1986-10-17

Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and the Welland Canal in particular, have been receiving some negative attention as a result of the grain handlers' strike in Thunder Bay. I would like to dispel some of the rumours. Every ship available, including ships that have been out of service for over a year, have been called into service to meet the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board. One hundred and fifty to 200 ships are needed to move the grain. I have the assurance of Mr. Bruce McLeod, VicePresident of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, Western Region, in my riding of Welland, that customers will be very satisfied with the Seaway's handling of the additional traffic. There are no bottle-necks along the Seaway as a result of the strike. The wheat will be delivered on time.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, according to an article in The Globe and Mail, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police intended to put a ceiling on the number of Canadian men and women, whose official language is French, to be allowed in its regular forces.
According to the article, the RCMP even received the Conservative Government's approval for reducing representation in the RCMP of Canadians whose official language is French from 20.8 per cent to 14.1 per cent.
How can the Government approve this unfair decision which goes entirely against the official languages policy, and does it feel no embarrassment about this policy that will affect nearly 800 Canadian men and women? At a time when this Parliament is preparing to amend the Official Languages Act-a formal commitment was made by the Government in the Speech from Throne-why doesn't the Government show some
real leadership with respect to official languages and give clear and specific directives to the RCMP, to the effect that it is not to change the rules of the game before the Parliament of Canada has decided on the amendments to be made to the Official Languages Act?


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on the fifty-seventh anniversary of Persons' Day I take great pleasure in standing to honour Elizabeth Carr, Hon. Muriel McQueen Fergusson, Denyse Belanger Rochon, Berenice Sisler and Helen Yeo. We thank them for their tireless efforts on behalf of equality for women.
This year I would also like to recognize many other brave women who are struggling to survive, the women who live the inequities that this year's Persons Awards recipients are trying so hard to correct. These are the single parent mothers raising their children on incomes below the poverty line, the women working for 60-cent dollars and no benefits in the female job ghettos, and the older women left in poverty after a lifetime of service in the home and in the paid labour force.
On behalf of these women, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take concrete action to close the male-female gap, to enact mandatory enforcement of affirmative action, and to ensure prorated benefits for part-time workers.


ENVIRONMENT CANADA
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the 1984 estimates of Environment Canada, the budget was $886 million. In 1986 the budget of Environment Canada is $745 million, a reduction of $141 million or about 16 per cent with respect to 1984. In addition, because of the loss in purchasing power caused by inflation, in the order of 4.2 per cent per year, the 1984 budget should have increased by $37 million in 1985

October 17, 1986
and by $38 million in 1986 to a total of $962 million. At a time when Canadians are expecting a stronger role from government in the environment, Environment Canada has suffered over the past two years, due to inflation and the deficit reduction policies of the Government, a total loss of $217 million.
In the House of Commons on October 10, 1986, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), as reported at page 289 of Hansard said:
Indeed, instead of slashing the budget of Environment Canada, the Government has in fact increased it.
How can the Minister say that? How can he claim to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Joncas).


MATAPEDIA-MATANE CONSTITUENCY PROPOSED BOUNDARY READJUSTMENT
Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I would like to point out to the House that the proposed revision of the electoral boundaries of the electoral district of Matapedia-Matane, which I represent, is seen by the people concerned as irresponsible and unthinking.
I realize it is only a proposal, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, before this proposal acquires a more formal and imperative character, the brains behind the proposed revision would do well to re-think this operation, because today, it is clearly seen as an unpredecedented carving up of the electoral map, by both the communities that will be included in the riding and those that are being rather unceremoniously displaced.
I can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that at the next decisionmaking session, common sense will be allowed to prevail. The people concerned will see this at least as proof of the Government's civility and intelligence, if not as a token of its respect.


FINANCE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, to underline the need for an equitable, just, and fair tax system for everyone in Canada, the winner today of the great untaxed corporation award is Scott Paper. This is the fifth company in as many days to receive this award. This company has earned this award because successive Liberal and Conservative tax measures have given Scott Paper Company the right to pay no
taxes and, in fact, to receive tax credits in 1982, 1983, and 1984 on profits in excess of $28 million.
Had our tax system been fair and had Scott Paper been required to pay a tax rate of 25 per cent on its profits of $28 million, average Canadians would have paid $7 million less in tax because of this one company. We ask the Conservative Government to take serious and immediate action to provide genuine tax reform.

MO)


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, four months ago Canadian forest producers were subjected to a five-year, 35 per cent duty on cedar shakes and shingles by the U.S. For the most part, however, the industry has been able to overcome this horrendous trade barrier and is getting back on its feet. Yesterday's announcement of a 15 per cent duty on softwood lumber clearly is an offensive abuse of U.S. countervailing duty powers under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This so-called "win" by U.S. lumber producers was at a very high cost with respect to the principles upon which everyone's prosperity depends.
Three years ago Canada successfully defended itself against charges of unfair competition in lumber before the same U.S. tribunal. Today we have a challenge which must be met by various responses. More than ever, yesterday's action indicates that political leaders cannot stop the process of industries petitioning to restrict imports under U.S. trade laws. That is why it is so important for us to pursue our bilateral trade talks with the U.S. One would certainly hope that those talks continue and that a satisfactory arrangement can be concluded.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been treated to the Conservative Government's real philosophy concerning multiculturalism and immigration policies. In two leaked reports, one prepared by Toronto Conservative MPs and the other by the Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Multicultural Council, we witnessed scandalous partisan attempts to manipulate these programs for the political benefit of the Conservative Party. That is an immoral and uncaring display of Tory indifference and confirms the deep suspicion harboured by many Canadians, particularly
October 17, 1986

those from Canada's multicultural community, about the Conservatives' attitude toward this sector of Canadian society.
The Government has to learn that our multicultural community is not for sale. Those people are not pawns to be used in a Tory chess game. As Canadians, they have real and significant concerns which must be urgently addressed. There are important issues which can only be solved by a serious and strong multicultural and immigration policy which must have as its first priority the welfare and enhancement of all Canadians regardless of their cultural origins. It is a lesson which the Tory Government, sadly, has yet to learn and, regrettably, may never learn.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC in Saskatchewan recently conducted a comprehensive survey. One of the questions asked of 1,400 people was whether or not the Government is justified in selling Crown corporations. Understandably so, 53 per cent were in favour of this policy, while 30 per cent disagreed. This is an indication that the people of Saskatchwan support the Government's initiatives to privatize Crown corporations. The previous Saskatchewan Government purchased potash mines and pulp mills which have not been an economic success. A Government cannot expect to tie its hands in managing these companies at the risk of economic failure.
The previous Liberal Government in Ottawa gave only lip service to privatizing corporations. You can be sure this Government is not taking the same lackadaisical approach, as it is obvious there is a consensus among Canadians opposing government ownership of Crown corporations. However, our object is not to maximize the sale price because we have an obligation to maximize the economic and social benefits of each sale for all Canadians.
The federal Minister responsible for privatization is taking many steps to create the best possible future for these companies and their employees. Clearly we are not solving sorry mistakes of the past but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Sixty seconds.


MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH THUNDER BAY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, seven days ago the Port of Thunder Bay went back to work. During those seven days more grain was moved than has ever
5.0. 21
been moved through that port or any other port in North America, if not the world. Yes, we in Thunder Bay have proven once again that our port is the most efficient grainhandling operation in the world. Nearly 900,000 tonnes of grain were moved in only seven days. That record was set because everyone pulled together: grain handlers and grain companies; railroaders and railroad companies; inspectors and weighers; ship crews and shipping companies; the Lake Shippers' Clearance Association and the Grain Transportation Agency. They all deserve our thanks for a job well done.
The one month strike/lock-out we endured demonstrated clearly just how important Thunder Bay is to the economy of the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, indeed of Canada as a whole. It also showed that no matter what was tried there was no realistic and economical way of by-passing that port. What we must do now is reduce the barriers to using the Port of Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Discriminatory rail rates must be changed. User tolls and fees must be abandoned. Let us keep the Port of Thunder Bay moving. It is important to all of us.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, to show my open-mindedness and my solidarity with my Liberal colleagues in this House, today, officially, I want to give my moral support to the Hon. Members for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), who are justifiably concerned about the disastrous financial position of the Liberal Party of Canada. Understandably, my colleagues have some serious questions about how the funds of the Liberal Party are being used. For instance, there is the annual salary of $80,000 given to Judd Buchanan, bagman of the Liberal Party of Canada, and this is not his only source of income, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, we want to help our Liberal colleagues put some order in their financial affairs, because for all practical purposes, nearly 75 per cent of the money they are wasting comes from the Canadian taxpayers.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went yesterday

October 17, 1986
Oral Questions
to New Brunswick to attend the opening of a paper mill which will create some 160 jobs.
This time, the workers did not throw their hard hats at him because they are proud of this project which was launched and implemented by the previous Liberal Government.
Following the speech of the Prime Minister, today's newspapers had the headline: "The Maritimes must fend for themselves". This is what the Prime Minister said.
This confirms what we already knew, namely that the Conservative Government has no regional development policy. The Conservative Government is simply abandoning the Atlantic region.
The Prime Minister has confirmed the comments made by his Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to the effect that the people of the Atlantic region cannot have the same aspirations as other Canadians. They are to be compared with people in the third world, not in to the rest of Canada. Such an attitude by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Transport is not good enough.

[DOT] (U15)
[ English]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, many northern public servants have fears over possible changes to the Public Service Superannuation Act which might mandate a locking in of contributions after two years-instead of the present ten year plus age 45 provision-similar to the rules for private pensions plans laid out in Bill C-90 passed last session.
While these proposed changes might be popular in the South, not too many northerners contemplate a lifetime career in the Public Service. Rather, they plan to work for five or ten years, then withdraw their superannuation contributions as a lump sum to buy a house or use for some other purpose. If a two-year lock-in is legislated, many intend to quit rather than lose the opportunity for a lump sum withdrawal.
Therefore, if changes are made to the Public Service Superannuation Act lock-in, opting-out provisions ought to be incorporated, at least for current employees who have made their life plans under the old rules.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose my first question, after looking at the benches opposite, should be whether someone has declared a new government holiday.


Mr. Waddell:: They're all in Saskatchewan.


Lloyd Axworthy: Instead, I would like to direct my first question to the Minister of International Trade. It is a very simple question. How can anyone believe the Government? Last spring the Government went along with President Reagan's sell-out to the U.S. Senators on the lumber issue. Only three weeks ago we compromised our position by trying to plea bargain our case on the trade issue before a U.S. judge. Now the Government says it will fight to the very last step.
How can we have any trust that the Government will not cave in again, that there is not some kind of sweetheart deal in the making with the U.S. administration on the U.S. lumber duty?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I will first advise the House that the Prime Minister is in New Brunswick where he is having a very successful tour.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question as to who believes the Government, I will list just some of those who believe the Government on the stand it has taken. The Hon. Pierre MacDonald, Liberal Minister of Resources of Quebec, Mr. McCambly of the Canadian Federation of Labour, Jack Munro of the IWA, Premier Vander Zalm of the B. C. Social Credit Government, Premier Hatfield, the Conservative Premier of New Brunswick, and Mike Apsey who represents the industry. All agree with our position. All of the parties affected in this dispute support the position of the Government of Canada. I am ashamed of the fact that the Liberal Opposition does not.
[DOT] (M20)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: What I should make clear to the Minister is that the Liberal Opposition stands for standing up for Canada and not caving in as you have been doing.


CONTINUATION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister said that the reason for continuing the free trade talks is to "change the rules in order to stop harassment by U.S. interest groups". How can she make that statement when she knows full well that President Reagan, in his April 24 letter to Senator Packwood, said that
October 17, 1986

the U.S. countervail laws would not be altered by any free trade negotiations? Why does she continue this farce and fantasy? Why does she continue to try to fool the Canadian public-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that the exchange so far illustrates the difficulty we get into when perhaps not as much constraint is used in the language as is appropriate. The Hon. Member had put his question. I think it will be noted by all Hon. Members that, after having put the question, he went on to argue it. I would ask Hon. Members to please restrain themselves if they find they are impelled to proceed in that fashion.
By the same token, I would ask Hon. Ministers to concentrate their minds on the question and concentrate their answers on that question. Thank you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question since the Minister apparently did not hear. Why does she continue making those statements when it clearly has been stated by the President of the United States that the countervail laws of the United States are not part of the free trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is trying to allege that there is a fix in and that the Government of the United States is in some way corrupt, he should say so in this Chamber. That is not our position. Our position is that we are negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States which will deal with measures to give us some long-term security of market access and long-term security of jobs. That position has wide support. That is the position we are advancing at the negotiation table. To suggest that we walk away from the talks because times are tough is the action and the mentality of a wimp.


Lloyd Axworthy: To use the old cliche: "It takes one to know one".


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Lloyd Axworthy: Yesterday the Minister said again that the Government does not intend to take any retaliatory action because it is not allowble under GATT. Article 23 of the GATT rules clearly allow retaliatory action when a foreign Government uses unfair countervailing powers. Why has the Government forgone the use of a very important tool? Why are we not continuing to stand up for this particular area and removing what could be a very important standard that we could raise against this unfair action by the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should surely be aware by now that we have taken this action to GATT in accordance with GATT rules. A meeting on it has already been held.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER PROMISES OF U.S. PRESIDENT WERE PART OF SECRET AGREEMENT CONCERNING FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in order to prevail upon the American Senate to enter into free trade negotiations with Canada, the American chief negotiator Mr. Yeutter wrote the following to Senator David Pryor on April 17, 1986, and I quote: "We will get timber fixed", in other words, we will solve the lumber problem.
On May 8, the President of the United States, in a letter to Senator Packwood, stated:

"I intend to press for an expedited resolution of this problem independent of the comprehensive negotiations".

My question to the Minister is this: Were the promises made by the President of the United States and by Mr. Yeutter, to settle the issue of Canadian lumber exports to the United States, part of a secret agreement with the Canadian Government to enter into free trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker.


MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, how can the Hon. Minister answer so curtly, when it was clearly stated in the letter that the lumber problem would be settled independant of free trade negotiations? How can the Minister explain that today? One thing is sure, thousands of jobs are involved in Quebec.
I would ask the Minister what she now intends to do. There are 25,000 jobs involved in Quebec, tens of thousands in Canada. What does the Minister intend to do to solve that problem, to help workers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, a long question is not necessarily more truthful than a short answer.


Raymond Garneau: But you didn't answer it at all.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is arrogance, boy oh boy!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON STUMPAGE FEES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the most Alice in Wonderland part of the Minister's statement yesterday was: "Stumpage does not provide a subsidy to

October 17, 1986
Oral Questions
Canadian lumber producers". If the Minister truly believes this, why did she suggest stumpage was a subsidy by admitting guilt and offering publicly to raise those fees just two short weeks previously?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, because the affected parties, the Governments of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia, the IWA and the forest industry asked me to do so.


Steven W. Langdon: Well, there is a Minister for International Trade. The Minister should look in the mirror. She has some responsibility, too.


CANADIAN POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Is the Minister blaming the provinces, the unions, and industry for what she now recognizes was a foolish public step to have taken?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Hon. Member understands what a grave situation Canada and the forest industry are in by asking that question. We took the opportunity provided for under the countervailing procedure to stop the clock and attempt an out-of- court settlement. That is provided for in the procedure. Unfortunately, we were not successful, although the resulting tariff was very close to our offer. What I am surprised about is if the Hon. Member had read the decision handed down on the subsidy issue, he would be just as shocked as we are.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thinks it takes tremendous gall to say that we don't recognize what a grave situation it is when it is the incompetence of the Government which has gotten us into this situation.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister herself through her Government not take responsibility for her own decision, which she announced and which she must now admit failed dismally?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, whether or not it failed is a matter of conjecture considering the fact that the tariff was 15 per cent in the preliminary determination. But in terms of taking responsibility, may I remind the Hon. Member that we took the responsibility of attempting an out-of-court settlement. We have taken the responsibility to fight this action which may affect other industries in Canada.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES ACTION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Speaking of wimps, we should remember it was only a few weeks ago that the Minister in effect stood before you, Mr. Speaker, as judge, and said: "I am innocent. I didn't
do it. But I am willing to serve 10 years". I know she is shocked at being sentenced to 15.
Does the Minister realize that her incompetence, and the incompetence of the Canadian Government, have established a regime whereby the United States, if allowed, will set prices for Canadian natural resources like lumber, newsprint, potash, fish, steel, and farm products?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the issue of incompetence, I think, is incredible when raised by that former Government, that opposition Party, on this issue.


Mr. Berger:: Look at the polls.


Lloyd Axworthy: Who won the case in 1983? We didn't get a tariff in 1983.


David Berger: Look at what the Canadians are saying.


NEWSPRINT EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should realize that Canada's newsprint industry exported seven million tonness of newsprint to the United States last year for a value of $4.7 billion. That represents 85 per cent of our export market in newsprint. Is the Minister aware that using exactly the same stumpage system as a basis for complaint, the Americans, if they are allowed to succeed, are now in a position to set a 15 per cent tariff against newsprint, a tariff that could cost that industry over $700 million?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why the Government is seeking a long-term binding treaty with the U.S., to protect Canadian industry and Canadian workers from this type of trade harassment. I have said that consistently. That is what the Prime Minister has said. That is now what the opposition Party is supporting.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. I would like her to clarify her position. Is the Minister really saying that Premier Vander Zalm and the other people whom she named are to blame for this so-called compromise settlement which puts Canada's sovereignty in jeopardy and which undermines Canada's whole case?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the Hon. Member's reference to a compromise settlement. There has been no settlement with the U.S. on this issue. That is why we are faced with a preliminary decision. I fail to understand what this compromise position is about which the Hon. Member speaks.
October 17, 1986

What 1 have said before, and I will say it again, is that the situation we have experienced as a result of this decision is the reason why the Government feels we must pursue to the utmost comprehensive trade talks with the U.S. to protect Canadian industry, Canadian workers, and secure market access to the U.S.
If we do not have that type of a long-term treaty then, under the existing rules of the game, we will be exposed to this type of harassment in a number of industries.


EFFECT OF UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN WORKERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister which perhaps the woodworkers who occasionally drink in the Cecil Hotel in the Minister's riding would put. What will she do to protect their jobs which they will now lose? What will the Minister do to get their jobs back? What type of retaliation will the Minister take against the Americans who are pushing British Columbia workers around, many of whom live in the Minister's riding as well as in my riding?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member obviously knows more about the Cecil Hotel than I.
What we are doing to protect the jobs of workers is to strive for a long-term agreement with the United States to protect those jobs. That is what the Government is doing.


UNITED STATES DUTY-CANADIAN POSITION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade. We know that the Minister left the energy sector in chaos-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: -with tens of thousands of unemployed. Having listened to the questions asked this morning and the answers of the Minister it is inconceivable-impossible-to believe that the conduct of these negotiations by the Minister and her colleagues in Government could be as incompetent as they appear to be. My question is simply-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think all Hon. Members are aware that there is a great deal of room for argument on this issue. However, that is properly a matter for debate. 1 ask that questions be put as directly as the Hon. Member asking them can put them. 1 think all Hon. Members are aware that the issue that forms the subject matter of questions this morning is a very serious one for the entire country. I ask that the questions be clear and direct and that the answers correspond accordingly.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, despite the bluster and feigned outrage, was a deal cut behind the scenes at 15 per cent?
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S AWARENESS OF DUTY
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we heard the Prime Minister say, "Watch her carry the ball". She makes Chuck Hunsinger look good. The Minister remembers Chuck Hunsinger, and so do we.
When did the Minister first learn that a 15 per cent duty might be decided upon?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, at approximately 2.07 yesterday afternoon.


OFFER OF CANADIAN TARIFF
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. I think it is obvious that the Minister undermined her position that stumpage is not a subsidy by offering a 10 per cent tariff to the Americans. In retrospect, does the Minister now regret that she responded to pressures from Premier Bill Vander Zalm in the heat of an election with an action that undermined tough negotiations for Canada? Is this the approach that we can expect in future trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the House that the actions of Premier Vander Zalm, all the other Premiers concerned, and the actions of the industry and the union involved were very helpful to me. They have been very supportive.
I am glad to see that the tariff is less than the 32 per cent which was asked for by the U.S. producers and that it is close to our offer. But that is not the issue. The problem we have before us is that the nature of the decision which has been brought down in this case, and which reverses an earlier decision on a whole different set of rules and regulations, can place other Canadian industries in jeopardy. The only way we can deal with this issue is to sit down at the trade talks table and negotiate a long-term treaty that will prevent these types of flip-flops.


MINISTER'S APPROACH TO NEGOTIATIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the tariff may well be increased beyond 15 per cent, which is on top of the 35 per cent that is already in place on shakes and shingles, and which is making people in her province suffer.
Since Premier Vander Zalm said, "We went hat in hand to Washington," does the Minister think that Americans respect this type of humble approach? How can she now be tough in future negotiations on behalf of Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Hon. Member was addressing the issue before us. We have said that this is a deplorable action.

October 17, 1986
Oral Questions
We have said that we will fight it on the basis of the decision- and I want to be clear here-even if the provinces decide to settle this issue as they are allowed to do, to take the money and run. The problems that the decision gives Canada, Canadian industry and workers, will still be with us. We have to sit down at the table. I urge the Hon. Member to read the decision which will enable her to understand my concern. We have to sit down at the table and draw up a new set of rules to protect Canadian industry, workers and citizens from this type of trade harassment.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Science and Technology I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in a feeble attempt to defend his savaging of the National Research Council, the Minister of State for Science and Technology said that the Government was putting $1 billion more into university research over the next five years. Will the Minister of Finance not admit that the Government is putting up less than $700 million, and only if it is matched by the private sector? Will he admit that there is no commitment from the Government to put up $1 billion?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member has understood the clear philosophy of the Government which is to involve the private sector to a greater extent in research and development efforts. What we are trying to do with this new proposal which I announced in the last Budget is to bring a greater degree of integration into a matching grant formula so that the projects which are brought forward in research and development by the private sector, in partnership with the public sector, will be much closer to the needs of the market-place. Surely that is the direction in which we should be going in terms of research and development.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology misled the House yesterday.
I am asking the Minister of Finance to correct-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member did not mean to put his concern in quite the words he used. I invite the Hon. Member to rephrase his question in such a way that there is not an implication of intentional misleading.


David Berger: Whom does the Finance Minister think he is fooling with this phantom $1 billion? Would he table the
document which shows that the Government is putting $1 billion into university research? Where is it? Would he show it to the House and to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what we have said. We have put forward a proposal to the private sector whereby we will match grants to the initiatives taken by them, in consultation and in cooperation with the public sector, the result of which will be $1 billion new financing for research and development projects. This will be done in a way which will produce projects that will be much more applicable to commercial reality. That is the direction in which we want to go in research and development. The Hon. Member should know that it will be very, very effective.


FREE TRADE-MEASURE TAKEN BY UNITED STATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of International Trade.
If the Minister did not even blink when she heard of the American position, how is she going to react to the statement made by the head of the Quebec Wood Manufacturers Association who has come to realize that the tariff represents an amount greater than the profit margin of the whole industry? Is that not provocation enough to terminate these discussions on free trade?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not sufficient provocation to end these discussions. If we walk away from the table, we simply expose other sectors of that industry to the same kind of attack. That is the point I am trying to make. So long as we have the existing system which allows the U.S. to reverse its decision on important trade items like softwood lumber, our industries are put at risk. We need to get new rules in a new treaty which is binding and will resolve our problem over the long term. Walking away or running away will not solve anything.


ESTABLISHMENT OF A BILATERAL COMMISSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the Minister will not stop playing Russian roulette with jobs not only in the lumber industry, but also in a whole series of other industries, will she tell the Americans that the only point remaining on the agenda for these discussions is the establishment of a bilateral commission to solve such problems, deal with such programs, and stop such harassment of Canadian producers?
October 17, 1986


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's suggestion, but I would point out that it would be a very, very narrow view of a trade talk to deal only with the establishment of a bilateral commission. Not even the Canadian Federation of Labour, which has suggested such a commission, would restrict it to that item. The Canadian Federation of Labour has proposed a whole range of items, including adjustment assistance to affected workers, which should be part of any trade deal between Canada and the U.S. If the Hon. Member thinks through his position, he will see that, while it is helpful, it is too narrow an approach for us to take.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister deals with scientific research financing.
If the government policy in the area of research support is so good, why has Nobel Prize winner Polanyi just stated, and I quote: "Since the announcement of the government policy, I would not advise a young scientist to make a career in Canada"?
Why does the Ottawa Citizen consider this policy as suicidal, while the Montreal Gazette describes it as government folly?
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Would he order the Minister of State for Science and Technology to go back to the drawing board and prepare a research support policy which, this time, would not make the whole Canadian scientific community sick?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Minister being absent from the House on official business, Mr. Speaker, I take note of the Hon. Member's representations and will convey them to the Minister who will certainly give them the attention they deserve.


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY MINISTER INTERVENE
Jacques Guilbault: As an engineer, Mr. Speaker, I am sometimes ashamed to sit in a Parliament facing a government which treats science in such fashion. But to return to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is he not prepared to order a change of policy to prevent the brain drain which would certainly result from the current policy. Is he prepared to stand up and take the necessary action?
Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister responsible answered this question very well yesterday. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that in the past the Government has not, nor will it in the future, take policy direction from The Ottawa Citizen.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The mining industry in Canada makes an enormous contribution to the Canadian economy. This industry has been suffering from depressed metal prices since 1981. One of the successful programs for that industry has been the Flow Through Share Program which the Government has strengthened. Is the Minister actively considering the withdrawal of this successful program?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member indicated, this program has been in place for a number of years. It has been used by a number of companies and individuals in the mining industry. It is part of the broad review which we are undertaking right now on tax policy. I have no real comments to make on it at this time. We have to wait until we see the results of the tax reform review which we are undertaking right now.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER-EFFECT ON ONTARIO
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. In a previous answer the Minister indicated that the Premier of Ontario was a supporter in this approach of the federal Government. Industry people in northwestern Ontario indicate that as many as 1,500 job losses in Thunder Bay and
2,000	more in northwestern Ontario will result from the interim action. Is she saying that it is David Peterson's fault that this is happening?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have made very clear that the decisions being taken are being taken by all the provinces, the industry, the union, and the federal Government. We all work out solutions, we all take positions, and we all share responsibility. That is what our Confederation is all about. This is why we will be meeting, at the beginning of next week, with the same affected groups to

October 17, 1986
Oral Questions
discuss our position, to discuss our strategy, and to implement it. This has been a joint non-political action by a whole range of Governments of different Parties to save jobs in Canada, and I am surprised that the NDP opposes that.


Iain Francis Angus: The Minister knows full well that not all provinces support the action of the federal Government.


EFFECT ON WORKERS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the same Minister a follow-up question on interim support for the workers who will be laid off. In answer to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, she inferred that there would be no assistance whatsoever. Will the Minister confirm that her Government will not take any action whatsoever in the interim to help ensure that those jobs remain in place?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if you check the record, I think you will find that I said no such thing. It is hard to answer a question when the allegation is false. Let me again address what I think the Hon. Member is trying to deal with, that is, the job losses which will arise from the imposition of any U.S. tariff. Of course that concerns us. Of course we are worried about that. That is why we all tried to seek an out-of-court settlement. That is why we will fight this decision. That is why we are meeting on Monday to plan our strategy.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is aware that there was a surplus of $150 million in the Unemployment Insurance Fund for 1985.
The Minister is also aware that the Forget Commission is recommending that retirees be reimbursed retroactively for the benefits they lost as a result of changes introduced last year by his Government.
Will the Minister tell Canada's 50,000 early retirees that the Government is going to pay back the $30 million it stole from them?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall ignore the last part of the question. I just want to inform the Hon. Member there is no Forget Report yet. I believe that the Hon. Member is referring to the extracts from certain documents reproduced by the Globe and Mail and the Canadian press. In fact, I believe these documents confirm what I said yesterday and the day
before. There has been an attempt to scare people, but today, these documents, which might well turn out to be the Forget Report's recommendations, project a far more positive view than what you have been giving us for the last two or three days. In any case, we have always said that as soon as the recommendation on the pensions issue was tabled, the Government will be quick to respond, either positively or negatively, but it will respond to the report's recommendation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the important thing is, we now know there was a surplus of $150 million, and normally the Minister should know this. If that is not the case, he might as well resign, for all the good he is doing. Meanwhile, this Government has cut $30 million, so there is no need to wait for the Forget Commission's report. Will the Minister announce, without further delay, to the 50,000 people who have decided to go to the Supreme Court, that their expenses will be paid, and will he give these people the assurance that the Government is going to consider the Forget Report's recommendations? Is the Government going to treat these people as human beings and refund the money it stole from Canada's early retirees? Yes or no?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie can get carried away but he cannot alter the fact that where the administration of the Government is concerned, and especially when we are talking about the Unemployment Insurance Commission, surplus funds are managed by a commission on which both labour and management are represented, and all decisions are made at that level.
Again, whatever you may say, it does not alter the fact that we are waiting for recommendations-


Jean-Claude Malépart: There are people who are hungry. You have a limousine-


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, they have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions on this matter have been extensive and lengthy. Would the Minister please answer the question briefly?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, provided the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides will let me proceed. He doesn't usually shout like that.


Raymond Garneau: I never said a word.


Benoît Bouchard: So, just to inform the Hon. Member- [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre.
October 17, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any of the farm spokesmen, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have said that any proposed farm aid package would be new money and would not come out of existing programs. Does that mean that such payments, when and if they are made, would not be calculated as grain income since that would reduce future payouts under the Western Grain Stabilization Act for western farmers and under the general Agricultural Stabilization Act for the rest of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture have indicated that this would be new money in the pockets of farmers to help support them in this very serious time of difficulty. I am advised by the Minister of Agriculture that he met with farm leaders yesterday. They had an excellent and very productive meeting. The farmers' spokesmen recognized the magnitude of the problem. They are very supportive of the initiatives taken by the federal Government and very supportive of the fact that the Government is not acting unilaterally and is recognizing the complexity of the issue. These discussions are to go on. The program will be developed in consultation with the producer groups, something that is very new and something which they welcome very much.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in retrospect can the Minister explain why the Government cut initial prices last spring by $30 a tonne because at that time it argued it could not afford something like the $800 million that that would have cost, but can now in the midst of provincial elections in Saskatchewan and British Columbia promise a billion dollars?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Hon. Member had some knowledge about the farm problems in this country and I thought he also had some knowledge about the way the Canadian Wheat Board functions. The Canadian Wheat Board sets the initial prices and, if he has any argument with that, he should take it up with the Canadian Wheat Board because those prices reflect the reality of the market-place, and the Member knows it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Cabinet guarantees those prices.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


ACCESS TO GEORGES BANK SCALLOP STOCKS
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister will know that there have been extensive and intense industry negotiations regarding the issue of inshore access to the Georges Bank scallop stocks. Has the Minister had the opportunity to review the proposal which the industry recently worked out, and if so, would he comment?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to my colleague, the Hon. Member for South West Nova, who has been so instrumental in proposing over the past two months that we get the affected parties of scallop fishermen together to work out a compromise arrangement and management plan for fishing those very lucrative scallop resources in the Bay of Fundy and off Georges Bank. I am reviewing a tentative agreement to which all parties have agreed which would never have been reached had I accepted the advice of my officials but was reached because I accepted the advice of the Hon. Member to approach all parties to seek a negotiated agreement.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions regarding the Forget Commission, the Minister of Transport said in Newfoundland:
As far as people's income is concerned-there won't be any changes, the only kind of change there would is if it was replaced by something better. That will be my position.
I ask the Minister of Employment, who has refused to give an opinion in this House about the Commission, since that is the stated position of the Minister of Transport, what then is his position?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gander-[DOT] Twillingate was not here earlier this week. That is unfortunate because we explained several times the position of the Minister of Finance, which is that nothing will be done which could harm the unemployed. 1 shall go a bit further today and say that, whatever the Commission recommends, all changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Plan will have to aim at improving existing programs and at making them better suited to meet the needs of the unemployed. That has always been our objective. The Commission was established to evaluate possible solutions, but once more, I am in perfect agreement with the position of the Minister of Transport, the Member from Newfoundland.

October 17, 1986
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport also said:
As far as 1 am concerned, unless there are improvements to help lower income people, or people whose jobs are very uncertain, I certainly can't support it.
In the absence of the Prime Minister, 1 ask the Acting Prime Minister if these rumours of cuts are substantiated in the presentation of the report, is the Government prepared to forget Forget?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is an expert in peddling and perpetrating rumours. Today is no exception. I know that he would want us to receive the report first, to analyse it, and then take a position on it.
So far as the stated objectives of this Government are concerned, in terms of unemployment insurance or any other programs that affect the disadvantaged regions of this country, it has always been the intention to make the programs better and more effective so that the benefits can accrue to the larger number of people. What we are looking for is a better system, an improved and more effective system rather than the system toward which the Hon. Member has alleged we are working.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government has approved an increase in Canada Post's first class mail from 34 cents to 36 cents? Can he confirm also reports in the press today that, indeed, the Government has approved extra charges for postal services to people who do not get door-to-door delivery but who want it and who are now enjoying service through the postal community boxes? Can the Deputy Minister confirm those two points?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that. I am not aware of any such initiative. I will certainly check and get back to the Hon. Member.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
FRASER RIVER FISH STOCKS^INDIAN PEOPLE'S ANXIETY
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The native leaders
who live in the Fraser Valley have grave concerns as to the allocation of the fish stocks going up the Fraser River. When will the natives have an opportunity of presenting their concerns as to how the fishery is being managed?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for stepping out for a moment. Could the Hon. Member repeat the question?


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The native leadership of the Fraser Valley have grave concerns on how the fishery is being managed, in particular the allocation of fish for the natives. When will they have an opportunity to make their advice known to the Minister on how this can be improved?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there are certain matters affecting members of some of the subject bands which are now before the courts. However, I am prepared to meet with members of the Sto:lo Tribal Council before the end of November and hear them out on the concerns that the Hon. Member raises today.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill, one question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Minister of Transport speaking for the Government when he says there will be no cut-backs in unemployment insurance programs for Atlantic Canada? Or is the Government willing to state that any decision it will make will do nothing to reduce the amount of money going to that region?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, once more, what the Minister of Finance said, what the Government believes and what we are going to continue to believe is simply that we must ensure that the program analysis will not victimize the unemployed.
As I said earlier, we also have to consider the objective, and as the Minister of Transport indicated yesterday, anything which can improve the quality of our unemployment insurance services will be viewed as acceptable and will certainly receive our support.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, one question.
October 17, 1986


EDUCATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Universities and colleges in Toronto closed down yesterday in a protest by administrators, faculty members and students alike. A Liberal Party task force is going across the country in the next three weeks to find out what can be done about this grave crisis. I therefore ask why the Government has twice replaced the individuals responsible for postsecondary education over the past two years? We now have our third Secretary of State and third Deputy Minister. Is it because they were incompetent, or because they were so embarrassed because they feel the Government has betrayed the cause of young people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the Hon. Member's question, I will take that as a representation and ensure that the responsible Minister receives it, and perhaps he can reply next week.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Claude Malépart: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the Minister to mislead the House and 1 do not think that such is his intention. However, he stated in reply to one of my questions that the commissioners could decide to reimburse the $30 million to those who have taken an early retirement. I say that such is not the case because it was the Government that decided to take away these $30 million.
I would like the situation to be clearly explained because the public could get the wrong idea.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if that is what the Hon. Member understood, he is indeed right in saying that it is not what I meant. Naturally, I said that, as concerns the management of the unemployment insurance programs, a number of people at the Commission were involved, but when you said that the Commission had a surplus of $150 million and had only to take the $30 million in question, I replied that this was a matter of administrative management and that we had to take everything into consideration. If you are saying-
Interparliamentary Delegation Report


Jean-Claude Malépart: The $30 million were taken away by Minister Wilson!


Benoît Bouchard: No, no. That is another matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the final few Orders in Council concerning appointments which had not been clerically processed to be forwarded to committee chairman by the time I tabled the long list of appointees yesterday. This completes the number we should have tabled.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, according to the Standing Orders our committees have 30 days in which to review these appointments. Because the House was prorogued the committees have not all been constituted. Is it possible for the 30 days to commence when the committes are actually constituted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is clear authority for the committees to be reconstituted. That was given this last week and that is precisely why the delay in the tabling took place, so that the full 30 days would be provided. My understanding is that most committees are in the process of being reconstituted.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report on the seventeenth African Regional Commonwealth Conference held in Malawi from June 20 to June 29, 1986. Due to the change in our parliamentary timetable it was not possible to table my report before this date.


PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF THIRTY-SECOND COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report on the thirty-second Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held in London, England, from September 23 to October 1, 1986.

October 17, 1986
Introduction of Bills


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, this Bill can be summarized in this way. At the present time, a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy must submit an application to an hospital and wait until a committee, which comprises generally three to ten persons, grants authorization.
The purpose of my Bill is simply to allow this decision, instead of being made by a committee, to be made by the patient, her physician, and approved by another physician.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN POTATO MARKETING COMMISSION ACT
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an Act respecting the orderly marketing of potatoes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is an attempt to provide orderly marketing for potatoes across the country. The existing laws do not permit this because the national Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act prohibits potatoes from being marketed by farmers in this fashion. This Bill is an attempt to give them that permission.


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

Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, an Act to provide for a Canadian Post-secondary Education Council.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, this Bill calls for the establishment of a National Advisory Council on post-secondary education for advising the Government and also for creating, over a period of years, a national strategy for post-secondary education in the country. As this was mentioned in the Throne Speech, I hope that the Bill will receive support from both sides of the House.


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

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent motion requiring consideration, namely:
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to protect the interests of the Canadian lumber industry in its conduct of comprehensive trade negotiations with the United States, and specifically that the Government has undermined its own case for secure access to U.S. markets in lumber by conceding the U.S. argument before the preliminary determination and, further, has compromised Canada's case for control of our own natural resource pricing in negotiations with the U.S. and before the GATT.
I have written to you as the rules require, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I have done so in sufficient time. I would like to indicate briefly why this appears to be a matter of urgent and important interest.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members will agree that the better practice is for the Hon. Member simply to state his motion. I ask the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks very quickly. I did receive a letter from the Hon. Member. I can tell the Hon. Member that I choose not to see the clock so time will not be an issue in whatever determination I make. I propose to postpone my decision for an hour or so. Therefore, the Hon. Member may wish to say a word or two more and we will resume consideration of this a little later.
October 17, 1986


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first, serious economic losses are involved in the tariff which was levied yesterday. Second, no government proposals have been brought to us for reaction as yet, nor indeed have they been contemplated. Third, as far as we can tell we do not have Throne Speech days available to discuss this matter. Four, clearly that the issue dominated Question Period today is a demonstration of its significance to the country. Finally, since today we are at a stage between two parts of the free trade negotiations; the first phase has finished and the second phase is not to begin until the Government makes its assessment of the first phase, it seems to me that a thorough debate of this very important decision at this time would be crucial, necessary and of the utmost urgency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and the concise presentation of his remarks. As I said, I will make a decision on this shortly, but not before one hour has elapsed.

[ Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in this session that I have had an opportunity to address this House. It is, therefore, my first opportunity to congratulate you on your reappointment as Deputy Speaker. I have spoken many times in this House, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity of speaking to the House from beside the Speaker's chair rather than before it. Nonetheless, I hope the Speaker will hear me just as well from the position from which I now speak as he did when I was out in centre field as it were.
Income Tax Act
It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill C-ll today. It is a very small but very important Bill. I would characterize it as a "good news" Bill. It is good news because it provides money to people who need it. Later in my remarks 1 will speak about other good news legislation which the Government has brought forward and some that it will probably bring forward in the future. For the moment I wish to speak specifically about Bill C-ll.
This is an Act to amend the Income Tax Act. In the debate which has been ongoing for a day or so it has been said that this Bill puts money in the hands of those who need it most. It has been said on the other side of the House that this is not new money, that it is money these people would get anyway. I say it is new money because these people will get this money several months earlier than they would normally receive it. Anyone will tell you that that is additional funds over and above those which they would receive in the following year.
The Bill provides a child tax credit of $300 per child to any family which received income in the past taxation year of $15,000 or less. Even the Opposition has had to concede that this legislation is good news. That is why few opposition Members have risen to speak to the Bill. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) congratulated the Government for having the foresight and humanity to move this good legislation. Obviously the Opposition must tone down its praise, so the remainder of the Hon. Member's speech concerned the horrible practice of tax discounting. I can assure the House that this Bill will almost eliminate tax discounting with respect to child tax credits.
There has been some criticism that the money received in November of this year may confuse some families. They may be concerned about the purpose of these cheques and whether they should accept them. Let me assure the House that the Government will go to great lengths to make sure that these families understand what is happening.
Let me read from the information that will accompany the cheques when they are delivered to qualified families. It will state: "This is your child tax credit payment. The enclosed cheque is advance payment of the child tax credit for the 1986 taxation year".
It goes on to explain why. It states that these families qualify for this advanced payment because: one, they received a child tax credit for the 1985 tax year; two, their family income in 1985 was $15,000 or less; three, they receive or are eligible to receive family allowance for a child or children who will be under 18 years of age at the end of 1986.
The pamphlet goes on to say that the amount shown on the cheque is based on the latest information available from the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is $300 of the maximum child tax credit of $454 per eligible child for 1986.
Finally, it states that the recipient must file a 1986 tax return to establish, first, the amount of the child tax credit for

October 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
1986 and, second, the eligibility to receive a child tax credit payment in 1987. The pamphlet provides an address to which to write with any concerns.
A further explanation of the child tax credit prepayment will accompany the normal family allowance cheque. The letter sets out in great detail what will happen and I commend the Government for ensuring that this program will be understood. I am sure it will be well accepted.
Unfortunately, in spite of the great strides the Government has made to increase the economic income of most Canadians, there are many people who, particularly since the recession in 1982, still live at or below the poverty line. It has been estimated that between 700,000 and one million families will receive this payment. There are over 10,000 families in my riding who will participate in this program.
The payment will be made in November, at a time when these families experience a great deal of additional costs. While the weather in my riding is rather nice, these families must still clothe their children for the winter. Families in other ridings must outfit their children in winter clothing and this payment in November is essential. We should not overlook the added expense of Christmas. These families will find this payment a great benefit and certainly much better than receiving it at the end of the tax year.
My riding is experiencing difficulties. It is true that many areas of the country are undergoing economic growth, but, as was pointed out in the Throne Speech, the economic turnaround has not been directed evenly among all parts of Canada. There are certain sectors which have and are still suffering severely. Unfortunately, one of those is my riding of Okanagan North. I can assure the House that those qualified families in my riding will welcome the child tax credit prepayment with open arms.
The forest industry which accounts for 60 cents of every dollar in my riding has been on strike for four weeks. Consequently, the lack of money being circulated has left many small businesses in difficulty and this legislation is important to those families who run those small businesses.
Last month the unemployment rate in my constituency was 14.7 per cent and it is expected to increase to 14.9 per cent this month, compared to an unemployment rate of 10 per cent last year. Unemployment claims in Okanagan North totalled $3.4 million last year while this year those claims totalled $4.2 million. Not only are we not holding our own, we are going backwards. Through this legislation, the money that we can afford to give back to people goes to those who need it the most. In my view, people in my riding will greet this legislation with open arms because they need the money.
We now have a threat of a 15 per cent countervailing duty on the lumber industry which cannot but have an adverse effect on my riding. Therefore, it is most important that the Government carry out its intention to diversify and ensure that those regions which have not fared so well under the Government's recovery program will be able to do so. Certainly,
economic diversification of western Canada is high on the Government's list of priorities. It is a major concern to all westerners because we believe that we have been the engine of growth for this country in the past.
British Columbia is a particularly resource-based province, with coal, wood and precious metals. There is a surplus of these resources around the world, which means we are feeling the burden of having to bear the impact of a decrease in demand and price for natural resources. That is why I commend the Government for this program and its intention to diversify the economy in the future. Indeed, the past performance of the Government has indicated that it will do exactly that. The $1 billion that it promised to western farmers certainly should be of great benefit.
The fruit industry in my riding has been in difficulty. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), can confirm this because he has led the fight in the House and in our Party for that industry. We have received a great deal of encouragement and help with diversification programs, such as the grape program. I am sure we will continue to get the necessary funds from the Government to ensure that our province continues to thrive economically.
The only reason we are able to offer programs such as this "good news" legislation, which offers this money to people who need it, is that the Government right from the beginning has attempted to set a path which would solve, not all of the problems but most of the main problems left to us by the previous Government. We in effect have done that, although one would not know it from the reports of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in this city. However, there are other authorities who have assessed the performance of our Government and I think it is important that we hear what they have to say.
The C. D. Howe Institute, a well recognized and respected institution which has no axe to grind, said:
The Government's policies, therefore, should be assessed in terms of their contribution to achieving the country's long-term growth objectives. Judged in those terms, says Peter Bartha, the institute's Fellow-in-Residence, the Government has made a good start in dealing with Canada's priority economic issues. The fiscal plan, the trade talks, tax reform, and the Government's search for more effective approaches in regional policies all zero in on areas where action is needed.
I say "Amen" to that. I feel that is the kind of message this good news legislation before us today should carry across the country.
The latest issue of "How Ottawa Spends", the publication of Carleton University's School of Public Administration, another institution which has no axe to grind, said:
Absolutely the most important element in the Tory strategy for economic renewal is to stop and then reverse the growth of annual federal deficits.
Is that not exactly what we have been doing? Is that not exactly what the Speech from the Throne tells us we are going to continue to do? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with those kinds of policies, we can assure the people of Canada that we will
October 17, 1986

continue to bring forward legislation such as Bill C-ll, the kinds of tax measures which help the people who need it.
That is not the only good news legislation the Government has brought forward. Certainly, there are many more areas the Government has addressed. We have improved the whole retirement scheme for Canada. It has probably gone unnoticed, but in fact that is one of the biggest social changes this country has seen for many years. It will again target the money the Government has for people who need it the most.
We have introduced major changes in the law governing minimum standards for private pension plans under federal jurisdiction. These changes will be particularly beneficial for part-time workers, the people who have the most difficulty getting secured pensions. Our legislation will change all that. It will also benefit the women in the workforce and the spouses of workers with pension plans.
These changes to target help for the people who need it most will take effect in 1987. That has been a consistent policy of the Government. We strengthened Canada's basic income support program by extending the spouse allowance to all widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 years. That was something the people had asked for for many years. Thousands of people in the low income brackets will be helped. That has been a general thrust of the Government.
The Government inherited an economic mess which it has had to overcome. I have read articles which indicate the Government is succeeding in creating an economic climate in which the economy can recover and the social net which is in place can be strengthened. We are not increasing the deficit by doing that, as did the previous Government. We are accomplishing it by targeting those areas which need help the most, and we shall continue to do that.
I congratulate the Government for bringing forward this tax amendment, Bill C-ll. I am sure the people of Canada will recognize what we are trying to do and will understand that we intend to continue to do it.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member who just concluded his speech referred to the deficit, I simply would like to ask him a question since he had so much praise for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). My question is: Will the Government honour its deficit predictions this year, and if so, by how much below or above the figure stated by the Minister in his February budget? Could he be specific as to what will happen to the deficit?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. He will know that the first budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was the only Budget in the last 40 years to come in on target. The Hon. Member will also know that the target was perhaps missed in the last Budget for very good reasons, for example, the dramatic drop in oil revenues and difficulties with some of our major exports.
Income Tax Act
However, the commitment of the Minister of Finance is clear. He intends to pursue his attack on the deficit and, because of his past record, I can assure the Hon. Member that his goals will be more closely reached than those of any Minister of Finance we have ever had in this country.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-ll, the child tax credit Bill. I would like to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). I think he did this Chamber proud by giving us that wonderful speech. He reminded us that there will be 10,000 families in his riding who will benefit as a result of this legislation. That is the kind of message that Hon. Members in this Chamber, not just those on the Government side but those who sit in the opposition benches, should be sending out to their own constituents, because this is indeed good news.
We are living in an extremely negative world. The news media want to report that which is negative, the catastrophies, the earthquakes and other calamities, those bad things which happen to people. If it is negative, it will capture the headlines. But we have here something which will not appear in the headlines of The Ottawa Citizen or the Toronto Star tomorrow. We have good news for our constituents back home. I believe Hon. Members opposite should applaud the efforts of the Government. I almost caught a couple of Members of the Opposition nodding in agreement-almost. They wanted to and their heads just started to nod before they caught themselves.
At a time when every penny counts for many hard-working Canadians, we are on an economic tightrope which the Government inherited from its predecessors. However, in the face of reality, I would like to recite a few things we have done. The Government has slashed Government expenditures. We are bringing some financial and fiscal responsibility to this office.
I wish to cite just one to Hon. Members. I refer to FIRA. The name itself almost scares the living daylights out of people; it is something of which to be afraid. Investors were afraid of it. They stayed away from our shores in droves, not providing the billions of dollars which we so desperately need for investment purposes. In turn, these investment dollars can create jobs and wealth. If we are to help people we have to create wealth first. I suppose that is in opposition to the philosophy of some of our socialist friends across the way who do not understand that type of thinking.
It is refreshing to note that in a short time we will be passing legislation which will prepare the way for an early payment of the child tax credit. This is a measure directed to those who need it most, to those who will clearly benefit as a result of its enactment. I am referring to those over 750,000 Canadians- some three-quarters of a million people-whose incomes are equal to or less than $15,000 a year. As my colleagues have previously mentioned, the child tax credit currently provides

October 17, 1986
Income Tax Act
low and middle-income families with a tax credit of $454 per child. Through financial belt tightening we have continued to show since 1984 that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), our Cabinet and Members on the government side care. That is why we are here. That is why we were elected. That is why the Hon. Member for Okanagan North who just spoke so capably invests his time here. We want to show collectively that we care-and we do. I know that Hon. Members want to applaud my comments but time does not permit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Previously, recipients have had to wait for their benefits until after the filing of their income tax returns in the spring. They have had to wait for months and months. We simply decided that we would change that. We decided that we would introduce legislation to change it. In the near future families will receive the $300 tax credit. Payment will start in November of this year. That is great news. Apart from the financial assistance it will provide to low-income families there will be no red tape. In fact, there will not even be any blue tape. These families will not have to wait. There will be no fuss, no muss, no bother. It is a simple formula. There will be no need for these families to register. They will not have to get into a big lineup to register for these payments. The payments will be forwarded to the recipients of the family allowance. It will be done before Christmas. Is that not great? Who could not use some hard, cold cash at that time of the year?
I ask Hon. Members to imagine just what this windfall will do for some people. I know there are all kinds of pictures being conjured up in the minds of Hon. Members. Perhaps I could illustrate a few for the House. One consists of presents under the Christmas tree, or in a stocking that hangs from the mantle. This payment will enable the purchase of new winter clothes that are so desperately needed, or perhaps a nice juicy, plump turkey. In the winter there are extra heating bills and the kids sometimes need new shoes. My kids are grown up but I do have five grandchildren. My wife just gave a cheque to our daughter-in-law to buy a new pair of shoes for one of our grandchildren. I know how much shoes cost. So this $300 will go a long way. Perhaps some of the money can be used to purchase a new set of tires for the old heap out in the garage.
What we are doing is filling needs for the people of Canada. Not only will we fill needs, but this measure will plough cash back into the economy. This will create a spinoff which continues to help the economy.
Why do we do this? Why would we do this? We do not have to do this. I am sure Hon. Members have other things they can do. The Minister did not have to bring in this measure. We did it simply because we care, because we are compassionate and because we have big hearts. There is no doubt that the family whose gross income is less than $15,000 a year is continually hard pressed to make ends meet. It is difficult to meet all of the needs. The cost of raising a child to the age of 18 has risen dramatically, as precious as they are to us. I know how much I appreciate my family. I have three grown sons who are
married and who have given me five grandchildren. I love them all. Those of us who are parents are fortunate.
Aside from daycare costs, which I am sure low and middle-income families cannot afford, the costs of raising children are skyrocketing. The final financial tally amounts to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70,000. That is a lot of dough in any person's language. I have drawn these figures from a study done in 1984. Three years prior to that, that is, 1981, the costs had increased by $10,000 for items such as clothing, food and housing, which placed pressing demands on household finances. Thus, the early payment of the child tax credit will help to alleviate a little of this burden.
Moreoever, I am pleased to point out that in 1987 the child tax credit will be increased to $489. In 1987 it will be increased to $524. This will amount to savings right on up the line.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: The Government has committed itself to improving and assisting the financial condition of low and middle-income families. I am pleased to see the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in the House today. When I first came to this place in 1979 the man who put his hand on my shoulder and said, "Girve, we want to welcome you into the House of Commons," was the present Deputy Prime Minister. He helped me greatly. I have looked up to him since because of the fine person that he is. It is because of people like him that we have responsible legislation today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I wish to outline to Hon. Members the results of some measures we have undertaken. Through the continual efforts of the Prime Minister and of the Cabinet we now have lower unemployment in our country. This means that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created. This means that men and women who have not worked for years and years are back to work. That is important. This means that there will be lower interest rates. What does that mean to the average person? It means lower priced homes. It means fewer dollars are being paid for mortgage interest. It means lower costs for capital equipment and investment by companies which wish to invest in their firms. This means lower inflation. It follows, then, that food costs will be lower, as will the costs of all consumer items. Everyone can appreciate that. This also means that there will be more housing starts. In some places not only is the housing industry flourishing but it is virtually booming. Such a boom creates jobs for the trades people who work in homes. I refer to carpenters, roofers, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians, furniture manufacturers, and the list goes on and on. These people are now working.
There have been strong and forceful measures to ensure that the debilitating debt of billions of dollars faced by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can be brought under some control. I am pleased to see that the Minister of Finance is in the Chamber today to listen to my speech. This debt was caused
October 17, 1986

by the free-wheeling expenditures over the past 16 years our socialist friends across the way. Why would we bring in legislation such as this? We do it in order to establish further programs such as the early payment of the child tax credit. Just watch, there will be more legislation like this which will put smiles on the faces of Canadians. This legislation will be a boon to Canadians regardless of their political stripe, even if they are not associated with any political Party.
I am astounded and amazed that the Opposition would want to slow down this legislation, or that they would even take part in the debate other than to say this is one of the finest Bills that has come across our their in this Chamber. They should be applauding our efforts. It is their constituents who will be benefiting from this legislation. In fact, the House Leaders of the opposition Parties should be meeting with our House Leader and determining how quickly this legislation can be passed. We want to get it through, because we want to get the money into the hands and pockets of the people as quickly as possible.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We are not speaking on the subject, it's the Government. Let's get on with this.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very grateful for the intervention of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member will continue debate.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for that interjection. I think it is wonderful to hear from the Opposition that they want to see this legislation move through quickly. I will wind up my speech in another minute or two. We wish to have this Bill passed and moved through swiftly so we can get the money into the hands of the people.
I would like to conclude, because the Hon. Member reminded me we should move this legislation through quickly, by saying that this proves again that our Minister of Finance has a heart, that we are compassionate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's right in the centre; it should be left of centre.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: It has been levelled, it has been charged that we are the people of big business. We are the people of little business, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: We want to help the little business people. We want to help all business people so that we can plough these tax dollars back into the economy, and help people with legislation like this.
Income Tax Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated to the House that I would try not to delay, overly long, giving a ruling on the application of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate relating to the ruling of an American agency with respect to the Canadian forest industry exports.
I also indicated that while I did not receive the minimum notice required by Standing Order 29, there is, in important matters, a discretion allowed the Chair to not see the clock. I extended that courtesy to the Hon. Member, and I am sure that the House would approve that that discretion be used sparingly perhaps, but under the appropriate circumstances.
In considering an application of this kind, the Chair must take three factors into account. The issue raised must constitute a genuine emergency. The Chair used that word in the sense that it is something which is of such urgency that it calls immediately for something to be done about it. It is not enough-and I would ask that the Hon. Members understand this-that it be a matter of great importance. It is the view of the Chair that the issue is of great importance, but the issue must call for immediate and urgent consideration. The Chair must also take into consideration whether or not there will be other opportunities to debate the matter, and other opportunities within a reasonable period of time.
Under all the circumstances, while the Chair does recognize the great importance to Canada of this matter, the Chair must find that the application does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order.
I do want to thank the Hon. Member for proposing the motion and for expressing in explicit terms the reasons for that motion. I thank Hon. Members for patiently hearing the Chair's response, and also for patiently listening to the Hon. Member who presented the application.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Because it is Friday the House might observe that the Hon. Member ought to be extremely pleased with the Chair's intervention.