quite drastic. 1 submit that a change would not only be limited to trade. Once you touch trade, you also touch a number of other activities in our economy, as other speakers have indicated in a number of exchanges in Question Period. For instance, you touch social security, competition laws, standards, and any other activity that is somehow touched upon by the economy. Therefore,

October 27, 1986
Supply
when we talk about so-called freer trade, we really are talking about a number of facets that affect our culture, our national identity, our activity in general well beyond just the question of trade. Maybe not in 10 years or 20 years, but maybe in 50 years I fear that what we are really talking about with the words "freer trade" will be something that could be determined as economic union.
I am very worried about this possibility. We cannot limit an integration on this continent in terms of trade. We cannot just reduce it to trade alone, for the reason that I mentioned a moment ago. Many other walks of life and many other activities would be affected. You cannot draw the line on trade alone, as has been the experience in Europe in the last two or three decades as a result of the economic unity that has taken place there.
There are measures that affect jobs and the livelihood of Canadians that flow from this initiative of free trade talks. There are aspects related to the environment that I would like to raise briefly in the limited time available. There is one aspect that flows from the national treatment policy that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) elaborated upon in a statement a few weeks ago.
National treatment is a technical term indicating that one country will give the other the same domestic treatment that it gives at home for the policies that it implements in relation to trade. To put it in a very descriptive way, the Prime Minister said: "Goods from Manitoba will be treated exactly the same as goods from Minnesota". That puts it very clearly. One may ask, for instance, how the very important initiative of shipping western coal to eastern Canada will be affected through the adoption of a national treatment policy. This was raised as a significant initiative and measure that would have some significant positive effect on the environment. Evidently the answer is that it could not be put into place in Canada. We could not go ahead as we would under the present conditions by shipping western Canadian coal to eastern Canada, unless we also extended the same treatment to the high-sulphur Virginia coal, which is environmentally undesirable, as a result of this specific national treatment referred to as one of our main pillars in the negotiations.
Therefore, there is reason to conclude that environmental protection could be seriously endangered if we were to conclude a free trade agreement that included a national treatment as one of its mainstays. By virtue of this example, this would have the effect of not permitting us to proceed with the utilization of western Canadian coal, which would permit us to create jobs in large numbers-up to, I am told, some
200,000	jobs-because of the rules that would have to be respected under the national treatment.
That is not all. In the management of the environment, a study was conducted on environment and free trade by the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. It was published in June of this year. So far the Government has been completely silent about it. In that study, three basic thoughts are put forward as pre-conditions that would have to be put on
the table by Canada in relation to the environment in the evolution of our negotiating position. The first one is:
Canada's ability to manage a renewable and non-renewable resource use- must not be compromised and should if possible be enhanced through negotiation.
The second point made by the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council is:
Canada's ability to control pollution and waste disposal through similar strategies must not be compromised, and should if possible be enhanced through negotiation.
Finally, the principle that:
Canada's ability to protect natural ecosystems, including components such as habitats, wilderness, and endangered species, must not be compromised and should, if possible, be enhanced through negotiation.
Now, what in essence is the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council saying here? It is saying that once you enter a North American continental policy position or situation of free trade, you could have situations whereby certain companies, particularly the multinationals, demand the removal of certain environmental control standards in order to be more competitive with companies south of the border.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are indicating to me that my time is up. I will perhaps leave the elaboration of this point to another occasion.


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


Robert Hylton Brisco: I have listened with interest to the remarks and statements by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I would like to ask him to respond to two or three points. He was criticizing us earlier in his speech because we had sought the views and the policy considerations of the opposition Parties. I understand that the role of the Opposition is to oppose. However, I think it is also understood, and one only need read the contribution to debate by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), when he sat in Opposition, to clearly understand that it is not unusual for the Opposition to offer additional suggestions or counterproposals which are of merit. In seeking those out, it is the role of the Government to inquire of the Opposition about its positive contribution, rather than the Opposition devoting its entire time to criticism.
The Member for Davenport also made reference to the dismantling of FIRA and accused us of destroying something of value. It was FIRA that destroyed something of value, the entire petroleum industry and the way of life in Alberta. If the Hon. Member has any doubts, I ask him to read the admission by the Minister at the time responsible for that fiasco.


Lloyd Axworthy: It's really prosperous now, you guys. It's really doing a lot!


Robert Hylton Brisco: You will have your turn, Mr. Axworthy.
October 27, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, please.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) will also have his turn. One only needs to read the admission of Marc Lalonde to understand the process and exactly where that Government was headed. It wanted to crush and cripple the economic strength of Alberta. There is no other answer to that question. It is a matter of record from the mouth of the man who performed the act.
Finally, referring to the concern of the Hon. Member with regard to cuts in research, to make it simple for him, I suggest that he turn to page 4 of today's Quorum wherein it indicates "Government pledge of $1 billion for research not smoke and mirrors". I invite him to read that and then recant.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the first point raised by the Hon. Member is probably the major one. I draw his attention to the fact that we are not only criticizing and opposing. Our Leader came to the House, in June to deliver a speech on trade, which is something his Leader has not done, that contained some positive elements in the context of the free trade debate. I do not know about what the Hon. Member is talking. He was probably not here the day the Leader of our Party was in the House and delivered that speech. Today three of the six opposition speeches were from our side of the House. We even delivered to the eager-beaver Parliamentary Secretary a copy of the speech by our Leader to indicate to him the direction we would be taking in terms of policy matters. Concerning-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Charles L. Caccia: I was asked three questions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member opposite elaborate upon the purchase of high-sulphur coal by Ontario Hydro from the United States with the outflow of Canadian dollars? How could that be reversed, in terms of acid rain and the outflow of dollars by the purchase of low-sulphur western coal? While he was the Minister of the Environment it was probably one of the dossiers on which he worked. Would he advise the House what he did when he was Minister of the Environment to convince Ontario Hydro to use low-sulphur western coal rather than high-sulphur U.S. coal?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that the report on high-sulphur coal was published just a few weeks ago. The matter was studied as part of an initiative going back to Liberal times. However, the results were published and given to us in a report just a few weeks ago. Therefore it is a measure which is being advanced or put on the agenda, so to speak, in 1986. It is a very interesting measure, and I am glad the Hon. Member is interested in it.
Supply
If we proceed under a free trade negotiation scheme which includes the national treatment clause, we will not be in a position to make use of our own coal from the West to create jobs in the West and to reduce pollution in the East. I hope the Hon. Member understands what the national treatment clause entails and implies. It is a very restrictive clause which will not make it possible for us to use our western coal.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I know you are a biblical scholar and that you are quite aware of the point in the Bible where Jesus said that those who are not against us are for us.
I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member this afternoon. I listened as well to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Time and time again I listened to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) over the last two years. I am still unable to figure out whether they are against us or for us.
Could the Hon. Member give us his own personal view on whether he believes that the Government of Canada should have commenced trade negotiations with the United States? Second, I should like his own personal view on whether he believes those trade negotiations should now be suspended. Third, I should like to know what is the official policy of his Party on whether trade negotiations should have ever been commenced with the United States. Fourth, I should like to know the official policy of his Party on whether or not those negotiations should now be suspended.
I have listened to his Leader and to the trade critic of the Liberal Party and I am still confused on whether or not they are for us or against us.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for York East is still unclear on where we stand, I can only attribute it to his lack of perception and capability to listen carefully. He has heard several speeches; he has heard us on a variety of occasions. He knows exactly what we are saying. We are saying that we want the pursuit of the reduction of trade barriers to be global. We do not believe in continentalism. We do not believe that it would be in Canada's best interest to engage in a negotiation on a one-to-one basis between us, a fairly small economy, and the Americans, a very large and powerful economy. Our best interest would be better protected in the context of the international global community with all 160 nations participating in the process of a GATT tariff reduction, rather than engaging in the construction of another market like the European one which in the end causes many hardships for those who are kept outside.
The Hon. Member also heard me saying that I am very worried about the terminology used in calling these talks free or freer trade negotiations. In the long term they will lead to economic union, which is not our political idea. I do not think it is the political goal of my Party, but it may be that of the Hon. Member's Party. Traditionally, until 50 years or 60 years ago, it was not. However that Party is entitled to change. We will certainly compare and confront each other with our views on the subject in the next election.

October 27, 1986
Supply
I think Canada's interest is not served in a bilateral trade negotiation. It is better served and only served when we proceed globally. If the view is a global one our position is strongest, and we are not handicapped in a relationship with a massive, powerful, and much stronger trade partner south of the border.
That is roughly the Liberal position which we have developed over decades under Mr. Pearson, Mr. Trudeau, and our present Leader.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, today's debate has been tremendous; we have now had about four different positions from the Liberals! It will be interesting when historians read today's edition of Hansard and take a look at the different positions expressed by that Party.
Because the Hon. Member is so interested in the ecology, does he agree with the statement that "Canada may use her excess water to bargain her way into the United States"? Does he agree with that statement which was made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the resources Minister?


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for being so open and not only quoting but also giving a date for the quote. It shows that over time people can change their viewpoints. He has changed his viewpoint on a number of occasions, and why not? He has expanded his knowledge and his experience. I am sure that he has changed his view on certain issues.
I am sure that also applies to the leader of our Party because that statement was made over 20 years ago. There is certainly no intention on our part to engage in water negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On that basis, I think questions and comments are terminated.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, let me say at
the outset that as a Government Member it was rather amusing to hear the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who was a Minister of the Environment, talk about environmental matters. It should be noted for the record that as Minister he did not introduce one Bill, one motion or do a damn thing about the environment. He did nothing but cry, which is what he has done today.
Let me set the record straight. The New Democratic Party is ideologically opposed to any trade agreement with the United States.


Cyril Keeper: Oh, come on.


William James Kempling: That is what its members say. They want no negotiations and no discussions. At the same time, they want guarantees of access to that large American market.
Not only is the NDP ideologically opposed to a trade agreement with the United States, it is anti-American in its
general attitude. If one listened to members of the New Democratic Party, they would have us cancel our trade discussions with the United States, as they said many times today, they would pull Canada out of NORAD and NATO, and align Canada with some iron curtain countries and stand on the border between Canada and the United States and shake their fists.


Cyril Keeper: Point of order.


William James Kempling: At the same time they want guarantees-


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


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely there is some limit to the distortion that a Member can introduce into debate in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is debate. The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has the floor.


William James Kempling: At the same time, the New Democratic Party wants guarantees of all kinds that will allow the United States to buy products under certain conditions. The reality is that the New Democratic Party is the buggy-whip Party of Canada.


Cyril Keeper: What is wrong with buggies?


William James Kempling: One need only read the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) to see the truth in that statement.


Cyril Keeper: What have you got against horses?


William James Kempling: What are you clattering about?


Cyril Keeper: What have you got against horses?


William James Kempling: There are some parts of the horses I can mention, but I will not go into that.
If we left it up to the New Democratic Party, it would be so far out of date that it would still be supporting buggy-whip manufacturers and wooden wheel manufacturers.
Surely the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is not proposing that we negotiate a free trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons? He has talked about secrecy and complained that he does not know what is happening. If that is so, he certainly is not reading the releases from the Department of Trade and has not read the very comprehensive book that has been prepared by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). It is his own fault, not ours, if he does not know what is happening.
We cannot negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement on the floor of the House of Commons. We are proceeding with discussions on a comprehensive trade agreement with the Americans to see if we can reach agreement on a variety of trade irritants that would put Canada-U.S. trade on a different
October 27, 1986

level. There are some 300 protectionist-oriented Bills in the United States Congress, many of them are aimed at Canada and some of them are aimed at Canada exclusively. We cannot put our heads in the sand and retreat. We must find a way to deal with this and then negotiate an agreement. If we find a basis on which to forge an agreement, we will be able to deal with the countervail and anti-dumping procedures currently in place in the United States.
Perhaps we could use the example of the agreement between steel exporters in the United States and European and Asiatic exporters of steel. The American Government has dealt with this and had them come to what is called a voluntary restraint agreement in which the American Government will not proceed with anti-dumping or countervail remedies providing that they stay within the parameters of that agreement.
I believe that whatever trading agreement we can forge would have an element of that VRA so that people trading across the border would not be constantly harassed with threats of countervail and anti-dumping.
We hope there would be a procedure to deal with the trade irritants. A set of rules would be enshrined in a trade treaty so that the trade debate would be removed from Congress and Parliament. At no time have we told the Americans or have the Americans told us in the course of these negotiations that either side would set aside their countervail or anti-dumping.
Surely Hon. Members must realize that trade, tariff and taxes are the prerogative of Congress, not the prerogative of the administration. That is why the President had to go to Congress and the Senate to get approval to proceed with negotiations with Canada. It is not realistic to tell us at this stage of negotiations to ask them to set aside their countervail and anti-dumping because it will not happen. That is why the President stated in his letter to Senator Packwood that he would not set those aside. If we can forge an agreement we will have a method by which we can look after trade irritants as they come before the two countries.


Cyril Keeper: They will keep putting the boots to you, even if you have an agreement. That is the point.


William James Kempling: The difficulty we are dealing with here is that those Members are a bunch of caviar socialists, none of whom ever invested. They think an investment is buying a ticket in the 6/49 lottery. They do not know what investment means. Most of them have never worked a day in their life. If they had a callous on their hand, it would be a transplant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely the Member should be required to tell the truth.


John B. Stewart: He did.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. That is debate.
Supply


William James Kempling: It was never a condition of our trade talks that we would suspend countervail or anti-dumping procedures while discussions with the Americans proceeded. Furthermore, it was not their position that they would suspend any of their trade remedies while discussions continued.
It is quite possible that if there is sufficient agreement on issues that could lead to a trade treaty, the negotiators may recommend a suspension of each country's trade remedies as part of a preliminary phase in signing a comprehensive trade agreement.
Any agreement that we reach must be good for both parties. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we will not sign an agreement unless it is a good deal for Canada. I am sure that the President of the United States holds the same view.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I am sure he does. He is going all over the place saying that he wants to sign a good deal for Canada.


William James Kempling: I see the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) who beats his chest about the Auto Pact and drives a Mazda.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: Several members of the Opposition have brought up the subject of our fish trade on the East Coast. In reality there is more trade in fish on the East Coast today than there ever was. The demand has increased. The only result of that tariff has been that it costs the American consumer more money. Lumber interests on the East Coast will tell you the same thing. We are going to fight to have the 15 per cent tariff eliminated or reduced, but what is it going to do? The industry says that we will have more orders for more lumber all the time. Jack Munro on the West Coast says that the 15 per cent tariff will not cause any jobs to be lost or decrease shipments across the border. Yet Member after Member in this House has risen and said that there will be 150,000 people put out of jobs.
We negotiated the Auto Pact a few years ago and I was involved in it from the beginning. At that time we heard the same doom and gloom from the same people. They said that everyone was going to be out of work, that American cars were going to flood across the border and that we would not be able to sell Canadian-made products in Canada. In fact, employment in the automotive industry has risen from 30,000 to
120,000.	Recently the automotive parts industry announced that it will invest $875 million more in its operations in Canada. General Motors has announced a $2.4 billion expansion of its plant in Oshawa. On the international scale, 10 new automobile plants have been built in North America, five in the United States and five in Canada. I think we are doing very well.
This is my favourite subject and I could go on for hours, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with some of the comments made by Members opposite.

October 27, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Americans say that they do not subsidize while we do. Anyone who believes that believes in the tooth fairy. I operate a business and 1 could not tell you how many invitations I had during the energy crisis from southern American states to start a business in the United States. Those invitations offered to pay my air fare and hotel expenses. They offered to lease me a plant or sell me a plant and give me a preferential mortgage rate. They offered to stack a state loan with a county loan and a federal loan to give me the working capital. All I would have had to do was guarantee that I would employ people. If that is not subsidy, I do not know what it is. We do not know what subsidy is in this country. Our negotiators are aware of that and we can handle it.
We are talking about a trade agreement. Members opposite engage in scare tactics. They have told the Canadian people that we are going to negotiate away medicare, social programs and unemployment insurance. That is nonsense. We are not negotiating those things at all. We are negotiating trade matters.


Cyril Keeper: What about generic drugs?


William James Kempling: You do not know what you are talking about, little boy. There are 40 generic drugs waiting to come on the market right now that the Member does not know about.


Cyril Keeper: You are giving it away to the multinationals and the Americans.


William James Kempling: This is great. It is five minutes to six in the House of Commons and everyone is hollering and screaming. I think it is great that there is so much interest in a debate.
Some of the Members here have taken a comment made by the Prime Minister about national treatment and used it as a scare tactic, saying that suddenly we cannot bring coal from western Canada to eastern Canada. That is nonsense. That subject has been around as long as I have been here. In 1973 we were talking about bringing western coal to eastern Canada. That subject was not dealt with by the Liberals in all the years that they were in power. We may have to take a look at it ourselves if it comes to that. I do not know what we will do with it.
I would like to speak about the reality of the labour scene. In 1985 we travelled from coast to coast in this country. A couple of members of the NDP were with us. They asked every person representing an employer who appeared before us how many people they would lay off if we entered the trade agreements with the United States. I attended all these sessions and I heard that they got answers from hardly anyone. Somehow they have magically pulled a figure out of the air which they do not have to prove.
Our export trade represents one-third of our Gross National Product. Approximately 2.5 million people in Canada are involved in our export trade. That is equivalent to having the whole City of Toronto or the combined populations of London, Hamilton and Ottawa involved in our export trade. Anyone
who does not think that is important is not living in the real world. We think it is very important. We believe we have a duty to the people of Canada to explore whether we can reach a comprehensive trade agreement with the Americans and whether we can enshrine in a treaty a set of rules to work by so that we are not continually exposed to countervail, antidumping legislation and silly things like this 15 per cent tariff on lumber which is patently unfair. We will take whatever legal course we can. That is our job and that is the way the Minister is going to proceed.


Mr. Young:: If you handle it like you handled the lumber, we're in trouble.


William James Kempling: Jack Munro does not agree with the Member and I think Jack Munro should know. The lumber people on the East Coast do not agree with the Member either. The best estimates we have is that we will continue to ship lumber to the United States.
With regard to the shake and shingle industry, we occupied 75 per cent of the market in the United States when that tariff was imposed. Before the tariff was imposed, the shake and shingle industry was operating seven days a week with two or three shifts and today it is operating at better than 85 per cent capcity.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The more contraband there is the better it is, is that it?


Cyril Keeper: You are promoting contraband.


William James Kempling: We have Kibbles and Bits yapping over there. They are the caviar socialists.
I guess it is time for me to conclude.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You had better quit while you are ahead.


Cyril Keeper: What about the question period?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: You are almost finished rebutting yourself.


William James Kempling: I am proud of the action that has been taken by the Government. I think we are doing the right thing for Canadians in proceeding with these negotiations with the Americans. I am confident that the result will be a good agreement for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!