1987-01-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67, I have the honour to lay on the Table copies of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hinton Train Collision, in both official languages. In other words, I am tabling the report of the Commissioner, the Hon. Mr. Justice Foisy. As an editorial comment I might say that it is a very well done report.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-284, 332-288, 332-419, 332-421 to 332430 inclusive and 332-441 to 332-447 inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the twelfth report, in both official languages, of the Canadian-NATO Parliamentarian Association. The report deals with the petition of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) to meetings of the Subcommittee on Defence Co-operation in London, December 9.


PETITIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 710 of my constituents. These are people who are deeply concerned about the statements of the Government with respect to the safeguards concerning the Auto Pact. They call upon the Government and on Parliament to maintain as deep a commitment as possible to those safeguards for the sake of their jobs and for the sake of the prosperity not just of their constituency but of all of Canada.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions to present which deal with the question of the changes to the Patent Act which are before the House. The first petition comes from New Brunswick.

The federal Government's proposals will lead to increased costs for provincial health insurance plans and an increase in the price of drugs.

The second of the two petitions comes from Ontario. These petitions provide a clear statement from Canadians across Canada that they wish to see an end to the concessions being made with respect to the free trade talks.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege under Standing Order 106 to present a number of petitions. These petitions have been signed by Canadians who are concerned about the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act, and who are worried about the resulting increase in the prices of new prescription drugs. The petitioners view these plans as a concession to the United States, at the expense of ordinary Canadians.
The first petition protesting these measures is signed by residents of Emo, Fort Frances, Stratton, Barwick, and Devlin, in my riding.
The second petition comes from residents of those communities, as well as Rainy River, Atikokan, and Burlington.
2542

January 22, 1987
Introduction of Bills
The third petition comes from residents of the aforementioned communities, as well as the communities of Sleeman and Thunder Bay.
The fourth petition is signed by residents of the City of Toronto, and surrounding areas.
The fifth petition is from residents of Don Mills, Huntsville, Peterborough, Burlington, and St. Catharines.


John Edmund Parry: Finally, I have a petition which protests the plans by the Government to expand low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base. It calls upon the Government to suspend negotiations with NATO to expand the base there.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of Vancouver, North Vancouver, Victoria, and other places in British Columbia. The petition complains that the proposed changes to the Patent Act, which the Government is trying to drive through, will increase drug prices for many ordinary Canadians. The petitioners point out that this will bear especially hard upon those who are on fixed incomes and required to make regular use of prescription drugs. They feel that this is another intolerable example of Canadian concessions to the United States over free trade. They ask Parliament to reject the Government's proposals on this because it will increase the drug prices for many Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I also have a petition signed by a number of residents of North Vancouver, White Rock, Surrey, Burnaby, Victoria, and Kilworthy which points out that the present program of low-level flight training of pilots for NATO at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay is disrupting the life of the native people, damaging the environment, and is also inherently an aggressive war-fighting action that tends to endanger world peace, since the intent is to promote a first strike into Eastern Europe. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ends the present low-level flight training at Goose Bay, and ceases negotiating with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility and honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of residents of Atlantic Canada who are concerned about the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners are
calling upon the Government to reject its plans to proceed with this legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have another petition to present on behalf of a number of citizens who are concerned about the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. They believe that this disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there. The petitioners also suggest that the training of pilots at Goose Bay to fly under the radar into Eastern Europe is a provocative and aggressive warfighting action that tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Parliament to end the low-level flight training programs at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, and to cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base at that location.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour under Standing Order 106 to present a petition which has been signed by many residents of New Brunswick. The petitioners are concerned about the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, and that it will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners believe that this is another example of the Canadian Government's concessions in the free trade negotiations, at the expense of average Canadians. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (open competition).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my Private Members' Bill C-240. The purpose of this Bill is to open competition in the Public Service to the most qualified and best trained Canadians within the Public Service, which I feel does not presently exist. I look forward to speaking to this Bill in the future.
January 22, 1987

Introduction of Bills



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT

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


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (exclusive privilege).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to allow private sector competition with the Post Office by removing the exclusive privilege to deliver mail that the Corporation presently has. For example, it would allow utility companies the right to deliver their own bills, if they so choose.


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


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (loss leadering).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the retail sale of a food product in a food store at a price lower than the production cost incurred by the seller of the product. We find that this has been used as a predatory pricing practice and that once the monopoly has been established on the market, the price for the product simply zooms up.


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

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act (apparel industry).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce this Bill which would undertake to regulate the import of manufactured clothing into Canada in such as way as to encourage Canadian domestic production by relating importation to the volume of production. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on it soon.


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


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (grain handling).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the international agricultural subsidy wars have given Canadian grain producers enough to worry about without domestic problems such as last year's grain handling and ports disputes exacerbating their situation.
The Bill would curtail work stoppages by grain handlers and those involved in the transportation of grain from the farm gate to the port. Instead of prolonged walk-outs, a mechanism for resolution would be immediately implemented thereby avoiding such work stoppages.
I urge Hon. Members to support this initiative.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
January 22, 1987


Murray Dorin: for leave to introduce Bill C-245, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (suspension).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, in the unfortunate event that you found it necessary to suspend someone from the House for a day or a longer period of time, the Bill would reduce his or her salary accordingly by deducting a day's pay or an appropriate amount for the time he or she were suspended. I think it would be appropriate in that, in such circumstances, obviously the person through his or her behaviour would not be adequately representing the people he or she were elected to represent.


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

['Agreed.']
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29,1 ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the unparalleled circumstances surrounding the departure from Cabinet of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Bissonnette), which has raised grave doubts in the public mind concerning the integrity of the Government's dealing with contractors and its adherence to conflict of interest standards.
I should like to cite sources which would lead Your Honour to be able to grant the request for an emergency debate. In doing so, I refer to a speech given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) several months ago in which he said:
You will find no quasi-independent agencies in this Code that will allow the Government to shirk its responsibility by saying that the problem belongs to someone else ... Instruments already exist which permit the Government to respond appropriately to such a requirement. But making use of these instruments will not relieve the Government of the responsibility to decide and to stand accountable before Parliament. The principles of responsible government and the supremacy of Parliament are respected and reinforced.
He went on to say:
[ Translation]
As Prime Minister, my primary responsibility is to protect the public interest and implement legislation and policies, including policies on individual behaviour and conflict of interest. All this comes under the responsibility of the Prime Minister, who has a duty to act firmly and expeditiously in the national interest.


Philip Derek Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rising on a point of order. I think, perhaps to Save time, I can anticipate the point of order.
I have allowed the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) to go a little beyond the rule that debate is not appropriate at the presentation of an application such as the one which has been brought before the Chair. However, I assure the Hon. Member that the Chair has the point and is clearly of the opinion that it is an important matter.
As to whether it is appropriate under all the circumstances to order an emergency debate, that is a matter on which I would ask the Hon. Member to permit the Chair to defer its ruling until this afternoon.

[ Translation]



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 46 will be answered today.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): 1.	What is the total number of public servants and Crown corporation employees employed in Canada and, in each case, how many are located in (a) the Ottawa region (b) each province?
2.	How do these figures compare with June 1984?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: The tables below show employee counts at the end of June, 1984, and June, 1986. Federal Government Enterprises data are not available for the National Capital Region.
Federal Government Enterprises, Total Number of Employees in June, 1984 and June, 1986.
Geographic Location	Number of Employees June 1984 June 1986	
Newfoundland and Labrador	5,463	5,608Prince Edward Island	994	916Nova Scotia	6,041	6,142New Brunswick	7,966	7,580Quebec	58,906	57,145
January 22, 1987

Ontario	65,822	66,478Manitoba	15,796	14,939Saskatchewan	6,279	6,471Alberta	18,219	18,481British Columbia	16,312	16,968Yukon	470	494Northwest Territories	792	577Outside Canada	5,335	5,804Total	208,395	207,603
Softwood Lumber Products
Ontario (NCR)	58,462	56,870Manitoba	11,466	11,350Saskatchewan	6,990	6,882Alberta	14,469	14,354British Columbia	22,775	22,949Yukon	1,257	1,063Northwest Territories	1,891	1,822Outside Canada	1,679	1,594Unspecified	8	16Total	243,983	238,969
Federal Government Enterprises includes:
Air Canada
Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Canada Ports Corporation Canada Post Corporation Canadair Limited
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Canadian National Railways Canadian Patents and Development Corporation Canadian Saltfish Corporation Canadian Wheat Board ,
CN/CP Telecommunications
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Export Development Corporation
Farm Credit Corporation
Federal Business Development Bank
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation
Northern Canada Power Commission
Petro-Canada
Royal Canadian Mint
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
Teleglobe Canada
Via Rail Incorporated
Federal Government, Total Number of Employees in June, 1984, and June, 1986, for which Treasury Board Represents the Employer
Geographic Location	Number of Employees
	June 1984	June 1986
Newfoundland and Labrador	6,591	6,197Prince Edward Island	2,191	2,300Nova Scotia	15,280	14,936New Brunswick	8,236	8,049Quebec (less NCR)	35,101	34,296Quebec (NCR)	17,810	17,708Ontario (less NCR)	39,777	38,583
NCR-National Capital Region


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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), (p. 2382).
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 should be trashed, as should the Memorandum of Understanding on softwood lumber which this Bill aims to implement. Why? Simply, if you look at the facts, Sir, you will see that not only is the softwood lumber industry being betrayed by this agreement but so are the Canadian people, not only by this agreement but by other evidences of Canada being sold out through other attempts to make agreements with the United States.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
For many years Canada has helped the United States meet its lumber requirements. Canadian lumber has filled the gap between United States consumption and domestic production. When markets are good, the United States has encouraged Canadian companies to increase production to meet United States needs for wood products. When markets are bad there have been periodic attempts by some U.S. producers to restrict Canadian lumber imports. Each time Canadian industry has never been found to be anything but a fair competitor with its United States counterparts.
In 1982, a minority group of United States producers filed a countervailing duty petition against Canadian import policies, lumber policies and lumber imports. The United States Department of Commerce, through the International Trade Administration, the IT A, undertook a detailed investigation of the Canadian lumber industry. The American Department of Commerce ruled in 1983 that the Canadian lumber industry was not receiving any significant government subsidies in Canada. That decision had a sound, legal and factual basis and was not based on mere technicalities of U.S. countervailing duty law.
Since that ITA decision, Canada has not changed any of its long-standing policies. Unfortunately, accusations of unfair competition have been revived to try to lay the blame for current industry conditions on Canadian lumber. Congress, to curb Canadian wood product imports, called for quotas and tariffs. Others advocate changes to United States countervailing duty, in effect, changing the rules of the game so that it can be replayed with a stacked deck against Canada.
At this point, the United States threatened to slap a huge countervailing tariff against Canadian softwood lumber. Canada had a choice of one of several things. It could scream foul, press for a decision by ITA and, if necessary, appeal to GATT internationally. That was the first declaration the Government made. The Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) said it was the Canadian Government's view that the preliminary countervailing duty in October was flawed in law, inconsistent with established U.S. practice and in some important respects based on eroneous assumptions. That was the first reaction of the Canadian Government to American threats.
Then this incompetent Government lost its nerve. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) huffed and puffed and made a so-called final offer. On September 30,
1986 our Canadian Trade Minister made her first final offer to the United States to settle the dispute by offering to raise provincial stumpage fees by 10 per cent; a compromise already, a sell-out. Then on November 26, 1986 she made her second final offer, this time to impose a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood. The offer was rejected by the U.S. industry coalition. On December 12, 1986 she rejected a U.S. counter-offer to accept the 15 per cent export sell-out on the grounds that the U.S. demanded its say on how the provinces would manage their resources. Finally, on December 30, 1986#
Canada caved in and signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States that did, indeed, impose a 15 per cent duty for which the Americans were asking on exports of softwood lumber products, and according to the U.S. interpretation of the Memorandum of Understanding, also severely restricting Canadian provincial management of our own resources, our own forest management, our own replanting programs and so on.
The result is total confusion for the Canadian forest industry which totally opposed this sell-out, loss of markets in Europe and Japan, the laying off of workers and the spin-down effect of lost jobs in related sectors to the lumber industry. Now the Government wants to stuff this agreement down our throats by way of this odious Bill C-37 to implement this odious agreement.
Why were we sold out to the Americans, Mr. Speaker? The answer is not hard to come by. Canada could have taken the courageous way. We could have taken on the Americans, as we did in 1982 and 1983 under a Liberal Government and faced them down and made them prove that they were unfair before the Department of Commerce, ITA and the GATT in Geneva. Before those bodies we could have argued the case. We could have called the Americans bluff, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has pointed out.
The ITC prepared a report released September 23, 1986 that the United States lumber industry was not being hurt by Canadian lumber imports and the decision, we are told, could well have gone in Canada's favour. Even if we had lost that argument there-it appears we would not have, it appears we would have won-we still could have appealed to the GATT in Geneva. This American threat of countervail is unfair. It is as unfair now as it was unfair in 1982 as it was unfair in 1983.
Why did the Government cave in and sell our forest industry into slavery? Because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has an obsession to be loved by the Americans, to be in their tent, to get a free trade agreement of some kind, any kind it would appear. First fish, then shakes and shingles, and now we find the forest industry is being sacrificed. Next comes our softwood industry. In other words, it has to be the one to suffer and sacrificed in order that we will not annoy the Americans. Canadian workers in the forest industry have had to be sacrificed to appease Americans.
Canadians are rubbing their eyes. They are becoming annoyed at seeing Canada being used, taken, mocked and, worst of all, ignored. That is why the Prime Minister desperately needed to get Bush up here once again to bluff and posture, only this time to pretend that he is tough. The P.M. now knows that Canadians realize that he has gambled through appeasements and fawning and lost.
Canadians are becoming increasingly incredulous and outraged as they realize that the Government is so corrupt, so confused and so lacking in direction that it is betraying our national interest by bad judgments and incompetence. In his misguided and amateur effort, the Prime Minister thought
January 22, 1987

that by fawning to the American President he could ingratiate himself. He tried to dissociate himself with past policies of the Canadian Government which were there in place to defend our independence. The Government has taken a step to try to eliminate our protection of our resources in energy through the elimination of certain efforts to give ourselves a reserve through the National Energy Program. The Prime Minister has eliminated our control over our economy through F1RA by eliminating FIRA and thus allowing investments in Canada that are not as much in the interests of our country as otherwise would have been.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reversed the Liberal policy of standing our ground against Americans on offshore sovereignty, in world courts and with independent foreign policy. I suggest that we are in grave danger. The Prime Minister has now found that his efforts to appease the Americans have brought only contempt and disinterest.
The Prime Minister's policy of appeasement has been recognized and now Canada is seen by Americans for what it is, a country stumbling while being led by a well meaning group of incompetents. The recent deal struck on softwood lumber with the United States is a most pathetic example of this. It is a case of confusion, bravado and posturing followed by exposure of the bluff. For Canada, it is a defeat and a disaster.
I would hope that after the Prime Minister's meeting with the American Vice-President, and after he learns of the mood of the country, the Government will reconsider this agreement, go back to the negotiating table and, if necessary, throw this agreement out and begin by appealing to the ITA, the ITC and GATT. I hope the Government seeks for Canada a just solution. We have not done anything unfair to the Americans and we should stand our ground and be courageous enough to say that this is where we stand, we are not cowards.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you check yesterday's records, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) spoke, followed by the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). I believe you will find that it is the Government's turn to have the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for the intervention. I regret that I did not see the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) rise. I am sure the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River (Mr. Parry) will understand that we do follow the roster.


Mrs. Collins:: Mr. Speaker, I know that that is one of the difficulties of Hon. Members who sit on the back-bench. They are not quite as noticeable to the Speaker.
Softwood Lumber Products


Mr. Speaker:: I may not have recognized the Hon. Member but I always see her.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate. However, quite honestly, I must say that I have never heard such an erroneous twisting of facts as I have heard from Members on the other side of the House. I have never heard such outrageous indignation as I have heard from Hon. Members opposite who have spoken on this Bill.
I would like to talk about some of the facts pertaining to this issue. I have been trying to figure out what is really concerning opposition Members about this particular measure. I thought it might be the plight of the forest workers. I had a chance to look back on the record of six months ago when we were faced with the 35 per cent tariff on shakes and shingles. At that time we heard the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) predict that this particular measure would put thousands of jobs in jeopardy. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) called it an incredible decision which would sacrifice some 4,000 jobs in British Columbia. The Liberal House Leader, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), upped the ante again and said that it would put at risk at least 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in the province. That was the scary stuff that was spread across Canada.
What is the reality? Six months later we know that 80 per cent of that industry is operating at full capacity. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), who represents a constituency in which many of those plants are located, found that there was not the disruptive influence that had been predicted.
Quite honestly, the record on credibility of Members opposite was not very good on that issue, nor is it on this one. Again, we have heard during this debate wailing and lamenting about the thousands of jobs that will be lost because of this horrendous imposition of a 15 per cent export tax. What is the reality? The best source to which we can turn is the unions themselves. One would expect that the unions would be upset if what opposition Members have been saying were true. Certainly the unions would be the first to verify that. Instead, the reality is this. On January 5, a few days after the agreement was reached, the Western Canadian Regional Council of the International Woodworkers of America had this to say:
During the past few days, the softwood lumber settlement has been severely criticized on both political and economic grounds. We would suggest that many negative comments have been both ill-informed and ill-founded. All seem to be based on the assumption that somehow the 15 per cent duty could have been substantially reduced if a negotiated settlement had not been entered into. That is simply untrue.
Opposition Members have said that if we had stood our ground things would have been different. We know that that is untrue, and they know that that is untrue. Why do we not all face up to reality?

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
I am sure my hon. colleagues are aware of today's article in The Globe and Mail reporting on a study done by the International Woodworkers of America on the impact of this particular tax on the industry. That report's assessment is that the federal tax on softwood lumber will have little impact on Canada's lumber industry. The article quotes Mr. Douglas Smythe of the International Woodworkers of America as saying:
"We believe that because of the very high efficiency of Canadian sawmills, particularly in the British Columbia interior, the Canadian industry will remain cost competitive in the U.S. market in spite of the export tax,"-
There will be little slowdown in lumber activity. In fact, the IWA suggests that while there may be some loss of jobs-and we have all admitted that some jobs could be lost-its estimate is perhaps 1,000 jobs over a period of time, most where plant modernization has not taken place. Fortunately, in British Columbia, we have taken a leadership role and have modernized our plants to become efficient and competitive. Unfortunately, this has not been done in some other parts of the country. To be realistic, we must be competitive in this global world of ours. We cannot expect to sit back and continue on with our old ways. We must modernize and become efficient so that we can be competitive.
Obviously members of the Opposition are not in tune with what the forest workers themselves are saying. In fact, there is this really ridiculous anomaly of federal members of the New Democratic Party wailing about this export tax while their British Columbia counterparts, both in the NDP and the IWA, are saying that this agreement had to be entered into because it is the best deal we could have made. No one likes trade wars. We must do something about them because they serve no one any good in the long run. However, given the present political and legal situation, the negotiated deal was the best deal we could have made.
Perhaps my hon. colleagues are concerned about the forest companies. Perhaps members of the Liberal Party are concerned about the forest barons and perhaps members of the NDP are concerned about the terrible devastation this may have on their profits. Again, the facts speak for themselves.
Let us look at the impact this has had on the price of forestry stocks between December 29, the day before the deal was announced, and January 20. The increase in the prices of those stocks was as high as 21.6 per cent in a three-week period. The price of Canfor stock went up by 21.6 per cent and the price of MacMillan Bloedel stock went up by 17.6 per cent. Do Hon. Members think those companies are suffering? Do they think the public perception is that the investors in Canada will suffer? They will not suffer.
Obviously, opposition Members are not really concerned about the forest barons. Perhaps they are concerned about the business community. Let me quote from a letter from the Board of Trade of Vancouver to the Hon. Minister, received just a few days ago after the Board of Trade had assessed this issue:
Everyone accepts that having the $600 million duty remain in Canada is obviously far better than having it go to the U.S. government. This money can now be used for much needed reforestation, silviculture and other public works projects that will enhance Canada's important forest industry.
It is my informed opinion that a duty of at least 15 per cent or probably more would have been the inevitable result of following the legal process to its ultimate conclusion. Even if we had won the legal case under those circumstances we would have been visited with even tougher legislation in Congress given the groundswell of protectionist sentiment in the U.S.
We know what the U.S. is facing on trade issues. We do not like it, but it is there. We cannot hide behind righteous indignation.
Obviously the Opposition was not concerned about the forest barons. I thought perhaps it was the provinces because I am sure opposition Members feel they must support provincial Governments. Yet we all know provincial Governments are the winners in this situation because that $600 million will go to them. They will be able to enhance their activities in silviculture, as was pointed out by the Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) yesterday, as well as do other creative things to help the forest industry.
Obviously it is not the provinces who are losing. Given that, I finally realized who opposition Members were trying to protect. Who is hurt by this tax? It is the U.S. consumer. So we have members of the Opposition standing up and fighting for the rights of the U.S. consumer because they will ultimately be hurt by the increase in the cost of lumber. I am surprised that U.S. consumers have not spoken out earlier. However, we are well aware that U.S. lobby groups are extremely strong and I do not think the U.S. consumer realizes the kind of trade war this results in. That is something we need to address.
Obviously I cannot cover all the issues involved in the few minutes I have left. However, the facts speak for themselves. This deal that the Canadian Government was able to negotiate under very difficult conditions enables us to keep the money in Canada. It is certainly the best and most courageous thing our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was able to accomplish.
I am sure we will have other opportunities to debate this, but this situation points to the necessity for entering into new trade arrangements with the U.S. If anything underscores the importance of that fact, it is this situation. We must have new mechanisms to resolve trade disputes. The existing mechanisms are not satisfactory, whether it is in this field, in natural gas or anything else. We have to come to a new understanding of what fairness is about.
Over the Christmas holidays I had an opportunity to meet with some U.S. Congressmen. They talked very eloquently about wanting fair trade and fair access to markets. I asked them what they meant by "fair". Was it the same? Was that what they meant by "fair"? They could not really reply. That is the problem we have to start addressing. We cannot mean the same thing because we have different political and business
January 22, 1987

systems, as well as social structures. However, those are the issues we have to address and this Bill will implement-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, on the second last day of 1986 the Progressive Conservative Government signed an eleventh-hour deal with the U.S., a deal without precedent in our history. In what should be described as the terms of surrender, Canada sustained its most severe blow yet along the Prime Minister's path to free trade. This deal, which has Canada imposing a 15 per cent tax on all softwood lumber exports to the U.S., including dressed products and remanufactured lumber, including even American lumber which has been imported and re-exported, is comparable to a sports team coming home from an out-oftown game having sustained a terrible drubbing and then saying it could have been worse.
I would like to briefly review the chronology which has led up to this disastrous agreement. We are all well aware of the preliminary determination and, perhaps more importantly, what preceded it, the victory won by the Canadian industry lobby in front of the U.S. International Trade Commission. We are well aware of the ripple of shock which went through Canadians when it was announced that the U.S. lumber industry was again seeking an ITC ruling in its favour for protectionist measures against Canadian lumber. The preliminary determination by the ITC went against the Canadian industry and it would appear that is when our country's troubles really started. Until that time there had been little intervention by the Government of Canada. Yet at a time when Canadians should have pulled together, when Government, industry and the unions should have co-operated, it appears that our Government struck out on its own on a course which led us to the predicament we are now in.
I would like to briefly quote the President of the Canadian Forest Industries Council:
The second thing we can clearly note from this sorry tale is the absence of a formal protocol or mechanism for coming together as Canadians.
He continues:
The solo excursions of various politicians into what had theretofore been a successful co-operative strategy destroyed years of the most extraordinary united effort by a major industry.
There he is of course referring to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). Those are telling, trenchant condemnations of the Government's failure to consult. I do not think there is some form of vested interest in those remarks. There is no percentage in the President of the Canadian Forest Industries Council criticizing a Minister of Government in those terms, unless it be simply to put on the public record before Canadians what the truth is and where the Government has fallen down.
It is not my intention to merely conduct a jeremiad against the Government's actions. It is certainly not to indulge in the sort of Pollyanna optimism we just heard from the Hon.
Softwood Lumber Products
Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). The agreement is signed and I would like to deal with the reality. Whether it was signed at 10 per cent or 15 per cent, it contains very serious defects.
The straws that the Government is clutching at in its interpretation and presentation of declarations of support are in fact assessments and analyses made by various interested partners. It seems to me that the need for certainty very much governs the assessment. I believe that is why there has been an indication from the unions in British Columbia and some industry spokesmen that perhaps they can live with the agreement. It is the greater fear of uncertainty which exists in that province and the lumber-producing sector which is less evident in other parts of the country. That of course is influenced by the very high level of unemployment in British Columbia, unemployment which the Government has done little if anything to recognize and absolutely nothing to bring down. It is said that a drowning person will clutch at a straw and that is indeed a straw which the Government has thrown to the industry in British Columbia.
We have a range of analytical and speculative factors that will govern our reaction to the possibility that without an agreement the case would have been won. I do not want to gratuitously attack the Government here. Obviously it had to make its own judgment. However, it could have signed a far better agreement than it did. It could have signed an agreement that would not lead to the many problems that this agreement will.
This agreement does indeed dangerously compromise Canadian sovereignty. Barely a commentator or analyst has attempted to rebut that point. It allows for the replacement of the export charge with stumpage increases only through U.S. agreement that the value of the stumpage increase alternative is equivalent to the export charge. We are letting the competition look at our books. Even in provinces like British Columbia, where it is acknowledged by the Government that stumpage is too low, it is unacceptable in terms of Canadian sovereignty and independence to allow the American Government to dictate what the level of increases should be.
The American interpretation specifically prohibits the provision of grants, low-cost loans, and other benefits to the forest industry. It is totally amazing that the United States Government and its International Trade Commission have been granted the power to shape the future evolution of the Canadian forest industry, far more than perhaps even they believed possible. They now have de facto approval over virtually any development in our forest industry.
The agreement states that any replacement stumpage must yield the same price increases on lumber exports to the United States as the tax. This could have disastrous consequences for the pulp and paper industry in Canada which is larger than our softwood lumber industry. If we follow the American prescription, we will have a stumpage system which will render our industry vulnerable to competition from U.S. domestic

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
producers. It would give Sweden, Finland, and other countries which are beginning to produce pulp, a competitive advantage over the Canadian pulp and paper industry.
The export tax which is introduced in this agreement goes against GATT. It is illegal under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our greatest counterweight to the American presence in our trade is being snubbed. Industry competitors such as Sweden may go to GATT and insist that we increase our prices for exports to all other countries, thus making our exports competitive in all of our markets.
With regard to keeping the money in Canada, if we had won the case that would have occurred anyway, because there would have been no money paid out. This agreement will cause great divisions between the provinces, particularly Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. There is no clause in the agreement which states that it will not be used as a precedent in other proceedings. The 30-day provision is ludicrous. Our competitiveness is decreasing as a result.
In the strategic context of free trade negotiations the Government of Canada could have done nothing worse than to sign an agreement on a specific sector, because it calls into question all the other sectors on which our trade depends. It defies reason for the Member for Capilano to suggest that we need a dispute mechanism after the Minister said in the House last month that we were not going for that. This agreement is a prescription for disaster, not only in Canada's forest industry, but in many other sectors of our economy.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, the vice-president of a lumber manufacturing company in Northern Ontario has written to me with regard to the 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber. He said that as an elected representative from Northern Ontario my support is needed to oppose this tax which will have an adverse impact on the lumber industry and on communities like Hearst, Chap-leau, Terrace Bay and Elk Lake. He writes: "I am of the opinion that the Government's handling borders on bungling", and that "the Government overrated the strength and role of the American lumber coalition opposed to Canadian lumber exports".
It is well known, as Adam Zimmerman, chairman of the Canadian Forest Industries Council has pointed out, that it is a nonsensical assertion and fallacious theory put forward by some U.S. lumber interests that stumpage can be a subsidy. In most cases in Canada wood costs are higher than they are in the United States. Costs are higher because it is so expensive to harvest trees in Canada, to bring those trees to the mill where they can be transformed into usable products. The costs are high because of the nature of the terrain where the trees are harvested, because of weather conditions, and because of long distances from the cutting site to the mills. The question is not one of the value of a tree on these stumps but, rather, what it costs to bring that tree to a place where it can be converted into a usable and marketable product.
On that point, the Alberta Forest Products Association, in a letter to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), said that the industry is convinced:
-that we are not guilty of receiving stumpage subsidy and this fact stands up to verification procedure. We, along with other CFIC members, have spent much time and effort, along with over ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) in professional fees, to research, analyze and present our position. Our attorneys assure us that our position is a win situation and legally sound.
A Washington trade lawyer, with regard to the agreement signed by the Minister for International Trade, (Miss Carney) said recently that "it must have seemed more sensible to the U.S. lumber industry to accept the Canadian settlement rather than risk getting nothing at the end of the day".
What will the effects be of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber? Of course, opinions on the effects vary. For example, in The Globe and Mail this morning it is reported that the director of research for the International Woodworkers of America has argued that the Canadian industry can absorb the tax and remain competitive, particularly in the interior of British Columbia. I do not know whether that is so or not. However, according to him, only about 1,000 jobs will be lost in the forestry sector as a result of this tax. The loss of
1,000	jobs seems rather serious to me. However, the Canadian Forest Industries Council itself has a different estimate. According to them, abut 6,000 jobs in the forest industry are in jeopardy as a result of this tax, and that another 11,000 jobs in allied industries and services are at risk.
A lumber company executive from Hearst, Ontario wrote a letter to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew). This individual who is executive president of the Levesque Lumber Company says:
Crown dues in Ontario are five to eight times higher than those in British Columbia, so the imposition of a 15 per cent increase in stumpage to Ontario lumber firms would be a prohibitive expense to Ontario producers. In addition, British Columbia has offshore markets and sells surplus lumber in the Ontario market because of low freight rates from British Columbia to Ontario. So British Columbia has three markets, (the United States, offshore, and the Toronto Montreal area) whereas Ontario only has the local market and the central United States market.
I was more than a little interested in what my Progressive Conservative neighbour, the Hon. Member for Timmins- Chapleau (Mr. Gervais) said in the debate yesterday when he let us know his views. First, as reported at page 2530 of Hansard, he agreed that:
-the potential ramifications of the tax on northern Ontario are serious indeed.
A little later in his speech at page 2531, he went on to say:
I do not deny that a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood will hurt softwood lumber producers in northern Ontario.
Further on he said:
-I do not deny a tax increase is not altogether healthy for the softwood industry-
But quite curiously, at the end of his speech he said:
I support the Bill of the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).
As an even more curious afterthought, he said:
January 22, 1987

I will not relinquish my efforts to fight for the lumber industry in northern Ontario-
Will the Member for Timmins-Chapleau not begin his fight now and oppose and vote against Bill C-37? I believe it is more important to support our region of northern Ontario than it is to support the Minister for International Trade, so I say to the Hon. Member that the reasons given in his speech yesterday for supporting this Bill are weak and rather unconvincing.
Let me review those reasons quickly. He said that if we had not struck a deal with the Americans we may have faced a countervail tariff higher than 15 per cent. The evidence is all to the contrary. There is no evidence that it would have been higher, but there is good evidence that we would have won our case in Washington.
Second, he says that the money will stay in Canada where it can be used. For what? He calls upon the Premier of Ontario for support, saying that we can use this money to retrain forestry workers who will lose their jobs. The Hon. Member has much more faith in these retraining programs than I do.
He also talks about the establishment of a heritage fund for northern Ontario and doing more research on the spruce bud worm problem.
I invite the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau to come with me at the end of the month to meet a large number of bush workers from Hearst, Mattice, Opasatika, and Chapleau to make these arguments in their presence and see how convincing they are.
The Member for Timmins-Chapleau also says that the money could be used to help find new markets in Europe and the Pacific Rim. The Hon. Member knows as well as I do that what prevents us from gaining access to those new markets are the prohibitively high freight rates that we must endure in our region.
Therefore, I conclude by saying that from a northern Ontario perspective Bill C-37 is just unsupportable. It simply has to be opposed by all Members from the region, including Liberal, New Democrat and Progressive Conservative Members alike. This is a clear-cut and unequivocal regional issue and I call upon the Member for Timmins-Chapleau and the Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) to stand with all Members and let us have one strong voice in the House for northern Ontario against a tax which will inevitably result in a large number of lost jobs. It will be a set-back for the industry and our economy is much too fragile to be hit with yet another blow of this kind.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-37 which has been introduced as a result of an unfortunate situation that has developed between the American lumber interests and lumber interests here at home.
It is my opinion and that of many others, including many in the industry, that the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between the Governments of Canada and the
Softwood Lumber Products
United States was concluded under conditions of some duress. The Government of Canada found itself between a rock and a hard place, and I believe without any doubt that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) reached an agreement that they believe is in the best interests of Canadians now and in the future.
While I, as well as industry, recognize that there are certain deficiencies as a result of the agreement by which we cannot come out a winner, I believe my hon. friends in the Opposition would have to agree that it is much more beneficial to have the money generated from this export tax remain in Canada for the benefit of Canadians than being collected by the Americans.
Of course, we will never know whether this dispute would have been resolved in favour of the American or Canadian interests if it had gone to the international courts. The unfortunate part of that situation is that such a procedure could take years and a decision in favour of the American interests could involve the collection of such a substantial amount of money that it could jeopardize an industry today as well as in the future. Industries would not be able to determine the price of their lumber exports to the United States because of those future uncertainties.
I want to deal specifically with the Maritime region. I am most familiar with the difficulties being experienced in the Maritimes, particularly the Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia which depend heavily on the forest industry as a basis of their economy. The Government's decision as reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding could have very serious impacts on that industry.
Let me state two positions with which I sympathize and agree, which have been taken by a group known as the Coalition Against Unfair Lumber Taxes, formed by the Maritime lumber interests. The first position is that at no time were the Maritime provinces identified by the American lumber interests as being the problem. They maintain that, as they are not part of the problem they should not become part of the solution.
It is with this in mind that I implore the Government to look at the situation in the days and weeks to come, because there are opportunities within the Memorandum of Understanding to do so. For instance, the Memorandum of Understanding states that:
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America agree that the fiscal year 1985-86 for each province will be the reference year for establishing the baselines from which increased provincial charges will be calculated.
Clause 5a states:
The Government of Canada may reduce or eliminate the export charge on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces on softwood lumber production.
Clause 8a states:

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America will consult semiannually and otherwise at the request of either Government regarding any matter concerning this Understanding.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that this is extremely important for the following reasons. First, it is the position of the Maritime lumber industry that because it was not identified as being part of the problem, that is, it was not specifically named as was British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, it believes the American lumber interests would be prepared to grant a blanket exemption to the Maritime Provinces. Five firms in New Brunswick, for instance, were granted an exemption under the countervailing duty action which was the initiation of this entire procedure.
It is important to understand that the Maritime Provinces export only 1.5 per cent of the total amount of lumber which goes into the United States. Over 95 per cent of Canada's timber harvest which goes into the United States comes from other regions of the country. The Maritime Provinces account for substantially little of what is shipped into the United States, yet we pay the largest stumpage fees.
It is important to recognize that the stumpage fees in New Brunswick were increased in excess of 25 per cent and the stumpage fees in Nova Scotia were increased in excess of 10 per cent since the timeframe was identified by American lumber interests and the Memorandum of Understanding was signed with reference to the particular time-frame.
It is also important that we recognize that we in the Maritimes are paying stumpage rates now of between $46 and $57 per 1,000 compared to $1 to $10 paid by the four provinces which were named. We, therefore, submit that we are not part of the problem and we should be excluded . In fact, there is basis under the Memorandum of Understanding for the Government to take action now, to go to the American authorities and gain that exemption for us. We feel we are entitled in law and in compliance under the agreement.
I think it is also important to understand that 57 per cent of the lands in New Brunswick are freehold lands. In Nova Scotia I believe close to 67 per cent are freehold lands, whereas in the balance of the country the freehold lands only account for 8 per cent of the production of lumber goods. By definition, then, it becomes obvious that we cannot expect that lands which are not subjected to stumpage can be part of the problem or would have been part of the countervail action. There is no subsidy on freehold lands, so obviously that point becomes very important in determining the future.
There is in jeopardy thousands of jobs in the Maritime Provinces. The Government has the opportunity to address this problem under the Memorandum of Understanding which is in place. We implore the Government to utilize that power and the jurisdiction which now falls within its purview to have, if necessary, stumpage rates increased in the four provinces which have been named. I urge the Government to move in this direction immediately.
There are thousands of jobs in the Maritimes which are dependent on a healthy and competitive lumber industry. We must ensure that the Government puts in place policies which do not result in job loss or the loss of our competitive situation, which could be one of the difficulties.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This year's New Year's present from the Government to Canadian industry is Bill C-37 which imposes a 15 per cent charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States. For Canada, this Bill is a great disaster, not eclipsed even by those disasters who have been appointed to the present Cabinet and who have had to resign.
There are several serious problems created by Bill C-37. They are certainly worse than the problems we had before, or the problems we could have had if the Government had been willing to take our case to GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The Government has set a precedent for the American lumber industry to control vital parts of the Canadian industry to a greater extent than it now does. It already owns far too much of Canadian industry, but this gives it the right to look into the books of our largest exporting industry, our lumber industry. It also gives the Americans the right to argue about federal-provincial relationships, to get into the argument of stumpage fees, to interfere between negotiations within Canada which are often difficult enough in their own right. It is also illegal. It will bring down on us the wrath of countries like Sweden, normally a good friend and ally. We will be accused of discriminating by placing a tax on exports to only one country, the United States. We will perhaps be forced to put that tax on all our exports. That will cut us out of still more of the foreign markets we have enjoyed and which we need.
There are many other disadvantages to the Bill which some of my colleagues have outlined in great detail. However, I want particularly to take up an objection made on Tuesday by the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), the Hon. Member for Halifax. He did not disprove any of our arguments so much as simply complain that the New Democratic Party is always against and never for anything. What he said was said in a very cheerful way, but it was nonsense. It was a good thing he smiled when he said it. I quote from page 2500 of Hansard on January 20:
My friends in the New Democratic Party must come out of their igloos.
I am here from my igloo in Spadina.
We are now in the 20th century. We must turn on the light bulb and become aware of the realities.
Members in that particular Party are against everything. It is about time they took a position with regard to what they are in favour of.
In the time I have at my disposal I would like to give the Minister a list of a few of the things of which this Party stands in favour. We have spoken strongly, in and out of this House, in favour of a very large Government effort to provide the sort of child care which is needed by parents, especially by working
January 22, 1987

mothers. That is something we are in favour of. It might even come under the jurisdiction of the Hon. Minister if his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) does not want to handle it. We are talking about capital and operating subsidies to non-profit daycare centres, which are the most efficient.
We have also spoken out in support of the garment and footwear industries of Canada. There are certain actions this and the previous Government should have taken which would have greatly strengthened those industries without cost to the taxpayers. However, this Government, like its predecessor, is wishy-washy on that issue whereas we have taken a firm stand.
We have also pointed out that many prairie farmers are facing bankruptcy, those who have not already gone through bankruptcy need much more serious financial aid than they have received in the past, particularly because of the unfair competition from the United States which subsidizes its grain exports to about twice the dollar rate per bushel as Canada.
We have also spoken out strongly against the increase in the tolls on the Seaway by the Government. In other words, we spoke out in favour of lower tolls on the Canadian Seaway for the export of our grain, something which not only the farmers but the country badly needs. The Government is trying to squeeze revenue out of our export trade at a point at which it can no longer be squeezed. All it can do is put more farmers out of business with these high tolls.
We have also spoken many times in favour of Canada's railways, which the Government seems willing to dismantle. When I was first elected to the House a little over five years ago the then Official Opposition was against the dismantling of the railway system. Now that that Party has crossed the floor it is carrying on what its Liberal predecessors were doing. It is dismantling the system by mishandling the work of VIA Rail. We have been told that there will be legislation, but it is on the slow back burner. We are not being given any serious opportunities to discuss the railways in Parliament.
CN is planning to lay off 14,000 employees over the next 10 years. The Government says it can do nothing about that. Yet it can give $1 billion to a bank which went broke because it attracted investors with high rates of interest based on faulty loans which turned bad. In other words, we rewarded greed which was not producing anything. However, to reward railway workers for producing transportation is as unpopular with the Government as rewarding farmers for producing wheat.
We are asking for a rebuilding of the tracks. We are asking for the production of new rolling stock. We are asking for the renovation of Canada's railway system. That is something positive. I have not heard the Minister of Public Works or any of his colleagues give any support to such ideas.
We are asking for 50,000 units per year of social housing. Even at that rate it would take us 10 years to catch up on the
Softwood Lumber Products
backlog of 500,000 under-housed people, a figure supported by the former Minister responsible for housing. It is a modest figure but it would take us 10 years at 50,000 units per year to accomplish that end. Instead, the Government has cut back on social housing. We have demanded consistently that the Government intervene in favour of housing that ordinary Canadians, including the poor, can afford.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I am not too sure whether we are still debating the same Bill, but I think the Hon. Member is talking about housing. I did not say anything for a while although I believe that Members have been debating half a dozen issues which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter now under consideration.
For weeks on end the New Democratic Party had been virulently clamoring that the Government ought to deal with the softwood lumber issue, yet this morning we have heard speeches on housing, Quebec day care centres and what else except the matter under study. In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should get back to the subject on which they were so insistent for a number of weeks.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) in the closing minutes of his remarks will find a link between those subjects and the Bill which is now before us. Perhaps he will focus on the Bill in the few minutes which he has left.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I was attempting to clear up the misunderstanding created by the Hon. Member's colleague, the Minister of Public Works. Apparently, the Hon. Member and perhaps the Minister do not want to hear the answer to the question the Minister posed two days ago. I wish to make the link more clearly since they cannot figure it out for themselves.
The Bill before us will damage our chief export industry. It will damage it by cutting back on markets. Whether or not it will produce net revenue to the Government, and what the Government in its wisdom will do with that revenue has not been outlined. So far it has demonstrated its wisdom in cabinet scandals. Perhaps it will buy more armaments or become involved in more land scandals, we do not know.
There has been no indication that the supposed benefits of the Bill, the revenues which will accrue to the Government, will be used in any positive way. The Government has been asked by the cities of Canada, and by all the provinces, to take a one-third share of the cost of rebuilding roads and sewers which are essential infrastructures. The NDP supports that proposition.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
Will the Government undertake to use this revenue for purposes such as the ones I have outlined? Or does it have a better purpose which it wishes to announce and commit itself to carrying out? The Government does not do anything of the sort. It simply grabs the revenue, something which will have a destructive effect on the economy of the country and which in turn will lower the Government's revenues. The Government is so short-sighted that it simply grabs the revenue without telling us what it plans to do with it. There have been some vague words about perhaps helping the lumber industry. There have been no specific undertakings, however, neither outlined in the Bill nor in the announcements of the Government. There have been no specific undertakings as to how it will help the lumber industry, the farmers, the transportation industry, the housing industry, the child care industry or any of the industries of the country which are suffering badly from government neglect.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, it is highly regrettable that the Canadian public is rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Government has been intimidated, bullied and boxed into a corner by the U.S. administration with respect to the matter of softwood lumber. I do not know whether or not it is entirely fair to go after the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) alone. There is a pattern of which the Government has failed to get hold and which it has not pursued with its contacts in Washington and in other places where we meet with members of the U.S. administration, the strains of which we can find going back to a few years ago.
I urge Hon. Members to cast their minds back to 1981 when the Reagan administration came into power. If Hon. Members do what I ask they will begin to see the roots of the problem that we are seeing here today. At that time the Reagan administration, because of inflation, introduced a severe and tight monetary policy. In other words, it attempted to reevaluate the U.S. dollar. Thus it exported inflation where it could. In the process the U.S. dollar climbed and climbed almost out of sight in relation to other currencies.
Having achieved that by 1982-83, what began to happen gradually was that the healthy U.S. trade surplus turned into a serious trade deficit. As the deficit developed in late 1984, and then substantially in 1985 and again in 1986, the Americans began to push, press and bully other nations with which it trades to establish certain barriers and certain rules which were not in existence until then. It is Canada which has come under the gun. Japan is coming under the gun now and the European Common Market will come under the gun next.
What we in the Opposition fail to understand is why we have a Government which fails to take this debate to Washington and point the fingers at the U.S. administration, that the body which has been trying to force the solution of the problems it caused itself on other nations. I submit that this trade imbalance would not have taken place, this turn-around from a surplus to a deficit in the U.S. trade picture, if it had not pursued this ruthless monetary policy which resulted in an
increase in the value of the U.S. dollar, which then resulted in the American economy pricing itself out of international markets. It did this because its products were just far too expensive and much less competitive. That is the root of the problem and one that we should advance and remind the Americans of, rather than allowing ourselves to be intimidated, bullied, and finally boxed into a corner, as was the case in the lumber situation.
There were policy options that you are probably aware of, Madam Speaker, because they have been raised in the House. Instead of arriving at a bilateral agreement, the matter could have been pursued through the American tribunal system. That option was not pursued.
As another possibility, we could have initiated action under GATT to indicate that something was going badly wrong. Why did we not explore this possibility? Because the Conservative Government unfortunately forgot that under the Tokyo Round of Tariffs we negotiated free access to the U.S. market for our lumber in exchange for giving them free access to business equipment and computers. Therefore, we have paid the price of opening our frontiers to business equipment and computers. We feel that there has been a departure from that agreement. Therefore, we would have been fully entitled to repudiate that agreement. That is something that the Government failed to understand as a legitimate Canadian complaint and pursue through GATT, that international forum created to receive and review this type of dispute.
The fact that we have been bullied by the United States administration is increasingly troubling Canadians. It also leads to the unfortunate conclusion that by the wording of some parts of this agreement there has been a serious infringement on the intangible and important sense of being Canadian, and to the sense of our sovereignty. To my astonishment, under "Exchange of Information and Monitoring" in Clause 7a, it states:
The Government of Canada will provide the Government of the United States of America with data concerning the level of Provincial and Federal softwood and total stumpage harvest-
It states also that it will provide the Government of the United States of America with:
-the total revenue collected from the sale of Provincial and Federal softwood and total timber, total export charge collected, total shipments of certain softwood lumber products to the United States-
And, that it will provide to the Government of the United States of America:
-total lumber production by province and total softwood lumber production by province, for each fiscal year within three months of the close of the fiscal year or as soon thereafter as is practicable-
We see what types of concessions are made in terms of accountability on the Canadian side to another jurisdiction for its own actions.
I wish to quote Clause 7c.
January 22, 1987

Not later than sixty (60) days after the end of each quarter, the Government of Canada will provide the Government of the United States of America with a report on a province-by-province basis containing, at a minimum, the following: the quantity of softwood lumber products exported, the value on which the tax was paid, and the total tax collected for the quarter. If a monthly statement is requested, it will be provided not later than sixty (60) days after the end of that month.
In light of the content of that agreement, I do not know how in early January the Minister for International Trade could have proclaimed victory. This baffled me. I am sure that it is a source of continuing and increasing concern, as has been expressed by a number of editorials that have appeared in the national press.
When we had a similar incident in 1983, we supported the industry in the resolution of this dispute. We made sure that the industry would be given the necessary instruments to battle its case in the United States. At that time the lumber industry had the support of the Canadian Government, and it did well.
In 1986 the Government came to power with the aura and commitment to consensus building with all sectors of society. In this particular battle it decided to replace industry, go it alone, thus creating this enormous tension that we have heard about between the industry, that is making justifiable and understandable claims, and the Government itself, which took a different course of action and forgot about its own commitment to consensus building with the sectors in society.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: With regret, I must advise the Member that his time has expired.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour for me to rise and speak on Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products.
What we are experiencing is a result of neglect of previous Governments in not looking after our foreign trade, especially with the United States. In 1984 our Party had the foresight to make this issue one of our planks, so that we would have security of trade with the Americans, our largest trading partner. This has been pursued with great diligence for the last two years and five months of our mandate. We have initiated, and some people say we have even bullied the United States, into freer trade talks. We felt it was extremely important that we have assured trade with the Americans, and that we would not have to pass a Bill such as we have before us today imposing a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products.
The Americans have a problem. In the past, we did not realize that the Americans may flex their muscle, that they would find that their debt load was increasing, and that their trade imbalance was causing them severe problems. A year and a half ago, this Government took the initiative to say that we want freer and assured trade with the Americans. This was on the fast track.
This is the positive step that we have taken. We knew that this was going to happen. In 1983 we knew that the Americans
Softwood Lumber Products
were having problems, and this time the best advice that we received was that we might not be as successful as we were then. Certain things had changed, and we took the best possible advice. We had to face up to what would happen and decide what to do. If we had accepted the countervail duty, it would not have been in the interest of Canadians. We knew that the lumber industry was the largest industry in Canada and that it accounted for more exports than any other product. We had to do something, and we did.
Since assuming office our Government has participated in consultation. We consulted with the provinces in 1984, 1985, and 1986, and we are continuing to consult with them. We have also consulted with labour, business, and interest groups for the benefit of all Canadians. We consulted so that we would be able to represent Canada in the best possible way.
When the softwood lumber dispute with the Americans arose, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with nine Premiers in November 1986 at the First Ministers Conference in Vancouver. We faced the problem. We decided that in the interests of all concerned we would negotiate with the Americans. We did not want to let them take money through the imposition of a duty on our lumber, so we decided to do it ourselves and keep the money in Canada. It was a very sensible thing to do. Surely we had a responsibility. There would have been countervailing charges against Canadian lumber. With that in mind we had to negotiate with the Americans and rightly so; the reverse would have been true. We have done it in good faith and properly. We will be providing them with information and they will be providing us with information covered in the agreement.
What was the alternative to a countervailing duty? It was exactly what we did, and that is why it is good for all concerned. The provinces and the unions have agreed that it was the best possible course of action. However, if we had set up our freer trade agreement with the Americans sooner, if the previous Government had initiated it, this would never have arisen.
It is the best deal for us. The provinces will be retaining their flexibility in determining stumpage prices. In the months to come these will have to be negotiated among the provinces and the federal Government. The increased revenues will remain in Canada and will be distributed to the provinces accordingly. Of course the dangerous development of an American countervail policy has been avoided by the withdrawal of the petition.
The Alberta Government has stated that it feels this is the best possible solution under difficult circumstances. We must remember that 70 per cent of Alberta softwood lumber products are exported to the United States. Although we do not produce as much as British Columbia, Ontario, or even Quebec, it is a significant industry for us. The economy in Alberta is very fragile. The prices of oil have dropped drastically. Agriculture is in great difficulty. Tourism is attempting

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
to grow, but it is not as big as it should be. Lumber is increasingly important, and the fact that 70 per cent of our lumber products are exported to the Americans is very significant. If the Alberta Government feels that it is the best possible solution under the circumstances, then it is. I have to stand up for what our provincial Government is stating in this case.
The Alberta Government has also stated that the Alberta forestry industry will be closely consulted about any changes which might be made to the current stumpage system. I should like to return to consultation. It is very important for our province and for our country. I am glad to see that our province will be consulting with industry and that the federal Government will continue to consult with our province and with other provinces as well. These are very important factors.
To set the record straight, the United States issued a statement on January 2, 1987 in which it made clear that Canada's sovereignty had not been compromised. This point is a very important one because time and time again the Opposition has indicated that somehow our sovereignty has been compromised. It has not. I should like to quote the statement. It reads:
The United States will not be concerned with how Canadian authorities make changes in their forest management practices, when they do so or what form these changes take. Those are matters for Canadians to decide. The United States is concerned with the valuation measures and their impact on the export charge.
That is fair. We are maintaining the sovereignty issue. Mr. Speaker, I get the point and I see your finger; I thank you very much for this opportunity.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I hesitate to ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) to withdraw his last comment because I know you, Mr. Speaker, and would never consider the things of which he has accused you.
At any rate, the problem before us today is extremely serious. I think it has been a litany of errors down the road that has brought us to the situation with which we are dealing in the House today.
We must return to the period of 1983 when we won a case before the international trade agencies of the United States, which said that our stumpage was not a mechanism of subsidy-the finding was de minimis-and that basically we were not impairing the U.S. market with our timber exports. It was further stated by many people knowledgeable in the industry that Canada had made a great investment in additional productivity. We had made it ahead of the Americans. We had some of the most productive mills anywhere in the world.
The administration of U.S. forest lands was so poor that they hobbled themselves and created a situation where they could not access timber at a reasonable price. We wound up paying the price for incompetent administration in the United States and incompetent investment in its forest industry. If it had wanted to survive and prosper, plans should have been
developed and the errors should have been rectified. Instead, we have multinational companies, which operate in both Canada and the United States, going to the U.S. Government and saying "handicap Canada in terms of international trade so that we can get our game together". These are unacceptable procedures in international trade.
The essence of the problem is that when they failed the first time, they came back a second time with enormous political pressure on their own Government. This placed pressure on our Government, which yielded to them.
How did that yielding come about? I have a growing sympathy for my colleagues on the other side of the House. In the face of enormous adversity they are trying. They were placed in an interesting position. An election was in progress in the Province of British Columbia. A man, after some successes with solving one strike and hoping to make other conquests, thought that he would solve international trade problems single-handedly. The individual, Mr. Vander Zalm, the Premier of the province broke ranks with industry, labour, other Governments and the national Government in Canada and shot off his mouth in an absolutely inappropriate way. There is a problem with our stumpage rates, we will do a review on them and try to accede to American demands, he said, when it had been agreed across the country that we would maintain our efforts, present our case again where we would likely win it again. But Mr. Vander Zalm broke ranks with Canadians and, in an obviously thoughtless and ill-considered way, destroyed the Canadian case. He went even further, saying that if the rest of Canada did not see it his way he would go it alone and make a private deal with the U.S. It is a complete betrayal of international activity for the Premier of British Columbia to do that.
When a delegation leaves this House and meets other countries we generally put partisan activities aside and deal with an issue as Canadians, not as New Democrats, Conservatives or Liberals, but as Canadians looking for the best deal. We do not break ranks. We do not shoot from the mouth. We try to put Canada in the best possible light. Mr. Vander Zalm in a thoughtless and irresponsible way destroyed the unity of Canadian resolve and destroyed the case.
That is when the Government fell into a dreadful situation. The Government was then not capable of arguing any further after the Premier of British Columbia had admitted Canadian guilt. There was no way back. We had to go to the Americans to propose an alternative and I think we made a terrible mistake. We compromised our sovereignty and moved too quickly. The old saying that you should never light a fire to a bridge that you may have to crawl back over on your hands and knees was not recognized.
We should have offered to sell raw logs to the Americans on a contract basis. They should have been allowed to bid along with Canadians for raw logs for a maximum period of three years. The contract could have been renewed every six months
January 22, 1987

so that we could carefully monitor the effect on Canadian industry and our participation in the American industry.
Let us look at what that would have done. The Americans' argument that we were subsidizing our industry through stumpage would have disappeared, because they would have had access to the same wood. With sixth month renewals of a three-year contract we could have stopped the deal immediately should there have been harm, and we could have looked for another alternative. We would have been able to buy time for an adjustment to allow our industry and our Government to work out another position with the U.S.
The logging industry has been devastated on the coast of British Columbia. Most logging communities have seen more than half their employment destroyed. Alberni, one of the highest per capita income areas in Canada for a long period of time, lost 6,000 jobs in the forest industry. Had we opened that area for a short period with renewable six-month agreements with the Americans, log sales would have escalated and employment would have been developed where it has been receding. We would not have compromised our sovereignty and we would have given ourselves time to seek a negotiated solution, up to three years. Political realities would have changed in the United States, and I suspect that we would have been in a far better situation to solve this than the way we have dealt with it, without anywhere near the job loss. In fact, there would have been a substantial increase in employment. Canadian communities would have benefited. Canadian sovereignty would not have been impinged. Our trade relationship with the United States would not have been harmed and we would have built in a safety valve to protect ourselves with that short-term agreement.
There would have been some benefit to American mills. The Americans had proposed this in a roundabout way. They wanted to bid on Canadian timber and log it, but that was unacceptable. Had we allowed the Americans the right to bid on it in a purchase arrangement, Americans would have had logs at the same price that Canadian enterprises were buying logs, and that would have been the end of the discussion. It would have caused nowhere near the harm that has been caused. It would have enhanced employment in many areas of the country that have serious problems.
To recap, how did we get into this problem, Mr. Speaker? We got into it because the Premier of British Columbia put the Canadian Government, the Canadian producers of softwood lumber, and the Canadian workers in that industry in an absolutely untenable position. He broke ranks with the rest of Canadians and said: "I know better. I can solve this myself. We are guilty of exactly what the Americans have falsely accused us of and I will make a separate deal with them if the Canadian Government does not see it my way". If we had one more premier like that in Canada, Canada would be in a terrible position. If we had two or three people that irresponsible we would not be able to deal in an international forum.
We should recognize that we chose probably the least productive way of doing this. I do not think anyone in this
Softwood Lumber Products
House, either in the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, is satisfied with what has happened. People are not satisfied with the agreement concluded by the Government. Unfortunately, when you work with a gun to your head you work under great pressure. There are those who define it as, "We got the best deal we could". Unfortunately, I do not think we did. I think we had a solution at hand that the Americans would have accepted, and that we could have accepted over a short period of time. We would have resolved not only the problem of curtailing softwood lumber exports in the United States market but created enormous employment.
The success of the Americans in doing this with softwood lumber is quite an incentive for them to try the same tactic against any range of Canadian products. They know if they go to the Province of Saskatchewan and choose a product sensitive to the economy of Saskatchewan, force the Canadian Government and the Saskatchewan Government up against the wall hoping that the Premier of Saskatchewan will cave in the same way as Bill Vander Zalm caved in, by cutting ranks with Canadians, trying to make a separate deal with the Americans-a deal that would not have been any good for British Columbians-they would see that product subjected to the same kind of extra territorial control that softwood lumber was exposed to. This could apply to every product about which the Americans are concerned.
As a recap, the Canadian Government did respond to this dilemma with a gun to its head. Unfortunately, I am convinced that the Government is not satisfied, that organized labour is not satisfied, that the producers are not satisfied and that the other provinces are not satisfied. We got into this situation because of the Premier of British Columbia's ill-conceived remarks, and we chose the wrong solution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston).


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is an element of what is morally proper for political Parties to do in pursuit of public support. I think the Opposition Parties in this particular instance have gone far beyond the proper moral bounds of advising the public of Canada about a particular situation. I think this is a precedent which has retained our opportunity to negotiate and to avoid what might very well have been a catastrophic imposition of surtax or duty on our exports of lumber to the United States.
There seems to be no recognition of the nature of the Congress of the United States, or that a group of people interested in improving the status of the economy of their own community will join with other groups. You have the lumber group, the steel group and the agricultural group. There was no doubt, with the mood of the United States Congress, that if this matter was not decreed by industry, trade and commerce of the U.S., that it would have been decreed by legislation. I think this is a precedent of negotiation of which all Canadians

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
should be proud, and for which the Government should be congratulated.
Yes, there have been difficulties but these difficulties have not emanated from the negotiations. Perhaps the major precedent set by this situation is that there will still be an opportunity to negotiate. If adjustments are made in Canada, there will be adjustments made to the tax imposed. What more could a country ask of another country?
Hon. Members have spoken of sovereignty. Every time a country signs a trade deal it loses an element of its sovereignty. It must indeed meet certain standards and specifications for the product in the market in which the negotiation has been conducted. In the case of fruit and vegetable exports, sanitary conditions must be met. In the case of meat and food exports, health conditions must be met. The list is endless. Whatever trade deal we undertake, we commit ourselves to the standards of another country because that is what the other country wants. The customer is always right in the private sector.
The customer, the United States, has expressed itself and has compromised with Canada. It has kept this matter on the negotiating table where it belongs and where it would not be had legislation been passed, as it unequivocally would have been passed without this type of negotiation. It is immoral not to give the Government and the industry the credit it deserves for the plans they have made and the negotiations which have been successfully concluded.
When the Conservative Party came into power in 1984, we took the place of a former Government whose Prime Minister had been treated with contempt and described with profanities or obscenities. That is the kind of relationship we had in the United States. When we came into power we were asked to remember that the former Prime Minister of Canada had said to the Queen of this Commonwealth about the Constitution: "Well, if you don't like it, just hold your nose and sign it anyway". That is a hard position for any Government that wishes to establish good relations to find itself in.
When the Law of the Sea Conference and the 200-mile limit and its restrictions were negotiated, we could not get votes from our Commonwealth partners in the United Nations. They were not available to us. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Foregin Minister of that day asked our foreign legations for their support. Do not criticize this Government for the errors of the past.
Every trade negotiation the United States has undertaken since the 1930s has been subject to legislation then in place which offered the United States Trade Department the opportunity to impose duties or penalties at its borders if a particular industry in a particular community within the United States were to be hurt. That provision has existed for some time and we have never, in any negotiation with the United States, been able to override it. Why then is criticism being pointed at this Government which is bound by historic
treaty and agreement? The weakness is not in what has been done recently, but in the historic negligence of trade negotiators since about 1935. Do not forget that the Liberal Party has been in power for some 39 of the last 49 years. It conducted these negotiations and it is now throwing poisoned arrows at itself.
No country should be asked by its Opposition or by its people to put every single, solitary item of discussion on the public table. That is not good business practice. As an example, I cite the negotiations in the fisheries trade. At that time there was no way a member of the Opposition could preview what the Liberal Government was offering in its negotiations. When Liberal Members were questioned carefully, no answers were available. Except for the ill-advised approach taken, particularly in the Law of the Sea Conference and the settlement of the 200-mile limit, I was quite prepared to support the secrecy which the Prime Minister and Ministers of the time requested. A poker player does not turn his cards face up on the table until the deal is completed. There is not one private industry, businessman or conscientious director of a board who would reveal to stockholders the total plan the company has for expansion and development. Businessmen seek the greatest amount of good will with customers possible. It is very difficult for a Government of this land to establish good will with the United Kingdom, the European Economic Community or Japan if it is to be chastised, criticized and condemned by opposition Parties.
This is a Parliament of three Parties and there must be support for trading efforts made by the Government of the day regardless of what Government is in power. If there is a weakening factor in any trade negotiation in which Canada has entered in a search for freer trade, it is in the condemnatory, critical, idiotic internal criticism arising jointly from opposition Parties.


Steven W. Langdon: Your own lumber bureau.


Fred Alward McCain: Our own lumber bureau met with our caucus and I was present during that meeting. Our own lumber bureau congratulated the Government on the deal.


Steven W. Langdon: Oh, come on.


Fred Alward McCain: Oh, yes, it did. I was there. I do not know what any individual of that bureau may have said, but I know what the official message was. It did ask-


John Edmund Parry: What else could it be, Fred?


Fred Alward McCain: Just a minute. The bureau did ask that there be continued negotiations on the basis of the information given by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) that the tax was not justified in Atlantic Canada. However, the bureau felt that it was the best deal that could possibly have been made under the circumstances. It asked for further negotiations to try to get a better deal for Atlantic Canada which has costs in line with the standards which had been set. Those negotiations will certainly be undertaken.
January 22, 1987

I must say that the suggestion that we export raw and unprocessed logs runs contrary to NDP policy, to Liberal policy and to Conservative policy. It runs contrary to the policy of every provincial Government regardless of its political stripe. The worst thing this country could possibly do would be to open the door for the export of raw logs, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). That would be in contradiction to British Columbia NDP policy, government history, Conservative policy and Liberal policy across Canada. That is not a viable solution. The export of raw logs would do very little to reduce the unemployment which may result in Atlantic Canada, because a great deal of the work is done at the mill as well as in the woods. That would be a half a loaf at the very best and would not solve the problem.
In the main, the small, private millers in Atlantic Canada own their own land at a major cost and do not have cheap stumpage under those circumstances. It is on that basis, among others, that the lumber bureau did ask us to continue to negotiate. Thank God we saved a major portion of the industry.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, since I have been a Member of this House-not that many years-I have had great respect and continue to have great respect for the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). However, I have seldom heard him utter such drivel on a subject with which he is familiar, or make statements which so obviously follow the Party line in an attempt to put the best face on a difficult, if not impossible, situation into which Canada has been seduced, as I have today.
He refers to our previous Governments and the relationship we had with the U.S. I can say that perhaps the U.S. did not love the Liberal Government. Perhaps President Reagan did not love Prime Minister Trudeau. True, I do not ever recall seeing Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Reagan singing together as the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did with President Reagan at the Quebec City Summit. However, I can tell you one thing, our Government was respected in Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: It was not loved, perhaps, but it was respected. There is no respect for that Government in Washington. In fact, Washington is almost contemptuous of the Government. We witnessed that yesterday. How many times did Prime Minister Trudeau feel obliged to summon the Vice-President of the U.S. to Ottawa to give him a so-called tongue-lashing because the Prime Minister was dissatisfied with actions taken by the American Government? The Prime Minister obviously feels deeply offended that he has given away all the chips, he terminated FIRA, savaged the NEP, genuflected at every conceivable opportunity and even looked for opportunities to genuflect before Washington, and despite all that he is unable to strike any kind of trade deal except a disastrous trade deal on softwood lumber.
Softwood Lumber Products
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte referred to precedents and I will do so in a moment. However, trade, as we know, is Canada's life-blood. Some 30 per cent of our GNP is dependent upon trade. The forestry sector has historically been the backbone or mainstay of Canadian exports. So it remains and so hopefully it will continue to be unless it is completely crippled by the ineptitude and blundering of the Government. The U.S. takes almost 80 per cent of our exports and is critical to the survival of the forestry industry. Intelligent management, and 1 underline those words, of that trading relationship is absolutely necessary. In fact, it is probably the single most important challenge for this country in its external commercial relations.
The softwood deal we are looking at now is probably the historic low point of any trading relationship Canada has had. We were not looking for miraculous solutions from the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She had to travel a road, it is true, but it was a road already well travelled by previous Liberal Governments. I want to expand on that point in a moment. We watched the Minister in her previous role and so we did not have unrealistic expectations of her; we didn't expect much. However, we did expect a minimum of competence and that is all, frankly, that was required. The reason for that is, as I said, because the precedents were there.


John Horton McDermid: Where were you when the NEP was announced?


Donald James Johnston: I was here in 1983.


John Horton McDermid: You did not even know it was coming.


Donald James Johnston: That Hon. Member was here as well.


John Horton McDermid: You admitted it in your book!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: John, did you read his book?


John Horton McDermid: I did.


Mr. Waddell:: That will teach you.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if I had known I was going to be subject to that kind of silly abuse I would not have autographed the Hon. Member's book.
The Prime Minister said that the Minister has the ball, watch her. We watched her. We watched her fumble. We watched her trip. We watched her slide. We watched her fall. On this issue all she had to do was carry the ball down a wide open field, no opposition, and yet she ended up in the bleachers. What does this portend for other complex and complicated trade negotiations which she is involved in?
Lest you think I am exaggerating let me take you back to the Government's statement with respect to its strong position and the cards it held on the softwood lumber deal. If you will allow me to do so, and not subtract from my time the unruly

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products
intervention of the Hon. Member, following a long and exhaustive examination of similar charges in 1982, Congress determined that provincial stumpage did not confer a subsidy on Canadian lumber producers. There were three principal reasons given and documented. They were legal and ironclad, and the situation has not changed. The Government has acknowledged time and time again that the situation has not changed. Having enumerated all those reasons they said that under any test there is no government assumption of costs. The situation remains the same. There was no subsidy, the case was won, and indeed the Americans capitulated. Nothing has changed. The precedents were there. The field was wide open.
The Minister had the ball and what did she do? On September 30, 1986, she offers to settle the issue. She says we are not guilty, there is no subsidy, but we will settle. Press reports of the day indicate that settlement was in the order of 10 per cent. Why did she do it? Why would anyone do it? Why would anyone ignore the precedent of 1983 and the strong arguments which are confirmed in the document to which I have just referred? What happened, of course, when she made that offer, is that the U.S. industry quite understandably tasted blood. She, with this generous gesture, said to the U.S. competition and the world that indeed Canada was subsidizing its lumber industry. That was not the case but she said it. I ask you, faced with a 10 per cent offer, how else could that be interpreted by the U.S. industry or any objective observer looking at the relationship between our industry and that of the U.S? So she fumbled the ball right into the hands of the U.S. competition.
I think you, Mr. Speaker, were in that famous Grey Cup game in 1954 when Chuck Hunsinger was running around the left end. He had a pitch-out from Sam Etcheverry and he dropped the ball for no apparent reason. It is a mystery to this day. Jackie Parker picked it up and ran for a touchdown. That is exactly what the American competition did. Our Minister is the contemporary version of Chuck Hunsinger, but the consequences are a lot more serious than a Grey Cup, even though I know how much you cherished that victory.
If anyone in the U.S. blinked, as the Minister alleged they blinked, it was out of disbelief. They blinked the way you blink when you are playing a slot machine and hit the jackpot. Sure, you blink. When you win a lottery, you blink. If anyone blinked, that is why they blinked.
What happened subsequently-damage control? Will it end? Yesterday's exercise of inviting the Vice-President to Ottawa is clearly an exercise in some kind of damage control. It was terribly unsuccessful. Thinking of my own Leader's speech when he drew an analogy to Waterloo, it seemed to me that Vice-President Bush, in coming to Ottawa yesterday, was very much like Wellington paying a courtesy call on Napoleon after Waterloo. Of course, Napoleon would probably have given him a tongue-lashing as well.
Are you indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker? I have not yet come to the substance of my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. In fact, I enjoyed the Hon. Member's speech so well that I gave him an extra 30 seconds.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity you are giving me to express my views on this Bill concerning softwood lumber products.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I had not expected to take the floor because I was quite convinced that, given the support of the largest Canadian labour union and of all provincial Governments in Canada, except Ontario, as well as the excellent explanations provided by our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), it was more than enough to make Canadians appreciate what the softwood lumber agreement entails.
However, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debate, especially the comments of Members of the Opposition, I can see that a group of people still do not understand and would much rather deal in petty politics. These people would much rather discredit the federal Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, as well as nine provincial administrations. This is what they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, and when we listen to someone like the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) we realize just how arrogant the Liberals were during their last mandate and over the past twenty years. They simply did not listen and consult, they never came to the defence of the provinces because their own interests had priority.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was in the House working quietly on some of my files when I noticed that the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) was seeking the floor. I thought he would be making interesting remarks but, as he was speaking, 1 realized he had made a few mistaken statements.
His worst mistake was when he said that the whole forestry question was strictly a provincial matter.
Mr. Speaker, I said to myself, either the Hon. Member intended to mislead the House, which I doubt, since he always said he was sincere, or he did not know the facts. I made enquiries and realized that he did not know the facts and that he had an extremely short memory, because in 1980, at the beginning of the election campaign, the Liberals, and I am not naming any names, promised they would spend $130 million annually on reforestation research, to stimulate further development of Canada's forestry industry. Mr. Speaker, there are 300,000 workers involved, according to their figures, and that is what they promised at election time.
January 22, 1987

Mr. Speaker, did you know that in 1982 and 1984, they set aside a mere $50 million in their Budget for the industry? That is far less than they promised. Are we going to believe these people? We must let Canadians be the judge of whether these people are telling us the truth, whether the federal Liberals, and I am not naming any names, are sincere when they say they are defending the interests of the Canadian people and of our lumber producers. Mr. Speaker, they were the first ones to put Canadian forestry operations in jeopardy.


Mr. Gauthier:: You don't know what you're talking about!


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, I was listening to the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe, who said: We have a serious reforestation problem. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do have a serious reforestation problem because when the Liberals were in power, they did nothing for the forestry sector. For twenty years they paraded their arrogance and walked all over the provinces. In Quebec we remember what it was like. In Quebec, Mr. Speaker, people remember when the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, referred to Mr. Bourassa, the present Premier, as "Un mangeux de hot-dogs". That was a sample of Liberal arrogance, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we must be watchful. Canadians must be told. We must tell them to be perfectly honest, that with these people opposite, their personal interests always come first.
Mr. Speaker, if they had only considered sitting down and consulting, a word that unfortunately is not in their dictionary, our country's forestry industry might have been in much better shape.
Mr. Speaker, when we were elected in 1984, our Government recognized its responsibilities. We were faced with a serious deficit. We had a problem. The provinces would not talk to the federal Government because of their experience with the incompetence of the previous Liberal Government.
Mr. Speaker, we have signed agreements in the forestry sector. The Progressive Conservative Government has increased by about 400 per cent the federal contribution towards reforestation through subsidiary agreements with British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Alberta. Mr. Speaker, these are much more than election promises, these are achievements.
We spent $300 million to repair the damage done in Quebec by the previous Government, Mr. Speaker, $300 million to maintain 300,000 jobs throughout Canada, including Quebec. We are not talking about petty politics, Mr. Speaker, these are concrete measures taken to honour our election commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I can only laugh when I hear the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) say that the Progressive Conservative Party has failed to live up to its election promises. He should be more concerned about his own unkept promises, more concerned about the fact that he and his Party have misled Canadians.
Softwood Lumber Products
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a statement which again proves clearly and in no uncertain terms just how arrogant the former Liberal Government could be with respect to Quebec. Mr. Speaker, here are some of the remarks made by Quebec's External Trade Minister Pierre MacDonald during a press conference:
Had there been no negotiations with the United States we certainly would have been unable to launch our reforestation and forest management program. There is no way we could have asked the industry to pay a tax of much more than 15 per cent which would have been collected by the United States and which would have added 7, 8 or 9 per cent to this levy. Thanks to the agreement signed with the United States we can now implement Bill 150 and revamp our forest management policy. We could not have done this if we had opted for a different solution.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the message is quite clear.


An Hon. Member:: He is not one of your Ministers!


Michel Champagne: And he is not one of the Conservative Ministers. If he were a Conservative Minister I might say I am being partisan to a certain extent. But no, Mr. Speaker, this is a provincial Minister who did support the understanding and who now abides by the agreement he signed with the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States. Mr. Speaker, his is a responsible Government and he is a responsible Minister. What I still fail to understand, Mr. Speaker-and the Opposition will have to prove-is why the Liberals and New Democrats insist on saying it is a bad agreement, whereas 90 per cent of all Canadians endorse our action. Indeed, if nine provinces out of ten, plus the federal Government are for it, it does add up to 90 per cent, not to mention the support of the labour movement, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the only advice I can offer the Liberals and New Democrats if they are sincere when they say they are aware of the Canadian people and are prepared to listen to them and to cooperate with the provincial Governments is this: Stop being arrogant, get to work, sit down at the table with us, forget about scoring political points and together we will build a strong and prosperous Canada, not as you seem intent on doing a rudderless country such as the Liberals left us with on September 4, 1884.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this Bill, I want to tell my hon. friend who just spoke that there is an important national interest that must be addressed. He should consider that there are some very efficient mills in interior British Columbia that will begin selling to Ontario and Quebec if they cannot sell their lumber in the United States. That will push out some of the more marginal producers in those provinces. Therefore, there are ramifications all across the country.
I am sorry that the Hon. Member for St. Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston) is not in the House.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) is watching on television. He may be outside in the lobby. The Hon. Member knows very well that he should not reflect on the attendance of Members in the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had talked to the Hon. Member. He told me that he would follow my speech and I was addressing my remarks to him. I wanted to respond to him to his face.
We know that it is worth listening to all piano players, especially the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount. I wish we had a question period after his speech because the Liberal Party is split on this free trade matter. The Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount is on one side of the issue and the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is on the other. Their Party is also split on the Constitution, with the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount on one side and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on the other. It is hardly a Party that is ready to govern Canada, and I hope for their sake, perhaps not ours, that they resolve their differences.
I want to address a number of matters that have been raised in the debate. First, it was stated that there is a difference of opinion about this deal between British Columbia and Ottawa. Let me point out what I believe to be a British Columbia position held by the IWA, Government and Opposition Members and some journalists, including a leading journalist from British Columbia, Marjorie Nichols, who will soon grace us with her presence here in Ottawa. I believe these people are putting forward a British Columbia provincial point of view which is distinct but not necessarily in conflict with another point of view that can be put forward in the federal realm.
The provincial point of view in British Columbia is simply that British Columbia has been losing $200 million a year in forestry, which is rather difficult when one considers that British Columbia probably has the best forest resource in the world. Therefore, the implication is that British Columbia Governments have been undercharging the companies for the use of that forestry resource. This has been stated recently by Premier Vander Zalm and other academics from British Columbia, and it perhaps has given the Americans ammunition to support a countervail duty.
I believe Premier Vander Zalm should have initiated an increase in stumpage fees and proceeded to fight the countervail through the usual procedures such as GATT, rather than supporting the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in making what she has called an out of court settlement. The fact that the resources have been priced so low in British Columbia has meant that some inefficient corporations have survived, unions have had higher wages and the industry has had higher profits. It was a comfortable situation and I believe the mistake made by British Columbia was not changing it soon enough.
The International Woodworkers of America, which is said to support this deal, has its own issues with which to deal. We must remember that the IWA has just finished a long strike and is looking for some stability in the industry. They want to resolve this problem and get on with working, which is understandable, but does not necessarily mean that I, as a federal Member of Parliament, must support their position.
I believe there is a bigger issue which does not conflict with the British Columbia position. It is that of nationl sovereignty. The Americans now have the ability to intervene in the setting of our resource policy in Canada, which is a bad precedent. That is an issue that is different from the issue in British Columbia facing the unions there.
The politicians in British Columbia should consider how they will use the money they will receive from this agreement.
I want to give a warning to my colleagues and friends in British Columbia. I acknowledge that keeping the money in Canada is better than giving it to the Americans. It is fine to absorb a large portion of that $600 million charge on the forest industry, as is happening now. Government Members are correct that the forest industry can make a lot of money by passing the cost on to American consumers through higher lumber prices in the United States because they still want good British Columbia lumber. However, what will happen when there is a downturn in the American economy? The situation will suddenly become difficult, with the result of lay-offs at home and problems for British Columbia producers. Taking $600 million from the forest industry will result in almost no profits this year, which is not healthy.
Let me explain why this is an issue of national sovereignty and a reason for my opposition to the deal. I believe the Minister dropped the ball on this issue because the Americans now have a precedent to intervene and are already exercising that power. Approximately a week ago a body from the United States, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, decided to intervene in the way Canadian companies and Governments calculated their prices for natural gas. Within a number of weeks after this deal, the Americans were telling Canadians how to price their gas resources. I am sure this question was raised with Vice-President Bush yesterday, because it is an intrusion on Canadian sovereignty. We will probably see the same intervention with steel and other products, because when dealing with the United States it is not wise to make such deals. It is like an elephant rolling over a mouse.
The New Democratic Party treats this issue very seriously because it is a matter of national sovereignty. If the Government does not go down to defeat as a result of scandal and sleaze, which could happen very shortly, it will go down to defeat over the issue of keeping our economic sovereignty.
We could have pursued other alternatives. Our trade critic, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), has suggested the multinational route of negotiations which has served us well in the past. He also suggested that we consider making deals such as the Auto Pact, in relation to bilateral
January 22, 1987

trade issues and other irritants. These would provide proper safeguards for Canada.
There are only a few key issues which face Canada. One is Canada-U.S. relations and another is government intrusion into the private and public economies. The third would be the nationalism issue between Quebec and Canada. There are other issues, but those are the basic issues with which we will always deal in Canada. The Government has fumbled the ball on this particular issue.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one reference. I wish the Government would read the brief by Charles Widman on behalf of the softwood lumber manufacturers. I think they got a raw deal in the agreement the Government made with the United States. They have now been lumped in. They do not just export, they do some manufacturing. They were not properly consulted. That oversight is going to cost a number of jobs in British Columbia. I say to the Government and to the Minister, for heaven's sakes, look at the deal again in terms of making some adjustments for this group because I think they have a particularly good case. They say the duty was designed primarily to impose a tariff on the primary producers of lumber and that in fact the secondary remanufacturers are being adversely affected. I think that is an unjust part of the deal.


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker,
whatever the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) may have said to the contrary, we certainly have no intention of playing petty politics with this Bill. We are not that conservative! In any case, I tend to take all political rhetoric with a grain of salt, and as for the applause my hon. friend garnered during his speech, it came from the only people who think they have anything to applaud about in the House today.
We look beyond what this Bill provides for here and now, in an attempt to foresee the short-, medium- and longterm consequences, something this Government is not doing at all. If the Government would try to look at the short-, medium-and long-term instead of producing Bills to cover immediate needs only, the polls would start looking up and it would still have some credibility left with the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to speak to this matter today, considering the impact of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act on the Province of Quebec and across Canada.
Actually, nothing would surprise me from a Government that is bending over backwards to let our American neighbours decide what is good for Canada. What does surprise me is that hardly any Conservative Members from Quebec, aside from a few who rose in the House, including my hon. friend from Champlain a few minutes ago, have been in the House to speak to this Bill. The point was brought up by several
Softwood Lumber Products
Members during the previous debate, and I noticed it myself in the course of the proceedings on this Bill.
Of course I realize Conservative Members from Quebec would be somewhat reluctant to speak to this question since the Bill has the unfortunate effect of taxing Quebec producers more than producers in some other provinces.
A Conservative Member from Quebec would have a hard time convincing his constituents that he was right to approve a Bill that applied a double standard to Canadian industries, depending on the province, since the F.O.B. value of the product varies from region to region and from province to province.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that a number of Canadian industries, including some in Quebec and particularly those which get their lumber supply from the United States, will be very hard hit by this tax ordered by the Americans.
I simply cannot understand why the Government will not listen to the representations and recommendations of lumber producers' associations which point out to the Government that this tax will eventually lead to a 10 to 20 per cent decline in the current Canadian production, worth roughly $600 million in 1987, and 15,000 to 17,000 fewer jobs. These cutbacks include about 6,000 jobs in cutting operations and
11,000	jobs in related and support industries.
A member of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association goes even further by stating that Canadian softwood lumber production might decrease by as much as 25 per cent in 1987. Mr. Speaker, how can anyone talk about stability in this industry when provisions of this Bill on the export charge, Clauses 9 and 26(3), indicate that the agreement may be cancelled within 30 days? How can an agreement which is subject to cancellation within 30 days contribute to create or maintain a climate of stability in this industry?
Mr. Speaker, this agreement may very well lead to similar demands from some of our trade partners who would want Canada to meet their conditions and would take advantage of the weakness of our representatives and of our Government to say that, since they are proud to be major economic and trade powers, we should get down on our knees before them and implement countervailing measures applicable to various other products which we export on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, signing an agreement with one of our trade partners can only be an incentive for other countries with which we maintain trade relations. Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) can walk out of the House after Oral Question Period or on any other occasion with their heads held high, and as soon as they are outside the House and meet their American friends, they craw! and start bartering away our country and our sovereignty while penalizing Canadian industry.

January 22, 1987
Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill contains clear evidence that the Minister for International Trade and this Government are not competent to manage the affairs of this country. Mr. Speaker, in the past three months we have seen the Minister for International Trade, in an attempt to end the trade dispute, offer to increase commercial stumpage fees by 10 per cent, which she did on September 30, 1986. On November 26, the Minister made a second final offer in which she agreed to impose a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber, an offer that was rejected by the U.S. commission. On December 12, 1986, she turned down a U.S. counter proposal to accept the 15 per cent export tax, explaining at the time that she could not accept this attempt by the United States to control management of provincial resources. Finally, on December 30, 1986, Canada signed an agreement with the United States which imposed a 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports, and which, as interpreted by the Americans, will severely restrict the provinces' control over their resources.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and quote the names of groups or persons who submitted their views and find this decision unacceptable. I am thinking of an economics professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, who believes it would be foolhardy to allow Washington to have direct control over how the $600 million raised by the export tax will be spent. He also said that the Americans were clearly showing they did not trust Canada by availing themselves of the right to monitor the application of this tax. This is the same attitude they take towards the Soviets, according to our economist, which proves that distrust is not a monopoly of East-West relations.
Mr. Speaker, I think this Government-and I want to make it clear this is not an attempt to play petty politics-I think we should ask this Government to reflect and consider the consequences before signing any agreements with our trading partners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


John Horton McDermid: Question.


Mr. Benjamin:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, no, debate.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is one minute to two o'clock. You called the question and there were no speakers rising.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There were so.


John Horton McDermid: There were no speakers rising for debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to speak and I am standing in my place and I intend to speak today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So am I.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There are very many other Hon. Members of the House who are interested in speaking-

-although the Parliamentary Secretary might prefer- [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being two o'clock, Statements by Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1986, the Forget Commission tabled its report and said that the unfair cuts in unemployment insurance for pre-retirement pensioners should be cancelled. On December 5 the Minister rejected that recommendation but said that pre-retirement pensioners who were receiving unemployment insurance before January 5, 1986, would have a chance to requalify if they could prove that they made their pre-retirement decisions on the basis of inaccurate information. Most pre-retirement pensioners were not satisfied with that announcement.
This week the Minister issued detailed instructions respecting that proposal. Our worst fears have been confirmed. The Minister has placed an almost impossible burden of proof on these complainants.
If the Minister will not rescind these cuts altogether, then he should at least make it easier for more pensioners to qualify. All those qualified prior to January 5, 1986, should be reimbursed their full unemployment insurance benefits.

Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, many people in my constituency of Eglinton- Lawrence are upset with the Government. Part of their anger stems from the Government's handling of the free trade talks but, more particularly, from the so-called deal on softwood lumber which the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) made with the United States.
The Government has caved in to the President of the United States by imposing a 15 per cent tax on Canadian softwood lumber. First, the Minister for International Trade proclaimed
January 22, 1987

that she would not bend to American pronouncements and that our lumber industry is not subsidized. However, when the President of the United States raises his voice to say: "Yes, it is subsidized and this is not fair to Americans", the Government bows in agreement. The result is increased taxes on softwood lumber and the loss of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The Government has hit an all-time low in terms of the respect in which it is held by the Canadian people. Canada's sovereignty is not for sale. We will fight this sell-out of our sovereignty because we care about the right of Canada to make its own export policies without taking orders from Washington.



HOUSING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Government decided that all public housing funds would be directed to those most in need. Under the previous Liberal Government only one-third of the total annual housing units provided went to households in need. This year the federal Government and the provinces will fund the construction and rehabilitation of 45,000 additional housing units for needy Canadians, bringing the total number of social housing units in Canada to 450,000. That is an impressive number until one realizes it is less than one-half the number of units really needed.
According to CMHC there are more than one million households in Canada, including elderly, low income, single parent, working poor, and disabled, which are unable to obtain affordable housing. At this rate it will take at least 12 more years before all Canadians have affordable housing. Is that good enough in the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless?



EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT

John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has put itself, the Canadian lumber industry and Canada in a very difficult position as a result of the lumber agreement it signed with the United States.
With the Government capitulating to certain American interests we can expect other U.S. interest groups to use similar tactics and go after other Canadian industries which are competitive in U.S. markets. We are not yet aware of how badly this agreement will affect us, for the federal and provincial Governments have not yet decided if they will
continue with the export tax, raise stumpage fees, or take some other action to satisfy the demands of our neighbours.
The Minister must examine carefully what further action should be taken. An increase in stumpage fees, particularly in a province such as Ontario where stumpage fees are the same for softwood and pulpwood, will have a devastating effect on the pulp and paper industry, as well as the softwood industry. An increase in stumpage fees will inevitably raise the input costs and hurt the competitiveness of the pulp and paper producers who are the mainstay of communities such as Dryden, Fort Frances, Kenora, Terrace Bay, and Marathon.



DEPARTMENT'S DISCONTINUATION OF POISON CONTROL SECTION'S SERVICE TO HOSPITALS

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, when someone turns up at a hospital emergency entrance suffering from acute poisoning the medical staff ought to have immediate access to information about the particular poison contained in the product consumed, the antidotes, and recommended treatment. The discontinuation by the Poison Control Section of the Department of National Health and Welfare of poison control information to hospitals therefore comes as something of a shock.
Surely such information ought to be readily available by phone on a 24-hour basis to any hospital or medical practitioner across Canada. In view of the minimal cost of this essential service, the Department of National Health and Welfare should reconsider its decision.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: This morning, Mr. Speaker, spokesmen for the association of retirees without unemployment insurance who represent the
35,000	early retirees in Canada stated they were utterly disappointed by the guidelines issued by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and added that the guidelines have nothing in common with the information the Minister himself gave them here last December.
Mr. Speaker, unlike in the case of repayments to the bank depositors who had $60,000 or more in their accounts, the Government's intention to repay the 35,000 early retirees whose unemployment benefits were cut off is nothing but a

January 22, 1987
joke because, if we look at the guidelines, they are just another way of denying benefits to as many people as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope that all Conservative Members will make strong representations to both the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) so that these people be treated with justice.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the positive impact of the decisions made by the Conservative Government.
Recent economic indicators continue to reflect the sound basis of the economic and fiscal measures introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), as the value of our dollar rises and interest rates continue to drop.
Since September 1984, the prime rate of the chartered banks has dropped from 13 per cent to 9.75 per cent. One-year mortages are now available at 9.5 per cent.
More than 666,000 new jobs have been created in the past two years, and the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.7 per cent to its present rate of 9.4 per cent. In addition, last year's drop in the federal deficit was the first such drop in six years. With a forecast deficit of $32 billion in 1986-87, this Government will have achieved two successive reductions in the deficit for the first time in the past sixteen years.
Mr. Speaker, this Government will continue to apply its agenda for economic renewal toward improving the standard of living of all Canadians.



REFUGEES


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, is Canada abandoning its commitment to refugees who are fleeing from Reagan's wars against the peoples of Central America? For years, death squads and armies, paid and armed by the United States, have killed and terrorized the peoples of El Salvador and Guatemala. Many of these people have fled to hide in the United States. The U.S. has now proclaimed a tough new immigration Act which will deport them back to the countries from which they fled. As they now try to enter Canada in growing numbers to claim refugee status, our Immigration Commission seeks to hinder them. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has announced that he may force them to wait in the United States while their claims are examined. This
would expose them to further danger of deportation to El Salvador and Guatemala.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, and according to a resolution unanimously adopted in federal council on January 18, I call upon the Government to promise not to block the entry to Canada of the Salvadorans and Guatemalans who are fleeing the United States and coming here to be examined for their refugee claims. Instead, let the Minister bring in the long promised refugee legislation, as recommended 14 months ago by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration in its report tabled in Parliament. This would be a speedy and humane procedure, not a panicky slamming of Canada's doors against people in need.



HISTORIC EVENTS


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that this is the sixty-ninth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. With the fall of tsarist Russia on January 22, 1918, the Ukranian Parliament issued a proclamation establishing an Independent National Democratic Republic of Ukraine. This new state recognized the rights and freedoms of its people: freedom of speech, religion, press, and the recognition of basic human rights. It is a state that is proud of its culture and heritage.
However, the imperialistic forces of the Soviet communist regime suppressed and overthrew the Ukrainian state in 1922. A reign of terror ensued.
The Ukrainian people fought bravely for their freedom but were subjected to unspeakable horrors. During the black famine of 1933, more than six million innocent Ukrainians were forcibly starved to death.
As a Canadian of Ukrainian descent I call upon all Canadians to join in the remembrance of this historic day and to pray for the freedom from oppression of all peoples.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the latest developments in the labour dispute that has been going on for more than four months at the Port of Quebec City.

January 22, 1987

At the request of our Government, this week there were two days of negotiations, ending today, between the Maritime Employers Association and the International Longshoremen's Association.
The federal Minister of Labour, the Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux-
Mr. Speaker, I cannot go on because there is too much noise. With respect, I would ask that order be restored.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members to respect other Members when they are making their statements, and I call for order.


Marcel R. Tremblay: The Canadian Minister of Labour, the Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux, invited the Quebec Harbour Corporation to delegate its chief executive officer to act as an observer during the mediation meetings intended to break the deadlock.
The expectations and hopes raised by those meetings are high. Proposals are on the table. Consultation is required and decisions are needed.
The Harbour of Quebec is a major economic force with an overall annual economic impact of close to $700 million and accounts for more than 7,000 jobs. The impact of that conflict on the economy of the region is now reaching alarming proportions.
I strongly urge employers and longshoremen to go on with their negotiations and to do all they can to reopen the Harbour of Quebec as soon as possible.

I wrote to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) over a week ago urging immediate correction of these damaging oversights. I am still awaiting her reply.



ENGINEERING CENTENNIAL YEAR


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with senior members of the engineering profession to mark the inauguration of the Engineering Centennial year in Canada. At that event awards were presented for 10 of Canada's outstanding engineering achievements-items such as the development of our railway network, the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the design and construction of our Beaver aircraft, our Alouette satellite, our Bombardier snowmobile, the construction of the James Bay project, and so on.
The men and women of this profession have been builders, innovators, and creators. They have been great citizens. Over the years the House has been privileged to have among its membership great men and women from that profession. I am happy to rise in the House this afternoon to note the great contributions of those persons to Canada.



TRANSPORT


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, one of the many deficiencies in the softwood lumber deal is that Canadian remanufacturers of a number of wood products-pallets, bed frames, furring strips, boxing, and roof decking-now face a 15 per cent tax not only on their raw material but on the value of the finished products.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) today tabled in this House the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Hinton Train Collision. I would like first to commend the Hon. Mr. Justice Rene Foisy and all the members of the Commission of Inquiry for their work and their excellent recommendations.
Unfortunately, the Minister of Transport deserves no such commendation. The Minister unfortunately failed to take the opportunity offered by our Standing Orders to issue a ministerial statement upon tabling the report.
As a result, hundreds of workers in my constituency face lay-offs. Hundreds more face the same threat in other parts of British Columbia, and several softwood lumber remanufacturers face closure.
I strongly endorse the call of the Coalition of B.C. Secondary Softwood Lumber Manufacturers to the federal Government that it take immediate steps to add a number of softwood manufactured products to the short list of products already exempt from the 15 per cent tax.

We want to know if the Government will put its money where its mouth is.

Actually, we want to know whether the Minister will allow extra funding to CN F.ail and VIA Rail, two Crown corporations, and also, whether he will provide the departmental inspection services with additional man-years to ensure that

January 22, 1987
Oral Questions
rail transportation safety is something more than pious hopes on the Minister's part.
With their present budgets, neither those Crown corporations nor the Department can do the work expected by the Minister. They will require the resources needed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Transport Committee which received representations on Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, I have met along with others my hon. colleague for Quebec-East (Mr. Tremblay) and heard the anxieties concerning the cost recovery involved in Clause 4 of the said Bill.
In the spirit of this Progressive Conservative Government to consult Canadians before making major changes in federal legislation, I would ask the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) that he, and the Government, forgo Clause 4 in Bill C-75 and that this user fee, Clause 4, be the subject of further discussion with the players involved.
As Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, as Member of Parliament for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, I firmly believe that Bill C-75 is important and indeed essential, but Clause 4 requires more consultation.
I would trust that the Minister of Transport would take my recommendation not as being negative to Bill C-75, but rather that Clause 4 be deleted from Bill C-75 until such consultation has been carried out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, why would the Prime Minister for three days conceal the fact that it was a conflict of interest which had been the
determining factor in the dismissal of the Minister of State for Transport? Why?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: The Leader of the Opposition is mistaken when he makes such a statement.


CONTENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER ON CODE OF CONDUCT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave us no facts as to why the Minister resigned and implied that everything was solved by putting it into the hands of the RCMP. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister admitted in reply to our colleague from Oshawa that conflict of interest was a factor.
I want to quote from the Prime Minister's own open letter to Members of Parliament on September 9, 1985, about his own code on conflict of interest. These are the Prime Minister's words, Mr. Speaker:
The Government is directly accountable to Parliament and through Parliament to the people of Canada. You will find no quasi-independent agencies in this code that will allow the Government to shirk its responsibility by saying that the problem belongs to someone else.
The problem does not belong to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when it deals with conflict of interest. The problem belongs to the Prime Minister. Why will he not make a statement in this House and give us and the people of Canada a public inquiry into this whole affair?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all of the facts of any kind made available to me were immediately brought to the attention of the police and an inquiry requested.
If my right hon. friend is referring to a statement yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister with regard to any alleged violations of conflicts of interest that might have existed, pending the resolution of the matter ultimately, I thought I resolved that definitively by requesting and obtaining the resignation of the Minister.
With regard to the third point that was made by my right hon. friend, I thought I had responded to that, but I would be happy to answer further if he has any questions.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: What have we got here, Mr. Speaker? We have a Cabinet Minister, now a Cabinet Minister's wife, a chief organizer of the Tory Party, a president of a Tory riding association, a newly minted Senator, some missing money, Cabinet leaks, and a phony blind trust. When will we have enough allegations before this House that ought to be looked at by a public inquiry, and when will the Prime Minister of this country give us a public inquiry?
January 22, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I answered immediately that the decision I took was, I thought, the appropriate one. I did not close any doors for the future in regard to what might take place pursuant to events that might transpire. Obviously, this is a matter that I view with great seriousness. Otherwise I would not have acted as I did.
In regard to the specific question raised by my right hon. friend, a question which has been raised by others, a request for a commission of public inquiry, I have been advised by the law officers of the Crown that in the present circumstances it is not appropriate for the Government to establish a public commission of inquiry. The advice received by me from the senior law officers of the Crown is that, given the seriousness of the information provided to the RCMP, a commission of inquiry would prejudice the investigation of the RCMP, could lead to the abandonment of the investigation, and it could ultimately prejudice prosecution of any individuals guilty of criminal acts. That is the opinion given to me by the chief law officers of the Crown and that is consistent with their views.


John Napier Turner: Are you going to table that opinion?


Martin Brian Mulroney: i think that is very much in the interests of the Canadian people.


REASON FOR RCMP INQUIRY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, our opinion is that the judicial inquiry should precede the criminal investigation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I would refer again to the letter of September 9, 1985, in which the Prime Minister said:
The effect, all too frequently, has been simply to substitute an appointed decision-maker for an elected one, and to leave Parliament in the invidious and frustrating position of not being able to-exact accountability.
Wasn't the real reason the Prime Minister appointed the RCMP was to avoid the larger issue of political corruption in the highest circles of government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what a preposterous suggestion! We are now hearing from the Liberal Opposition that a public inquiry should precede a criminal inquiry in prosecution. The object of the exercise of handing it over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for a full and complete investigation and prosecution is to make sure that no one escapes the full effect of the law. That is why it was done.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I need not remind the Prime Minister of the Stevens inquiry.
Oral Questions


INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO RCMP
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister directed the RCMP to undertake the investigation of all the parameters of the Oerlikon affair, did he direct the RCMP to go beyond the duties outlined under Section 18 of the RCMP Act, or was a verbal order given? Was a letter sent to the Commissioner of the RCMP outlining the parameters of the investigation or was an Order in Council made? I would like the Prime Minister to table the relevant documents that led to the directions given to the RCMP in this investigation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my hon. friend is not inadvertently trying in any way to frustrate the RCMP in the conduct of its inquiry. The instructions are very clear and were contained in the statement I issued. The Government has requested the RCMP to conduct a complete-underline complete- investigation into that matter, and that means exactly what it says.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows very well that the mandate of the RCMP is not at all to deal with conflict of interest guidelines. Those guidelines are the responsibility of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Canada.
I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, or to the Deputy Prime Minister who has responsibility for the administration of conflict of interest guidelines. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that one of the reasons for requesting the resignation of the former junior Transport Minister was the possible violation of conflict of interest guidelines. Given that it is his responsibility for the administration of these guidelines, could he tell us why he has not looked into the guidelines in this context, assessed the behaviour of the former Minister, and reported clearly to the House whether or not in his opinion there has been a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the facts emerged, the Minister was removed from office, and all the information was immediately turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for full investigation. We are now advised by the law officers of the Crown that any action by a commission of inquiry or so on at this time might inhibit and impede the effective and proper prosecution of these matters. I would think that my hon. friend would agree with that procedure as being quite in line with the objectives we are all seeking, the prosecution of any wrongdoing and the upholding of the highest standards of public morality.
I indicated previously, and I assure my hon. friend again, that nothing I have said will in any way prevent us, at an

January 22, 1987
Oral Questions
appropriate time, from initiating whatever action is needed to meet the requirements of a new situation.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-POSSIBLE VIOLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the previous unfortunate circumstances where we were dealing with Mr. Stevens, the then Deputy Prime Minister came to the House with an assessment, given his responsibility for the administration of the conflict of interest guidelines, and reported to the House that in his judgment there had been no violation of those guidelines. The Deputy Prime Minister has that responsibility now. Given the serious allegations, has he looked at those guidelines as they pertain to the Minister who has resigned and is he prepared to say whether, in his view, there has or has not been a violation of those conflict of interest guidelines?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not only have we looked at that, we have looked at any bit of information that was available. We did not try to segregate one piece from another. The test was relevancy to the issue. That information, all of it, was immediately turned over to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their assessment and action. That is exactly what has taken place. The Minister is gone. He was removed from Cabinet at my request. Nothing in what we have done, as the law officers of the Crown advise, in any way prevents further analysis of this in the future by some other mechanism. I am just telling my friend that what we have done is consistent with what I think his desire is, that is, to see justice is done.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will put this as reasonably as I can. The Prime Minister is about to embark on a trip abroad which is very important to Canada. I say that most sincerely. However, we now have allegations which even include the former Minister's wife as well as a whole range of other people connected with his Party. Given that, will the Prime Minister not agree that it would be much better in the interests of Canada and his work abroad to have the assurance that, while he is away, this matter is being looked at in the most responsible way, that is to say, by way of an inquiry which is not simply dealing with legal matters but dealing with the important conflict of interest requirements?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I say, we are advised by law officers of the Crown, the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and the RCMP Commissioner, that what is recommended by my hon. friend would be entirely inappropriate and could prejudice the successful prosecution of the case. Moreover, I point out to my hon. friend that it was brought to my attention that when a request for a public inquiry was brought forward on August 15, 1986, in Manitoba, when the RCMP was conducting an inquiry into alleged criminal wrongdoing, Premier Pawley said: "Personally, I oppose witnesses being called under oath when there is a parallel
RCMP investigation under way." I think he is right. The first thing that must be done is to allow the RCMP to do their jobs unimpeded. Let the chips fall where they may. Then, if need be, with my hon. friend's concurrence and help, we can take whatever action is required to make sure all matters are respected.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the negligent conduct of yet another of his Ministers, the Minister without Portfolio, the Member for Joliette. We learned today that the Minister directly interfered to secure a federal government job for a friend with a major criminal record. Does the Prime Minister consider the Minister's conduct in this case to be appropriate? Does he consider it appropriate for the Minister to use the Government as a halfway house for his buddies?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, not to put too fine a point on it, my hon. friend's observation with regard to the whole notion of progressive rehabilitation has dealt a pretty serious death blow to the notion that fairness should apply to everyone in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am very concerned about the matter of someone becoming a member of a Minister's staff without receiving prior security clearance and approval. I am troubled by the fact that it could have taken place in the past. It is obvious to me that serious deficiencies exist in a system which would allow anyone to become a member of anyone's staff without written clearance from the RCMP or the Chief of Security of the Privy Council Office. I have instructed Mr. Tellier to review what is obviously a serious deficiency which has existed in the system for some years, and to recommend immediately changes in procedures to ensure that this never happens again.


HIRING OF MINISTERIAL AIDES WITHOUT SECURITY CLEARANCES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with procedures. It is a problem with the administration of those procedures by Ministers. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that there was a breakdown in security in the Minister's office. Will the Prime Minister admit today that at least 15 or 20 ministerial aides were hired and had access to secret and top secret information without receiving prior security clearances? Will he not admit that, as a result, national security was threatened?
January 22, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific allegation which my hon. friend makes. I am aware of the existence of the problem which I consider to be serious. It is obviously a deficiency which I am informed has, regrettably, existed for some years in terms of the procedure which must be corrected. Mr. Tellier and his colleagues are acting in that regard now. I will be happy to report to my hon. friend and to the House and to give them the assurance that that procedure has been tightened up to ensure that this kind of situation cannot recur.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the Government's compliance with its own security policy. The former Minister's wife and his friend and campaign manager are both alleged to have personally profited from this rather sordid land transaction. The Minister apparently personally intervened in the land rezoning and the setting of the price of the land in this transaction.
Therefore, does the Prime Minister recognize that there has been a probable breach of security according to the Ministry's own security guidelines? Will the Prime Minister confirm that a written injury assessment will be or has been ordered pursuant to the provisions of this security policy? Most important, will the Prime Minister undertake to make that written injury assessment public rather than continuing to stonewall and cover up on this very serious matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend is asking about a written injury assessment. We are not asking for written injury assessments. We are telling the police to go ahead and investigate and, if required, prosecute fully. If anyone has violated anything, they are to put them in jail.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is hiding behind the skirts of the RCMP and refusing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: -to obey his own Government's security policy.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really disgusted with the facts surrounding this matter, the fact that the Minister's wife
Oral Questions
would have personally benefited-the fact that the Minister himself had made representations to City Hall-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member must ask his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, considering the gift made to the former minister's friend, when will the Government stop covering up and order a public inquiry? When will we get a public inquiry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: From my skirt to yours.

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, when certain facts were brought to our attention, we immediately ordered a complete and full police investigation. The chief law officers of the Crown have formally advised us that a new inquiry at this time could prejudice the police investigation. Clearly, public interest is served by a full RCMP investigation in order not only to inform the Canadian public but possibly to start prosecution if necessary.
I think the Government has acted not only firmly and quickly, but in the public interest and, according to the law officers of the Crown a commission of inquiry appointed at this time, as indicated in similar circumstances by Premier Pawley in Manitoba, could prejudice a full and complete investigation.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will agree with me that the police investigation which has been ordered is the right way to proceed in the public interest.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-ROLE OF RCMP
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer today the Prime Minister said that all the information regarding the Oerlikon affair was referred to the RCMP. Presumably this includes potential breaches of the conflict of interest guidelines. Since the Prime Minister said that that was the route which was to be used, can he tell us how and where the RCMP gets its authority to investigate breaches of the conflict of interest guidelines? If the RCMP does not have that authority, is it not obvious that without a public inquiry we will never learn the truth?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, because that is quite wrong. In fact, if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in the course of criminal inquiries-as the former Solicitor General knows full well, having been advised by the Commissioner himself-come across any matters of direct or indirect interest to the Government, they have a responsibility to report it, as they have and they shall. This is totally consistent with the broad mandate given to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

January 22, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT RESULTS OF INQUIRY BE MADE PUBLIC AND TABLED IN CHAMBER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit difficult to believe everything that we hear after such an answer. First, can the Minister tell us today that, in the case of such a result, the report of the inquiry will be tabled in this House so that Members may know the truth about the allegations regarding the Minister, his wife and other people and the possible violations of the conflict of interests guidelines? Will this information be made public and tabled in this House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP Commissionner does not report to me. Once his investigation has been completed, he uses his own judgment and certain basic criteria to determine independently whether charges will be laid. This is how it must work. If we have other information which might have a relevance on this case, we shall immediately refer them to the RCMP and the RCMP can tell you about it if it so desires.


Don Boudria: You have just said the opposite!


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for ensuring adherence to the conflict of interest guidelines. The Prime Minister referred to the Manitoba situation. He will also be aware that while the investigation into the legal aspect of the case was being conducted by the RCMP, the Legislature in Manitoba arranged for a parallel investigation to take place at the same time, which reported to the Legislature. That is exactly what we are asking the Minister responsible in this case-to carry out a parallel investigation while the RCMP is looking into the legal aspects of the case. Why will he not live up to his obligations and do just that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks a question that has been referred to earlier. I indicated a few days ago that notwithstanding the action taken by the Government, this action of itself does not preclude further action at an appropriate time. The law officers of the Crown have advised the Government that such a commission of inquiry at this time would be quite inappropriate, most unhelpful to them in the prosecution of their responsibilities under the Criminal Code and other statutes that exist. The RCMP has been asked to collect information in the public interest, to make determinations, and to report to the courts and otherwise. I think my hon. friend would agree that giving the RCMP a complete mandate and full authority is very much in the national interest and he would want to wait
until such time as the RCMP has taken this action so that we can consider what further steps might be appropriate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot refer to the Manitoba case on one hand and change his mind and say he cannot follow the exact same procedure to have an external evaluation as well as a legislative examination.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada unquestionably believe that the time for an investigation is now and for an announcement to take place before the Prime Minister leaves on his trip to Africa.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What arrogance!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I call upon the Prime Minister to remove the whole shroud of a cover-up on this whole affair-


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are covering up. You are trying to stop the RCMP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will he announce today that the Government of Canada is prepared to conduct a parallel investigation in a committee of the House or to have an external group do the investigation? That is what was done in Manitoba and that is what he referred to earlier. Why not do it now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the Manitoba case. On August 15 Premier Pawley said: "Madam Speaker, all the necessary answers will be obtained without jeopardizing the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The co-operation of all Members is required and all members of the public in order to ensure that the RCMP is able to fulfil their obligations to investigate the allegations that are raised". He said: "Madam Speaker, I, for one, will not be a party to jeopardizing the work of the RCMP".


John Edward Broadbent: But they had their own inquiry.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are getting phonier by the minute.


THE ECONOMY
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering the Bank of Canada's decision to lower the bank rate to 8.2 per cent last week, could the Minister inform the House what impact this may have on other financial institutions and on the Canadian economy in general?
January 22, 1987


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to announce to the House a drop in the bank rate to 7.74 per cent, the best and lowest rate since 1977!

This record low since 1977 will help us create more jobs in this country and have more housing starts right across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was denied access by the Department of Supply and Services to all information on the Low Level Air Defence contract. The Corporation's correspondent was told that employees had instructions from the Minister's office not to release any information whatsoever on this matter. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why his Government is denying the media, and thus the public, access to information about a contract that is in the public domain. What is his Government trying to hide?

In other words, why the cover-up?
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position is crystal clear. The facts that were brought to our attention were immediately transmitted to the RCMP, which is conducting a general and important inquiry on this matter. All information available to the Government has been transmitted to the RCMP, and more will follow if necessary and as more facts become available. I think that is quite normal. Our legal advisers have told us this is the way to proceed. It is legitimate and will help the cause and exercise of justice in this country.


REQUEST THAT LEGAL OPINIONS BE TABLED
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that his Government is crystal clear. Let him prove it! Let him table in the House the legal advice on the basis of which he claims that a judicial inquiry would prejudice the inquiry being conducted by the RCMP on the Saint-Jean "land flip". Let him table those documents and the legal advice of the law officers of the Crown! Is he prepared to do so?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was advised by Mr. Paul Tellier, Clerk of the Privy Council, and by his senior legal adviser, that according to the highest legal counsel for the Government and the Public Service-and as I mentioned this morning-setting up such a commission here and now might seriously jeopardize the conducting of a comprehensive inquiry and could even have the effect of inhibiting and impeding the prosecution of individuals. That is the information I received and the information I gave the House.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that in the Manitoba case referred to by the Prime Minister there had been no resignation of a Minister and there were no allegations of a conflict of interest.
My question for the Prime Minister concerns an entirely different subject, yesterday's visit to Canada by Vice-President Bush. As a result of his conversation with Vice-President Bush, does he now have any reasonable expectation that President Reagan will seek to amend his budget to bring it into compliance with the recommendations of the Davis-Lewis accord?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we fully expect that the recommendations in the report of the envoys on acid rain will be fully respected and honoured. We received a commitment from the administration to that effect, and we reminded them of it. The Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs spelled out in direct terms the manner in which these obligations had to be met. We fully expect that they shall.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill commenced his preamble to his question with an observation which the Chair, being generous, would let go in some circumstances. However, I think the Chair must comment on the fact that the observation was utterly unrelated to the question being asked. I know the Hon. Member would not want to bootleg in comments not dealing with this specific matter.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Never, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to pose his supplementary question succinctly.


COMMITMENT BY UNITED STATES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister get a commitment yesterday, not one going back to the Summit, that President Reagan's budget would be
2574

January 22, 1987
Oral Questions
amended to bring it into compliance with the recommendations of the Davis-Lewis accord? Did he get a commitment yesterday that they would do something concrete about living up to their commitment?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have a commitment written down very clearly in the report of the acid rain envoys.


An Hon. Member:: Are they living up to it?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Let him talk.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from the New Democratic Party asks the right question. Are they living up to it? The answer is, no, and we very much want to make sure they do.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, returning to the investigation, the Prime Minister tells the House that there will be an investigation conducted only by the RCMP.


An Hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister knows that an investigation by the RCMP terminates in the laying of charges or in the closing of a file. In this case, if no charges are laid or if matters arise in the course of the investigation which constitute wrongdoing but not crimes, will there be a report by the RCMP to the Government? And will the Prime Minister undertake now that that report will be made public?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks in that event will there be a report by the RCMP to the Government. The Hon. Member received, as I understand it, a letter from the Commissioner of the RCMP on January 21 wherein the Commissioner-


Ms. Copps:: You are reading his mail now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: A copy was sent to the Government and I take the liberty of reading it. It says that "should we come across activity that might be considered unpropitious to good government, even though short of provable criminal conduct on the part of senior officials, elected or otherwise, it is our responsibility to make our concerns known to either the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General in accordance with established reporting procedures." Of course we will act upon any information which is brought to our attention.


An Hon. Member:: You make it public.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would be glad to have a copy of that letter to me because I haven't received it yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT REPORT BE MADE PUBLIC
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Taking what the Prime Minister has read to me, that there may well be a report made to the Prime Minister or the Solicitor General, will the Prime Minister undertake now on behalf of himself and his colleague that any such report will be made public?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while my hon. friend may not have a copy of this letter, he knows full well there is nothing very revolutionary in it. This is the way the RCMP has acted for decades.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no.


André Ouellet: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is the manner in which it has set out its policy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You make it public.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Surely there can be no doubt about that. The Commissioner of the RCMP says very clearly that in the event they are investigating any alleged criminal wrongdoing and they come across any information of any kind which would be of interest to the Government with regard to alleged violations in other fields, they will of course bring it to the attention of the Government, the Solicitor General, immediately, and the Government will of course act upon it.
I tell my hon. friend that if the requirement is in any way to make it public, of course we will make it public. That is exactly the object of the exercise.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He was here earlier, but since he has left, I shall ask it to the Prime Minister. This question concerns the Cloverdale affair.
On September 23, 1986, the Minister received a communication from the Hon. Member for Spadina asking, first, for a public or judicial inquiry to be held on a suspicious transaction made in 1980 by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the non-profit corporation Logisque, and second, for the 736 low rental units to be transferred to the Cloverdale Park Tenants Co-operative.
January 22, 1987

As of last Monday, we had not yet received any reply. Can the Prime Minister or the Minister responsible tell the House whether he intends to request a public or judicial inquiry on this 1980 transaction?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister had to catch a plane and he has left the House. I will certainly take the question as notice and ensure the Minister gets back to the Hon. Member at the earliest possible occasion.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FREEZE TRANSACTION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to tell the House that, last December, the non-profit corporation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would you please ask your question without an overly long preamble.


Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, can the Government also intervene to freeze a transaction made last December in relation to the transfer of the 736 units to a private company and allow these units to be transferred to the tenants cooperative?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, Mr. Speaker, 1 will take that question as notice and have the Minister get back to the Hon. Member.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I cannot recall a Government using the powers of a police inquiry relating to criminal or alleged criminal matters to choke off a general public review or public inquiry of matters affecting a Minister's public responsibilities in the administration of the business of the country.
This is a narrow use of the police power in this country. I want to ask the Prime Minister who sought the legal opinion, if there is one in writing, from the law offices of the Crown? And if he has one, will he table it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is contrary to the contention that this is a narrow interpretation. The fullest, most complete measures which are available to a Government when there is an allegation of this nature are to turn it over to the police and ask them to
Oral Questions
investigate fully, having told the House and my right hon. friend; first, having removed the Minister from office, having turned it over, and having told my right hon. friend a few days ago that nothing in that inquiry would preclude further acts as events unfold that might require another instrument to provide the kind of information coming public.


Jacques Guilbault: That is sweeping it under the carpet.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is no intention to do other than to ensure the fullest use of the prosecution requirements under the law in the event that that is what the RCMP decide.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister may think that by firing his Minister he has closed the matter, but he has not. We have other matters and we will eventually find out when the Prime Minister first knew about this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROVISIONS OF RCMP ACT
John Napier Turner: refer to the RCMP Act-


Mr. Clark (Yeliowhead):: How about the War Measures Act, John, and the peace power?


John Napier Turner: -and the only authority the Government would have to widen a police investigation would be under Section 18(d) of the Act by Order in Council. Is there an Order in Council? And would the Prime Minister table that Order in Council, otherwise there is no authority for any investigation at all?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was informed, as I have indicated, of these facts on January 14, 1987, for the first time. That is exactly when I was advised of the information.
In regard to the police inquiry, it was initiated pursuant to the facts being brought to my attention. I was advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council this morning, and his chief legal adviser, that they had been advised by the Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Minister of Justice for Canada, as well as the Commissioner of the RCMP, of the information I have given, and the advice I have given to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: You have no written opinion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have conveyed to my right hon. friend the information received from the Clerk of the Privy Council who consulted with the Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General.


John Napier Turner: Big deal.

January 22, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says "big deal". Maybe he could stop carrying partisanship-


John Napier Turner: Show us the opinion.


Mr. Axworthy:: Show us the opinion.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -if you were more concerned about the application of the administration of justice, rather-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rossi:: You're a joke.


An Hon. Member:: Cover up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. The Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-FEDERAL FUNDING INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On January 7 the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Getty, told an Alberta Legislative news conference concerning the proposed federal loan to Syncrude, the oil sands project: "I know I had the support of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister". I repeat what he said: "I know I had the support of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for the federal loan". Did the Prime Minister promise Mr. Getty aid for the Syncrude project or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we discussed, among many other things, problems in the energy industry, and that was one of them. Premier Getty put out his view that this, among other ways, would be a very good way for the federal Government to co-operate-recognizing the limited existence of resources federally-that this would be a good way to co-operate with the Government of Alberta.
I think it would be a legitimate way-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Bye-bye, Alberta.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and there are others.
I tell my hon. friend from the NDP that I know Alberta is of no interest to the Liberals. They heckle and they laugh when we talk about the problems of Alberta.
I agree with my hon. friend. This is a serious matter, and I am responding in a serious way to his concerns.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO ALBERTA PREMIER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister. I agree with him. Is he aware that the Premier of Alberta said further that he "wants to find out the reason for the lack of support, after being told it was there"? Am I to understand, then, from the Prime Minister's answer that he acknowledges it was there? Is he now telling the House and, most important, the people of Alberta that he is prepared to reconsider this support?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are considering, will consider and, hopefully, act again to be of assistance to the troubled and crippled energy industry in Alberta. This is vital to the national interest, within the scope of the fiscal situation that we have.
In that context the Premier and I discussed a number of things, quite obviously Syncrude, and his version of the best way the feds could help Alberta in this project. It is an entirely legitimate point of view. There are others, all of which are designed to help Alberta and Albertans through a very difficult period. Indeed, energy is not only Alberta's problem. It is a national problem. We all have to work together with Alberta to try to bring about a resolution to a difficult problem.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that Question Period is nearly over. I will take one more question from the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg).


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX-APPLICATION TO REMANUFACTURERS
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister would be well aware that the Canadian people in general, and British Columbians in particular, are very happy to be receiving $600 million in reforestation funds each year. But there are some remanufacturing companies which are having difficulty as a result of the export tax. I wonder if the Minister can tell the House what the plans are of our Government-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down!


Some Hon. Members:: Shush!


Ted William Schellenberg: I am sorry, was I talking while you were interrupting?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question. I have advised Hon. Members that we are already over time. I am trying to accommodate Hon. Members. Will the Hon. Member please put his question?


January 22, 1987


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, what plans does our Government have to assist remanufacturers?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. My officials are meeting with some of the remanufacturers to deal with this issue. As I have informed the House, in general principle the softwood agreement states that the export tax applies only to the input and not to the added value. In identifying what are remanufactured items, the negotiators worked from lists supplied by the industry. Some of those industry lists did not include all the products. My officials are meeting with the industry to resolve this problem.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29 CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-GOVERNMENT ADHERENCE
Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of Hon. Members that an application was made this morning by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) for an emergency debate. The Chair indicated this morning that this is indeed an important matter and has been the subject of much comment, both publicly and in this Chamber. I am now ready to rule on the application of the Hon. Member who applied under Standing Order 29(1) for an emergency debate.
Before I go any further I wish to say that the Chair looks upon this as an important matter. This is not a frivolous application.
In making his application, the Hon. Member referred, and I quote from his notice, to "the unparalleled circumstances surrounding the departure from the Cabinet of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean". He went on to refer to "the probity of the Government's dealing with contractors and its adherence to conflict of interest guidelines".
The Standing Order requires that the matter proposed to be discussed must be "specific and important". The Hon. Member's application appears to raise the following as specific issues: first, the circumstances surrounding the departure from the Cabinet of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Bisson-nette); second, the probity, or in other words the integrity, of the Government's dealings with contractors, although that might be assumed, whether the Government was negligent or otherwise in that dealing, and it is broad enough to do so; third, the question of whether the Government adheres to its own conflict of interest guidelines.
In relation to the last issue I think, by clear implication, the application raises the question of whether the Government has adhered to its own conflict of interest guidelines in this particular case, not whether the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean himself adhered to them.
The following is important. In the context of this issue the Chair has serious difficulty with a problem that is more than likely to arise in the course of debate. There is an inevitable risk that the debate could focus upon the conduct of the former Minister. All Members will have noticed during the vigorous questioning which has taken place in Question Period that the Chair has indicated concern owing to the fact that the matter has been forwarded to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation but that as yet no charges of any kind have been made.
Hon. Members will know that there is a long-standing practice in this House to refrain from reflecting on the conduct of a Member, except by way of substantive motion, of which notice is required, drawn in terms which clearly state a charge of wrongdoing. I think it is appropriate for the Chair to say that since Monday, since the comments from the Chair, Hon. Members have taken great pains in framing their questions to avoid impinging on this fundamental precept of justice. I want them to know that this is much appreciated by the Chair.
In determining whether the situation as it exists amounts to a genuine emergency as envisaged by the Standing Order, I must take into account the fact that the following steps have already been taken by the Government. First, the Minister has been removed from office. Second, a police investigation of the matter has been ordered. Third, depending on the outcome of the investigation, the possibility of criminal prosecution has not been ruled out. In fact it has been clearly stated that it is very much something which, depending on the return from the RCMP and its recommendations, will take place. Fourth, and most important, an undertaking has been given that, should the facts contained in the RCMP report warrant further action, then further action will be taken.
In the circumstances the Chair cannot find, despite the importance of this matter, that a genuine emergency exists or that the criterion of "urgency of debate" is met by this application.
I would further point out, as Hon. Members and the public know, that the matter has formed the subject of questions during successive Question Periods this week, and will no doubt continue to do so. No Opposition Days have yet been designated in the current supply period, so that a further opportunity for debating the matter in the near future may well be available.
Therefore I must rule that the Hon. Member's application does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. However, I hasten to say, as I said at the outset, the Chair sometimes receives motions pursuant to Standing Order 29 which the Chair, always courteous, hears out. However, occasionally I think it is important for the Chair to state that some of these applications may be more important than others. The Hon. Member for Sudbury has brought a very important matter indeed to this House. However, under the circumstances I think it falls just short of what is required, at least today, in this matter. .

January 22, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: I rise on a point of order. During today's Question Period the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) read verbatim from a document which he identified as coming from the Clerk of the Privy Council. Unless I am mistaken, he did not simply mention the existence of such a document, he quoted from it verbatim. Therefore, pursuant to the well established precedents in this regard, for example, Citation 327(6) on page 116 of Beauchesne, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you direct the document in question be tabled. The citation in part states:
If a Minister cites or quotes an official document in debate, he should be prepared to table it.
If I am not mistaken, this precedent, and others in that regard, have been deemed to apply to documents quoted from during Question Period by Ministers, as well as those quoted from during debate.
My point of order is that because the Prime Minister appeared to quote verbatim from an official document, I call upon the Prime Minister to follow the precedents and table that document forthwith.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I was going to say that, on the point of order of the House Leader of the Liberal Party, he was being carried away with his imagination. Then in his final sentence he qualified it. He said the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) "appeared" to quote. That is precisely the point. The Prime Minister does have notes, and he makes notes as the questions are presented. I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is asking the Prime Minister to table his notes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has listened very carefully to the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I might indicate to the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that he has put the procedural law accurately. There seems to be some dispute. Ordinarily, I would not call for Members to rise over and over again on this matter, but I think it is appropriate to hear from the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In view of what the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) has just said, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, before making your ruling in any final form that you consult the "blues" in their unrevised form, as well as consulting the official electronic record of this House both in its televised and radio form. We cannot let this matter go in the way that the Government House Leader has suggested. The record is an important basis for the decision that I respectfully ask you to make on this important matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. House Leader for the Liberal Party by his statement is implying that there is meddling going
on in the transcript of Hansard. I think that he may wish to reconsider making that point. The Hon. Member has been around here for a long time. To imply that is certainly most unbecoming, and I am surprised at him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wish to rise because I think this is a very important point. From what I understood the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to say to the House, he is denying that the document exists from which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) quoted. Is he denying that, yes or no? If he is denying it, then he has to make his case. I am saying that if there is a document, then he has to table it. That is the custom of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I thought I made it very clear that the Prime Minister uses notes, some of which he prepares here, and some of which he prepares in his office. That is what I suggested that he was quoting from if he was quoting.
The Hon. Member from time to time when he puts his questions quotes from a document. I suspect that if we establish that practice, we will be asking each and every Member to table the questions that they read into the record.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: I rise on the same point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in reading from the document, it appeared to me that the words did not come from notes but came from a document. I would ask that the Speaker satisfy himself that it was notes, or it was a document, and personally to review the documents to assure himself before he makes a decision on this matter.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to add a word. At one point I clearly saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reading from a document that he said was a letter to me. I confirmed with my office that we have not received such a letter. If it was a letter sent by the Commissioner to me that is passing through the hands of the Prime Minister, I would like to ask that the letter be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) probably does not realize it, but because I was talking to another Member, I was unable to recognize him and his words of wisdom will be lost. We would not want that to happen.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member who just rose on on a point of order clearly has a valid point of order. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on that occasion was quoting from a letter.


Mr. Tobin:: How could he get a letter hand delivered?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can't answer that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nunziata stole it and delivered it.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!
January 22, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Everybody in the Chamber knows that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) would never do such a dastardly thing. I notice that the Right Hon. Member has immediately stood up and said that he withdrew any such imputation. I think perhaps the Chair has intervened just in the nick of time to save the honour of all Hon. Members.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I didn't hear it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let's hear him, Mr. Speaker, on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will put his withdrawal on the record.


Mr. Shields:: Let the rat pack hear it on the record, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to put my withdrawal on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could come back to the application. The Chair has heard the interventions of Hon. Members. As the Chair has said, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has succinctly put forward the procedural law. There seems to be some difference of opinion in the Chamber as to what was said, or what was quoted from. The Chair will examine the transcript and will do the best it can to be sure that the rules of this House are followed. I will report back to the Chamber.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order on a very important interpretation of that custom. When Ministers of the Crown quote from a document, they are traditionally expected to table that document, but not back-benchers. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was extending his thoughts a little too far in pretending that back-benchers and ordinary MPs would have to table their questions. It would accelerate the procedures of the House, but I am sure it is not in the rules right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know of no standing order or rule of procedure that suggests that a Minister when making notes, or having notes in front of him for the purpose of answering a question, has to table them. Official documents, yes; nonofficial documents, no. That should be clarified.


Sheila Maureen Copps: When quoting from a document, any document.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I am sure that he is advising me wisely on a different point of order.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Not only am I rising on a totally different point of order, but I suspect it will be one that will even meet the support and consent of the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski). I am simply asking him to give the normal weekly statement of government business.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member in his preamble implies that in future before he raises a point of order he will get my concurrence. I would not expect that, but it is a rather nice precedent for the day anyway.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Wait until next week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Perhaps the Hon. Member behind you, who seems to be more vocal from her seat than when she stands, might want to answer that question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister will conclude his remarks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with regard to House business, today we will continue with Bill C-37, followed by Bill C-18 and Bill C-19.


Jack Wendele Shields: Can you imagine being married to that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. One of the faceless Alberta Members from whom we hear very little on a general basis says: "Can you imagine being married to that?" That particular statement, while not quoted as unparliamentary in the nineteenth century parliamentary procedures book which we have at the moment, should certainly be withdrawn in the same manner as the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) withdrew his remark.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Shields, Mr. Shields.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will please accept the Chair's invitation to order.
The Chair did not hear the words complained of. They are properly complained of. I would expect the Hon. Member who said those words, or something close to them, to withdraw them.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would like to withdraw that.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act PRIVILEGE


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Speaker:: I have a response to a question of privilege to deliver to the House.

On January 20 the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) complained about some of the terms used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in answer to one of his questions.

I think it is important to look at part of what the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said in putting the question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He said:
Given the fact that the media as well as certain Members-
And Hansard has treated that as meaning Members of Parliament, and the Chair accepts that.
-and many Canadians have been at least partly aware of these transactions for two months already-
Then the Hon. Member went on to ask questions.
In the exchange which ensued, the Prime Minister in referring to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell said:
If he has had that information for some months why did he not bring it to the attention of the RCMP since his failure to do so could result in the obstruction of justice?
There are no hard and fast rules regarding parliamentary language, and it is usually a matter of judgment to determine whether or not language is unparliamentary. One of the important principles enshrined in our practice is that no charge may be levelled at an Hon. Member except by way of a substantive motion making a specific accusation. The Chair had reason to refer to that in the judgment which I just gave on the application pursuant to Standing Order 29. Such a motion requires notice, and is debatable and votable. The reason for that, of course, is to protect Hon. Members from attacks on their integrity and their conduct during the course of debate in Question Period, or in any other proceeding, without defining and putting a charge.
In considering the complaint of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the Chair must determine whether the words complained of constitute a charge against the Hon. Member. He asserts that the Prime Minister in using the words which I quoted in effect used threatening language and by inference accused him of committing a criminal act. The Chair might also read into that: accused him perhaps of not doing something that he ought to have done.
Certainly that is the way the Hon. Member received the language. As I said the other day, the Hon. Member immediately brought his complaint to the Chair and then argued the matter a day or so ago.
At that time I complimented the Hon. Member and other Members for the exact and succinct and careful arguments that Hon. Members presented to the Chair.

These remarks ask a question and conditionally infer that a possible omission might result in obstruction of justice. The words of the Prime Minister clearly imply criticism, but the Chair cannot interpret that as an indication of threat or accusation.

However, it is clear that the words offended, and sometimes in this Chamber they do, but it is the view of the Chair that they fall short of the kind of threat of which the Hon. Member was complaining.
I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to Hon. Members to avoid the use of provocative language. Many things are said in this House which, while not necessarily unparliamentary, are nevertheless felt to be objectionable. A great deal of time is consumed in the raising of complaints about the use of language which gives offence. Moderate language is not inconsistent with strong criticism, and if there were fewer complaints there would be more time for debate. I believe the interest of the House is best served when Hon. Members observe moderation in their choice of words and expressions.
I thank Hon. Members who rose on this matter, and 1 hope the Hon. Member will feel that his complaint has received serious consideration by the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), (p. 2382).
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since the amendment has not been read by the Clerk, I will do so for the record:
That Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain that the Official Opposition recommends that the adoption of this Bill be deferred for six months so that all Canadians can properly understand what this Government has signed, what kind of
January 22, 1987

agreement has been made with the Americans with respect to the export of softwood lumber.
Mr. Speaker, somebody might raise the question: Why should a Member who represents an urban riding be concerned about such a major issue as the export of softwood lumber? I don't have very many-in fact, I have no farmers and no forestry operations in my riding, but I know the subject because I have had a general interest in the matter for the past thirty-five of forty years, and as the Hon. Member opposite said earlier, Members should be able to speak to subjects of interest to them, and we may, on occasion, even astonish people with what we do know.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister for incompetence and International Trade has shown how not to negotiate an agreement with the Americans. I also recall, and perhaps I may put this incompetence in chronological order, that on September 30, 1986, the Minister made her first "final" offer to the United States to end the trade dispute by increasing stumpage fees by 10 per cent. On November 26, 1986, the Minister made her second "final" offer, agreeing to impose a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber. However, the offer was turned down by the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. On September 12, 1986, the Minister turned down a U.S. counter-proposal to accept the 15 per cent export tax, her excuse being that it was unacceptable that the United States should insist on controlling management of provincial resources.
On December 30, 1986, Canada signed an agreement with the United States imposing a 15 per cent tax on lumber exports, an agreement that, as interpreted by the Americans, will severely restrict the provinces control over their own resources.
Madam Speaker, in the ten minutes I have I cannot-it is impossible-explain to the House the nature of the problem we are facing with the provinces as to how this whole question will turn out. The Conservative Members are enjoying themselves on the other side, they appear to understand the issue. I invite them to stand up and explain to us how the provinces will ever be able to reach agreement with respect to stumpage fees, how they will do it.


Pierre Blais: They are in agreement.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They are not in agreement. It is not true. It is not true, you know they are not in agreement, you know that.


Mr. Gerin:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we know that the Standing Orders-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will resume my remarks, and once again let us hope that we will be able to get some kind of reaction from the Quebec Members. So far
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
very few of them have taken part in this debate, and indeed they should rise and give us the views of Quebec on this question. If, as the Hon. Member claims, Quebec and the other provinces agree with the Minister with respect to this negotiation and this agreement, they should explain it to us because Canadians do not understand, and I doubt that the Hon. Member himself can say now that he understands this. It is confusion, a question of outright incompetence to try to make believe that one can understand such a ... as far as I am concerned it is the worst kind of shilly-shallying.
I would like to give a few examples, and there are many I could quote.
There is Adam Zimmerman, president of MacMillan-Bloedel, Maxwell Cohen, a well-known economist and a judge of the International Court, Ontario Premier David Peterson, who was quoted in The Globe & Mail of January 6 as saying: "They-speaking about the American Government-will leave us with our hands tied, and if we do not behave, they will intervene. I do not like such an agreement." Also, Madam Speaker, as quoted in The Ottawa Citizen of January 6, 1987, the Premier of our province of Ontario, Mr. David Peterson, had this to say: "We have put not only our resource and taxation policies, but also in a sense our regional development and employment policies in the hands of another sovereign country. That is a dangerous precedent."
I could quote Stan Shewaga, president of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada. I could quote Ian Drummond, an economist at the University of Toronto, who is quoted as saying in The Ottawa Citizen of January 3, 1987: "The American claims are nonsense since the Canadian industry does not receive any money from the provinces who own the resources."
In addition, Madam Speaker, Edward English, economics professor at Carleton University, was quoted as saying in The Ottawa Citizen of January 3, 1987: "Natural resources are an absolute right which should not be handed over to any foreign government." "They take the same position as for the Soviets. This proves that the suspicious atmosphere in Washington is not restricted to East-West relations."
If the Hon. Members want quotes, I can give them. Robin Neill, an economic historian, had this to say in The Ottawa Citizen of January 3, 1987: "Even if Canada were to lose its case, it would be better for this country to assert itself immediately rather than jeopardize its sovereignty for the future." Madam Speaker, we are all concerned by the issue of sovereignty. The Conservative Government is well aware that this has been the key issue of this whole debate. The fact is that the Conservative Government, by fielding to the pressures of the Americans, has literally sold out the provincial resources without consulting the provinces-


Pierre Blais: The provinces are in agreement.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -without the agreement of the provinces and without thinking how such a consensus can be developed.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


Michel Champagne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I very rarely rise on a point of order. However, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has said that Quebec has not given its agreement. I believe that he is misleading the House because I have here a press release from Minister Pierre MacDonald, who says, and I quote: "Without the negotiations with the United States, we would certainly not have been able to launch our reforestation and forest management program ... We would not have been able to do so if we had opted for another solution."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order! The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) may have the opportunity to rise again. In my opinion, this was not a point of order but a point for debate, and I think that he himself was entering into a debate in an attempt to explain the point of order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Beside, the Hon. Member has already spoken to this amendment. Like all his colleagues from Quebec-and there are not many of them to have addressed this issue-he did what he could to show it from a biased point of view.
Madam Speaker, I know that my time is running out, but I wish to conclude by saying that the provinces, whether they like it or not, have been had by the Federal Government. They have been taken for a ride simply because some of their rights have been sold out without previous consultation and without a proper mechanism. It's a shame, Madam Speaker, and I blame this Government for acting in such a despicable and stupid manner.


Pierre Blais: This is not true!


An Hon. Member:: This is Liberal arrogance at its best!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has the floor.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, like my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for whom I have great regard, the export of softwood lumber is not a major economic item in our area. Nonetheless, I enter this debate through concern over one of the ramifications of the discussion thus far in the House and in the media, namely the extent to which Bill C-37 threatens Canadian sovereignty. I would like to share with you, Madam Speaker, and with Members of the House some thoughts about the way in which this Bill and this debate
relate to Canadian sovereignty in so far as the intent of this Bill is designed to strengthen confederation and be understood in the most enhanced way.
To support that, I go back to an article I read many years ago as a university student by the great Canadian historian, Frank Underhill. He is often quoted on the opposite side of the House with respect, but Members on the opposite side have been so busy quoting Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Robert Borden that they must have forgotten their old guru. Frank Underhill argued that the character of confederation was such that most of its benefits had accrued to the capitalist class of both Toronto and Montreal and that confederation had been designed to satisfy not so much political aspirations but economic ambitions.
One of the things that we are attempting to do in this Parliament through the policies of our Government is to define confederation in a way that gives an equal sense of justice, participation and caring to all regions of Canada. I would hope that many of us living in central Canada are sensitive historically as well as contemporaneously to the priority of Canadian sovereignty and that the need to stress our identity would take into account the need to recognize the economic hopes and priorities of all the regions, many of which have not enjoyed the prosperity that would be their wish and ours, one of these regions being British Columbia and other lumber producing provinces.
As I see it, Bill C-37 attempts to do that because it is designed to maintain the health and integrity of the lumber industry in that area and across the country. One illustration is the way in which the revenues to be derived from the new tax will be distributed to the provinces. The provincial Governments can gain. This is a recognition both of our commitment to maintain the health and strength of the lumber industry in other parts of the country and to recognize the legitimate aspirations of the provincial Governments throughout this land.
I would argue, Madam Speaker, that rather than being a threat to sovereignty, this Bill actually contributes positively to it because it is contributing to the ongoing strength of this confederation. We have to recognize that confederation has a future only if there is an accompanying economic strength. I have a second point to emphasize in this debate. I would like to emphasize the way in which Bill C-37 will add to the economic prosperity this country has been enjoying in the last two years. It will increase the economic strength of a province that has been hit hard.
First, the Bill will allow the lumber export industry in British Columbia and elsewhere to continue to be viable. For that reason, what is contained in a letter from an official of the International Woodworkers of America is not surprising. This is the kind of official that is not always quoted on this side of the House, but I am very happy to do so today. The letter reads:
January 22, 1987

The International Woodworkers of America wishes to extend its general support for the recent negotiated settlement of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States.
Under ideal conditions, many of us would have preferred to have our "day in court" in order to try to reduce the 15 per cent preliminary duty imposed by the U.S. Commerce Department last October. However, given the realities of the strong protectionist mood in the United States, it is extremely unlikely that the 15 per cent could have been reduced substantially in the final Commerce Department decision.
And even if the correct duty were eventually determined to be lower than 15 per cent, that decision could only be arrived at through three or four years of protracted court proceedings.
In the meantime, all of the revenues from the countervailing duty would continue to flow into U.S. government coffers at the rate of 12 per cent to 15 per cent on the selling price of lumber.
This representative of a trade union is understandably concerned about the future of his industry and the employment prospects of his members. He is endorsing what Bill C-37 represents because Bill C-37 will allow trade and employment to continue. It will allow the economic growth of the province to continue, particularly when taking into consideration the way in which the revenue from the tax will stay in Canada.
We must recognize that if Bill C-37 had not been drafted, there would be a tax imposed upon the export of Canadian lumber to the United States by the United States. There is no way Parliament could have held that back. We could have protested it and taken procedural action, but as the letter to which I have just referred indicates, such a procedure would be long and protracted and would have no guarantee of a positive result for Canada. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the Canadian Government, representing the Canadian people and their interests, to come to the kind of decision very often reached by individuals.
I can recall a lawyer telling me, when discussing a matter with him, that it depends upon how much money I would be willing to spend and the costs I would be willing to bear to make the point I had in mind. As a country, we have had to decide whether or not the price to be paid in undertaking a countervailing procedure would be worth the effort while this kind of negotiated effort could bring about a settlement which, in percentage terms, would have no more serious implications than those which were indicated by the United States Government. Even more, such a settlement would keep the revenues in Canada. To add to that, it would make it possible for those revenues to be distributed to the regions most concerned.
The provincial Governments will be receiving payments in accordance with the volume of trade and taxation paid from within each province. We should look at this agreement not only in the light of the short-term considerations such as full employment in the lumber industry but also in the light of the long-term considerations of all Canadians who are concerned that the lumber resources of Canada will continue and indeed be strengthened.
Last March I had the privilege of visiting Ethiopia to inspect the relief work taking place there. I was impressed by a stark fact. The one reason Ethiopia was suffering famine was that at the beginning of this century, over half of the country was
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
covered by trees while now, only 2 per cent of the country is covered by trees.
We must be concerned about the future of Canada's forests.
I would hope that we would seize this new opportunity for revenue represented by Bill C-37 and urge the provincial Governments to use that revenue to bring about enhanced ecology programs which would do much to guarantee the future of Canada's forests. I suggest that for these reasons, we should look upon Bill C-37 as one that adds to the strength of confederation, Canada's economic viability and thus our sovereignty.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I appreciated the remarks made by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), who quoted a very famous Canadian and an architect of the Regina Manifesto. I hope he has read the rest of that gentleman's writings.
Any nation, including ours, that wishes to maintain and exercise its independence and sovereignty must pay a price. Sometimes the price is monetary, sometimes it is great public debate, dissent and argument. However, independence and sovereignty must be maintained even when it costs.
This issue was not begun by us. Canada was found not guilty some four years ago. The problems certain circles in the United States claim exist were not of our doing but of their own making, the making of the United States Government and Congress. They are the ones who set policies to provide for a U.S. dollar of high value. That was none of our doing and that is why the problem is mostly of their own making. Canada, as a self-respecting, independent and sovereign nation, should not allow itself to be victimized by such problems.
The Americans used the excuse that stumpage fees were to blame. Stumpage fees charged in New Brunswick are about eight times as high as those in British Columbia and stumpage fees charged in Ontario are about three times as high as those in British Columbia. In the 10 provinces and the two territories, stumpage fees and other forestry fees are all over the lot and there is nothing new about that.
The Government could have exempted New Brunswick, for example, or Ontario or Nova Scotia from the export tax. However, the agreement would allow the U.S. to do something it would do in any event, with or without our agreement, and that is to impose a duty in any case. That is the reality of the situation.
Under the constitutional set-up in the United States, there are many roadblocks including the U.S. administration, the President and his Cabinet, the International Trade Agency, the courts, the House of Representatives and the Senators. Under the American Constitution, every international agreement or treaty is subject to ratification by Congress.
In Canada, an international agreement or treaty is not subject to parliamentary debate or amendment. In effect, we are now debating an international agreement under the guise

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
of debating an export tax Bill. It is the only chance we get to do so. I hope the day comes-and I believe it will come when the New Democratic Party is in power-when every international agreement or treaty entered into by Canada will be eligible or subject to debate, amendment and ratification by the Parliament of Canada. That is long overdue because I can recall the Conservatives during the years of Liberal Government from 1968 to 1984, except for one 10-month period, complaining of treaties and international agreements entered into which we could not debate in Parliament except for the odd occasion when we used an Opposition Day and it was not subject to a vote or an instrument subject to amendment.
A country has to earn the respect of other countries in the exercise of its independence and sovereignty. Why should the U.S. respect our independence and sovereignty? They have been very free in ignoring our sovereignty. They have been very free in failing to respect our independence in our Arctic waters, on cruise missile testing, SDI, and now softwood lumber. This is not the first time and it will not be the last. We keep failing to exercise and stand up for our independence. What is next? Natural gas? Steel? Potash?
The other problem is that when other nations see what the U.S. is able to foist on Canada, why should they not decide that Canada is an easy mar?. What the U.S. can make us do, they can make us do as well.
Natural resources are administered by the provinces and harvested according to each province's own likes. It is their resource to manage as they see fit. That is the constitutional fact in Canada. That means that no national Government can allow the Government of another country to interfere with not only the powers of our national Government but with the powers and rights of the provinces and territories which make up our country. No national Government worthy of the name would sign an agreement which would allow a foreign power to interfere.
I suggest to my hon. friends in the Government that they must proceed back to the table with the U.S. and obtain an amendment, Memorandum of Understanding, addendum, or whatever they want to call it, to the present agreement. It will say that the U.S. will respect our sovereignty and independence and accept in good faith our word to behave properly in accordance with the agreement and we will not be party to an agreement which allows the U.S. to examine our books. We are not a satrap of the U.S. We are not a Poland or East Germany, Honduras or Guatemala or the Philippines. We are sovereign and independent. We are different. We must do our own thing and the U.S.A. and every other country must respect that. They will not, however, until we stand up for that independence and sovereignty, even when there is an economic price to pay. Canada is more important than that. We do not need to add new words to our national anthem which say: "Oh, U.S.A., spangled banner awave, Canada stands on guard for you." We do not need that. I want to remind the Government
that Sir John A. Macdonald and John George Diefenbaker defended our independence and sovereignty. They stood up for this nation.


John Horton McDermid: So have we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They stood up for its independence and sovereignty.


John Horton McDermid: So have we.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We do not need agreements which allow this kind of supine sell-out of what Canada is about. I hope the Government will take this Bill off the Order Paper, go back to the U.S. and say this is what we must have, otherwise the agreement is abrogated and we will fight in the courts and under GATT and take the other measures open to us if they want to play that kind of game.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the second reading debate of Bill C-37, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act. The previous speaker finished on the question of fighting the battle in the courts. There was a very interesting article by Robin Neill, an economic historian, in The Ottawa Citizen on January 3. With respect to fighting it in the courts he said: "Even if Canada lost the case it would be better to take it now rather than gamble with the country's sovereignty for years to come." While we may look at having to pay the 15 per cent export tax on every bit of softwood lumber which goes to the U.S., and while it will cost in the neighbourhood of some $600 million and jeopardize hundreds upon hundreds of direct and indirect jobs, we have to realize that in addition to the technical factors underlining such an agreement, there is also the other side, the substantive part, namely the process. For me the real downside of this legislation, the real sin, if you will, of the Government, lies on the process side of this equation. It succumbed to the dictation of the U.S. It did not stand up for the rights and independence of this nation.
That the U.S. has the right to set the price of this important natural resource, to regulate it and review it, is simply shocking. Members of the Government say this deal strengthens confederation. It does the exact opposite. The Government has succumbed to the wishes and demands of the Americans as opposed to voicing the aspirations, not only of the industry concerned but the will and determination of our country as a whole.
This is not a single, isolated act by the Government. It reflects a mind-set which is willing to genuflect to the U.S. We have seen in the life of this Parliament so far the Conservative Government's willingness to dismantle FIRA. Some critics would have it that FIRA was anti-foreign investment. It was not. It was pro-foreign investment, but according to Canadian needs, interests and sovereignty. Ninety per cent of all applications were accepted, but only after it was very clear
January 22, 1987

that they would result in benefits for Canada. The Conservatives dismantled FIRA and put in its place Investment Canada, bowing to the wishes of the Americans.
Next it was the National Energy Program. The Conservatives were very quick to please the multinational U.S. corporations rather than furthering our own exploration efforts. The multinational corporations with head offices south of the border were the winners in the pharmaceutical legislation as well.
Under the administration of Mr. Trudeau, the Conservative Party was opposed to the patriation of our Constitution. They voiced their disapproval of going to another country to patriate the Constitution which would allow the Canadian Parliament to change a facet of our way of life without going, cap-in-hand, to another country for approval. Where was the vision of the Conservative Opposition then?
Under the administration of Mr. Pearson we saw the same mind-set in the Tory Opposition. They were against creating our own recognizable flag. They were also opposed to having our own anthem, a symbol of our maturity and independence.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member was not in the House when Canada's national anthem was approved. I was. It was approved with the unanimous support of the House. It is not true to say that the Conservatives were against the anthem. I ask that the Member withdraw those remarks.


Pierre Blais: Withdraw those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That is not a point of order, as I think the Hon. Member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid) knows. We are on debate. I suggest that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) limit his comments, as much as possible, to the Bill before the House.


Sergio Marchi: Thank you, Madam Speaker. While I respect the request of the Chair, I am trying to elaborate upon the sovereignty aspect, which is probably the most crucial aspect of this legislation. I would like to use my time to speak about what my constituents believe to be the most harmful aspect of this legislation, namely, the loss of sovereignty, the trading away, if you will, of our right to guide the destiny of our country without bowing to the United States. I am trying to illustrate that this is not an isolated case. In years gone by, whether in Opposition or in Government as they now are, there was a tendency and a willingness to please our friends south of the border rather than standing up for our independence.
I realize, as do all Members in my Party, that the Americans are our neighbours, allies, and friends. Although we recognize that they have a larger population, are more powerful economically, and are a greater force in international politics, that does not give them the right to dictate what our
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
preferences and legislation should be. That does not give Canadian Governments the right to succumb to please them.
Past Liberal Governments went to Washington when necessary and, with every respect for our American friends, stood up to them for what we perceived to be the sovereignty of our country. That is a tradition of which we in this Party are proud. That is a tradition of which Canadians are proud. Although Canada is younger, smaller, and not as powerful as the United States, we were able to garner respect for our independence. We were able to stand up for our aspirations and earn the respect of the United States. I look forward to speaking on this Bill again when the main motion is before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Bill before us has been described by the Government as an indication of a great victory for Canada and Canadian sovereignty. Let us study what has actually happened to see what is meant by this Bill and what it says about the Conservative Government's view of Canada and the Conservative Government's relations with the United States.
For a number of years the softwood lumber industry in the United States has argued that it faced unfair competition from softwood lumber produced in Canada. It argued that the method by which the provinces imposed stumpage fees amounted to an improper and unfair subsidy, enabling Canadian softwood lumber to take too large a share of the market in the United States to the disadvantage of softwood lumber produced in that country.
Some years ago they brought a complaint to the American Trade Commission about this state of affairs and asked that a countervailing duty be placed on softwood lumber originating in Canada. The Canadian industry, with the support of the federal Government, fought that complaint and, in spite of the determined efforts of the American softwood industry, the Canadians won a victory.
Some years later the Americans brought a new complaint on exactly the same facts. However, this time there was an important difference. Instead of backing the Canadian industry completely and fighting against this unjust claim that Canadian softwood lumber was being subsidized and therefore competing unfairly in the American market, the Canadian Government failed to back up the Canadian industry.
It is true that the Government talked tough at the beginning and said the American claim was wrong. The Government said it would fight that claim of subsidy to the end but that is not what happened. While the Minister talked tough, we now know that negotiations were taking place behind the scenes which frankly, no matter what they were called, were aimed at

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
selling out Canadian interests. When the Minister's activities were brought to light, she said that the Government had made a final offer. However, it turned into still another final offer and, just before the new year, an agreement was announced which indicated that the Canadian Government instead of the American Government would impose a tax on exports of softwood lumber to the United States, and the American authorities would have the right to say whether that tax was being properly applied and whether any measures imposed by the provinces to take the place of that export tax amounted to the same value. In other words, the Americans had a veto over what the Canadian Government and the provinces did when it came to raising the price of Canadian lumber in the American market.
If this was such a great deal, one would have thought the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) would have been there to take credit for the deal when it was completed and announced. One would have thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have been there to take credit for the deal when it was announced. However, it is significant that they were both very far away. The fact that the Minister was sunning herself in Hawaii and the Prime Minister was elsewhere indicates to us that deep in their hearts the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade knew they had entered into a bad deal for Canada, had sold out Canadian interests and weakened Canadian sovereignty.
What were the objectives of the Americans in this whole process. First, it was to raise the price of Canadian softwood lumber in the United States and make it less competitive so that less would be sold and more room would be made for American lumber there. Whether the tax is imposed by the Americans or the Canadians, the result is exactly the same. The price of softwood lumber has been increased and it has been made less competitive in the United States, to the detriment of the Canadian industry, its workers, and the entire Canadian economy. No matter what the Government says, this could not possibly serve Canadian interests.
A second American objective was that once the agreement was made the Americans would have a final say about the application of this export tax or of any replacement measure. The Minister and her colleagues are trying to say that they protected Canadian sovereignty and that the United States does not have that authority. However, they are not supported by the letter sent on behalf of Secretary of Commerce Baldrige and special trade representative Yeutter in which they told the American industry what the agreement meant to them. It is clear they thought it meant they would have the final say on how Canada priced its softwood lumber. That is an intrusion into Canadian sovereignty, no matter how one describes it.
The Government says that this is simply a letter written by some Americans, as if the Secretary of Commerce and the special trade representative were just one of several hundred million people in that country. However, when one reads the agreement which has been attached specifically into Canadian legislation by the Bill before us, it clearly supports the
interpretation by the American authorities. The agreement says that the Americans have the final say as to whether the value of any replacement measures for the export tax and the tax itself create the additional cost for Canadian softwood lumber that the Americans are seeking.
In short, the Canadian Government and provinces cannot change anything if it affects the final value that the Americans want to get out of the deal. The Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, at the time the agreement was announced very honestly said of the final agreement that the Americans have their pound of flesh. I commend the Minister for his honesty in that regard, but what an admission. What better proof that this is not a good agreement for Canada?
I repeat, the Minister said at a press conference announcing this bad deal for Canada that the Americans have their pound of flesh. After the subsequent press conference by the Official Opposition in which we pointed out very clearly, and obviously correctly, that this was a bad deal for Canada and an intrusion into Canadian sovereignty, the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) rushed to have another press conference that same afternoon. When pressed by journalists, he admitted that this deal would have an adverse effect on the Canadian industry and Canadian workers. Yet the Government has the nerve to present this Bill to the House to implement what the Government itself sincerely believes privately, and publicly, through the words of Ministers like the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines, what is a bad deal for this country.
The deal itself is frightening, but it is more frightening because it gives a signal about what may be the real intentions of the Government for the Auto Pact and the hundreds of thousands of jobs connected with it. If the Government can say in the House that it did not intend to give in on softwood lumber but behind the scenes was busy doing just that, then there is a risk that this same Government could do this with the Auto Pact and its safeguards in the free trade negotiations. It could say in the House that the pact is working well and it does not intend to change it, but behind the scenes destroy the pact and sell out the interests of hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers in communities like my own City of Windsor.
Therefore we must oppose this Bill and defeat it in order to send a message to the Government that neither on softwood lumber, the auto industry or any other key sector of the Canadian economy will we let the Government sell out this country and destroy it. If the Government does not want to do it, at least the Official Opposition and Canadians generally will stand up for Canada. We must send a message to that effect to this unworthy Government.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Bill we are dealing with today is yet another example of the frustration Canadians feel with the Government. I am not talking about the polls or any of the scandals that are
January 22, 1987

taking place, but how the Government deals with legitimate issues that arise.
While the polls and the various scandals deal with the Government's integrity or lack thereof, I believe the issue before us now is, in some respects, much more important. I believe that Canadians no longer have any faith that the Government can represent them. I believe there is a lack of trust that the Conservative Government can continue to negotiate contracts on their behalf. This may be unfortunate because when the Government negotiates a beneficial agreement we may be in a situation in which no Canadian will believe it is possible. Unfortunately, the Government has not negotiated a good deal in this case. I think it is because they do not have faith in themselves in representing Canada. They do not believe they can sit down as equals with the Americans and say: "Look, we have interests. You want our lumber. We have a legitimate legal case and are willing to fight for our legitimate legal case". That is not what happened.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister fought.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, as my colleague said, the Minister fought. She rose in this House and gave a very forceful speech in which she said: "We will not accept this. We will take our case to GATT. We will fight this unfair imposition by the Americans". But could we believe it? Of course, we could not.
As a teacher, I used to negotiate for the teachers in northern Manitoba. I cannot imagine how the teachers would feel if they were assembled in this hall and I rose one day and said: "We are going to go to the school-board and fight this case", and then later 1 said I agreed with the school-board and we should give in. That is what has happened here. I have a few quotes here from people in Saskatchewan and Manitoba which show how these people and the people throughout the country have reacted. They basically feel they were sold out by the Government.
The feeling is that this Government went to the Americans and told them it was not even going to try to take our case forward. It was not even going to try to win our case. What it would do instead was to make one final offer and if the Americans did not like that, we would come back later and give them another final offer and if they did not like that, we would get down on our knees and offer them something else: "Take Quebec, take Ontario-even Windsor". That is the attitude of the Government, and it really is a problem.
Let us deal with the substance of the legislation. What we are being asked to do with this legislation is to impose an export tax of 15 per cent on all the lumber which may go to the United States. In addition to that we are creating problems for all sorts of other industries which use Canadian lumber to make the final products which go to the United States. We have made it that much more complicated because sometimes lumber comes in from the United States, is processed here and
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
then returns. We will charge those people a 15 per cent export tax.
Yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) called those problems anomalies. She thinks they are just little problems with which we have not dealt. Unfortunately, those little problems are part of this agreement which was signed and sealed by this Government. That does not speak well for the Government's ability to negotiate because it is now discovering-thanks to the efforts of the Opposition and people in the industry-that there are things in this agreement about which it is unaware.
I remember the brave words of the Minister during the holidays. She said: "It is a good agreement". We then pointed out some problems and she said: "That is not true". She kind of denied everything that was brought to her attention, but little by little she discovered those problems were real. Now she calls them "anomalies". I am afraid that once we pass this legislation, we are going to find more and more problems, loopholes and anomalies of which the Minister and her negotiators are unaware. I think that is a very serious problem.
This legislation imposes a 15 per cent tax and we are not even sure on what it imposes a 15 per cent tax, although we know it certainly is on our lumber products. We are told that once we pass this legislation somehow the Government is going to sit down with the provinces and do away with the legislation and have the provinces impose some new kind of tax on stumpage or something of that nature which will have the same value as the 15 per cent export tax. Then, of course, we read that whatever the provinces do it must equal 15 per cent, and it must be seen by the Americans to equal 15 per cent. They must approve of some of the projects and will, obviously, disapprove of some of the other projects the provinces may wish to undertake. That creates a problem. In passing this legislation we will not know what will happen down the road.
I listened to our Minister of Industry in Manitoba express his concern that among the proposals put forward by the federal Government is a stumpage fee on all lumber produced within the various provinces.
The problem is that we really do not know how the Government intends to take this export tax and impose it in some form or manner with the provinces. We do not know what we are going to end up with down the road. I think that is completely silly. We are being asked to pass this legislation fairly quickly. It was brought into the House as soon as the House convened. We do not have any concept of what the Government wants to do down the road and no idea how it is going to affect our export markets, not only with the Americans but with other countries, and how it could possibly affect our Canadian consumers. That is ridiculous.
Here we are dealing with a very significant piece of legislation and, unfortunately, we are only allowed 10 minutes to speak at this stage. A number of industries across the country said we should not have negotiated in this manner. The manager of the forest operation in my riding says he

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
agrees with the industry, that we should have taken our legal position and fought for our legal rights. We could have won it.


John Horton McDermid: That is not what he told me. I spoke to Spencer on the phone.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The name of the man I refer to is Bill Jonas. I don't know who your man is. Maybe he is another anomaly. 1 will conclude by saying that we do not know why the Government refused to take our position forward and fight for us. Why did the Government not do that? If we had lost we could have still had the 15 per cent export tax. However, in the meantime we would have fought for Canadian interests and stood up for the Canadian industry.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief comments today with regard to Bill C-37 and, in particular, to the motion moved by my Leader requesting that Bill C-37 not be read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
It is quite obvious what the Government is trying to do with regard to Bill C-37. It has been referred to as a sell-out of Canadian sovereignty and, indeed, it is. The Government, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), has found occasion over the past two and a half years to speak of the very close relationship with President Ronald Reagan and the United States administration. We have often heard in the House and, indeed, throughout the country, about how, as a result of the election of the Progressive Conservative Government, a new relationship has developed. Well, what has come of this so-called new and close relationship with the Government of the United States?
Over the course of the last two years we have found time and time again that the Conservative Government, through the Prime Minister, has been prepared by its actions to diminish Canadian sovereignty, in effect to sell out our sovereignty. Commentators, columnists and Canadians generally question the credibility of the Government when they hear it say that it is fighting for the interests of Canadians. As Hon. Members know, this Government is suffering from a credibility crisis. We have a Government that is desperate. As of late, as Canadians are aware, the Government has lost the trust of the people of Canada.
As Liberals we do not like to comment generally on public opinion polls-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -but I must take this opportunity to comment briefly on the results of public opinion polls recently publicized over the course of the last number of weeks.
What do these results show? They show that there has been a trend over the last two-and-a-half years. I am not referring to just one particular Gallup poll or one particular Angus Reid
poll. On September 4, 1984, the Government was elected with a massive majority. Following the election it went through a honeymoon period of popular support. During that time its popularity continued to rise. Then, at a particular point in time when the people of Canada realized that they had been hoodwinked in that particular election campaign in the long hot summer of 1984, when they realized they had been misled in terms of the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party, popular support started to plunge. The popular support of the Government started to free fall. Where is it today? It is the third Party. The Prime Minister is the Leader of the third Party in Canada. For the first time in some 20-odd years a Government is less popular in terms of support than our socialist friends to the left, the New Democratic Party.
At some point in time the Prime Minister and his Party will have to look in the mirror and ask themselves: "Why? Why is it that the people of Canada no longer trust us? Why is it that we only have the support of 28 per cent or 29 per cent of the Canadian electorate?" The answer is obvious. It is because the people of Canada do not like what they see. They do not agree with what the Government has been doing. They do not agree with patronage. They do not agree with all the scandals that have plagued this mortally-wounded Government. They do not agree with the actions the Government has taken. They do not agree with what the Prime Minister is doing in terms of our sovereignty and our relationship with the United States.
Canadians, regardless of where they live in this great country, are proud to be Canadians. The Conservative Government does not realize that. The Conservative Government and the Prime Minister do not realize that Canadians are prepared to pay the price to be Canadian, to retain our sovereignty, our independence. We want to be different. We do not want to be the fifty-first state of the United States of America. Yet notwithstanding the wishes of the people of Canada the Prime Minister is prepared to sell out the country.
Madam Speaker, you will recall the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and what happened to him. We all know what happened to him. At one point in time he stood up in the House, and I recall this specifically, and announced that the Foreign Investment Review Agency would be axed. He said: "Canada is now open for business". Headlines right across the country shouted: "Industry Minister Says Canada Open for Business". The Prime Minister said to the people of the world: "We are open for business. Come on in, foreigners".
Canadians responded to that. They said that Canada has always been open for business. They said that they did not want to sell out the country. They asked what the Prime Minister was doing with regard to Investment Canada and we now have Bill C-37 before us, which is a Bill entitled "an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products".
I cannot conclude my remarks here this afternoon without making some brief and passing reference to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). If you recall, Madam
January 22, 1987

Speaker, when she was given her portfolio the quarterback, the Prime Minister, said: "I have given her the ball. Watch her run." Well, the Government of Canada was on the goal line. All it had to do was go over the goal line to score the touchdown. Yet what did the Minister for International Trade do? She fumbled on the goal line. She could not even hang on to the ball. She stood up in the House and said to the people of Canada: "I will fight tooth and nail for Canadian interests. We have made an offer and it is our final offer". Just a day or two later she said: "Well, we made another offer and it is our final offer". Like the Government and like the Prime Minister the Minister for International Trade suffers from a credibility problem. Perhaps it was as a result of being in the sun in Hawaii while she was basking on the beach, eating pineapple and sipping margaritas and pina coladas. Perhaps the sun penetrated the Minister and did some damage in terms of her credibility.
The so-called deal was announced on December 30. It was the Minister's new year's resolution-I note that you are indicating to me, Madam Speaker, that my time has expired. However unfortunate that may be, given the fact that I do have other comments to make, I say in conclusion to my colleagues who are hanging their heads in shame during these most difficult times the following. I can understand why they are shell-shocked and worried about their political futures. I say to them that if they want to regain some support and respect from Canadians then they must do the honourable thing and vote against Bill C-37.
Mir. Boudria: May I ask a question of the Hon. Member with the unanimous consent of the House, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate thus far. I suppose one can get the impression from what has been said that the Government avoids as much as possible causing difficulties for our neighbours to the south. I wish to take note of a fact that has been revealed to us, that is, the Americans are having considerable difficulty as a result of the Conservative Government with respect to determining where the additional star in the Stars and Stripes will be placed.
I rather like and enjoy many members of this Government. There is a certain naivety that characterizes the government side. I could say that this Government is divided into two classes: the naive and the knaves. When all the court cases and investigations are over, all of the knaves will be eliminated and only the naive will be left.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was heard to say yesterday that he is from Missouri. I do not know what part of Missouri he is from. I understand that if someone says they are
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
from Missouri, they are likely to be pretty tough to deal with; they are not likely to be fooled by Yankee traders. This Government has been consistently fooled by Yankee traders. In Bill C-37 and the softwood issue, we are only dealing with part of the fabric of interactions between this Government and the Americans, and this has caused a great deal of concern among the Canadian people.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) indicated that when we see the great ineptitude of this Government in dealing with the United States on trade issues, we are filled with the fear of God about what may happen if, indeed, the Auto Pact was denied to be on the table what would they place upon the table. In looking at the particular instance of the softwood lumber issue, we must be deeply concerned. The issue of countervail against Canadian softwood lumber came up previously, as did other matters to do with lumber. There was the problem over shakes and shingles against which a countervail was imposed. I observed at that time that the words "shake" and "shingle" were the vernacular for a neurological disease and the symptoms thereof, and reflected on the rather nervous way in which the Government has approached issues involving negotiations with the United States.
Referring back to the 1983 decision, Canada won because it had a good case. If the Government had the courage of its earlier words, we would have won again. I wish to remind the House of those earlier words. "We will fight this all the way. Today it is lumber, tomorrow it will be any number of issues". That was stated by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), and she was certainly correct. Indeed, if we fold as we have folded on this matter, then it is only a matter of time before similar issues will arise with respect to other trade relationships, or other products traded with the United States.
Clearly with the terrible surge of protectionism in the United States, it will regard what we produce and how we produce it very closely, and it will discover subsidies almost everywhere. It is a nation under attack on trade, in large measure because of its own action, mismanagement of its economy, and its own inefficiencies. It is clear in the Americans' trade relationships with Canada that the moment Canadians, or indeed any other nation, begin to compete effectively with them, it tries to search out means of retaliation.
In this particular instance, it was argued by the Americans that the stumpage fees in parts of this country were too low and constituted a subsidy. After an initial threat of a countervail of some 35 per cent, they settled on 15 per cent by virtue of the initial ruling.
Laying that fact aside for the moment, it could be argued that the softwood lumber transported to the border experiences a railway subsidy. If we examine the matter carefully, one could discover a number of areas where the Americans, in their absolutely relentless search to find excuses for their own poor performance, will find with respect to lumber that there are subsidies all over the place that need to be countervailed.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
This is an example of what can happen elsewhere. It is not just the fact that we have had imposed upon us a countervailing duty in response to which we have a negotiated Memorandum of Agreement. It is that by virtue of the export tax substituted by that agreement, we have a whole host of difficulties presented to us.
One of the things that will result from our failure to adequately deal with this dispute with the Americans is that it is raising disputes within our own country between, for example, the maritime provinces and the western provinces. They take note of the fact that their stumpage fees vary between $50 per lot, as compared to $ 1 -$ 10 in British Columbia. In large measure they are subject to the same export tax. With this differentiation in stumpage fees, there will be a tendency to unload the lumber that does not go to the United States, and they will begin to compete and sell their softwood in the Maritimes.
It has been pointed out that this particular export tax, which under this agreement is applicable only to the United States, may well be an infringement of the GATT. If that is so, we are presented with greater difficulties. Beyond the imposition of this tax, it may well mean that the cost of our exports to other countries will go up commensurately. That certainly will hurt. If the stumpage fees increase for every type of wood products from softwood lumber, that will mean that the domestic costs of wood products will increase for all Canadians.
One wonders what we have won. We have failed to fight the battle that we should have through the American courts and GATT. There is much evidence that we might have won. We would not then have established an unfortunate precedent that will not only get us in trouble with our other trading partners but means trouble for us with the United States. In spite of the tough words that we uttered: "We will fight this all the way. Well, we are not going to fight it, we will offer a 10 per cent export tax. You don't think that is good enough? Well, a 15 per cent export tax", if we had fought the issue properly, and not caved in after those meaningless threats, then we would not have been opening ourselves to similar attacks on other exports to the United States.
Of course, there is the issue of sovereignty. The issue of sovereignty is encased in all that I have said so far, in substance; but in fact the Memorandum of Agreement permits the Americans to impose upon us what they feel should be our domestic policy with respect to softwood lumber. What will be next? What other area of manufacture, resource management, or efforts to benefit the regions of this country will be under attack because the Americans do not like it? What future empty threats will we make in response to an American threat that will end up in concessions that will hurt our country and which compromise our sovereignty?
If one thing has become clear during the circus which has been the Government's relationship with the United States, it is that Canadians are becoming jealous of our independence and sovereignty. It is perfectly clear that this Government is increasingly seen as not representing their views, failing to
represent a sovereign future for Canada, and as a Government that is ready to say: "I give up. Take what I have got, or tell me what to do, because we are so anxious to be friendly with you, Ronnie Reagan"



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Air Canada-Employees' pension plan-Request for full annual reports; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell)-Ports-Vancouver-Request for funds to upgrade facilities, (b) Request that port users committee be established; and the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Refugees-Deportation of Iranian from United States, (b) Request for issuance of ministrial permit.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), (p. 2382).
Don Boudria: be a real tough ball player and that she would act in such a way as to ensure that she obtained the best deal for Canadians.
What happened? On September 30, 1986, the Minister for International Trade talked with the Americans about the softwood lumber issue. She said that she was making what she called her final offer. It sounded real serious, almost threatening as a matter of fact. The Americans could lump it or leave it, according to the Minister. Of course the terms included a 10 per cent stumpage fee.
What did we hear? On November 26, once the final offer had not gone through, the Minister made a second final offer. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you do not believe there can be such a thing as more than one final offer. You have to understand Tories. I know you do not understand how they operate because you are non-partisan in this place, Madam Speaker. You would have to put yourself in the mind-set of a Tory, although I know you cannot, the non-partisan person you are.
Those Tories across the way make threats and back off because they are dealing with their American friends. Not long after the Prime Minister was sworn into office, he cozied up to President Ronald Reagan in such a way that now he cannot be authoritative in any way, shape or form; he destroyed credibility in the past. He sang "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" on Canadian television from coast to coast. I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that my television set has never been the same since. He spent $2.6 million of Canadian taxpayers' money putting on an extravaganza in Quebec City and telling everyone that they were only as far away as their telephones. He also told everyone that they would settle every problem that occurred.
Obviously Ronald Reagan gathered from this that the United States could do just about anything because the Prime Minister of Canada was such a friendly guy. Obviously he gathered that they could take whatever course of action they wished and that gradually Canada would succumb.
As I indicated a while ago, there was a final offer on September 30. Subsequently, on November 26, there was a second final offer. This offer would have imposed a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood, but it was rejected by the United States industry coalition. On December 12, the Minister for International Trade responded to the American counter offer. That was the third final offer. However, she refused the third final offer from the Americans and countered with acceptance of a 15 per cent export tax. On December 30, Canada signed the now infamous Memorandum of Understanding with the United States.
What did that get us into? I was holidaying outside the country in late December. I picked up a newspaper, and what did I read about Canada? It was an article which contained a story about how, according to a very well-known and respected Canadian university professor, we had surrendered part of our soveriegnty to the United States in the way in which we decided to deal with the matter.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act [Translation]
Madam Speaker, in addition to all these concerns, I am also worried about our multilateral agreements. What is going to happen to GATT, for instance? What kind of an agreement is this, a bilateral agreement that imposes a surtax on exports to another country? What happens in a case like that? Many of us feel that other countries might well bring Canada before an international court of justice, and that they would have a very good case, to ask us to justify the action taken by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), supported by her leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the few Conservative Members who spoke in favour of this Bill-many Members said nothing at all, as usual, Madam Speaker. I realize that it has recently become particularly hard for a Conservative to speak.
It is embarrassing to be a Conservative. I realize that. It must be a very humiliating experience for those poor Conservatives sitting opposite. I know it must be hard. The time may come when they won't want to go back to their ridings. They will decide to stay here within a radius of three or four blocks from Parliament Hill, afraid to go farther afield because they might meet some of their constituents. After all, what this Government has been doing is shameful. Of course I don't blame them for that. But as I said earlier, most of the Conservative Members have said nothing. They didn't even support the Bill. However, when it is time to vote, they will make their silent gesture of approval, as usual.


Pierre Blais: The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) spoke this morning and you weren't even here. You just came in five minutes ago.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I hear the Hon. Member opposite who usually doesn't say anything either. We see him from time to time in the corridors. I welcome him now that he has decided to visit us today in the House. It is very good of him to come to Parliament, and we appreciate his presence.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais), on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, first of all, according to our Standing Orders the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) is not supposed to mention, make use of or discuss the presence or absence of Members in the House. I take it as a personal insult because I have been here all day, and he just came in five minutes ago, except for Oral Question Period when they can get in front of the television cameras. That is the only time we see his face. Otherwise he never makes an appearance in the House.


Carlo Rossi: Madam Speaker, I don't think the Hon. Member is raising a point of order. He seems to be jealous because he is not as photogenic on television as the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Besides, he is never here.

January 22, 1987
Whistleblowers


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CRIMINAL CODE PROTECTION OF WHISTLEBLOWERS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code to protect "whistleblowers", public officials who, acting to promote the public interest, disclose government wrongdoing or misinformation, from harassment, persecution and prosecution by the Government or its agents.
He said: Madam Speaker, I feel very lucky to have the opportunity, with all of the Bills and motions that Members have on the Order Paper, to present this idea, which is a very important one. There is no doubt in my mind it is an idea whose time has come. At the same time though, I am disappointed because I understand that the Government intends to prevent this motion from proceeding. I hope it will be indicated during Government Members' speeches, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin) can indicate, that the motion does have some hope of being considered and that we can look forward to legislation some time soon on this subject.
What I am talking about in this measure is the official inside a Department, sworn to secrecy, bound by the master and servant duty, stuck with the Official Secrets Act to do his duty, who discovers something while he is working that he feels must be brought to the attention of the public. The word which has developed to describe this individual is the whistleblower. It is a good word. It describes an individual who feels in the course of his duties that he has learned something and feels justified in blowing the whistle on his Department and on the Government by bringing the matter to the attention of the public.
I have looked at this problem not only from the side of the Opposition where we can make political mileage out of things that whistleblowers bring to light, but I have looked at it also from side of the Government's. I do not think the present Government will last long and I hope Canadians will give the Liberal Party their confidence to form the Government in the next election. I have looked at the whistleblower problem not only from the point of giving the Opposition good mileage, but also responsibly from the Government's point of view. I did so because I want Ministers to be able to rely on officials, to be able to confide in them and to be able to seek their advice. If the whistleblowing concept goes too far, Ministers will stay at arms length from their Departments. They will be very reluctant to share their thoughts and concerns because of the
fear that officials, knowing the way a Minister is thinking and what a Minister has said, might rush out and blow the whistle.
Let me say a word about public opinion. I will start with a British example. Members of the House will remember the sinking of the Belgrano during the British war with the Falkland Islands. The Belgrano was sunk by the British navy. But was the British defence force entitled to sink the Bel-granol The Minister, defending that action, which escalated a war which was serious enough in any event, said that the Belgrano was approaching the area of conflict and that the British were justified in firing because of that. Information inside the Department in question, about which officials of the Minister knew, was that the Belgrano was leaving the area of conflict, heading in the opposite direction.
The Minister had misinformed the British people. The official who blew the whistle on the Minister contributed to public debate and understanding of what had happened. He had exposed a Minister who was not telling the truth to the House and he was charged with a violation of the Official Secrets Act in Britain. By the way, the Official Secrets Act in Britain is a lot like ours. The case went to trial and at the end of it, the jury was directed by the judge, on the evidence presented, to convict.
Britain does not have a whistleblower provision in its legislation, as we do not have here in Canada. The jury retired to consider its verdict, and as only juries can do in the great British traditional system of justice that we have, the jury refused to convict Mr. Clive Ponting, the individual who went public. In a sense, it was a scandal of the law that the British people were telling their Parliament that they felt whistleblowing should be permitted when a Minister told a lie.
We had our own case here in Canada, namely, the Richard Price case. In this instance, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was assuring the Indian population, the native people of Canada, that the Government would be supporting and increasing native programs and that there would be no cut-backs. At the very same time inside the Department, plans were being drawn up to cut back the expenditures in the Department of Indian Affairs by something like $300 million. I could be wrong about the figure, but it was some very substantial amount of money which would have dismantled the department. Richard Price, working at the time for the Department of Indian Affairs, had a crisis of conscience. Later when he told the story, he said that he felt he should blow the whistle on this operation but he was not sure about it. He consulted his spiritual leader in his religious community, reflected on it a lot and decided to blow the whistle on the Government.
The Government folded the plans it had for cutting back programs of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In fact, they do not exist anymore. Richard Price was charged with a violation of his oath of secrecy, I think, under the Criminal Code. In any event, we asked questions about it in the House. There was a great uproar in
January 22, 1987

the country and a lot of editorials urging the present Government not to proceed against Richard Price. The Government decided not to. I assumed it recognized that there was a public interest to be served in exposing misrepresentations of Government policy even if the misrepresentations were made by the Prime Minister of the day.
I give this background to demonstrate that Canadians by sending a message to this place, are beginning to recognize, that officials should not be subject to a rule of secrecy or confidentiality that has no exceptions, however useful it makes them to the Government.
I am inviting Members of this House to think about circumstances which justify whistleblowing and justify an official going public. The Criminal Code should contain some provisions that free a public servant under some circumstances from his oath of office, from the master/servant duty, from the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, from the constraints in the Criminal Code that prevent him from blowing the whistle in proper circumstances.
If you look around, you will find many jurisdictions that are more progressive than this one. The United States and a number of jurisdictions have whistleblowing legislation. Some of them are too broad as far as I am concerned. To say that the whistle can be blown whenever the public interest requires it gives too much discretion to public servants.
Where there is wrongdoing in a Department, where the law has been broken, whistleblowing should be permitted, for instance where misrepresentation of a circumstance is made or there is lying. Where a public servant is motivated by a desire to protect public health and safety or a desire to protect the environment if that is the justification and if it is sustained and reasonable, then whistleblowing should be immune from any of the sanctions that I have described. I hope that the motion will be supported in principle by the Government and that there will be an undertaking to do something about it.


François Gérin: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to extend special greetings to the residents of Coaticook in my riding of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead who for the first time earlier this week were able to watch the debates of the House on television, thanks to the co-operation of the firm Transvision Coaticook and its president Marcel Denis.
So as their Member this is my first opportunity to address the House of Commons as they watch this live telecast, and it is a great honour for me.
The people of Coaticook know me as an expert criminal lawyer with many years of experience. Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have been able to serve Canada through my legal expertise for over 18 years already, more recently with the Department of Justice as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Whistleblowers
I am sure the people back home will realize that the motion introduced by the Liberal Member for York East (Mr. Kaplan) is unacceptable in its present form. One only need read the motion itself to realize that the content is unacceptable as well.
Madam Speaker, although you did read the motion a few moments ago, allow me to read it again for the benefit of our
listeners:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of amending the Criminal Code ...
But there is no reference to the section or chapter which ought to be amended. There is no mention of that. This is vague, hollow, it does not refer to anything in particular. The French version states:
-afin de proteger les informateurs, fonctionnaires qui-
Does that mean that public servants have become informers, spies? The terminology is heavy, to say the least-
-who, acting to promote the public interest-
I would like the Hon. Member to define the public interest he has in mind. What sort of public interest could allow a public official to become an informer and break his oath of
office?
-disclose government wrongdoing-
Where is, in the Hon. Member's motion, the definition of wrongdoing? What would constitute a wrongdoing? Is it intended that wrongdoing would include for instance an unjustified one-dollar expenditure? Would that allow a public official to decide on his own that some wrongdoing is involved, and therefore to leak a whole confidential file to newspapermen, or else to competitors in a bidding process, for instance? Could it go that far?
So what is the definition of wrongdoing? The Hon. Member gives no indication of that. He introduces a motion of an extremely general nature without making any kind of distinction. And, besides, he leaves the House immediately after putting forth his motion, without taking the time to say-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows our rules. The Hon. Member who introduced the motion perhaps went behind the curtain for a few moments. I think it is unfair for the Hon. Member I just saw on this side while the other Member was speaking, to comment on the presence or absence of a Member. In this House, we usually respect the fact that an Hon. Member may have to go to the telephone or take notes. I do not think it fair to make that kind of reference to the absence or presence of an Hon. Member.

January 22, 1987
Whistleblowers


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is aware of these Standing Orders.


Mr.   Cerin@: Madam Speaker, I apologize for mentioning the absence of the mover-
-from harassment, persecution and prosecution by the Government or its agents.
Our listeners and all Hon. Members are well aware that as moved this motion could not be accepted anyway for reasons of substance or form because it would amend a provision of the Criminal Code. Which section? Which chapter? Which definition to choose?
If the Hon. Member really wants to behave as a responsible legislator, why does he not take the time, to define, in his motion, such essential elements which would make it possible for us today to really debate a serious piece of legislation? Instead, the House has wasted one hour of its time which it could have used to consider better drafted, bills thus helping all Hon. Members to make valuable decisions which could be useful to the Government and the country in the future.
As to the substance-As everyone knows, Madam Speaker, people who join the Public Service must take an Oath of Office. They swear to protect confidentiality and never to reveal what they learn while carrying out their duties. This does not force them to keep for themselves everything they learn. Not only they may, but they must communicate all information to their superior. Nothing prevents them-it is even their duty-four informing their immediate superior of anything wrong or any mistake they might notice. I suppose they could even inform the Minister himself, or the Deputy Minister, or any other person in a responsible position within the Department or the Government, while respecting their Oath of Office.
But could this civil servant who, for any reason whatsoever, has noticed what he considers to be wrongdoing, bring it to attention of a person who has just submitted a tender, for instance? Could he inform a newspaperman? Why should he have this privilege? Why should he be able to break his oath of office when his Department is not partisan and does not report to any political party in particular? Why could he not act within that Department?
In my opinion, that is the problem with this motion. That is why it is unacceptable both in form and substance.
The original idea behind this motion of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) was related only, at least so I would imagine, to the principle of freedom of information, on which we agree ourselves. Instead of amending the Criminal Code without knowing exactly how to proceed, I believe that it would be better if the Hon. Member thought of ways to improve the Freedom of Information Act to do what is necessary to provide good government administration.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me and I would like to say that if this motion comes to a vote, I shall vote against it.
[DOT]	0710)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if you are delighted or feel unfortunate that this is the second time today you will have to listen to me. I am pleased that you are there to do so.
I congratulate the Hon. Member who moved the motion for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I hope that the motion is accepted in principle by all Parties, approved and brought into play either through this motion or a government Bill.
I have been an employee of several different operations, including the Government of Canada and a number of private-sector companies over the years. It has been my experience that a conscientious employee, someone who knows their job and tries to be very good at it, who finds errors of omission or commission by their employer or supervisor and tries to do something about it as someone who likes their work and tries to do a good job becomes the victim rather than the one who did their job properly. If he reports a violation of a rule, regulation, practice, or policy of the employer, be it public or private, he is accused of being insubordinate, transferred to different positions, and no longer eligible for promotion. Almost invariably they do not want to go public. Yet if they have no other choice, what are they supposed to do?
[DOT]	(1720)
Of course, they do have some choices. When they think about blowing the whistle on a malpractice, and I do not mean that in just medical terms, their alternatives are as follows. Keep their mouth shut. Look the other way. Make sure they protect their own backside. The alternative is running the risk of losing their job, being harassed, demoted or moved until they get so fed up they quit. Yet there is another alternative. They can put it all in a plain brown envelope addressed to their MP, MLA or alderman. All of us have had some experience with that. I wish I could find out but I will never know for as long as I live who sent me a cabinet document back in 1980. Not even the media would believe me when I held a press conference and made it public. That is beside the point. I will never know who the heck sent me that cabinet document. However, that is the other recourse available to the whistleblower.
It seems to me that an employee, whether or not they are violating their oath of secrecy or anything else, knows that if their whistleblowing turns out to be totally unfounded, then they will obviously have to apologize and suffer some penalty. They will know that ahead of time. If it proves to be justified, they should also know ahead of time that they will not be victimized in those various ways I mentioned earlier.
January 22, 1987

I wanted to speak on this Bill today because of what happened earlier today with the publication by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) of the hearings on the tragic Hinton rail disaster. That brings us to what goes on in transportation in Canada. A carman phones up and says that during a standing inspection he found a car in the middle of a train which has to be taken off. His supervisor or assistant superintendent or yard foreman says it stays on the train and overrules him. If he asks for that in writing he is told he is being insubordinate, disruptive, and delaying the departure of a train and its freight or passengers. Next thing you know he has demerit points or he is not going to be promoted. That happens on a daily basis in Canada's transportation system. The Minister can say all he likes about all the things the Government is going to do about safety, maintenance, security and inspection, but if the bodies are not there and the money is not there it is just another speech in favour of motherhood.
When a conscientious employee with a good record is faced with those alternatives, it is a rare one who will take his chances on losing his job and being victimized. Errors of omission or commission, deliberate or not, continue. When a machinist says a jet engine has to be overhauled now, but because of the pressures of deregulation or competition or whatever, his supervisor or regional manager says we will run that thing another couple of hundred hours, of course, 99 times out of 100, or 999 times out of 1,000, nothing happens. However, the one time something does happen whose neck is on the line? That is when the search for a scapegoat starts. That is when the covering of backsides starts, from the very top management all the way down to the last supervisor at the bottom of the ladder. The poor slob on the ground doing the job then gets it in the neck. Why? Because he did not see to it being corrected or, if he tried to, he was insubordinate. He is damned if he does and damned if he does not.
There is provision under a wide variety of law and regulation and practice whereby the chronic bellyacher, the incompetent, or the person who tries to manufacture out of whole cloth an illegitimate blowing of the whistle, can be dealt with. Therefore, it seems to me there is nothing to fear from having the legislation proposed by the Hon. Member adopted and put in place. Alternatively, a government spokesman could get up now and say the Government will bring in a Bill that covers this. If that is done the Government will be surprised at just how quickly it is dealt with. We will be happy to co-operate and see to it that it is put in place in the whole regime, including what I have talked about today concerning transportation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this is the second time this week that the debate during Private Members' Business is more or less on the same subject. Tuesday, the Hon. Member for Hastings-Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet) introduced Bill C-229, for the purpose of legislating protection for public servants who, when public health and safety are an issue, feel
Whistleblowers
an obligation to call the attention of the general public to any action or measure by the Government that would be against the public interest?
Today, we have a motion by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) which proposes similar legislation, or rather not legislation, it is a request that the Government consider the advisability of amending the Criminal Code to protect "whistleblowers", public officials who, acting to promote the public interest, disclose government wrongdoing or misinformation, from harassment, persecution and prosecution by the Government or its agents.
I was surprised earlier today to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), commenting on the presence of Members, when we realize that last Tuesday he wasn't in the House either to speak in support of the Bill introduced by his colleague, the Conservative Member for Hastings-Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington. I also feel very strongly about the fact that the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead went so far as to accuse the Hon. Member for York Centre of wasting the time of the House by presenting an almost identical motion that I, Madam Speaker, consider to be a very important matter. It is a matter that has raised considerable concern among public servants, who are anxious to have their right to inform the general public protected by law and- I don't want to repeat what I said this week on Tuesday, but if anyone wants to know my position on this matter, nothing could be easier, and I say and I repeat, there should be a mechanism, an umbudsman if you like, a trustworthy person whom public servants could consult now and then to mention or report actions, instructions or even measures which, in their opinion, might jeopardize public security and be contrary to the national interest.
I suggest it is quite normal that public servants would seek protection against harassment, against legal action, or even against the possibility of being dismissed if the employer should say: So, you have breached the confidentiality provisions related to your job. You reported to the media or to somebody that such or such task you were expected to perform would compromise health or security; a decision you have taken which, according to the employer, might be harmful to public interest: you are fired.
This kind of thing happens, Madam Speaker, I mentioned a few cases. Recent such incidents occurred at Revenue Canada and elsewhere which prompted several Members of this House-excluding the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead who has a lot to learn about this issue and does not understand anything about it-to be concerned about the public interest and make a point of seeing to it that federal employees are protected if, now and then, they find themselves in a position where they feel compelled to indulge in whistleblowing. I can understand that a public servant would do so with some reluctance, but if he has to do it, first he should be given some protection if he is to remain an efficient employee and, second, he should have the tools needed to do so.

January 22, 1987
Whistleblowers
I do not want to repeat my speech of last Tuesday. There were good speeches given in the House by the Members for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet) and the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Most of the Members in Opposition spoke in favour of it. The Members for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), and Kootenay-East-Revelstoke (Mr. Graham) spoke against it. That is what this House is all about. It is to exchange views. There is a motion before the House which asks the Government to consider the advisability, that is all.
The Parliamentary Secretary is asking what we are going to do about this and what we are going to do about that. Well, that is why we have a motion. We are asking the Government to take its responsibility and make a study to see whether there is a need in this country for legislation such as that which exists elsewhere in the world. The Americans have had legislation for years to protect the whistleblowers, public servants who disclose things which they believe are contrary to the security and national interests of the country.
There is nothing very difficult about this. The Government says that it will not do it. Fine, let us get rid of the Government and elect a government which will do it. That, in my view, is what we should do.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I was amused by the final solution of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It sounds like a simple one. Of course, he was a member of the Government which was in power for so many years that I have almost forgotten how many it was. It was too many, anyway. I did not notice that his Government proposed-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I invite my colleague to read previous Hansards. I can send him the index if he would like. He will find that I spoke many times on this issue.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I appreciate the Member's intervention. I am glad he has taken such an interest in the subject. The Member did, however, propose a solution which I think is worth considering. The wording of the present motion leaves the House only one option, that is to say that we agree that a person disclosing what he or she considers to be wrongdoing should not be subject to harrassment or prosecution by the Government or other agencies. The Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) gave examples of individuals in the Public Service who have blown the whistle on the Government and found that the country generally agreed with their action. However, he failed to indicate that many examples to the contrary are also on the public record. People have given information which hurt the public interest.
The difficult aspect of this issue is how to determine whether something is in fact contrary to the public interest. When individuals believe that something is wrong it gnaws at their conscience and they should have a strong enough conviction to go public with it while realizing that they may jeopardize their employment and their position with their colleagues.
As I said, the difficulty is in determining whether a wrongdoing exists. I suppose that is easily determined when a criminal wrongdoing is involved. However, the example which was used before of a cut-back within a Department is more of a philosophical disagreement with the Government than an actual wrongdoing. That can be very harmful to the planning of any Government or Department.
Other jurisdictions are attempting to deal with this problem outlined in the motion and I believe it is beneficial to look at those examples. One alternative that I believe is worth some merit concerns an ombudsman or an arbiter, as I prefer to use. That is one procedure used and let me offer some advice along those lines.
If someone in the Public Service was able to go to an arbiter to disclose a wrongdoing that he or she felt should be exposed, that arbiter could then cause an investigation to take place and in fact report the wrongdoing to the Minister or the Government for the appropriate action. In my view, there would have to be a disclosure of those wrongdoings rather than of the individual who came forward with the information to determine whether the Government or the Minister acted upon that.
In the case of a very serious wrongdoing, it would not be adequate to have that disclosure once or twice a year but the arbiter would cause a report to be laid upon the table of the House of Commons at more frequent intervals so that everyone knows what has been reported, including the press, the public and the House.
It seems to me that the only solution envisaged in this motion is that the individual would disclose the information to the public and, after doing so, would not be subject to any consequences. Of course, this meets with great favour to the media, for which I cannot blame them, because it often results in stories that sell numerous papers. The media would be disappointed with a solution to the problem because it would stop a story.
All of us who have been in opposition are familiar with the so-called brown envelopes that we have received from time to time. We appreciated receiving those because it gave us information with which we were able to occasionally embarrass the Government. However, while I enjoyed receiving those envelopes when I was in opposition, I did not believe that it was the best way to deal with problems. It seems to me that it would be far better for a well intentioned person to have the opportunity to appear before a person within the Public Service who was designated by Parliament to present evidence of a wrongdoing so that it could be acted upon, rather than
January 22, 1987

leaking such information to the media. When such information is leaked, but not substantiated, or involves a philosophical difference, it can do irreparable harm not only to the plans of the Government but to the well intentioned work of many others who work alongside that individual.
I believe that there are cases of wrongdoing that should be brought to the attention of the Government and the public, but there ought to be a method for dealing with it.
I do not support the solution that has been offered by the Member who presented this motion. I presume he is attempting to anticipate what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) may be preparing. I know that the Canadian Law Reform Commission is bringing forward its second volume of the new draft to the Criminal Code and perhaps the Member is anticipating something that will appear there. I hope he takes the advice of some private Members and perhaps redrafts his motion or encourages the Government to include a suggestion such as an arbiter or the suggestion by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier for an ombudsman so that public servants can deal with these difficulties.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on this motion. It is interesting to note that it is the second time this week during Private Members' hour that we have been debating a motion dealing with the issue of whistleblowers. Earlier this week we debated a motion put forward by a Member on this side of the House who sought to amend a number of pieces of legislation to give protection to whistleblowers.
Today we are debating a motion by a member of the Opposition who is suggesting that we amend the Criminal Code to protect the public officials who, acting to promote the public interest, disclose government wrongdoing or misinformation, to protect them from harassment, persecution and prosecution by the Government or its agents. I understand that another motion dealing with this issue was tabled today. Obviously, this is not a partisan issue, but one that concerns Members on all sides of the House.
It is a new issue as far as I am concerned and has not been brought to my attention by constituents or public servants. I read the debate from earlier this week and listened to the debate today. I hoped there might have been some definition of the problem because I honestly do not know either qualitatively or quantitatively what the problem is. I find it to be a rather theoretical discussion since there has only been mention of an English case and one case in the Public Service of Canada. I doubt that one makes major amendments to legislation in order to deal with one case and I am interested to learn whether this is a serious problem or one dealing with just one or two instances.
It has been mentioned that Members of the Opposition often receive plain brown envelopes containing information that I presume we hear about during Question Period. It is a great source of research and information for members of the Opposition and one might suspect that those Members might
Whistleblowers
anticipate receiving an increasing flood of those envelopes if this protection were provided to whistleblowers and further their attempts to discredit the Government. However, I am sure that my hon. colleagues would not be so ill intentioned.
As a Member of the Government I have never had the opportunity to receive such an envelope referred to by my colleagues. I have some serious reservations about whether we should give such carte blanche protection, particularly through the criminal system. The motion states in part: "public officials who, acting to promote the public interest". That is a very broad definition. We in the Government may have one perception of public interest which may be very different from that of my colleagues opposite. Public Servants may have a very different perception of public interest.
Who would decide whether the particular information brought forward was in the public interest? As we all know, once the information is out, the damage is done. We could go through a process later in dealing with it but whatever information comes out later is usually on the last pages of the newspaper. Therefore, I think there have to be some important deterrents to public servants to ensure that they act responsibly. I think, in the main, 99 per cent of public servants act responsibly, but from time to time there may be those who might be enticed to think that if they could leak some information, whether from personal vexatious interests or their own perception of public interest, and if they could do it with immunity, they might be led to do so. However, we have to look at the legislation now in place. The Official Secrets Act was brought in for very good and valid reasons. Public servants swear an oath of secrecy. I would not want to do away with that carte blanche as I fear these motions would do, with the only rationale being "the public interest".
On the other side, we have the Freedom of Information legislation. I had the opportunity last year to take part in some of the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. We were looking at that particular piece of legislation which provides, quite honestly, at this point, almost all information to be accessible to the public. Sometimes I think from our point of view, almost too much. However, philosophically I believe it is right.
The only things not available under the Freedom of Information Act would be cabinet documents, in some instances leading up to the policy-making process and in some instances relating to national security or our relations with foreign powers. Most information is available if people take the time to put it all together. I am not sure that there is a big problem we are trying to address in this particular instance.
I thought it was quite ironic that one of my colleagues opposite earlier on suggested that the United States had this kind of protection, so why not Canada? All week we have been debating a Bill with respect to the imposition of an export tax on softwood lumber and my colleagues opposite have been berating the United States, saying how terrible it all is.

January 22, 1987
Whistleblowers
Suddenly today they are saying the system in the United States is wonderful and that we should be copying it, we should be "me too-ing it". So much for consistency.
I hope that the Hon. Member who put forward the motion has had a chance to look at the Law Reform Commission of Canada. It recently published its Working Paper No. 49 entitled "Crimes Against the State". Chapter 5 of this document deals with the very issue of the leaking of Government information. The Commission observes that there are strong arguments both for and against considering making the leakage of Government information an offence under the Criminal Code. I quote from page 53 of that report:
In favour of criminalizing such conduct, one can make the following points. First, government today possesses enormous quantities of information about private individuals living in Canada, that, if released, could be extremely detrimental to these people. Surely civil servants should not be able to exploit their ability to gain access to this information for their own interests, with only the threat of disciplinary action to deter them. Second, government requires certain level of secrecy in order to function effectively.
For example, bargaining positions in federal-provincial negotiations would be jeopardized if civil servants could disclose confidential information with immunity. Another example is that of criminal investigations that require secrecy in order to be effective. When the stakes are high, the disciplinary process is an inadequate means of redress against talkative civil servants.
In that respect the Law Reform Commission is putting forward an argument to make it even more onerous than it is at the moment. On the other hand, the Law Reform Commission gives the other side, and I quote:
Arguments against the criminalization of leaking Government information are as follows: First, the Government does not want to be seen as using strong arm tactics to protect itself and to keep secrets from the public. Second, the public has a right to know whatever it can get its hands on, and a leakage offence would be inconsistent with the policy of freedom of information behind the Access to Information Act.
Third, the administrative process, disciplinary measures and dismissal, and the civil process, injunctions and suing for damages, are the appropriate remedies for such wrongdoing.
Fourth, there may be situations in which the well-being of the nation actually depends upon the immediate public disclosure of classified information.
I think it is certainly worth while looking at the arguments which the Law Reform Commission has put forward as we think about some of these issues which we should address in considerable detail in the future. I just want to say that I feel serious concerns about this issue, although I think it is one worth debating. I would particularly like to follow up with a suggestion that my colleague made of looking at other ways. Perhaps the arbiter ombudsman might be a more appropriate way for public servants who felt they had information which should be made public but that might end up under abrogation of their responsibilities under the Official Secrets Act. I look forward to further discussion on this issue.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of
Canada, my Hon. colleague for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin), whom I view as someone vigourously and strenuously defending his convictions and those of his constituents. I would like briefly, in view of the time at my disposal, to discuss the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), to amend the Criminal Code to grant "whistleblowers" a certain immunity from prosecution. I will therefore take some time to look with other Hon. Members for a solution to the problem of leaks by public servants in the federal Government.
First, Madam Speaker, we must give serious consideration to the reasons why an employee or a public servant may act against his superiors or his employer. Such a public servant who betrays his oath of office and confidentiality surely must face a grave problem of conscience and professional ethics. A leak may not be the best form of denunciation. Disclosure by a public servant who sees no other way, but who also may know only part of the facts, could seriously embarrass the Government and even cause irreparable damage to innocent people. Where newspapermen are concerned, you will notice that increasingly they tend to check their sources and are very reluctant to disclose information based on rumours or more or less convincing evidence. On the other hand, others might view leaks as an effective control over bureaucracy and even legislators.
We could also ask ourselves how such a procedure is viewed by the public. I think people have conflicting feelings in that respect. Some will feel outraged at such misconduct by "whistleblowers", while others will be relieved to know there are some watchful people who stay alert and blow the whistle.
I see that my time is running out. What I would propose is perhaps the appointment of an ombudsman, with the power needed to do his work. Of course, opponents will say that we are only adding to an already huge bureaucracy and will only succeed in compounding and multiplying problems. My answer is that fire is best fought with fire. Water is best fought with water, and bureaucracy and its abuse are best fought by yet an additional bureaucratic level.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the solution does not lie in an amendment to the Criminal Code to protect "whistleblowers" against harassment, persecution and prosecution. It lies rather in the strength of an independant ombudsman who could deal confidentially with complaints and who will expose wrongdoings after a responsible enquiry has proved there was wrongdoing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper. The House will now revert to Government Orders.
January 22, 1987



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), (p. 2382).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows: Miss Carney, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra), seconded by Mr. Ouellet, moves the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-37, An Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence."
The question is on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.
Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We shall resume debate on the main motion.

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise tonight to speak on this debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I appreciate very much the applause from all sides of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What did you do, buy them supper?


John Horton McDermid: One would think that I bought them supper, wouldn't one? I have sat through the entire 17 and one-half hours of this debate and I think it is one of the better debates we have had in the House of Commons. Many points of view have been expressed and some very excellent points have been made. Tonight, I hope I will be able to answer some of the concerns that have been expressed by a number of Hon. Members from all sides of the House.
First, I would like to deal with the issue of sovereignty-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Order. The Chair would very much appreciate hearing what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has to say. It is actually impossible right now to do so with all the noise in the House.

Please, I would ask all Hon. Members to allow the Chair to hear what is being said in the House. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. I was saying that there are some areas I wish to cover that have been debated in the House. The first issue with which I would like to deal is the issue of sovereignty.
In my view, a trade negotiation is an exercise in sovereignty, not in surrender. All trade negotiations involve commitments made by participants with the understanding that arrangements can be terminated by any of the principals prepared to suffer the consequences. As such, there is no loss of sovereignty but rather its use through an agreed exchange. If I may, I would like to give a couple of examples of this.
In 1935, Canada and the United States successfully negotiated a bilateral trade agreement which lowered tariffs on each country's products. Subsequently, Canada, in a series of GATT rounds, negotiated agreements which lowered barriers to our trade. In doing so, we also agreed to limit the use of our sovereign power by subsidizing exports, by discriminating against foreign-made products through our tax system, by raising tariffs or by purchasing non-competitive Canadian products through federal procurements. That was part of the agreement made at that time. We gave something up to get something and that is the history of trade agreements.
I contend that simply belonging to GATT and following its rules means that a country gives up a little of its sovereignty, but it does that through trade agreements. Today we are
discussing a trade agreement signed between two sovereign countries. Had the countervail gone through, I might be arguig on the other side of this issue. I might be arguing that some of our sovereignty was lost, because under the American countervail law the Americans have unilateral powers. They could check the books of the federal Government, the provincial Governments and the industries. They could raise and lower the tariff at will-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not under GATT.


John Horton McDermid: I am sorry, but they can. Under the GATT rules, that is allowed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The GATT can do it, not the U.S.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member will have a chance to debate later on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did.


John Horton McDermid: I am simply telling him that that is allowed under the rules of countervail and it has been allowed for a very long time.


Steven W. Langdon: Give them the full system.


John Horton McDermid: Look, I sat and listened to both Hon. Members very, very quietly when they debated this issue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, you didn't.


John Horton McDermid: We are back on the Bill again and those Hon. Members will have all the opportunity in the world to debate this issue. I only have 10 minutes and if they would give me a chance to put my remarks on the record, they may rise and say their piece. Is that a fair deal?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yeah.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We won't be any noisier than you were.


John Horton McDermid: Another agreement under which certain commitments were made on both sides of the border was the Auto Pact. There were give and takes under the Auto Pact, and again two sovereign countries negotiated an agreement. The same is true of the issue that is before us now. Therefore, I do not believe for a minute that sovereignty has been lost by the Government of Canada through this agreement.
We are also talking about provincial resources. Earlier today an Hon. Member said that before his Party could approve the Bill he wanted to know how the money would be spent. Since we are talking about provincial resources, we are talking about provincial money. The provinces will be spending the money and that is explicit in the Bill.
With the exception of a small administrative fee, the money will go to the provinces. It is rightfully theirs because, under our Constitution, the provinces own the resources. The decision
January 22, 1987

as to how to spend the money will be theirs. As long as they do not subsidize the lumber companies, there are all kinds of things they can do in the forest industry with those funds. Without committing a specific amount to a specific area, the provinces, with the exception of Ontario which has committed some $45 million to workers, will do with the money as they will. Many of them have indicated that it will be used for reforestation, silviculture and adjustment for workers who might be put out of work.
If 1 may, I wish to touch on some of the fear-mongering that has been going on. On May 29, 1986 we heard the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) say that the 35 per cent tariff on cedar shakes and shingles would do away with 4,000 jobs. We know that that has not happened. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that the tariff has put 4,000 men and women out of work in British Columbia. That is just not true. The industry is almost back to full capacity. They are selling their product and competing very well. We are now hearing once again those same exaggerated claims. I can tell you, Madam Minister-or Madam Speaker, that in fact-


Lloyd Axworthy: You are out of date. She is another one that is gone.


John Horton McDermid: I am sorry?


Lloyd Axworthy: She is another one that is gone.


John Horton McDermid: Go ahead, insult the Speaker. That is fine. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-


Lloyd Axworthy: I am just trying to help you out.


John Horton McDermid: -insults the Speaker sitting in the chair. That is typical of him.


Lloyd Axworthy: Running number three in your riding, are you?


John Horton McDermid: I might say these wild claims-


Lloyd Axworthy: You are running behind the Rhinoceros Party.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: You look like a rhino so you should be running with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) makes it very difficult for anyone to express his or her ideas. I think it would be fair and normal to listen when Hon. Members are debating.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously I am striking a sensitive-


Lloyd Axworthy: I am just trying to be helpful.


John Horton McDermid: -note. Since we have been debating this Bill for 17 and one-half hours, and the Opposition is going to carry on like that, I move that the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. McDermid, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moves:
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, finally we see the true face of the Conservative Party and its willingness to carry on debate on this-


John Horton McDermid: Carry on.


Steven W. Langdon: -serious issue. It is unfortunate that the Government chose to move a motion like this, especially after such a misguided speech of misinformation which unfortunately Canadians across the country have had to listen to.
I want to say two things in trying to persuade the backbenchers of the Conservative Party to at least react against the effort on the part of their front-benchers to try and ram this agreement, dishonourable as it is, through the House of Commons. I want to first quote an organization which I thought the Conservative Party would have some sympathy for, a group which they would take with some seriousness. I am speaking of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association.
That group just sent to their members and Members of this House an information update on Canada-U.S. softwood lumber exports. They are talking about the U.S. letter sent to the U.S. lumber coalition. They say: "We believe this letter actually charts U.S. intentions on our case." As I indicated in my previous speech, that letter indicates very clearly that the suggestions made by the Parliamentary Secretary and previously by the Minister, that it would indeed be possible to assist our lumber industry with the $600 million, will not be possible.


Mr. Dick:: You believe the Americans, do you?


Steven W. Langdon: I am indicating the belief of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association. As well, there is, not an informal side letter, as the Minister suggests, but a very clear and specific indication signed by President Reagan indicating that he can do anything whatsoever to see to it that their understanding of this agreement is put into effect the way they wish to see it put into effect.


John Horton McDermid: As it was negotiated.


Steven W. Langdon: The letter makes it very clear-

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


John Horton McDermid: Do you believe the Americans?


Steven W. Langdon: -that the U.S. is absolutely concerned, committed and adamant about the fact that this money will not be used to assist the lumber industry in this country. It goes further than that and indicates that among the things we cannot do is award contracts for silviculture, road building or recreational and other foresting activities on a non-competitive basis. If we chose, for example, to give to a co-operative in New Brunswick, or a group of young people in British Columbia, or a group of native people in Alberta the chance to build recreational facilities on the basis of a non-competitive contract because we believe it is socially right, the U.S.-


John Horton McDermid: No, no, no. That is crazy.


Steven W. Langdon: I can quote the details in the letter.


John Horton McDermid: That is nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: It is absolutely the case.


John Horton McDermid: It is nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: That will not be permitted. It is right here in black and white. Anyone who wants to see it can write our office and we will send it to them. As I say, it is not from the U.S. but from the Canadian Lumbermen's Association who have concluded that this is the intentions of the U.S. in this case.
I have to go on and indicate that as well as-


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that?


Steven W. Langdon: I seem to remember the Parliamentary Secretary saying he was going to be quiet.


John Horton McDermid: Fair ball; just tell me where it is in the letter.


Steven W. Langdon: As usual, he is not sticking to his commitments.
I make the point very clearly again that this same set of detailed points made by the Canadian Lumbermen's Association indicates, first, that the agreement "demonstrates that the lack of input from the involved softwood lumber industry created unnecessary problems and backlash from January 1 to date". It indicates as well that there were very important producers within their association who "were left in limbo". It also indicates that exclusions for the Maritimes must be included on the agenda of the first modifications meeting in 1987.
Worst of all, Madam Speaker, the letter indicates that the Canadian lumbermen learned last week that:
-our European softwood lumber customers are worried they will be flooded-
Accordingly, we understand, on very sound authority, a number of European importers are trying to have their governments initiate action to impose a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber imports.
In addition to the industries opposition, I want to quote the detailed reactions of the Canadian Paperworkers Union which represents 65,000 men and women across Canada. This union indicates that it studied the agreement very carefully. It strongly believes:
that such an agreement threatens the livelihood of our membership in the lumber sector- The agreement not only endangers jobs in the sector but also dramatically illustrates the untenable position of the Mulroney Government in its talks with the United States on the issue of free trade.
Let us be very clear that it is not only industry but a major part of the trade union movement in the country which stands with us and many newspapers across the country which have opposed this agreement. There is a widely and deeply felt opposition to what is seen as a massive sellout of the hopes of the country and our economic independence. The Conservative Government is trying, not only to force this legislation through, but to force it through by cutting off debate. I say shame and I am sure the country says shame as well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the honour of speaking in this debate. This is my second opportunity to do so this week. As the saying goes, the speech gets better the second time around. I was hoping that we would have an opportunity to hear clarification of this abominable piece of legislation from government Members. Unfortunately, they have been plagued for the past while with severe and traumatic psychological depressions and, therefore, have not been able to rouse themselves to the full fervor of an explanation, which I know they would otherwise like to provide.
Earlier today my colleague from York South-Weston talked about Shakespeare and quoted Hamlet most eloquently. That brought to mind how much we in Canada need Shakespeare to describe the present Government. When the free trade initiative was first launched Government members were full of hosannas. They paraded out on the streets that this was going to be the salvation of Canada. Shakespeare spoke of the seven stages of man. With regard to the first stage he said:
-the lover, sighing like a furnace with a woeful ballad made to his mistress' eyebrow.
That was certainly the position of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He was singing a ballad to his mistress' eyebrow, telling us all what a furnace of affection he would have for the Americans as he brought about free trade.
Watching the face of the Prime Minister yesterday brought to mind the second stage of man as Shakespeare expressed it. He said:
-the whining schoolboy with his satchel and shining morning face creeping like snail unwillingly to school.
Only Shakespeare could describe our Prime Minister in such eloquent terms, going from the woleful lover to the schoolboy sneaking like a snail as he went, cap-in-hand, to the American vice-president supplicating to save his political skin.
January 22, 1987

You, Madam Speaker, have had the peculiar honour of having to listen to a large part of this debate. The Government justifies this legislation by saying that the stock market has gone up. I see that we can now create public policy based upon what speculators on the stock market think is right. On that basis, of course, we should be paying great homage to all those who are involved in the amalgamations, take-overs, junk bonds and other finaglings. They are now the decision makers on Tory policy.
Their other argument was that this legislation is going to be of great assistance to the industry. They find a remote quote from someone they found deep in the depths of a Fraser type think tank who says this is a wonderful thing. The Government is still financing groups of reactionary right wing brain trusts which run around the country and appear on Canada AM telling us how the particular and peculiar policies on this continent will serve us well.
We listened to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary tonight. Was that not wonderful? He said that we should not ask the Government for explanations, that that was up to the provinces. He said the Government is doing this only to give the money to the provinces. Although there is a letter from the Secretary of Commerce and the trade negotiators, they are only insignificant people and we should not pay any attention to them. They are our partners to the agreement and they have set out very clearly in a letter how they interpret the agreement. If that is the case, when our brave Prime Minister met with the Vice-President of the United States yesterday, why did he not say that we have a different interpretation of that agreement and explain our interpretation to him?
The Prime Minister did not say that our interpretation is that once the money is transferred we can spend it as we like. He did not do that because he knows that is not the case. When the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and her officials appeared before the provincial Ministers they were asked how the money could be spent and no answers were given. They said they did not know how the money could be spent. The provinces are now facing total and complete uncertainty. They do not know.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stood in the House and said that it is up to the provinces to decide. How can they decide when the rules of the game are masqueraded? How can they decide whether they can reforest, build a road, or provide worker retraining when the Government has not had the wit, brains, or intelligence to get a fair answer from the Americans as to what is going on? Madam Speaker, is it any wonder that Members on this side have raised some concern and told the people of Canada that they are buying a pig in a poke?
This is a Trojan horse with many hidden implications. The passage of this Bill will be the beginning of the erosion of many of the basic principles about how we run this country. What is at stake is the sovereign right of Canada to price its resources and determine policies for its natural resources as we
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
see fit, and want to do it, not as it is interpreted by the United States Commerce Department, the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, or by the President of the United States.


John Horton McDermid: This agreement allows it.


Lloyd Axworthy: This agreement says nothing of the kind. The Bill gives the United States the right to obtain all kinds of confidential information. It says that the Minister can provide information to whomever she pleases. She will give it to the Americans.
It is also very clear that the United States has a right to comment upon and be consulted about the calculations of replacement measures. We know full well what will happen when they start trying to impose those replacement measures. If the provinces are required to implement increases in their stumpage fees, it will mean a substantial rise in cost, not just for lumber products exported to the United States but for lumber consumed in Canada and lumber exported to other countries. Rather than being a $600 million Bill, it will be a $1 billion Bill. Therefore, we must conclude that there will not be replacement measures, but we will be stuck with an export duty tax that will become a permanent part of the tax structure of this country.
What will be the consequence of that? Other countries with whom we are competitors in the international market, such as the European Economic Community, will ask why they cannot do the same as the Americans. We have a letter from the Canadian Lumbermen's Association saying sources now report that the Europeans are thinking of imposing an equivalent export tax. The Government has opened a Pandora's box, with a whole series of consequences that it did not know about. The Government cannot tell us about these consequences, yet it expects the House to pass the legislation. That is why it is called a blind trust.
We know how the Government administers blind trusts and we see day after day in the House how the Government and its Ministers go about administering blind trusts for themselves. We do not want a blind trust on the national resources of Canada, which is what this legislation is asking of us.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the Government signed an agreement that is no different from signing an agreement under GATT. How can the Government be more obtuse than to equate a bilateral trade agreement with a multilateral agreement where there are some 80 other signatories and a whole host of countries defining the rules. As I read into the record of the House yesterday those rules are designed to protect smaller, weaker nations against the imposition of the interest of larger, more powerful nations. One of the purposes of GATT is to set rules to enable large and small countries to exist universally and equally. That is why we have most favoured nation treatment rules.
The federal Government, not only in lumber, but in the larger free trade negotiations, is attempting to sign a bilateral agreement with the most powerful economic nation in the

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
world, and one that has a very different agenda and a very clear trade interest. Their trade interest is to reduce their trade deficit and they will do it on the backs of their customers, their partners and their allies.
We asked George Bush for the timetable for the trade agreement. He said he could not answer that, which is obvious, because the Americans want to prolong this process for as long as possible since they are the big winners. They win on pharmaceuticals, on books, on fish, on energy, and on softwood lumber. What is next in line? It will be steel, hydroelectric power, potash and all our other resources because the Government has caved in on the fundamental principle, so that the country to our south can now help determine how we set our natural resource policies. That is why the Bill is wrong.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to speak in this debate now that the Government is trying to choke it off. We have had only a few short hours to relay information to Canadians about what is really happening.
I liken what is happening in this situation to what the United States did in mining the ports in Nicaragua. That small country of Nicaragua had enough gumption to fight in the world court. In our case, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) rose in the House and said that the 15 per cent countervail is an illegal act by the United States which we will begin fighting under GATT. There was a special panel set up to fight and have our interests as a smaller trading nation heard by an international panel.
However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs agreed to have the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) sign a side letter saying that we will not follow this any further with GATT. The United States has done just as it did to Nicaragua in mining their ports. It has mined our forest policy and made it very difficult for small and large companies to operate in any kind of profitable and manageable way in this country.
I want to talk about some of the associated events that led up to this situation and why the Americans were so sure they were dealing with a scatter-brained Government. It is a government that became supinely acquiescent on fish, steel, hogs, raspberries, shakes and shingles, and every other commodity on which the United States wanted to slap some kind of countervail. The Government was mute and did not go to the assistance of those industries.
Let us go back to a meeting in Vancouver where the former Minister of International Trade, the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), was speaking. The U.S. subcommittee on trade was present, on its way to Tokyo. At this meeting, where members of the U.S. Congress and Senate were present, the former Minister offered to amend the Gibbons Bill which was before the U.S. Congress. I was, and I am sure most Canadians were, absolutely flabbergasted to see that kind of simple-minded activity coming from the former Minister for International Trade.
We then saw his replacement, the new Minister for International Trade, go to Washington and make the failed 10 per cent one time only final offer. Within weeks it was jacked up another 50 per cent, despite the fact that the Government itself had gone on public record and said that the countervail duty as it had been put together was illegal. I am not talking only about the double counting, because there must be some kind of criminal activity to have come up with an illegal duty. The Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission was forced to place an illegal 15 per cent countervail against Canada. How did our Government respond? It imposed the 15 per cent export tax against us on our side of the border.
Let me go back a little further. The argument being put forward by Government Members is false and fraudulent in two ways. First, Government Members are saying that this was the lesser of two evils because either the money was going to go into the United States or come to Canada. They are espousing from coast to coast that Parliament should support this because it is better to have money coming to Canada than going to the United States. That is faulty reasoning and I will go back into the history of why it is such a stupid position for Government Members to tell their constituents.
The parallel argument that has been flowing from various Cabinet Ministers' offices to these naive back-benchers is that this $600 million a year will be going back to Canada's forest industries. As my collegue, our critic for international trade, has pointed out, under almost all circumstances that money cannot go back to assist the forest industry. Yesterday Tory Members from British Columbia were saying that this is $400 million of new money for reforestation. Let us think about that for a minute. If Mr. Vander Zalm had been serious when he started skating the feds off the ice and was going to raise stumpage rates as he indicated, that was the time to do so. At that time it would have had significant political impact in the United States. Instead, he is now looking at $400 million as new money. As he has publicly indicated, that money will not go to reforestation or into the forest industry. He will look at his government's priorities for that money. I think it is wrong and despicable for Conservative Members to tell their constituents that this money raised under export tax will be used to assist those workers who are displaced, will go to reforestation, retooling, road construction and to assist those single industry towns that rely on the forest sector. Let me now deal with the posturing taken up by the Minister of Forests of British Columbia, Mr. Kempf and the Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm, as he skated this naive, scatter-brained Government right off the ice. The first statement came early last fall when the Minister of Forests said, of course we are subsidizing. He said it publicly. He said: "We get $150 million revenue from the forest sector and we spend $350 million a year through our forest services". That is a net loss of $200 million. We all know the Socred Government of British Columbia cannot run a pop stand. We have known that for years. However, it managed to finagle its way back into Government.
January 22, 1987

The Premier now has himself a new mandate. He has already skated the feds part way off the ice during the countervailing process last fall. What is the next step he takes? First he says he is going to go it alone to Washington with the Province of Quebec. However, a few quick calls to Premier Bourassa and we learn there have not been too many opportunities, or actual communications between the Premier of British Columbia and the Premier of Quebec, so Premier Vander Zalm abandons that idea after skating the feds even closer to the edge of the ice. Then late in the evening he hears an erroneous radio broadcast in his office. I suppose he had one of those "rocket" radios in his ear. He hears an erroneous news broadcast so he calls a press conference and says a deal has been struck, finally skating the naive feds, this marvellous largest Government in Canadian history, right off the ice, and we see the bureaucrats and the Minister flocking down to Washington to cut a deal on an illegal countervail.
I do not think this House should forget that the countervail duty was illegal. It was illegally composed mathematically and the findings which were made were illegal. We are the largest trading partner the United States has. Ontario alone has a larger trade balance with the United States than does Japan. It is amazing that our largest trading ally is bullying us in this way because of protectionist sentiments in the United States.
Let me now really deal with the issue. Industry had an opportunity and it now realizes the effects of allowing the Government to do it. As Adam Zimmerman put it, it was like allowing the orderly in the hospital to do the heart surgery, the five-way bypass. We have seen how this Government has mismanaged from start to finish.
I went down to Washington almost two years ago with Hon. Members of the House who were interested in this issue. We took the pulse of protectionism and found out the affect the U.S. coalition was having on elected representatives in the United States. We found they were very effective. Our Ambassador, Mr. Gotlieb, a very intelligent and well informed man, was well aware of where this issue was starting to move. He had certain ideas which I brought back to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), as did other members of that delegation.
We pointed out we had to get to U.S. consumers. The U.S. consumers know this will increase the cost of a house in the United States between SI,000 and $4,000 U.S. That is very likely going to bring about a further reduction in housing starts in the United States. We are lucky right now because there is a bit of a blip in the United States because interest rates are down and people are still buying homes. However, the fact is that the culmination of this export tax, with anything like the 1982 reduction in demand for Canadian SPF products, is going to have devastating consequences, particularly for small mills, and, if Mr. Widman is correct, to a far greater extent in eastern Canada than in western Canada, in part due to the nature of stumpage policies in this country. If
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
one compares British Columbia and the Maritimes, one finds that the Maritimes pay six times the stumpage fees now paid in most of British Columbia.
That brings me to the point where again members of the Government say that these hundreds of millions of dollars are going to be converted into stumpage increases, and so on. There is no incentive now for Mr. Vander Zalm or Mr. Kempf, or for the B.C. Government, to increase the stumpage rates in British Columbia because of the bottle-neck which will be created with the Department of Commerce, first, and also the fact that they receive fluid cash every month from Ottawa under the export tax which they can spend on ferries, roads, or whatever kind of nicknacks the provincial Government decides is politically popular.
I would like to end my remarks with the point of this whole exercise. We should have gone to the United States consumers, not as Parliamentarians, not as a forest industry, but through trade consulates in the United States, as all countries which have an evolving, mature relationship with the United States do. Finally, this whole issue revolves around the fact that the American forest industry is using this as a means to fix prices. It is going through this whole conundrum to fix prices in the United States, to drive them up. We should all remember that ITNT were the ones who drafted the resource pricing section of Sam Gibbons' Bill. They are after our forest lands and our industry with a vengeance. We should have stood up stronger and more firmly as a country and fought this to the ground before it ever got to the countervailing duty stage.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I had a few minutes to speak earlier this afternoon and I was hoping that at that time I had made a convincing enough argument that all Conservative Members would want to change their vote. However, as you know, being a nonpartisan person sitting in that chair, and being able to evaluate these things, obviously these Tories need a bit more convincing. So let me try it one more time.


Sergio Marchi: Very eloquently.


Don Boudria: My colleague, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) says "very eloquently", but these Tories are stubborn. We have to explain this point again and again to the Conservative Government.
What we have before us in Bill C-37 is not an issue involving only softwood lumber. Of course it is that, but as I said earlier this afternoon, we are talking about sovereignty, our country. We are talking about relinquishing and surrendering some of our rights, the rights of a sovereign nation, to another country.
This is indeed precedent setting. What we have to ask ourselves is why we are doing it. If it were the proper thing to do, if there were no other alternatives, it would still be wrong to relinquish our sovereignty in this way. But it was not the only thing to do. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) could have stood up to the President instead of being busy kissing his
2606


Sergio Marchi: He is a provincial Liberal.


Don Boudria: I am told that he is a provincial Liberal. I knew there was a good side to him, but I just could not figure out what it was exactly.
Be that as it may, I am sure he would not do it. It is his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) whom we do not trust with these types of negotiations. It is the Prime Minister who was too quick to cosy-up to the President of the United States the moment he took office. He was too quick and too hasty to tell everyone that what he wanted to do was simply please another country and not be running his own.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is why Canadians no longer trust this minister. That is why they no longer trust this government which could not stand on its own two feet.
The Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Cadieux), who represents the riding next to mine and who sits on Government benches, certainly knows that his Prime Minister has surrendered part of our sovereignty to the Americans when he introduced that legislation. Some might argue that he did not do it himself, but that his Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) who spends her time in Hawaii did it, and they would be right.
I should like the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil to tell me who appointed the Hawaiian minister? Well, it was the Prime Minister, and you know, Mr. Speaker, as we all know now, that it was a poor choice.
We know that we should now ask the Minister responsible for International Trade to move somewhere else, to do something else, perhaps warm up one of the back-benches over there, and to ask one of the Hon. Members who do not speak
often, for I am sure that among all of them, there are at least one or two who are able to speak-I am not really sure of that, for I have not seen any of them open their mouths yet-but because of the law of probability, I am sure some of them could speak.
I am sure also that the Hon. Member for Beauharnois- Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) who represents the riding situated to the South-East of mine, could speak in the House, and that as a Minister, he could do just as good a job as the current Minister. He could certainly not do worse than she.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my friend and neighbour would at least try to defend the interests of Canadians. His riding runs along the American border, so that he is well aware of the influence and size of that neighbouring country.

We are not discussing here whether the United States is a friendly or unfriendly neighbour. Of course it is a friendly neighbour. That is not the issue. I have friendly neighbours of my own. That does not mean that they are allowed to enter my house and run away with everything that is there. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has his office right next to mine. I consider him to be a friendly neighbour.


Jack Wendele Shields: Have you noticed we always close our doors?


Don Boudria: He does not enter my office and run away with my furniture, which is precisely what the Government is proposing in this Bill. It is offering a means by which someone will be able to decide whether or not what we are doing in our country is right. They will not even have to come here to do it. They will be able to stay at home in Washington and tell us from there whether or not we are governing a small aspect of our country in the proper way.
Some may say that this issue alone is not relinquishing totally the sovereignty of our country-perhaps not. But it is a foot in the door. It is very clearly a decision aimed in that direction.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, this was done erroneously. Most Canadians believe that had the case gone through the proper adjudication methods we would have won, as we have in the past. Members opposite say: "We won in the past but the process started again, therefore we did not really win at all because we won and then a couple of years later the Americans started threatening us again with a countervail". That is fine. What is there to say that they will not start again the day after we pass this Bill? What is there to say that they will not ask that the 15 per cent be increased to 35 per cent, or whatever? How are we to know? In the past we wanted what we felt was right, and we did so for the right reasons. However, the Americans came back to us demanding that things be changed.
I say to the silent Tories, those who form the silent majority, those who never say a word in the House other than to holler the odd heckle, that there will be a day when they will have to speak up. It is fine for them not to stand in their places, not to
January 22, 1987

speak on behalf of their constituents. However, some day they will have to return to their constituents and be accountable. Their constituents will say to them: "Where were you when the softwood lumber issue was being discussed?" They will have to say that they were sitting in the back row watching members of the Opposition speak. That will not be good enough. Their constituents will not accept that. They will turf them out of office the next time around and put the Liberals back in.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to put on the record the facts which face us in this country. I would like to limit my remarks to facts. I do not want to enter into rhetoric, attempts to destroy personalities and individuals, attacks on the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) which are strictly out of character in this House. However, it is not something which is out of character for members of the Liberal Party or members of the New Democratic Party.
Let us consider the facts. Some two years ago a dispute developed with respect to softwood lumber entering the United States. The Americans wanted to impose a countervail. What happened? The case went before a tribunal and Canada won.
Just two years later another fact emerged. The climate in the United States was such that the Americans were becoming protectionists. There were something in the order of 300 Bills in Congress alone which proposed to bar imports from other countries. A real protectionist mood has developed in the United States. We all know that. Every Member sitting in the House knows that.
So it is fact that a dispute developed. Members of the lumber industry in the United States approached their Congressmen and Senators and said: "We want a countervail. We want you to impose a 15 per cent duty". That was done, it was not just proposed. A 15 per cent duty was imposed on the import of softwood lumber coming from Canada to the United States. Where did that money go? It went straight into the Treasury of the United States. That is where it went. By the way, that was only an interim solution. The lumber industry down there said that the hurt it was feeling was closer to the equivalent of 25 per cent and that is a fact.
Thus the process started. What was going to happen? We were to appear before a tribunal. Members opposite say that if we had fought the situation right through we probably would have won the case. I want to tell Members opposite that the whole situation in the United States has changed. The temper has changed. The best judgment of the government experts we consulted was that this was not going to happen. We were told that we probably would lose.
The other side of the coin is that, even if we did win it would take four years to do so, during which time the 15 per cent would still be in place and going directly to the Treasury of the United States. That is a fact. If we were able to win the case, which could have happened, then there was nothing in place to stop the United States with their protectionist attitude from
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
coming in with legislation and imposing the 15 per cent anyway. Our best judgment told us to strike a deal with the United States so that we could keep those funds in Canada. The important issue was to keep the money in Canada. With that money, we can assist with the problems that may face the industry. That is a fact.
The other fact that everyone glosses over or does not allude to is that after the agreement was signed the stocks of all of the softwood lumber industry went up very dramatically on the Toronto Stock and the Vancouver Stock Exchanges. Not only did the stocks go up, but the price of lumber to the consumer in the United States went up approximately 13 per cent. This means that all that happened is that the price of lumber has gone up in the United States market, and the consumer in the United States is paying the 15 per cent difference that is being collected for the Canadian Treasury.
The money will be put into a special fund. That fund will be passed to the provinces proportionately. The provinces will determine how this money will be handled, whether it is spent on silviculture or reforestation. Those are the facts that, when speaking on behalf of our constituents, all Members on this side of the House have expressed time and time again.
What do we hear from the Liberal-NDP coalition? We hear nothing but character assassination of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). We hear nothing but innuendo and character assassination of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), and of every member of this Government who states the facts. They do not wish to listen to the facts. What they wish to do is malign and carry on a fractious House, and say things in the House that they would never admit to saying if they walked out on to the street. They would never admit to saying some of the garbage that they try to throw in the form of debate. It is not debate, it is a rat pack mentality that has taken over with the Liberals, and the NDP are falling into line like the lemmings heading to the sea; one lemming starts and all the rest follow. That is the way it works.
I would like to talk about the sovereignty issue and the types of things that are being mentioned. We heard the Member, who calls himself my neighbour, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), say that we lost sovereignty. I heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) talk about sovereignty. I also heard the NDP talk about sovereignty, and how we have given it away. When two people have a dispute and those people come to an agreement, they agree to do certain things. They both lose a little bit of their free choice. In the dispute to resolve the dispute, each side has to give a little bit.
In the truest sense, there are certain things that we cannot do with the 15 per cent tax that we will be collecting, but we have agreed to that. The United States Government has said that it wishes to monitor what we do, because it is not sure that we will not give it to some of our producers of softwood lumber

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
through the back door. That is a reasonable thing. But we have also extracted from the United States Government that it, in turn, will not come back in on a countervail and break the agreement; that it will live with a 15 per cent export tax, and not come after it again. So we have solved the lumber dispute. They have given up the sovereignty that we extracted from them, because that is the nature of bilateral agreements. Every bilateral agreement signed between governments means that each government has to give up something to make that bilateral agreement work. All Members in this House know that to be true. And all Members of this House, if they were acting responsibly, would stand in their place and say so, and cut out this foolishness and garbage that they are throwing in as an obstruction.
We have other business to attend to in the House, to make sure that the Government and the people in Canada are getting what they put us here to do, that is, to give them proper Government. Interest rates are falling. We have economic problems to face. We have unemployment. We have many things to be addressed in the House. Most importantly, we have freedom to move legislation that will, once and for all, remove the freight rate inequity between western and eastern Canada. We want to get this on the board and discuss it. We want to get it into committee and pass it, so we can equalize the opportunities across this country. We have the good old socialist NDP and Liberal coalition doing everything they can to obstruct action in the House. I wish to put on record that I resent that attitude. I hope that they will be men enough to stand in their place and say what a good deal we have received in this trade war.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), talked about character assassination. He said that our side was interested in character assassination. We are not interested in character assassination as far as the Conservative Party is concerned, because they are committing suicide with their own characters. We just need to watch them. Day after day they are involved in a suicidal mission, as far as their characters are concerned, so there is no need for assassination.
The Hon. Member stated that he wished to put some facts on the table. I would also like to place a few facts on the table. The first fact is that the Tory Government is trying to stifle debate on this issue. There are Members on this side of the House who have more things they wish to say, some important facts that we wish to put on the table. We also believe that there are some back-benchers in the Tory caucus who have some things to say, if they can wait long enough to get up the gumption to stand up on their hind legs and say it.
When I had a chance to speak a couple of days ago I outlined some of the history of bungling that has characterized the way that this Government has mismanaged the entire free trade relationship with the United States. Nevertheless, the Minister claims that she won a victory when she reached this deal in the dying days of 1986. She claims it was a victory. It
reminded me of the Battle of Blenheim where a couple of small children, 50 years after the battle, find a skull. They asked their old grandfather to tell them all about the war, and what they fought each other for. "That I cannot say," said he, but it was a famous victory. I can imagine some child 50 years from now finding an old newspaper and looking at it and asking to be told all the softwood facts, and how we got the export tax. "That I cannot say," said she, "but it was a famous victory," with just the odd anomaly. The Minister had to admit that there are a few anomalies in this agreement. There are a few people who should have been protected who are not.
Whatever victory the Minister might have found in this agreement, most of us fear that if we have two or three more victories like that, there will be precious little of our sovereignty left. Is this the type of victory that the Government is looking for in the whole free trade negotiations with the United States? I very much fear that this is the type of victory that we might end up with, an agreement in which we get the short end of the stick and the Government stands up and states that we won a great victory. The end result of this victory is that workers will pay for it with the loss of their jobs.
Yesterday, there was an IWA study released in British Columbia which indicated that from their point of view they thought that British Columbia would be able to weather the storm not too badly in the short term. I hope that they are correct. I hope the facts that at present the American consumers are absorbing the greatest percentage of the tax; that at the present time there is a buoyant housing market in the United States; and that most of our mills in British Columbia are fairly technologically competent means that we will be able to weather this storm with a minimum of further disruption to our economy. The forest industry in British Columbia has suffered a great deal. It cannot afford to suffer more.
I talked to an IWA official who said that even though they do not anticipate any massive lay-offs, this deal means that there will not be the anticipated and hoped for recovery of the economy. There will be no third shifts put on at mills that have been barely staying open. Even in British Columbia where they think it will not have that much of a negative impact, it will certainly dampen any hopes for recovery.
Even if British Columbia is not as heavily hit in the short term, at least three other factors need to be taken into consideration. First, there is the long-term implications for British Columbia. If the U.S. market is buoyant right now, what will happen when there is a downturn? We know that there are upturns and downturns in the U.S. housing market. When that happens American consumers will not be absorbing the increased costs. This means that Canadian manufacturers will have to absorb them. They will have to lower their price to export to the American market.
Can the Canadian lumber industry absorb an increased cost of $500 million or $600 million per year? In effect, that is their profit right now. It would mean that they would have to
January 22, 1987

operate at a loss or without any profit. It would also mean that they would have to reduce prices to sell to the American market. Then the question would be, are we to have a two-price system for exports? Are we to expect that the Japanese will let us export to the United States at a lower price while they pay a 15 per cent higher price? Of course not. The lower price they will have to absorb for the United States market will have to apply to other importers of our softwood. That sort of thing will hit British Columbia woodworkers hard in the long term.
Second, we must look at the effects on other parts of Canada. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) spoke about this very eloquently on Monday when he asked for an emergency debate. As reported at page 2346 of Hansard, he said:
My request under Standing Order 29 is based on the recent decision to impose a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber which has caused grave concern among Maritime lumber producers. Many producers fear for the economic viability of their operations, and the jobs dependent upon their competitiveness.
The agreement imposes the tax upon all but five Maritime softwood producers that previously enjoyed exemptions from such action. The consequence of such a decision creates a situation whereby the livelihood of Maritime softwood producers is threatened by an action designed to resolve a problem created by extremely low stumpage fees in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.
Many lumber producers fear that they will not survive if they are required to pay not only the highest stumpage fees in Canada, but also an additional 15 per cent tax on their exported products. There is also a very real concern that the lumber market within the Maritime provinces may be swamped by western lumber seeking refuge from the tax.
These were the comments of the Conservative back-bencher who was speaking out of concern for what the Bill would do to his constituents and to his region. I commend him for having the gumption to stand and raise these concerns in the face of a Government which does not seem to care.
Third, we must look at the effect of this 15 per cent export tax and the deal reached with the Americans on other industries. I am not referring only to the softwood lumber industry but to the pulp industry, for example. In many provinces the stumpage rates for pulp and lumber are the same. If the softwood lumber export tax is replaced by increased stumpage fees, it will mean increased costs for pulp mills. In turn, it will be very difficult for some of those operations to continue.
The total effect will be that small communities will be devastated and jobs will be lost. Many single industry towns across the nation depend upon the lumber industry, but the Government has no plans in place to help them.
Finally, we see this deal as a way of giving away our sovereignty. I am reminded of the words of an old poem:
Ours is a sovereign nation Bows to no foreign will
But whenever they cough in Washington They spit on Parliament Hill.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, earlier we heard the very feeble reply or rebuttal of the Hon. Member
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). He ended his weak intervention with the ultimate expression of fear. When the debate became uncomfortable, unbearable, and pretty unpleasant on the part of the Government, which is embarrassed and uneasy about the measure, he moved a motion that we now come to the conclusion of the debate. When that happens we know that a Government is in trouble.
The position put forward by government spokesmen on a number of occasions since the beginning of the debate has been one of defending Canada's sovereignty. It was only two days ago when that great scholar on matters related to sovereignty, the most learned Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), came into the House and told us that the softwood lumber agreement respected and maintained our sovereignty and avoided intrusion by the United States into Canadian affairs. It was on Monday that he said that.
Having heard that statement, some of us on this side of the House drew his attention to the letter signed by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and by the U.S. Trade Representative. This is the letter which was sent to the chairman of the Coalition for Fair Fumber Imports. In part the letter read:
It is the understanding of the U.S. Government that the U.S. Government would have to approve any changes in the export charge or calculation of the value of any replacement measures.
Then the letter went on to indicate:
Any changes made without U.S. Government approval would be considered a violation of the understanding.
When we brought this letter to the attention of Hon. Members on the government side, they said: "Oh, but you should not read that letter; it was only signed by the Secretary of Commerce and another official". They said that we should look at the agreement for the real substance.
We looked at the agreement as well and we found the basis for Mr. Yeutter's and Mr. Baldrige's conclusions in their letter to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. They draw these conclusions from Clause 7a which lays the foundation for the obligations Canada undertakes in respect of this memorandum of understanding. Among other things it indicates:
The Government of Canada will provide the Government of the United States of America with data concerning the level of Provincial and Federal softwood and total stumpage harvest, the total revenue collected from the sale of Provincial and Federal softwood and total timber-
As if that were not enough, it continued:
-total export charge collected, total shipments of certain softwood lumber products to the United States of America-
As if that were not enough:
-total lumber production by province,-
As if that were not enough:
-the total softwood lumber production by province, for each fiscal year within three months of the close of the fiscal year or as soon thereafter as is practicable-
We asked the Government on a number of occasions whether the letter by Yeutter and Baldrige was an incorrect

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
interpretation, for a rejection of the meaning and content of the letter and for an understanding as to exactly what the clause meant. So far we have had no reply. So far, Madam Speaker, the provinces do not know what they can do and what they cannot do as a result of this agreement. There is silence on the part of the Government. Here we are at the crucial point of this debate being asked to close it off by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown just because the heat is getting too much. It is getting too hot in the kitchen and the Government would like to shut down the whole business.
Here we are with the great champions of the free market economy, the great believers in the market-place who have caved and given in to pressure by the Americans. They have decided that that was the answer Canada should accept and adopt rather than taking the matter to the international tribunal of GATT or the American tribunals for that matter to fight the matter.
Today in the mail we received an interesting letter from the Canadian Lumbermen's Association. It is signed by the Executive Director, Mr. J.F. McCracken. I will read a couple of paragraphs from it because the thoughts and position of that Association should be put on record for historical reasons and for the purposes of this debate. First, is the following statement:
The December 30 agreement is a very fragile, open-ended rigid document. It is a minefield for our industry and must be closely studied for its total impact.
The letter goes on with another relevant and important paragraph on page 2:
CFIC believe that the softwood lumber industry must be a working partner with federal and provincial authorities. The agreement signed December 30 demonstrates that the lack of input from the involved softwood lumber industry created unnecessary problems and backlash from January 1 to date.
This is a very serious indictment brought to the attention of the Government by a number of speakers in this debate, namely that the lumber industry was cut off from negotiations with the United States, in sharp contrast with the way a similar situation was handled in 1983. But that is not enough. In the same letter, Mr. McCracken goes on to say:
We learned last week, our European customers are worried they will be flooded with our softwood volumes we can't sell in the U.S. Accordingly, we understand, on very sound authority, a number of European importers are trying to have their governments initiate action to impose a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber imports.
Imagine, Madam Speaker, we are going to be hit two ways by an initiative in the European markets to impose a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber imports on the one hand and, at the same time, we are going to see an increase in the cost of our exports to other nations other than the United States as a result of this imposition because this agreement with the United States will mean an increase in the price of lumber to the consumer and an increase in the price of the lumber we export to countries other than the United States. What a sham, what a terrible situation to be in. For the Minister of State for Forestry to say that Canada has not lost its sovereignty is simply a silly statement to make.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am so delighted, Madam Speaker, that you chose to remain in the Chair to hear me for the third time today. You can decide whether it has been your lucky day or not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am delighted to take part in the debate on the motion of the Government Member whatever, his name and whatever riding he is from. He is there. He is somewhere.


Lloyd Axworthy: Not for long.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The motion is that the question now be put. That is debatable, I mean the motion is debatable.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course the Government and the Government Member who moved it are debatable too but it is a debatable motion on which I am about to embark.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am trying to figure out the motives for the moving of this debatable motion that the question be now put. Is it possible-I do not want to think this but one is led to think it might be possible-that the Tories are so anxious to get this out of sight and out of the minds of Canadians that they will go to this length?


Mr. Nystrom:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perish the thought. They would not want to do that, Madam Speaker, but they did. Is this a motion that might help get the Premier of Saskatchewan and a few others off the hook? Perish the thought, Madam Speaker. They would not do that, but they did.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One has to examine the motives for the motion. I have to assume what must be part of the motives. Is this more of a mad rush on the part of the Government to evade its responsibility to preserve, protect and extend our independence and our nationhood? Is it a way of getting the Tories and some of their apologists off the hook? I have to think about this. I am not a suspicious type of person. I would not impute motives or anything else.
I read from The Winnipeg Sun, which you could hardly call a journal of raving socialist thought, an article by Dale Eisler who happens to be a resident and a writer in Regina, Saskatchewan. He said on January 20:
A devout free trader, Premier Grant Devine initially talked as though he was firmly opposed to any capitulation to the U.S. protectionist pressure demanding higher prices for Canadian lumber in the American market.
It was a position he shared with Ontario Premier David Peterson, as both argued it would create an extremely dangerous precedent.
When the first ministers met in Vancouver last November, Devine went to the meeting saying that Canada should fight the countervailing duty in court. If Canada should fold to American pressure on the lumber issue, then Devine
January 22, 1987

feared the U.S. would start targetting other imports such as potash and uranimum, which are critical to the Saskatchewan economy. "They'll pick us off one by one if we don't stick together," Devine said.
Then Mr. Eisler goes on to say the following:
But in the backrooms of the first ministers' conference, Devine mysteriously changed his position.
I suppose he changed his position from a vertical one to a horizontal one, I do not know. The article goes on:
He fell in line behind the federal government's move to not fight the U.S. duty in court and instead reach an agreement. The result has been the creation of the 15 per cent federal export tax on softwood lumber.
This columnist goes on to say about the Premier of Saskatchewan, whom this motion is trying to bail out as quickly as possible, the following:
-when the former Liberal government introduced its National Energy Program, complete with an export tax on oil and gas. It triggered an immediate constitutional debate, one that became redundant when the export tax died with the demise of the NEP-
But to this point, there has not been a word of protest raised by Devine about the export tax on lumber.
That is passing strange. Mr. Eisler goes on to say:
The problem Devine has is that his hands are tied on federal-provincial issues, a dilemma of his own making.
Just like this dilemma was of the making of the United States. To continue, the article goes on:
His unfailing support of federal initiatives and his about-face on how the lumber issue should be handled have left him with no credible way to now take a strong stance in defence of Saskatchewan interests.
These are not my words. These words do not come from a raving democratic socialist like me. These words come from Mr. Dale Eisler and they appeared in The Winnipeg Sun of January 20.
Mr. Eisler goes on to say about the Premier of Saskatchewan the following:
By failing to stand and fight the U.S. action, the door has been opened for other American industries to put pressure on Canadian natural resource imports they view as unfair competition. It was the very argument Devine advanced before he did a complete turnaround and, given the tide of protectionist fever in the U.S., it becomes a very real possibility.
A premier of one of Canada's provinces is working on both sides of the street, as is the Conservative Government which ranted and raved about an export tax on oil and gas when the Liberals were in power but is doing exactly the same thing now. That will not wash. The motion that the question now be put will not wash even if the Government wins the vote because there are other stages of the Bill that must yet be debated.
This country must earn the respect and regard of other nations about our sovereignty and independence. We will not do so through this supine sell-out. We must stand up for our country. Regardless of what 10 premiers might do in 10 different ways, a national Government must act in the national interest when it comes to sovereignty even if there is a price to pay. The price is worth paying and we do not agree that the
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
question should now be put. This is the last and only chance Parliament has to debate this issue. We cannot debate an international treaty or agreement, we must do it under the guise of debating an export tax Bill. That is what we are darn well doing right now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: As several of our colleagues have just pointed out, Madam Speaker, it is rather strange-considering that the Conservative Government should be so intent on pushing through this 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports-and I wonder why not one of the Conservatives wants to take part in the debate this evening. They probably show interest when they have meetings with Mr. Bush, with the president-


An Hon. Member:: It is only today, and you were not here.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But I was here all day, I even took the floor yesterday. This is the second time in two days that I speak to this issue because it is of great interest to all Canadian men and women. But now the Progressive Conservative Party wants to impose a tax on Canadian lumber and give the Americans the right to get directly involved in this nation's business.
It seems to me- We have all heard the words "Masters in our own home". So why here, in the Parliament of Canada, are we not masters in our own home? Why should the United States, the President and the Vice-president who are talking about the export situation and who, as a result of this Bill, now be given the right to come to Canada at the invitation of our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney)? They are allowed to come to Canada, snoop in our revenue ledgers, and dictate our forest policies at both federal and provincial levels.
If we now conclude forestry agreements for instance to try and help small lumber companies in Northern Ontario, where I happen to be going tomorrow, in North Bay, and I know that many people in Northern Ontario are wondering why this Government is now pushing forward with this Bill that probably will destroy thousands of jobs held by Canadian men and women. Why do they do that? Because they crave for a free trade agreement at any cost. Madam Speaker, earlier in the week we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make this promise as he said:

"I'm going to put my political career on the line because of the free trade question". We heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) make that bold statement last week. It is not the Prime Minister who is putting his career on the line, it is the taxpayers and the workers of Canada who are paying very dearly for an agreement which, for the first time in Canadian history, sets a precedent allowing the American Government to check this country's books and tell us how to run our affairs.
If the Province of Ontario wants to come up with a forest management agreement to assist the northern forestry and lumber workers, why must we look to the United States to get

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
permission to do so? What happened to the notion of Canada governing its own affairs?
I understand why Members on the Conservative side have been speaking from their seats. I do not understand why these same Members are not speaking out on every aspect of this insidious and odious legislation which is a forerunner of things to come. It is a harbinger of the kind of maladministration that was begun on March 17, 1985, when, in all his blarney, the Prime Minister, at the shamrock summit in Quebec City, put "sham" back into the word "shamrock" and "con" back into the word "Conservative". That was the beginning and we have been singing for our supper ever since.
There are many Canadians involved not only in the softwood lumber industry but in the steel industry or automotive industry or the agricultural industry who want to know just where the Government stands on the question of Canadian sovereignty. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) promised the Auto Pact would not be on the table. We now see their American counterparts intend to extract a price from us.
Marketing boards have led to at least some measure of supply and management and some measure of an evenly-balanced price for certain products in Canada. If we have to give up marketing boards in order to obtain a free trade agreement, in the same way the Government was prepared to sacrifice the softwood lumber industry, then we will see the demise of the family farm as we know it. That is why people are watching this Bill with much interest. It speaks to the heart and soul of what a Government is supposed to do.
Unlike the Conservative Government, when the Liberal Government was confronted with a similar crisis in 1983 we did not capitulate. We did not go to the Americans on bended knee and say please, we will pay 15 per cent, we are guilty, please let us have our trade with you. What we said, and what we in the Liberal Party still believe notwithstanding the sellout by the Conservative Government, is that we are fair trading partners. Whether it be in the forest industry or the steel industry, we are fair trading partners and we will fight to prove how fair we are in any international court and we will win our case.
We took that to an international court and we won. We had the courage of our convictions and the guts to stick through to the very end. Compare that with the Conservative Government which literally days before the preliminary judgment was expected went to the Americans and said we are not guilty but we are going to make you a final offer; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. We will pay 10 per cent. That is our final offer. We heard that from our Minister for International Trade. She was carrying the ball. She carried it about as well as the Edmonton Eskimos carried it in the last Grey Cup. She dropped it. She said 10 per cent is our final offer. A few weeks later she comes back in a panic. Oh, my goodness, Christmas is
coming and we have to get an agreement. We will give you 15 per cent and a few other concessions.
The Americans would not go along with that. They wanted more. What they wanted and what this Bill and the Memorandum of Understanding will give is not only the 15 per cent but give the Americans the right to come in and go through the books and the companies in the lumber industry to make sure that, according to their standards, we are living up to the agreement.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It also makes clear that the U.S. Government will have a say in what kind of agreements we want to make at the provincial or federal level in the forest industry. Whether it relates to forest management agreements, stumpage fees or specific subsidies, we cannot do anything. Our hands are tied until we get the express permission of the U.S.
The Minister said 10 per cent is our final offer. Would you trust her? She is now asking the Parliament of Canada to pass a Bill to give her the right to open the books at her discretion to whomever comes in from the U.S. and wants to go through them. That very same Minister negotiated herself into a corner. She gave up a good and solid Canadian case which would have endorsed the principle that we are fair trading partners. She cannot be trusted. This Bill cannot be trusted. If any Conservative Party Member really believes this Bill could be trusted then I challenge them to speak out tonight. We have not heard from the silent masses and we would like to hear where they stand on this issue, or are they hiding behind the coat-tails of the incompetent Minister for International Trade.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker-Madam Speaker! As my time draws nigh, my eyesight weakens and the chair becomes farther and farther away. My apologies.
A lot of the problems the Government faced in choosing the solution it did were based on the actions of the Premier of British Columbia. He did not consider himself a Canadian at that time, he simply acted alone in an unthinking manner and precipitated a situation which created a great dilemma for this country. I must comment on a few of the submissions made tonight by the previous speaker from the Liberal Party. I wonder if my Conservative friends might concur when I say that we have seen a presentation of just incredible proportions tonight. The Liberal Party of Canada is one of the great sellout organizations in this country. The Conservatives are rank amateurs compared to them but they are racing to try and catch up.


Mr. Comeau:: You are rank.


Raymond John Skelly: I see my friend from South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) agrees entirely.


Gerald J. Comeau: I said you are rank.
January 22, 1987


Raymond John Skelly: The presentation by the Liberal Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was incredible. She forgets that the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government in 1983 did virtually nothing when this tariff problem confronted us. Absolutely nothing. It was the Canadian forest industry, organized labour, and many individuals involved in the industry and not the Liberals. The Liberals sat on their hands and did nothing. When invited to do something they refused to become involved. That was a very serious matter at that time and that Government would have seen us sold out.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are almost stupid enough to be a Tory.


Raymond John Skelly: The Hon. Member said it was the Conservatives who put the sham in the shamrock. That is interesting. One of the things that was sold out without a Quebec City meeting was the West Coast salmon interception treaty. It was the Liberal Government that set the format for that sell-out. The Prime Minister of Canada showed up with a document which the Liberals had drafted and signed it just to have something to sign with Ronald Reagan.
The Hon. Member might have made some errors because she was not a Member of this House when those things happened. She can probably be forgiven for her ignorance and her lack of understanding of the process. However, she certainly should take a long hard look at the Party she represents and its record of selling out this country. Most of the ills forming the foundation of the problems of the present Conservative Government were formulated by Liberal Governments in previous years.
We should remember that those 211 Conservative Members were not elected on their own, they were elected in order to throw the Liberals out of Government. They were put in those chairs to get rid of the Liberals. That was a disaster of international proportions. However, it is really and truly something to sit here and listen to the distortions expressed by members of the Liberal Party. I guess all we can say is how soon they forget. They have cast off the robes of the old corrupt organization and are trying to present new clothing to the public. Yet they have really done nothing.
They have inherited the misfortune of the Conservative Government without making one constructive proposal in this House. They are feeding on the misfortune of others. The Canadian public will not forget how disastrous the previous Liberal Government was. They will not forget that the country was sold out and they will not forgive. When the next election comes around it will be a sad day of reckoning. That tour of the horizon should be sufficient to ensure that the previous speaker is more aware of the disastrous nature of the previous Government and is more cautious and humble in her presentations in the House.
This is a serious matter, Madam Speaker. The Government has committed a very serious error.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


Lloyd Axworthy: Who is this clown?


Raymond John Skelly: The former Minister of Transport in the Liberal Government is talking about clowns. He is a prime example of Liberal disaster in this country.
The Conservative Government has created a very serious problem. It had many options available which it did not choose to exercise. Grant Devine, the Premier of Saskatchewan, and his counterpart in British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm, undercut the efforts of the forest industry, the federal Government, and organized labour to put forward a united national face against the very wrong position of the United States. Their breaking away undermined our unity and made it impossible for the federal Government to put forward a solid presentation.
Bill Vander Zalm admitted guilt on the stumpage issue. He said that the Americans had a point and that we would examine our stumpage. By saying that he condemned Canada and ruined the argument put forward in the 1983 hearings. He put us in a position of great difficulty. Instead of co-operating with the national position, Vander Zalm said that if the federal Government did not see it his way, he would go it alone. One can only speculate upon what kind of proposal British Columbia would have made and upon the depth of the sell-out which would have occurred. I believe that individual made a very embarrassing, sad and tragic mistake in trying to fulfil his responsibility as the premier of a province by breaking ranks and failing to co-operate with sister provinces and the federal Government in the face of American threats.
The Government has essentially imposed closure on this debate. I believe the Government has recognized that it has made a very serious error and is attempting to limit the political damage which will be done. This is so reminiscent of the previous Liberal Government which treated the House to closure nearly once a week.


John V. Nunziata: That's not true.


Raymond John Skelly: My colleague from the Liberal Party says that that is not true. The previous Liberal Government used closure extremely frequently. It had a studied comtempt for the democratic process. That cynical Liberal Government used closure time after time, not caring about the political consequences or the odious legislation put forward. It continually smashed this place with its majority hammer.
Unfortunately, the present Conservative Government, which threw that Liberal Government out, learned all of its bad habits, its contempt for this House, the Opposition, and democracy. It is sad that the Government is falling into the habit of invoking closure.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, is enough to make the Fathers of Confederation roll over in

January 22, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
their graves. One hundred and twenty years after Confederation the Conservative Government is giving away the Canadian sovereignty for which they built this nation. Sir John A. Macdonald would not be very proud of the gang which now occupies the seats of Government.
Yesterday or the day before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had the nerve to stand in this House and brag about the Conservatives having started Canada. Can you imagine? What a tradition. They should be ashamed of themselves. They gave up the law process. They could have gone the route of the process of law, but they refused to do that. They went the political route and look where we are today. We know that politics is everything to the Government. Politics covers everything from forestry to patronage to contracts to the destruction of the fair bidding system in our country. The day of judgment by the Canadian people will arrive very shortly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We hear great statements that trees are beautiful, and they are, that trees are useful, and they are. We hear all kinds of things about conservation and the wealth of our forests, one of the greatest assets of our nation, and jobs. How often have we heard the term "jobs"? The forest industry of Canada has traditionally represented 11 per cent of our labour force. The three staple crops in Canada before and since Confederation have been forestry, fish and agriculture.


Dave Nickerson: Since when is fish a crop?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member asks since when fish has been a crop. Fish are a crop. People grow fish today. Why are trees a crop? People thought it was foolish to speak of trees as a crop. Forests are located on private lands, Crown lands and parklands. We are not just talking about forestry costs in this agreement. We are not just talking about stumpage fees because that 15 per cent goes on the initial cost of the timber, its milling, the wages, compensation costs, equipment costs and the trucking costs, until it reaches the border at 15 per cent. That 15 per cent tax does not increase our stumpage fees in Canada but taxes labour, our sawmills and processing mills in Canada.
There is a large lumber mill in my area that sells to a wholesaler in Ottawa, which also sells to an Alexandria moulding company in eastern Ontario. When it sells its product it is still paying 15 per cent. Let us assume that the cost to the moulding company is 30 per cent for its equipment and wages to produce the moulding. The 15 per cent tax will not be on the lumber or moulding the wood, it will be on wages and equipment that the manufacturer purchases. The effects of this tax should be put into proper perspective.
At the turn of the century there was much discussion about commercial union between Canada and the United States, but it was overwhelmingly rejected by Canadians at that time. The
fact that the Government is proposing a 15 per cent duty on our wood products in Canada at the request of the United States is evidence of internal interference and the practical beginning of commercial union. Adam Zimmerman was right when he said that the Government sold out.
The Government has talked about "jobs, jobs, jobs" but the jobs are gone. We recall when the Government told us that there would be no problems as a result of removing protection for the shoe industry. Today, over half those employees are gone.


John Horton McDermid: You are kidding yourself.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Just listen. I know that the forests are not too thick around Brampton, but there is a lot up the Valley where your wife comes from.
Many of my constituents are already paying market prices for wood that they buy on private woodlots and they also pay market prices for products from the Algonquin Park Authority. They will be paying an additional 15 per cent.
In the Province of Quebec they will pay market costs for timber they take from private property and they will pay the Province of Quebec the timber fees on Crown land. There will be an additional 15 per cent to pay, even after the milling costs. These operators are faced with those costs whether or not they are paying the market price.
I suggest that the larger companies will move in and buy the smaller manufacturers of lumber products in Canada. Those larger companies will not continue those small industries in the towns and villages across Canada but will simply close them down and take the resources to be manufactured elsewhere. The regions of this country will suffer the great loss of jobs in the basic forest industry.
In many ways, this Bill is a gift to the major corporations because the smaller competitors will be eliminated. I predict that we will soon hear a request to curtail the production of pulp and paper.
The Government should have taken this issue to the courts. There was opportunity to appeal if we lost, even though the chances of winning in the courts were much greater than they were with the person whom the Prime Minister appointed to carry the ball in the wrong direction.
The American industry is getting everything it wanted. We are paying market prices in many of our industries plus a 15 per cent tax while they have no tax. Some of our manufacturers produce half of their products for Canadian use. One company produces 60 million feet of softwood per year, 30 million feet of which goes to the United States. Yet that company pays a total of 15 per cent tax, including labour and manufacturing costs.
Let us consider the cost of wood, for example. Because of the great demand for pine, it costs far more for the additional work in producing the various sizes in lumber than it does to produce hemlock which has a very small profit margin. A 15
January 22, 1987

per cent tax on hemlock will result in a smaller demand that will result in less product in the sawmills. The Government that talked so much about jobs in the last election is, in effect, taxing the very jobs that exist.
Some timber rights in Ontario are more than 100 years old. People who own those timber rights spend a lot of money on reforestation and road maintenance. Yet they are being taxed for managing that forest.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret that I must advise the Elon. Member that his time has expired.

The Elon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I move:
That the Member for Vancouver East be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) did not rise at that point.


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: No, she had not risen when I recognized the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey). The Hon. Member has the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He had not said a word. I rose before him-


An Hon. Member:: Let him be.

Stick to your toys, Paul.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is true the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi had not started to speak. I must then ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) if she assures me she had risen. As far as I am concerned, I did not see her rise and ask to speak. If she assures me that she did so, as two Hon. Members at this point are seeking the floor, I will have to recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I am really glad I have a chance to make a few remarks on this very important Bill which has extreme implications for many people in Canada, particularly for the one million forest workers. I would like to say that I meet from time to time with many of the forestry workers and those people who are related to the forest industry in my riding of Vancouver East. For a
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
long time we have been very concerned about the forestry policy in British Columbia, or the lack of policy, I should say. I mention this because I think the background is quite important to this Bill.
I think the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) outlined from a historical perspective that for many years the Social Credit Government has really refused to look at what was happening to our forests in British Columbia. I think most Hon. Members would agree that we have the most beautiful forests in the world. Yet we have had our hillsides stripped and there has been really no government policy which has been effective in replacing those trees. This means that we are really selling out our future. The federal and provincial Governments from time to time have talked about reforestation and silviculture but they have done very little in this respect. We had hoped when the Conservative Government came into office it would appoint a senior Minister of Forestry and perhaps that person would mean we were finally going to get some real action in developing a sound forestry and reforestation policy. However, we have a very junior Minister and one from whom we have heard only a little, I am sad to say.
As to the lumber export tax, I think it is such a complicated process and policy that it is unfortunate the Government has chosen to try to stifle debate. I was astounded to hear from my colleagues that once again the Government is really trying to push this Bill through and in effect impose closure. It is important that we get all the facts. I would like to have a chance to do much more research and get more views as to the projected effects not just of the lumber export tax but of the whole precedence which has been set in place in the way this international incident, if you like, has been handled.
I think most of us on this side of the House, and I hope I can include the Hon. Members at either end when I say this, would agree that there has been really a lousy process of negotiation with the United States on this issue from beginning to end. We have been intimidated and have fluctuated back and forth. We have not been consistent. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the negotiations are not over yet. I would be very interested to see how the Government and the Minister makes out in trying to resolve many of the interprovincial policies with which she will be faced when this Bill goes through.
I am sure, as my colleagues have been saying tonight, that we negotiated from a position of weakness. That is very unfortunate. As I was coming out of my office this evening, I overheard one of the speakers saying it is absolutely appalling that the Minister could not take a sound and strong position. She probably should not have got involved in the first place. There are those who feel this should have been left to the courts. However, once she did get involved, the kind of inconsistency, which really weakened her whole position, and in turn weakened Canada's negotiating position, is well known and well documented. She offered 10 per cent as a final offer. I think she said two or three times she was making a final offer. Then, of course, she backed down and went up to 15 per cent.

January 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Minister because I am sure during this process she was not assisted at all by the interference of our Premier of British Columbia. He just could not keep his nose out of it. It was not at that stage a provincial question. It was part of federal negotiations. I think it was most important that he be sensitive to the whole free trade negotiations. The role of the provinces is to work in collaboration through the federal Government, not to intervene, compete and grandstand and try to take over in place of the federal Government. There was an election and a post-election period and the Premier of British Columbia wanted to be a hero. I wonder what kind of a hero he has turned out to be? What he did was create a situation where he is an embarrassment to us. I understand he was in the United States in this last week or so. I hate to think of what kind of things are now being negotiated behind our backs.
We have heard about a lot of the issues. I know I will be repeating some of them but I would like to put some of them on the record. The first and probably the most important issue, aside from the process I have already mentioned, is the implications that this whole incident has had, and will continue to have, on Canada's sovereignty. The United States now has the power to intervene and influence the forest policy of Canada. That is a very bad precedent for free trade negotiations generally.
I want to mention again what my Hon. Leader said when he spoke on this issue. He said with reference to the issue of sovereignty that the agreement contains the following words: Calculation of the value of any replacement measures in relation to the export charge will be subject to further consultations and agreement between the two Governments. Canada's fiscal and forestry policies will be subject to further consultations and agreement between the two Governments.
The word "agreement" is not an ambiguous word. If a provincial Government replaces the export tax with increased stumpage or other charges, it will have to obtain the agreement of the United States Government. I agree with our Leader. Certainly that would appear to be the case. He goes on to say that we are now involved in any change in implementing the replacement of the 15 per cent at the provincial level with the provinces having to go to the federal Government, and the federal Government having to trot down to Washington to say: "Will you please agree with us because if you do not, we cannot do it".
I think that any way one looks at it, it is a deplorable situation that we are losing such face and such control over our own forest industry. It is even more important that this is a precedent which will affect our total negotiations and our relationship with the United States, not to mention with other countries. If this example is effective with the United States, what are our friends in GATT and the European Market going to say to us?
We know that sovereignty is one of the very major concerns and sovereignty is a federal responsibility. Some of my colleagues in British Columbia do not care as much about the
sovereignty issue. They are concerned with the forest industry primarily. As federal politicians that is our responsibility. We are Members of Parliament. We have a Government that is in charge of all the external relationships of Canada. It is responsible for protecting our sovereignty. I do not think it has done a good job at all in this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, late in November I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) a question concerning the availability of pension fund information for Air Canada employees. I had received some inquiries from a few constituents of Fraser Valley East who were worried that excess pension funds may be used incorrectly.
After examining the issue and after having the opportunity to question officials of Air Canada, I have found that instead of excess funds in the Air Canada pension fund there is actually an unfunded liability of some $248 million. This figure is readily available from the Public Accounts, 1985-86, which is published by the Receiver General.
This unfunded liability is not a problem, however, since it is very closely monitored by actuaries. The actuarial studies are done over a 30-year period and the funding is being handled by annual payments over various periods ending in 2003. The actuaries ensure that a stream of payments exists that will eventually eradicate the unfunded liability and change the payments to meet the needs of the fund. The apparent lack of information about the pension fund experienced by some pensioners could be a result of misinterpretation of the actual details.
The Air Canada pension fund is based on a final earnings plan which means that the employees' pensions are guaranteed to the maximum, regardless of anything. The employer must meet that obligation. Since 1973, Air Canada has increased the pensions yearly, but this is done on an ad hoc basis, not by indexation. Ad hoc calculations include many important factors such as review of inflation, an examination of other large pension funds, ability to pay and community influences. In many cases this method actually gives the pensioner a higher increase than an indexed pension.
January 22, 1987

The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, which came into effect on January 1, 1987, includes a number of measures to try to further ensure the financial solvency of federally-regulated pension plans. The PBSA sets minimum standards for pension plans established by companies in federally-regulated industries, such as Air Canada which is a parent Crown corporation.
Because of this Act pension plan administrators will have a statutory obligation to administer the pension fund to protect the benefit of plan members.
In his recent report the Auditor General stated that "the viability of pension plans is of vital importance to Canadians". He recommended, to further protect the interests of Canadians, that independent reviews must be carried out by the Department of Insurance, which regulates all federally-registered employee pension plans. At this time the Department supervises some 750 plans, covering 600,000 employees. As can be seen this is a huge workload. According to the Auditor General there is the risk, that the present supervisory procedure of the Pension Benefits Division will not permit it to do an adequate job of monitoring the financial solvency of all employee pension plans.
He recommends that the Department of Insurance should undertake a thorough review of its present supervisory practices for pension plans. In particular, the Auditor General recommends that it should review the adequacy of procedures for monitoring pension plan assets.
The Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, will no doubt give the final assurance that federally-regulated pension plans maintain minimum standards. The Public Accounts of the Receiver General continue to provide the public with information on the financial statements of Crown corporations such as Air Canada. The information from the Public Accounts Report is used to write the company's annual report.
On a more local level, Air Canada pensioners are well served by representatives across Canada. These people keep in close contact with Air Canada's head office.
At this time, Air Canada could not do anything with the pension funds, in terms of investing or selling out, because not only is it against the law to take funds out when there is an unfunded liability, but the unfunded liability would increase. Finally, close actuarial control does not allow this to happen in any case.
In closing, I appreciate having this chance to address the House, but particularly to be able to report to the people of Fraser Valley East on this matter. They must not only be reassured that there are not any excess funds in the Air Canada pension fund but that there is not any reason to be concerned about the unfunded liability either.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) for his representations in
Adjournment Debate
respect of an important matter. I am certain his concern for retired Air Canada employees is greatly appreciated by them.
Air Canada management has told the Minister that there is an annual report prepared on the pension fund. The report is available to the pension committee, which consists of representatives of employee groups, retired employees, and management. The report is not widely distributed, but the information in it is available to all interested groups through their representatives on the committee. May I remind the Hon. Member, and anyone else who is interested, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has made it clear that he will "personally see to it" that anyone wanting the information will have it. If they encounter any difficulty in getting it, if he or anyone else will contact the Minister, he will see that they receive a copy of that report.
Air Canada also advises that it has been the company's policy to provide annual ad hoc adjustments to its retirees' pensions based on a number of factors, such as the company's financial performance, inflation rate, performance of the pension fund investments. These ad hoc payments have been made regularly over the past eight to ten years. The 1986 ad hoc adjustment was recently announced to all employees by the Air Canada board of directors.
I hope that these brief comments provide some clarification for the Hon. Member with the concern.


PORTS-VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO UPGRADE FACILITIES. (B) REQUEST THAT PORT USERS COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED
Margaret Anne Mitchell: I wish to speak to the question that 1 raised in the House on November 17, 1986, relating to the Port of Vancouver. There are some very urgent problems faced at the Port of Vancouver. It desperately needs upgraded facilities in order to be competitive.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was asked by me for an assurance that the federal Government would take some positive action that would not just be a reaction to the management-labour crisis at that time, but would really help with the port's long-term development. First was that there would be an upgrading of port facilities, particularly three new cranes that are very badly needed. There should also be improved rail facilities in order to be competitive with the American rail facilities which largely accommodate container traffic.
Second, we asked that they establish a port users committee, or that they work with the Vancouver group to establish a committee to seriously assess the problems, the solutions, and the priorities to ensure the long-term viability and competitiveness of the Port of Vancouver. I asked this question when the labour dispute was at a peak when the Maritime Employers' Council had locked out the ILWU from the Port of Vancouver. Unfortunately, this ended with some very harsh legislation brought down by the federal Government, which we are still

January 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
very concerned about because it threatened the collective bargaining rights in that jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister was so absorbed with the labour dispute that he failed to provide an adequate answer to my question. This is very typical of both Liberal and Conservative Governments. They only seem to become interested in the Port of Vancouver, which is away out on the Pacific West Coast, when there is a crisis, and when that crisis usually involves labour troubles. In this case it was management that had imposed the lock-out. They ignore the long-term problems.
The dispute in the port at that time was a symptom of much greater problems facing the port. We must find a way of dealing with those. Unfortunately the labour dispute drew much attention from the media and the Government. It was based upon the so-called container clause which allows union members to unpack containers and load their contents on to trucks or railway cars, if the contents are consigned to more than one owner within a certain radius of the port. It is designed to protect jobs for a certain number of longshore workers.
However, it is important to note that it affects only 12.6 per cent of inbound containers through the port, a relatively small amount of port traffic. Yet the powers that be, and even the port administration, treated the issue as the primary problem facing the port.
Years of neglect under both Liberal and Conservative Governments have helped to erode the viability of the Port of Vancouver. It should be developed. It has the potential to be developed into a competitive world-class port. It is a wonderful location. We have the needed skilled workers, industries and so on, but we need a method of bringing together all these parts in a comprehensive way to do some long-term planning and improvements.
This is why I supported the port awareness campaign sponsored by the longshoremen's union, the ILWU. It is called "a world-class port for a world-class city". It offers positive solutions to the port's serious problems. It is important to congratulate such groups when they are working on the positive, long range side of things.
First and foremost, the Port of Vancouver needs genuine local autonomy. The Ports Corporation Act, in which I recall being very involved a few years ago, was passed by the Liberals. It was supposed to develop autonomy in ports, particularly in the Port of Vancouver. However, there are still far too many "made in Ottawa" decisions.
The Board of Directors of the Vancouver Port Corporation is comprised of political appointees. It was the Liberal Government which set up that structure, so it is not surprising that the present Government has carried through on it. Although these members undoubtedly work hard and are genuinely concerned about the affairs of the port, they are
influenced by Ottawa and by the agenda of the Conservative Government. It is difficult for them to be concerned about all the various factions involved in the entire operation and the future of the port. It is not their fault; as I say, it is the structure.
The first step on the road to a more responsive and autonomous management of the port would be to establish a port users committee as was outlined. This committee should include shippers, key users of the port, railways, unions, surrounding communities, local levels of Government, the grain industry, and so on. It should help to study the Port of Vancouver and to develop a long-range plan as well as deal with immediate problems.
We have a serious problem competing with the Pacific northwest. If we do not have a better, improved railway system, we will not be able to take the container traffic eastward or back and forth across Canada. It will continue to go through the American routes.
I am sorry that my time is almost up, but again I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to take another look at the matter. He has a good background in the whole transportation field. We urge both him and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to support strongly the establishment of a port users committee, to ensure that funds are available for at least three more cranes, and to bring all parties together to see whether we can have an improved Port of Vancouver.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, with respect to the establishment of a port users committee for the Port of Vancouver, I point out to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) that a regional advisory council was established for ports on the West Coast in April, 1983. As I am sure the Hon. Member knows, the council advises and makes recommendations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) on matters related to ports in the region. These involve regional interests and concerns relative to port development, land-use planning, transportation, economic and environmental issues.
The membership of the Western Regional Advisory Council, I am told, includes the chairmen of harbour commissions in the region, the chairmen of the local port corporations in the region, including Vancouver and Prince Rupert, a representative of the Department of Transport, two representatives of the Province of British Columbia, a representative from each of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and various industry representatives.
Over and above the requirements of the legislation, the Vancouver Port Corporation itself has established continuous communication with the Western Transportation Advisory Council, which include governments, producers and shippers, ports, labour, carriers and trade associations; the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Longshoremen's Union, the Maritime Employers' Association, each of the adjacent municipalities,
January 22, 1987

the Chamber of Shipping, the Council of Forest Industries, the Wharf Operators' Association, the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association and the Economic Development Ministers of the four western provinces.
In addition, the Vancouver Port Corporation Board has always included a senior representative from labour. Currently, Mr. Jack Munro of the International Woodworkers' of America serves on the board as successor to Mr. Don Garcia who is currently President of the Canadian area of the ILWU representing the longshoremen on the West Coast.
Second, with respect to facilities at the Port of Vancouver, I am pleased to advise this House and the Member that the Port of Vancouver has invested in excess of $75 million since 1983, including approximately $33 million directly and indirectly related to container handling and distribution.
Present operational container crane and shore-side equipment has the capacity to handle an estimated 325,000, 20-foot equivalent units per year. This will be substantially increased when terminally handling equipment now on order by the terminal contractors becomes operational in mid-1987. The through-put in 1986 was 222,781 20-foot equivalent units, thus indicating that Vancouver already has additional capacity in excess of 100,000 20-foot equivalent units annually.
Finally, the Vancouver Port Corporation has estimated its capital requirements over the next five years to be $75 million, which will be funded from port operations. This includes provision for additional container handling equipment as demand develops.


REFUGEES-DEPORTATION OF IRANIAN FROM UNITED STATES. (B) REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF MINISTERIAL PERMIT
Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to review a question that I asked the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) in the House last December, 1986. The question involves the case of one Mr. Moatanedi, a 25 year-old Iranian student who is presently in the United States pending deportation to Iran.
The question of the matter revolves around the issue that the Canadian Government does not wish to extend a hand of humanity to this one individual who faces certain persecution and probably death as soon as he touches the tarmac in Iran.
There is a community in eastern Canada in the Province of Nova Scotia that is willing to sponsor this individual. There are individuals across Canada who have written and phoned the Minister over the course of the last two months. We have a policy where we recruit some 12,000 refugees from around the world. We have 6,000 additional refugees who are supported and sponsored by communities in Canada. We have ministerial permits that are granted to individuals who merit special consideration because of their special circumstances, and yet we have this one individual who is looking to Canada for assistance and looking to Canada to stay his eventual departure from the United States, a deportation that was already attempted once. En route to Iran the plane stopped in Paris
Adjournment Debate
and Mr. Moatanedi tried to commit suicide as opposed to facing death in Iran. The French returned him to the United States, the Americans did not even blink and are prepared to put him on a plane for the second time in under a year.
My questions to the Minister were simply why the Government was not allowing Canadians and the community of Yarmouth to sponsor this individual and give the green light. If the Government did not wish to allow a community or a group of individuals to sponsor this man why could the Minister not find something within his department to extend a special ministerial permit, given the very special circumstances of this 25 year-old.
My office was in touch with this individual's lawyer in Washington today and she confirmed for the record once again that this individual is still in hospital in Washington waiting for Canada to extend its arms to him if the United States maintains its original position.
At the time I asked the Minister the question, he gave me a number of reasons why he could not do it, why the individual was not a bona fide refugee and why his papers were not in order. The answers to those questions were certainly inadequate. I look forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary provide Canadians, and particularly the sponsors in eastern Canada, with an update as to where the Government stands vis-a-vis Mr. Moatanedi's case and what he can look forward to if anything at all from Canadians.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to add to the reply given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) on December 1.
As the Hon. Member is aware, Mr. Moatamedi was admitted to the United States in 1978 at the age of 17 as a foreign student. In 1981, he married an American citizen and held a job in that country until his student visa expired in the summer of 1984. On his return from Mexico in the fall of 1984, he was apprehended by the United States Immigration Services and he asked for asylum in that country at the hearing to review his deportation order. He was later refused asylum in the United States and a deportation order against him was maintained in April 1986 to force him to return to Iran.
His desperate act during a stopover in Paris postponed his return to Iran since the French authorities decided to send him back to the United States where he has since been detained in a psychiatric centre.
As the Hon. Member already knows, the case of this man has been reviewed in depth by Canadian visa officers in Washington to determine whether he could be admitted to Canada as a refugee under the terms of the convention. For the information of the House, both Canada and the United

January 22, 1987
Adjournment Debate
States are signatory countries of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugee status and the related 1967 Protocol. The visa officers evaluated the request of Mr. Moatamedi, but based on the individual merits of this case, it was established that his claim for refugee status was unfounded.
As you already know, the Minister of State for Immigration subsequently refused Mr. Moatamedi a ministerial permit which would have admitted him to Canada since there were not sufficient humanitarian reasons to justify such a claim as this case was under the jurisdiction of the American authorities. The United States Immigration Services have continued to pressure for the deportation of Mr. Moatamedi and had been expecting to expel him from the United States as early as January 7, 1987. However, in the meantime, there have been two major developments which could allow the American authorities to reverse their stand in favour of Mr. Moatamedi. First, the representative in Canada of the United States High Commission for Refugees advised Mr. Weiner on December 31, 1986, that his organization had decided to grant Mr. Moatamedi refugee status under the terms of the Convention because of all the publicity his case had received in Canada. The representative of this organization in the United States confirmed his agreement with this decision and so informed the lawyer of the claimant who then requested that United
States Immigration Appeal Commission defer execution of the deportation order of her client.
Mr. Moatamedi's lawyer is expected to submit to this Board an application for review in order for this applicant's case to be presented again to the U.S. Immigration and, for this purpose, she will advise the board members of the decision rendered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that Mr. Moatamedi is now deemed by the representatives of this organization in the United States to be a refugee under the convention.
We are waiting for a final decision from the United States Immigration Appeal Board and we hope that the decision rendered by the High Commissioner will bring about a favourable solution to this matter which continues to come under the American authorities.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 23, 1987