1987-01-27

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, yesterday after Question Period I granted interviews to the media in the customary manner outside the doors of the House of Commons. During the course of conversations with journalists they queried me concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure with respect to the registration of paid lobbyists, which report is to be tabled later today in the House of Commons. While 1 refrained from referring specifically to the report, during my remarks on the general theme of the registration of lobbyists I may have inadvertently revealed some of the contents of the report to the media. After reviewing press clippings this morning, Mr. Speaker, I recognized one of the comments as being mine.
If my colleagues on the committee feel such is the case, as I understand it is at least in the one case, I apologize to the House, and more particularly to the Chairman of the committee, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), and to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish) and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) with whom I have worked on this committee. More than anything else, I want the report to be adopted in the nonpartisan reform manner which characterized our committee's very fruitful deliberation.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the House that we are happy to accept the Member's apology for his good wishes toward the committee, for the work that we have done in the past and for the work that we will continue to do in the future.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I will not sit here and let my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) take full responsibility for any inadvertent remarks. Yesterday after Question Period I, too, was accosted by a Mr. Iain Hunter from The Ottawa Citizen who wanted to get a copy of the report from me. I said that I could not give him a copy of the report because we had agreed that the matter would be dealt with at the press conference today. He then went on to question me about my response to the whole question of registering lobbyists and I discussed the matter in general. He
may have taken from my comments to him remarks which then found their way into his articles in the paper.
I want to say to my friend that I, too, was in the same situation and I apologize to our chairman if anything that I may have said that was misinterpreted by Mr. Hunter in his article. I believe that our report got unanimous agreement in the committee. That took some doing because we spanned the political spectrum from somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan to Karl Marx.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I sincerely hope nothing I said could throw any shadow on the fine work we did together as a committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank all Hon. Members, certainly the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for coming into the Chamber and making the statement that he has made. I compliment the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) for his response, and I thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) for his contribution.
I might say to all Hon. Members that this is a signal, a salutary example of how these matters ought to be settled among Hon. Members in this Chamber. I thank Hon. Members for their co-operation and good sense of propriety as to what this place is all about.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Just before I start my statement, Mr. Speaker, as the oldest living inhabitant of this place, I would just like to say that I have heard proceedings for many, many years and I want to congratulate the Members who have just made statements. That kind of sentiment makes this place a better place in which to live and work. I congratulate the Members on the attitude they have taken and for what they have said. What they did is very admirable, indeed.
I rise to inform the House of a very unfortunate incident involving loss of several microfiche sheets in the mail. The facts are quite straightforward.

January 27, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Every month for the past 10 years, the Veterans Affairs head office has been forwarding standard pension payment information to our 31 district offices across Canada. The information is used by these offices to answer any questions disability pensioners may have about their cheques. It is a simple but very valuable service for pensioners. I was informed on January 9 that two of the 31 parcels forwarded from Charlottetown, and containing the data on the December cheque release, had been delivered in damaged condition. Worse, some of the contents were missing.
An investigation conducted by Veterans Affairs and Canada Post found no indication whatsoever of any wrongdoing. Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The investigation found every reason to believe that the microfiche should have been packaged in a stronger container to ensure safe transmission by first-class mail. The result was that the two boxes had broken open while in transit with some of their contents falling out in the process. Even so, we took the added precaution of informing the RCMP. The RCMP advised my officials that they found no evidence to suspect that the loss of the microfiche was in any way intentional.
1 would like to set out very briefly just what readable information is on these cards, and that is as follows: the pensioner's name, the name of the spouse and any dependent children, the service number, the amount of the cheque and the mailing address. In addition, and for a maximum of 10 per cent of the pensioners, the Social Insurance Number is given because that number corresponds to the pensioner's service number. However, the majority of the entries on the microfiche are coded and therefore of no value to an unauthorized person. A complete set would provide information on approximately 144,000 pensioners, and slightly less than a complete set is not accounted for.
While I am personally convinced that the information on these cards cannot be used to anyone's detriment, I fully acknowledge the seriousness of this matter. Indeed, I feel very badly that it has happened. It is one thing to make a mistake; it is even worse to know that the mistake could and perhaps even should have been foreseen and thereby prevented. Put simply, this material should not have been distributed in the way it was.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this material will not be distributed that way in the future. This method of distribution has been stopped and more secure methods will be found to permit us to continue this very important service for pensioners. In the meantime, steps have been taken to make sure that pensioners are not inconvenienced in any way. The two methods we will be using will be Telex and computer link-up.
I have prepared a very detailed information package concerning this matter and it will be distributed to every Member, every Senator and the news media immediately after I conclude this statement.
As a final point, and although I am satisfied that the information appearing on these cards cannot be used for improper purposes, I was furious when I learned about the incident. There is, however, a positive side to all of this. For 10 years, personal information on pensioners has been distributed to Veterans Affairs district offices in this manner. No one had any reason to believe that it was not secure because nothing like this, to the very best of our knowledge, had ever occurred before. We are now fully aware of the risks the department was unknowingly taking and this gives us the opportunity to safeguard our veterans' interests by tightening security and making as certain as humanly possible that this never happens again. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and all Hon. Members that we will make absolutely certain that veterans will continue to receive the good service they have come to expect and fully deserve.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, as the Official Opposition critic for Veterans Affairs, I first want to thank the Minister for having informed me of this incident which, fortunately, will have no serious consequences.
I think the Minister acted responsibly by making his statement before the House, not outside the House or to the press. I think he deserves to be congratulated and that his colleagues would do well to follow his example. Statements on incidents involving departments, whether they involve the Department of Veterans Affairs or any other department, should be made here in the House.
Nevertheless, one wonders what is going on, because Revenue Canada lost some microfiche not long ago. In addition, the Auditor General has criticized the Department of Veterans Affairs about overpayments, and today, we are told some microfiche were lost.
I realize it is not necessarily a matter of incompetence, but there was certainly negligence, because generally speaking a Minister is responsible for what goes on in his department. That is why Ministers must always be vigilant and monitor what is going on in their departments. They have that responsibility and cannot leave it to someone else.
In this particular incident, while part of the responsibility lies with the Department of Veterans Affairs, I realize that Canada Post has a far greater responsibility than the Department.
At Canada Post, mail delivery has been chaotic in recent years. For instance, a letter sent from Ottawa to Hull has to be routed via Montreal. This is absolutely crazy. We know what happened to mail sent from the main post office on Prince Edward Island. We know how the mail got lost. Fortunately, as I said, there was no confidential information. Everything was coded. Be that as it may, I do want to congratulate the Minister again for having selected other means to route the microfiche or the necessary information to regional offices in Canada, for the simple reason that we can no longer rely on

January 27, 1987

Canada Post. The Minister opted for telex, which 1 think is far more reliable.
Speaking of Canada Post, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and Canadian businessmen have been complaining about poor mail delivery, especially business mail. We are getting letters and telephone calls daily about this.
So I want to congratulate the Minister on having selected another means of delivering the microfiche to the 31 regional offices of Veterans Affairs Canada.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the Minister's statement. I trust that with his political experience, he will be able to deal satisfactorily with this problem and will deal as quickly with any other problems that may arise in his department. I hope the other Ministers will take a leaf from the Minister's book in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister and I want to thank him for having acted as responsibly as he did by making this statement before the House today.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I too want to thank the Minister and his office for making me aware of this particular problem yesterday and for giving me the opportunity to discuss with the Minister the type of information that was stored on this microfiche. I found it refreshing as well that as soon as the Minister found out about this, he immediately ordered a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding this particular incident.
I am also assured that the information contained on the microfiche is such that the veterans and their families should not be concerned about its confidentiality. It is very limited in the information it provides. Veterans and their families should have no great concern about personal information which may be lying around out there and which could be a threat to their privacy and security.
I had the opportunity of reading the chronological sequence of events which took place between December 17 when those packages were mailed out, and January 13 when the Minister was informed. It seemed to me as I read through these events that the Minister should have been informed by his officials long before he was. I am sure the Minister has made known his views to his officials. I am also quite interested in why it took between December 29, a Monday-and I can appreciate that the festive season was involved-and January 15, some 18 days, before the RCMP were asked to investigate. It seems to me to be far too long before the police investigation was conducted.
In conclusion, personal information on Canadians which is stored in computers has to be secure. There have been incidents over the past several months which clearly indicate that security in all government Departments requires some reexamination. While I fully appreciate the efforts of the
Petitions
Minister as soon as it came to his attention to make sure everything was done to protect veterans and their families, I would also say to other Ministers of the Crown, let this be an example. If they have not already done so, I seriously urge them to sit down with their department officials responsible for information stored in computers and make damn sure the information is secure. This is for the protection of not only government departments but individual Canadians who could be seriously affected, in circumstances other than the present one, by a violation of privacy.
Again, congratulations to the Minister, and on that note I will not say anything else.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. The report is presented as a result of the Government's discussion paper entitled "Lobbying and the Registration of Paid Lobbyists", which was referred to the committee in February of 1986. Our work was interrupted by the summer recess and the termination of the first session of this Parliament. However, through hard work and long hours we grappled with the subject, and I am pleased to tell you that the report I place before the House today, recommending the implementation of a registration system for paid lobbyists, has the unanimous support of the representatives on the committee from all Parties of this House.
I would like to especially thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) and the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish) for their important contribution to this work, along with two staff members, the Clerk of the Committee, Sandy Birch, and Mr. Bruce Carson from the Library of Parliament. All of those individuals have allowed us to come together with a unanimous report which I think is both topical and significant.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.)


PETITIONS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from a large number of people in Scarborough, Pickering, Agincourt, Whitby and

January 27, 1987
Petitions
Toronto. They wish to petition the House of Commons to rescind a tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations. The petition is presented because of a Bill before this House which they hope will be rejected.
I have another petition from Canadians living in Toronto and Scarborough who also wish to express their concern about rising book prices which has placed a strain on library book acquisition programs. They are particularly concerned because of their association with libraries and feel the Bill before the House will threaten those libraries and their ability to provide an adequate library service to Canadians.
I have another petition from residents of Don Mills, Ontario, and the City of North York. They are concerned about the retaliatory tariff on imported books which the Government has raised and which endangers the book publishing business, book sellers and distributors. They wish to express their discontent with this Bill and therefore humbly petition this House of Commons to rescind the Bill.


Roland de Corneille: I also have a petition signed by Canadians from Rainy River in northern Ontario and other places. They call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians. They are concerned about the changes to the Patent Act and the problems to be faced by senior citizens and others who will have to pay higher prices for prescription drugs than would otherwise be the case if the Bill were not passed by this House.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my duty to present-

-petitions which ask the Government of Canada to withdraw the tariff on books. Whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited access of Canadians to literature and information, and whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry in the U.S. yet penalizes Canadian consumers, book publishers, sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book publishing industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of the ongoing free trade negotiations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have two petitions concerning the Government's proposed legislation that will increase the price of drugs.

The petitioners humbly submit that the proposed changes to the Patent Act affect directly all Canadians not protected by private or government medicare programs. The federal government proposal will raise the cost, already high, of provincial health care programs. The monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and result in increased drug prices. It will also severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act represent another example of Canadian Government concessions in the free trade negotiations with the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 the attached petition is certified correct. It contains 350 signatures and is in tandem with the one presented by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) which contained 8,000 signatures.
The undersigned protest in the strongest terms a ruling by the Immigration Appeal Board to permit John Michael Lewis, a convicted child molester, to remain in Canada. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request this ruling be overturned forthwith and demand his immediate deportation to the United States of America.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which contains several dozen names from various communities in Ontario, protesting the imposition of the retaliatory tariff on English language books which the Government imposed last year in response to the cedar shakes and shingles countervail duty imposed by the United States. These petitioners outline that it will have a very negative impact upon the publishing industry and will penalize Canadian consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors, and Canadian culture generally. It will also place a real strain upon the budgets of the nation's public and specialized libraries. They call upon the Government to rescind this 10 per cent duty which is strictly retaliatory and really hurts Canadians more than the Americans it was designed to retaliate against.
January 27, 1987


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition with several dozen names of Canadian citizens in various communities in western and eastern Canada. They protest the Government's decision to amend the Patent Act, which will have an adverse impact upon the price of drugs, especially for elderly Canadians or senior citizens and those covered by drug programs. It will also reduce the competition by generic companies and will thus raise unnecessarily the price of prescription drugs to Canadians.
It is also pointed out by these petitioners that these changes to the Patent Act are being done as a concession in the free trade negotiations. Of course the impact is negative upon all Canadians, whereas the concessions under free trade will not necessarily be of any benefit to Canadians.
I hope the Government will respond in a positive way to these petitioners who are asking for a change in these decisions by the Government.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to present a petition which has been certified correct as to form and content. It is signed by a number of residents of the City of Toronto who state that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of the average Canadian to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a duly certified petition from a number of Canadians concerned about changes to the Patent Act. They see these changes resulting in higher drug prices both for individuals and for provincial drug plans. They also see them as another form of Canada granting concessions to the United States. They call upon Parliament to reject these proposed changes, which I sincerely hope Parliament will do.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table some of the thousands of signatures on petitions obtained in the City of Windsor in opposition to the Patent Act amendments which would drive up the prices of drugs for Canadians and impose a heavier burden upon taxpayers, primarily in the interests of the profitmaking of multinational drug companies and in obedience to the direction of the Americans. With that, I table this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, this petition, and that petition from the City of Windsor.


An Hon. Member:: Can't you count?


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, and indeed an honour, to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 concerning the changes the
Starred Questions
Government plans to make to the Patent Act. The petitioners indicate that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They call upon the Government to come to its senses and reject the proposals in their tracks before the legislation continues any further. Indeed, they go on to say that the proposed changes are simply another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, in its attempt to continue free trade negotiations.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to submit two petitions. One is from residents of Bristol, Shawville, Norway, Portage du Fort, and neighbouring communities who wish to express their desire that the Government reconsider the measures it is proposing to take in changing the Patent Act which, as we all know, will result in increased costs of drugs, prescription medicine, and the like.

Mr. Speaker, the other petition is signed by people from the town of Berthier and the riding of Bellechasse. They ask the Government of Canada to reconsider proposed amendments that would lead to an increase in the price of drugs, and they humbly pray that Parliament will reject this proposal that will increase the price of drugs for Canadian men and women.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition consisting of another 250 names from my constituents in Essex-Windsor who are deeply concerned about indications from the Government that there are serious plans afoot to give up the safeguards in the Auto Pact. This would severely threaten the jobs of thousands of Essex County and Windsor workers, as well as the economic prosperity of the region. Therefore, these petitioners call upon the Government to reject completely any give-away of the safeguard provisions of the Auto Pact in the free trade talks with the United States.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to call Starred Question No. 58.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. *58-Mr. St. Julien:
[Stage Direction]
January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
1.	From January 1, 1980, to date, what were Canadian National's revenues and expenditures with regard to the (a) Chapais subdivision (from Franquet to Chapais and Chibougamau, mile 72.1 to mile 199.1) (b) Taschereau subdivision (from La Sarre to Cochrane, Ontario, mile 99.0 to mile 181.0) (c) Val d'Or subdivision (from Senneterre to Val d'Or, Malartic and Noranda, mile 00.0 to mile 101.5) sections of line?
2.	Did the government spend any money closing down CN lines in the Abitibi region during the same period and, if so, in what amounts?
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	Information regarding revenues and expenditures by subdivision, including those in the Abitibi area, is considered confidential and, for marketing reasons, cannot be communicated.
2.	No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes, beginning at one o'clock today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 26, 1987, 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. McDermid (p. 2601).
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I was unceremoniously interrupted by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who did not seem to appreciate the fact that we are trying to make him see the light with respect to the situation as it relates to Bill C-37.
As I was saying, the agreement on softwood lumber has no bearing whatsoever on Canada's sovereignty. Opposition Members have been unable to come up with any kind of solution to this question, and they are trying to convince Canadians that our sovereignty is on the line. That is utter nonsense because, pursuant to the provisions of the agreement, any information we might give the United States will be known to the public, and American officials will not have to come up here to check the facts.
The signing of this agreement is a major achievement. Compared with a suspension agreement, this settlement is infinitely more preferable. As in the case of a suspension agreement, the money remains in Canada, but what matters more is that it spares us the irksome control of the provinces' forestry management methods that would result from a suspension agreement.
The Opposition just cannot understand that if a countervailing duty had been imposed as we feared, and I hope all Hon. Members realize that, the forest industry would have had to assume the double burden of a tariff and an increased stumpage fee, for the only way for us to get rid of a countervailing duty would have been to increase stumpage fees to the point where the United States Department of Trade would unilaterally decide that the alleged subsidy was compensated for.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition assuredly understands nothing, absolutely nothing about the softwood lumber issue and the benefits which this agreement will have for forestry workers in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the definition of a specialist given by Mr. Guy Antoine Lafleur, professor of political science at Laval University, applies perfectly well to our Opposition friends, and I quote: "I am very suspicious of specialists, for a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less, until he reaches the point where he knows everything about nothing."
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this remark applies perfectly well to members opposite who are really trying to convince Canadians that this lumber agreement does not benefit Canada, when the fact is that it is altogether beneficial to the forestry workers and industry.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-37 and the motion moved by the Government. I was interested in the comments made by the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) because he has obviously swallowed hook, line and sinker, the Government's position that this agreement really does not infringe on Canada's sovereignty. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to read statements made by Maxwell Cohen, one of Canada's foremost experts on international law who was a judge on the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine resource dispute and a former Canadian Chairman of the International Joint Commission. He stated in the Ottawa Citizen on January 3:
The lumber deal is a dangerous precedent that threatens Canadian sovereignty-
He goes on to say:
It is a strange procedure to allow someone to monitor our own stuff.
And:
They maintained the unilateralness of something that is joint in effect because the Americans have a right to know everything about Canada's activity, information or anything else.
January 27, 1987

Edward English, a professor of economics at Carleton University, also stated in the Ottawa Citizen on January 3:
Natural resources are a birthright that should not be surrendered to any foreign government.
He goes on to say:
They are taking the same attitude that they do with the Soviets. That shows that the atmosphere of suspicion in Washington isn't restricted to East-West relations.
The Hon. Member should also take note of the comment by Robin Neill, an economic historian who said in the Ottawa Citizen on January 3, 1987:
Even if Canada lost the case it would be better to take its hit now rather than gamble with the country's sovereignty for years to come.
If the Hon. Member does not believe those eminent individuals, he may want to listen to what Alberta's Don Getty said on January 5:
Any tax on a provincial resource we feel very srongly must be the result of a federal-provincial agreement and we won't be part of any agreement that is not.
If the Hon. Member for Portneuf read those quotes he might not have been nearly as certain that our sovereignty is not being impaired.
We should also consider the letter from Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary of Commerce in the United States and Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, which was obviously prepared and ready to be sent the day of the signing of the agreement. In their joint letter to Stanley Dennison, chairman of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports-perhaps unfair pricing for Canadians-they make it clear that Canada does not stipulate how the funds to be raised by this export tax will be spent. Any arrangements to transfer those funds to the provincial Governments or to transfer tax from a federal export tax to a provincial stumpage tax must be approved by the U.S. Government. Item four of the letter from Mr. Yeutter and Mr. Baldrige states that the United States:
-would have to approve any changes in the export charge or calculation of the value of any replacement measures. Any changes made without U.S. Government approval would be considered a violation of the Understanding.
Does that sound like a sovereign country that will call its own shots with regard to natural resources?
Our natural resources, under our Constitution since about 1931, are the property of the provincial Governments.
The letter signed by Mr. Baldrige and Mr. Yeutter goes on to say that under this agreement the export charge which is being collected for Canada must not be used for any purpose such as a rebate, remission, deferral or non-collection of the export charge. It must not reduce in any way the price of stumpage or other charges on softwood lumber harvested from provincial Crown lands. The letter points out that the awarding of contracts for silviculture, road-building, recreational and other foresting activities is on a non-competition basis.
That is frightening enough, but the United States has made it very clear that not only is it going to control how that money
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
collected is spent under this agreement-and there will be some $550 million to $600 million-but it is also going to control how that export charge is transferred to a stumpage charge.
The forest products industry in my constituency, and we have some of the largest mills in eastern Canada, asks how it can operate. It does not make $550 million or $600 million. How can it pay the tax and still have any profit without making cut-backs? I think the Tories are going to find that the export level to the United States will be severely dampened by this export tax. Although the Canadian forestry companies want to maintain their market share in the United States, they will not maintain it indefinitely if they are losing money. A few companies in my constituency have said they are switching to more hardwood operation and laying off shifts in the softwood operation. They want to monitor the situation but are not going to ship nearly as much to the U.S.
There are two factors over and above this development. Although the present situation is bad, it may very well get a lot worse. The Hon. Member for Porneuf is obviously not aware of this. The United States is demanding that when the export tax is transferred to a stumpage charge, the stumpage fees charged by the provincial Governments will match the percentage or volume of softwood lumber which goes into exports to the United States, We cannot impose a stumpage charge just on the trees which are used for export to the United States, the stumpage charge will be applied right across the board on all trees, including the lumber from those trees which ends up being used domestically and for export to the European countries and so on.
If the industry is feeling poor today because it does not make $550 million to $600 million in profits, which is the export charge it will have to pay, it is going to feel even worse because it is going to pay a lot more. The United States has indicated it estimates that when the tax is transferred from an export tax to a stumpage charge, the actual amount of tax which will have to be imposed as a stumpage charge will increase from the $600 million to about $870 million. It is little wonder that the forest products industry is devastated by this deal. It has not only spent $10 million fighting this in the United States trade courts and tribunals, but it is now facing an export tax and then an even larger stumpage charge which will absolutely devastate that industry. It will not be able to function or make a reasonable profit.
I see this legislation as devastating. It is a bad decision by the Government and it will live to rue its decision. It will take years to make an agreement with the provincial Governments, and in the meantime our softwood lumber industry will suffer dramatically and intensively for many, many years due to this agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to think that this is the last opportunity we will have at this stage to speak to Bill C-37, an Act to impose an export tax on exporting softwood lumber to the United States,

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
because the Government has decided to, in a sense, muzzle debate. It has cut off debate on a very critical and complex issue.
An example of this complexity is reflected in today's Globe and Mail which reports: "Little progress made in the lumber tax talks". Of course, these talks are an attempt to determine how on earth the Government will convert the 15 per cent export tax into increased stumpage rates for each of the respective provinces and territories.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the United States lumber lobby claimed that the Canadian industry receives a 32 per cent stumpage subsidy as a result of the low provincial charges across Canada. These stumpage rates are charged on a province-by-province basis. They are different from one province to another. Yet somehow or other this across the board 15 per cent tax has to be integrated into changed stumpage rates. That is a very complex situation, but the Government has decided to curtail and cut off debate, to muzzle and close down debate on this critical issue in the House of Commons, therefore making it impossible for us to explore thoroughly the various complications attached to Bill C-37. I regret the Government has decided to do that.
I think we have to recognize that this action taken by the United States Government is really a back door approach to price fixing in the United States. The combines legislation of the United States prohibits price fixing by corporations. It does not allow monopoly control of the market-place, which can be done in Canada as a result of our weak and toothless combines legislation. This is a back door approach by the United States for its lumber industry to ratchet up the price of softwood and curtail competition from our industrious, creative and energetic Canadian marketeers in the United States. The sad thing is that the Government of Canada has agreed to allow the Americans to do this. While we were reinvesting in terms of modernizing our forest industry, the Americans were deinvesting in their forest industry, enabling part of its softwood industry to continue as outmoded, redundant and uncompetitive. Now, of course, they are using this back door approach to obtain their share of the marketplace which Canadian entrepreneurs and marketeers took from them as a result of our aggressive forest industry.
I do not understand why the Government has decided to cooperate with the United States on this issue, particularly after the Minister of State for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said in this House on a number of occasions that what the United States was doing was illegal and inappropriate, it had no case and it was something that Canada must fight. However, they in a sense caved in and agreed to go along with this situation. That is history now. We have to now decide on the most appropriate way to proceed at this point.
May I suggest that the Government commit itself, very publicly, that appropriate portions of the $600 million which Canada will collect from this export tax on lumber going to the United States will be returned to the provinces to reinvest
totally in our forest resource. There are a number of alternatives the Government might want to pursue.
Last weekend, after having held a number of meetings in my constituency, I came away with a list of suggestions which were put forward with respect to how my constituents feel the Government of British Columbia ought to be reinvesting this $400 million which it will receive in terms of developing the forest resource to ensure that it is maintained as a continuous resource.
One of the suggestions brought to my attention included the development of markets other than the American market. It was suggested that support be given to various private and public organizations to go out and identify and develop new markets for our softwood products. Hand-in-hand with that would be support for the retooling of some of our mills to meet the demands of these new markets, be they in the Far East, Latin American, Africa or Europe.
Another suggestion involved the whole area of reforestation. We find a rather abysmal state of affairs in certain provinces where the appropriate amount of tree planting and silviculture is completely inadequate. The Province of British Columbia certainly falls into that category. On a recent tour to Finland it was pointed out to me that for every tree that is cut in that country four trees are replanted. Then, over the years, as a result of brushing, thinning, spacing and fertilizing the poorer trees are culled, leaving one tree to grow in the best possible and most productive fashion. In Canada, for every three trees we cut down we replant only one. The replanting of that one tree is often poorly done. Consequently, even that one tree that is planted does not often see the completion of its life cycle.
Apart from money going into reforestation and various silviculture practices we would certainly want to see money invested in brushing, thinning and spacing, fertilization, the development of nurseries and the putting in place of an infrastructure to ensure that appropriate stocks are available for replanting at various elevations, as is required in provinces such as British Columbia.
It was also suggested that money be invested in pest and fire control techniques and methods. In central British Columbia at this time there is an infestation of spruce budworm which is affecting 500,000 hectares. There is now something other than chemical spraying to contain and control the continuation of such infestations. Specifically, the biological agent BT is being used. Now that there will be adequate moneys at our disposal, control of infestations of this type of pest can be contemplated.
Also, money which is collected from the export tax ought to go into research and development into new and improved techniques for disease and pest control and for the development of more sophisticated fire control techniques. There are a variety of excellent measures that can and must be taken to follow up on the $600 million that the provinces will now have
January 27, 1987

at their disposal to ensure the long-term continuation of our forest resource.
I have become concerned about this matter because of the recent musings of the Premier of British Columbia who was quoted as saying that he did not know whether or not all of the $400 million would be reinvested in the forest industry. He has said that the Government of British Columbia might decide to use this money for other purposes. We saw a similar situation take place with respect to the amount of money the federal Government has given the Province of British Columbia for health care and post-secondary education. We find that the province has taken these funds and diverted them into all sorts of projects that are perhaps more visible and more politically advantageous. We simply do not want to see that happen in this case.
In closing, I would say that, while we are disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to continue debate at this stage on Bill C-37, we hope the Government will be steadfast in ensuring that the $600 million collected from this lumber export tax goes to the respective provinces and that they, too, commit the money to investment in the development of the forest resource.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 implements a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States that is a disaster and a defeat. I say this not only because of what so many others who are knowledgeable on the subject have said but because all one has to do is cite Clause 6 of the agreement to come to the same conclusion. If one looks at Clause 6 one will see that it states the following:
The Government of Canada will take no action, and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that no other governmental body in Canada takes any action, directly or indirectly, which has the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charge or replacement measures-
That phrase alone indicates the completeness of the prohibition of the Government of Canada on the taking of steps within our own country to bring about some amelioration of suffering or of the unfair impact this agreement will have on various aspects of our lumber industry, or other industries that are related to it.
In a letter dated December 30, 1986, from the U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter and the Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports they identify seven different types of Canadian government assistance to the industry that the United States will not accept. In fact, not only have they been kind enough to sign an agreement with us telling what we cannot do, they have also made it clear to their American counterparts that they have seen to it we are bound hand and foot. In this letter they make that clear. It also serves as a warning to Canada that this is an all-encompassing understanding and agreement. The United States will monitor it and see to it that Canada will not go beyond or impede any limitations set upon us.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
What is it that the Americans will not accept? They will not accept anywhere from Canada, either from the federal Government or the provinces, or any other body, rebates, remission or deferral of the export charge. They will not tolerate provision of grants or low-cost loans. They will not allow exemption from other federal or provincial charges. They will not accept assumption of obligations currently borne by the industry reduction of stumpage fees, changes in the way that the volume of timber harvest is measured, and the noncompetitive awarding of contracts for silviculture, roadbuilding, recreational and other foresting activities. My goodness, they will even watch over our shoulders to see what we are doing recreationally. They will look to see that we do not do anything in our own recreational fields that would impair, impede or have anything to do with the forest agreement.
We are told that Canada and the provinces will provide full and complete privileges to the United States in order for it to monitor our forest industry on a quarterly basis. The Americans will come up here every quarter and go through our books, check us out, to ensure that we are abiding by their rules. That is the promise that has been made. We will be under surveillance as a result of this agreement. We also find that the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has taken away from the provinces the right to govern their own resources.
While this is a disastrous agreement from the very terms which I have cited, it has been estimated by the Canadian Forest Industries Council that this tax will eventually cost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the current Canadian production, that is, $600 million in 1987, and between 15,000 and 17,000 jobs. Therefore, it is simple to conclude that even an ordinary citizen who listens to the terms of the agreement which have been made would be stunned to think that we would agree to such a surveillance and to such a form of humiliation. But those who are more sophisticated in working with those matters find that there is a much stronger condemnation than I made. The Government knows that the condemnations exist. That is why it has moved to choke off debate in the House of Commons. That is why it has said that the previous question shall be now put, a parliamentary manoeuvre to stifle debate and cut it off, similar in effect to closure. It knows if the Canadian people have the facts and the truth about this agreement brought to their attention powerfully enough and long enough, Canadians will scream out with outrage and will not allow this Bill to be carried on in this hurried way. Of course, the Government wishes to hurry away this embarrassment, this sell-out.
Sir Winston Churchill was allowed to rise day after day in the British House of Commons to warn Britain that Chamberlain was selling out to Hitler. In this House of Commons we are muzzled as we warn Canadians that we are being sold out by a Government with no sense of direction, that is stumbling and staggering around, and which cannot find resolve to

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
defend our sovereignty. A quick fix for a few dollars is more important to the Government than our national survival, our credibility and honour, and our ability to manoeuvre our sovereignty.
This agreement has been condemned by people such as Dean Maxwell Cohen, who is one of our great international lawyers. Over the decades, he has helped Canada negotiate agreements such as the agreement on the sea, the matter of the extension of our limits to 200 miles. He has been involved in Canadian efforts to guarantee, protect, and uphold our sovereignty in international courts. He does not speak out in a rash way, but he has said:
The lumber deal is a dangerous precedent that threatens Canadian sovereignty-
In that one sentence is the condemnation of what has been done.
Mr. Adam Zimmerman, chairman of a major resource-based company, Noranda Inc., looking at it from his perspective of private enterprise says that if the agreement is an indication of what is in store, Canada is "bound hand and foot and tied to a tree."
Others in this country who hold responsible positions, for example, Premiers of our provinces, have spoken out. The Premier of Ontario in reviewing what has been done to us through this agreement stated that "They will have the thumb screws on us, the Americans. They will have the thumb screws on us at all times. If we don't behave, they will put the blocks to us. I don't like that".
It is not only the Premier of Ontario, David Peterson, who has spoken out, so has Mr. Pauley, the Premier of Manitoba. One is a Liberal, the other is an NDP. Then we hear Brian Peckford, who is enraged by another sell-out, the sell-out to France by this Government and he says:
Apparently, when France rattles its swords, Canada bends lits knees-
Mr. Peckford is a Tory. Therefore, a Liberal, NDP, and a Tory Premier have this same observation, that the Government does not know how to negotiate. Peterson, Pawley, and Peckford, these three Premiers speak out as to what they feel is happening.
Do I need to recount for people's minds what the Government has done in its track record of negotiations on fish, hogs, FIRA, the national energy policy, the polar sea ice-breaker, Star Wars, shakes and shingles, defending our culture, acid rain, caving into multinationals on patents and on the matter of the cost of drugs which is so important to medicare, and on the Auto Pact? Peterson, Pawley, and Peckford say it for us all this Government has brought to us nothing but compromise and appeasement. It is time not merely that this Bill be turned around, but that the Government's entire policy be turned around if Canada is going to survive.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-37 entitled the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.
I have had an opportunity to read both the Bill and the Letters of Understanding on this export tax that were signed by the Government with the United States Government. I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will be interested in a quote of something said in the House some years ago by Tommy Douglas, who was once the Premier of Saskatchewan, and subsequently the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa. What Tommy Douglas said at one time is equally appropriate in describing what the Government has negotiated with the United States Government. What Mr. Douglas said was, "It's bad enough to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, but it's even worse when someone else decides how much wood you will hew and how much water you will be allowed to carry." That is exactly what the Government has done in these negotiations.
At the conclusion of the negotiations the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in her attempt to justify the actions of the Government to Canadians said that Canada had received a good deal because the American negotiators had blinked. I am not surprised that the American negotiators blinked. They could not believe their good luck at what the Government had negotiated.
Tommy Douglas also had something to say about that type of attitude from Canada Government officials. When a Canadian came away from discussions with the United States thinking that he had received the best part of the deal, he said: "When a Yankee trader tells you that you are a tough negotiator, you know you have been taken to the cleaners." The Canadian people have been taken to the cleaners by the Government, and not for the first time.
In looking at the conduct of the Government in these negotiations, and coming here with a background of some 17 years of experience in labour-management negotiations, I have never seen a party enter negotiations by giving away the store before the negotiations begin. That is exactly what the Government has done. Before it started negotiating with the Americans, it began negotiating with itself. In the process, it has sold Canada down the river and, as I say, not for the first time. Even before the negotiations began, the Americans, on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry in the United States, demanded that Canada change its policy on patent law insofar as pharmaceutical products were concerned. We know what the result of that is. There is now a Bill in committee which gives the American multinational drug companies everything they ever wanted, and more than that.
The history of Canada's policy on pharmaceutical products is a policy that was demanded by Canadians prior to 1969, and it has found a broad section of support since that policy was changed. Since 1969 there has been no patent protection for pharmaceutical products in Canada, which has resulted in reducing drug prices for Canadians to among the cheapest in the world, whereas prior to 1969 Canadians were paying some of the highest prices for drugs.
January 27, 1987

The policy adopted in 1969, which the Goverment is trying to change today, did not come about by accident. It came about as a result of great concerns expressed by Canadians about the high cost of drugs. It also came about as a result of no less than four studies during the 1960s, including the last one which was a study by a House of Commons committee comprised of members from all sides of the House. Canadians were paying such high prices for drugs, the committee concluded, because the multinational corporations enjoyed a monopoly on drug pricing, which monopoly was driving up prices and keeping them up.
What the Government of the day decided to do, based on the recommendations from these four major studies, was to remove patent protection from drugs to allow Canadian generic manufacturers to enter the field and copy high-priced drugs, thus providing Canadians with lower priced drugs.
Since 1969, as a result of pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, no less than another four studies were conducted into Canada's policy. Everyone concluded that Canada's policy was a correct one. It was certainly of great benefit to Canadian consumers. The last study, which was one of the most major examinations of Canada's policy respecting the Patent Act and also a major investigation into the pharmaceutical industry not only in Canada but world-wide, was conducted by Professor Harry Eastman. Professor Eastman tabled his report in the House of Commons in 1985 and concluded a number of things. In the most recent figures available to him he clearly showed that in 1983 alone Canadians saved $211 million as a result of Canada's policy. He made some minor recommendations to keep the multinational drug companies happy. In essence, he said that Canada's policy was fine and it should not be changed.
But what did this Government do, Mr. Speaker? Because the pharmaceutical companies could not persuade Governments since 1969 to change Canada's policy, they went after Ronnie Reagan in the United States. Ronnie Reagan listened to them, came to Canada and said to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) "We want that policy changed". That is exactly what the Government did. It changed the policy, not because it is in Canada's interest, not because it is in Canadian consumers interests but because it is in Ronnie Reagan's interest and the drug companies based in the United States.
As a result of that change in policy, Mr. Speaker, over the next 10 years alone it is estimated that it will cost Canadian consumers an additional $4.3 billion in increased drug prices because Ronnie Reagan asked the Government to change policy.
Apart from what the Government is doing with the present piece of legislation, we are changing a policy because the Americans are demanding that we change the policy and I find that terribly offensive. It is offensive to me as a Canadian, and I think most Canadians across the country find it equally as
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
offensive. If the Government does not change its course and its way of thinking as it negotiates with people in the United States on free trade, we will find what the Prime Minister himself said when he was seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party speaking about free trade, that "When you climb into bed with an elephant and you are a mouse, when that elephant rolls over, the mouse is likely to get crushed". That is exactly what will happen in these negotiations unless the crew over there smartens up.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to rise in this debate on Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products.
First, I would like to deal with the motion which aims at closing the debate before all parliamentarians have been able to express their views on this very important matter which threathens the very existence of Canada. There are only 70 members in the Opposition while the Government has 210 members. I therefore do not understand why there should be such a motion to close the debate instead of letting it continue normally.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening. The strategy of this Conservative Government is to reduce the length of debates both in the House and in committee, and we had a very clear example of it this morning. In the Committee on Government Operations, a motion was moved to call back Canada Post before the committee, but the chairman ruled the motion out of order because a witness was scheduled to appear. Then, there was an agreement to hear the witness before the debate on the motion, but later on, when time came for debate, there was not a single Conservative member left in the committee and it had to adjourn because of a lack of quorum.
Such is the strategy used by the Government so that Canadians will be unable to see how it is selling out Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that the two major objectives of the Canadian Confederation were to protect sovereignty and deliver the mail. These two objectives are being ignored by this Government. The agreement under consideration in the House completely ignores Canadian sovereignty, and since November 5, when we learned about the postal plan of the Government, the mail delivery service in Canada has suffered tremendously, in both rural and urban areas.
However, this debate deals with Bill C-37 and there will be other opportunities to contribute to this other debate which is now going on throughout Canada, and I hope that we shall have such an opportunity in this House.
Let us go back to the question of sovereignty, Mr. Speaker. I would like to dwell on that, because representing as I do an urban area my constituents are not that much interested in the technical problems behind such an agreement.

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Mr. Speaker, sovereignty is something that is most important to my fellow citizens and to myself. I would like to state, first, that I am a Canadian by adoption and not by birth. 1 came to this country when I was 16. That was my choice. After coming here, I decided to stay and to make this my country. I am proud of it. Today, when we see what a foreign government is allowed to do, and it is a foreign country even though we are friends of the United States! Are we to give away everything because we are friends? Or will we defend our own rights, Mr. Speaker? There is the whole question.
Today, we let the United States interfere in our own affairs, and require us to levy taxes. If tomorrow morning the United States-they did that before-decide they are against unemployment insurance coverage for our fishermen, are we going to stop paying UI benefits to our Atlantic fishermen during our Canadian winter? If the United States decide they are against unemployment insurance being paid during maternity leave, are we going to stop paying UI benefits during maternity leaves just because the Americans want us to do so? If the Americans decide they are against medicare in Canada, are we going to do away with medicare? If the Americans decide they are against our offering preferential interest rates on small business loans, are we going to abolish that preferential interest rate? That, Mr. Speaker, is the whole question. That is what this is all about, sovereignty. Of course, the Hon. Member said earlier today that, had we not accepted the agreement, the American Government would have levied a surtax and then the whole Canadian industry would have been penalized. Come now: that is not a sound argument. Now, every time the Americans say they will force a tax upon us, we will respond by saying we will levy it ourselves. If sovereignty is not at stake, what is?
Members say we are exaggerating, they say Liberals have no solutions. Of course we have a solution, Mr. Speaker. There is an international tribunal dealing with those matters. We should fight to the end to keep our sovereign rights as a sovereign nation. And 1 think that the Liberals have proved it in the past. We stood our ground and we got what we wanted, whereas in this case, the Conservative Government is slowly selling out the country.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Council of Forest Industries has calculated that this tax will eventually bring about the loss of some 10 to 20 per cent of present Canadian production, which will mean $600 million in 1987, and some 15,000 to 17,000 jobs. These include 6,000 jobs in sawing and sawmilling and 11,000 jobs in related and support industries.
Mr. Speaker, these are not our projections but those of the Canadian Council of Forest Industries, which is, by any standard, an important organization in this area.
According to Mr. Bob Rivard of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association, our lumber production could decline by as much as 25 percent in 1987.
As for Widman Management Ltd. of Vancouver, British Columbia, they predict that about forty sawmills will be forced to shut down.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we will not only lose our sovereignty but also drive an industry close to bankruptcy. That is what this Bill is about and the Conservative Government is so embarrassed that it will not even allow its own Members to rise and speak on the issue. We may be wrong, but if we are, why do you not stand up and say so and try to explain to the Canadian people why you are doing this, rather than keep silent, as you have been doing since this morning-and all day yesterday, as far as I can see. Are there only Liberals and New Democrats to rise and speak for Canadian sovereignty?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if the Tory Members think that such an agreement does not jeopardize our Canadian sovereignty, they should, the 210 of them, rise one after the other and say so. There is no point in introducing a closure motion to pass such a Bill. They have an absolute majority. It is incredible that in a democratic system such steps are taken and it is unfortunate that the parliamentary reform has now become a joke. How can we refer to parliamentary reform, how can we suggest that a Member has a role to play if he is prevented from speaking in the House or in committee for any reason? This morning, two members of the Opposition and four Tory Members showed up. They could have accepted and discussed the motion and if they disagreed, they could have voted against and the motion would have been rejected. However, they decided to leave and since there was no quorum, the motion was not even discussed.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government has no direction and no plan; it is only trying to sell out Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is derived from a trade issue. Of course, this issue lies within the broader and more controversial question of free trade with the United States and the concern this has brought to many of us about future implications of the free trade negotiations on Canadian sovereignty.
I need not remind the House of the history of the legislation with which we are dealing today. The Canadian softwood lumber industry has for some time competed effectively in the American market by virtue of its efficiency and adaptability. This should warn us about the Americans' future tendency to examine all of our effectively competing industries to find excuses, explaining why Canadian industries have in their own markets competed so effectively.
The history of this controversy is that the Americans reached the conclusion that Canadian softwood lumber was being subsidized by low stumpage fees. However, in 1983 the issue was fought when an attempt was made to impose a countervailing duty and we won. We need not deal with the story of bluster, threat and subsequent surrender that is the
January 27, 1987

history of the legislation before us. Nor is it necessary to review the consequences of this legislation on Canadian trading partners, other than the United States. If the export tax continues to be in force, other nations will identify this as an abrogation of GATT.
In the negotiations with the provinces, whatever substitute taxes or levies are imposed, other complications will be introduced. When looking at the agreement, one is struck by its similarity to an agreement which might be found under American law. There is constant reference to the power of the United States Government over the implementation of whatever may substitute for the export tax. The question has become one of sovereignty.
The agreement refers to the ability and, indeed, the power of the American Government to exercise its judgment over the appropriateness of whatever we might do when making arrangements with the provinces and how any money that results from any new imposition or, indeed, the export tax will be used. It has power over whether or not this money will be used to enhance the forestry industry, to retrain workers or, indeed, to build roads. What has occurred is a challenge to our sovereignty.
I am sure that when the Canadian people review the history of recent dealings with the Americans they will recall that in the life of this Government the Americans asked for and received changes in the national energy policy, a substitution of something called Investment Canada for FIRA and changes in the Patent Act that would chiefly benefit American-owned multinational drug companies.
When Canadians look back on that short period of time, they will reflect upon the fact that Gulf and Western asked for Prentice-Hall and said that if it did not get it, it would impose a scorched-earth policy. So they asked for and got Prentice-Hall.
In the same period of time an American submarine sailed merrily through our waters. They asked for and got permission without conceding the infringement upon Canadian sovereignty. We test their Cruise missiles. We obeyed them when we resigned the NORAD agreement and ignored the fact that it involved an abrogation of the ABM Treaty. If one looks at the history of the last couple of years one finds example after example of concessions to the Americans, and one must seriously ask whether there is anything left that one might refer to as sovereignty.
One of the significant issues raised by this further concession to the Americans is the question, if the Government continues in office, of whether there will be a Canada left to be concerned about sovereignty.
If one examines the export tax and the manner of its implementation, and the conflicts it occasions between the eastern provinces and the western provinces and between one kind of softwood dependent business and another, one sees a
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
contribution to another problem in this country, divisiveness between its various parts. I want to take particular note of the inequitable application of this tax as between original producers and remanufacturers.
I was surprised to find in my mail just yesterday a letter from a Windsor concern. One does not normally associate the City of Windsor with softwood lumber. One would not have thought softwood lumber would be of significant importance in that city. The letter is from Raymond Clavette, General Manager of Qualipack Wood Products in Tecumseh, my home town. It calls attention to some of the stupidity involved in the application of the export tax. He says:
Our Company, "Qualipack Wood Products Ltd." manufactures pallets and crates for the local market and we also operate a remanufacturing centre for Canadian Wholesalers shipping to the U.S. We employ 16 people and have been anticipating good growth to bring our employment up to approximately 30 people.
However, now he has discovered that this export tax is applied not only to the mill value of the lumber but on the remanufactured lumber. That includes the price of lumber f.o.b. the mill, the freight to Windsor, which I am sure you can imagine is quite considerable, the cost of remanufacturing, and the wholesalers' profit. He goes on to say:
I strongly believe that applying the tax to freight, remanufacturing, and wholesaling is totally out of line-
It is, and one must wonder how the Government could be so stupid in allowing it to apply to a category of softwood products to which it was not intended to apply.
We have heard other similar examples. There is a British Columbia firm which would normally have paid something like $350 in tax on a given lot of lumber product, and that has now become $1,000. It surely must be evident that that is an exorbitant sum which threatens the very survival of that remanufacturer, as it does some 100 other remanufacturers in this country. This is shameful and should be corrected.
We have this sad story evolving in Windsor. Mr. Clavette
says:
This type of tax on remanufactured goods would leave us no alternative but to move our operation to the U.S. since we could not compete with the U.S. remanufacturing centres under these conditions.
Windsor does not need another example of Government stupidity causing the loss of jobs in that city.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief points on Bill C-37 as it affects Atlantic Canada. When I last spoke I mentioned that there were only five companies in Atlantic Canada exempt from this tax. Most of those five companies have larger concerns. We have a great number of very small companies that tell me they are going to be hurt very badly by the imposition of this 15 per cent tax. I also pointed out the other great concern of lumber producers in Atlantic Canada regarding stumpage. Producers in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia pay the highest stumpage fees in Canada. On top of that, the companies tell me that more lumber from Quebec and Ontario is coming into the Atlantic

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
region in competition with the local producers because of this most regressive piece of legislation.
I want to refer to Clause 6 in the Memorandum of Understanding, which is a clause abo;ut which we have a lot of concern. It provides that the Government of Canada will take no action and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that no other government body in Canada takes any action, directly or indirectly, which has the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charge. That means provincial Governments, Crown corporations, and any other agency of government.
In my last speech on the Bill I mentioned how silviculture and reforestation were playing a major role in my province of Prince Edward Island and how it was very dependent upon help from both the federal and provincial Governments. Most of the land which is being returned to forestry was originally purchased by the Land Development Corporation of Prince Edward Island. The poorest class of that land, class 3, was leased to the Department of Forestry of Prince Edward Island, and in turn programs were designed by the provincial Government over the years. When I was a member of the provincial Government we started that program in conjunction with the federal Government through DREE agreements. At one time it was part of the comprehensive development plan. Since that development plan was phased out, it was part of the ordinary DREE agreements with the provinces.
I wonder what relationship clause 6 may have with future agreements with my province as far as reforestation is concerned. It is a direct subsidy which goes into the reforestation of class 3 lands. When the Americans see these agreements, I wonder whether they will say "Canada, you are breaking the	agreement, our	Memorandum	of
Understanding".
Furthermore, in early January, President Reagan pledged in writing that, "I will take action if Canada does not live up to its terms of agreement". He was referring to the agreement signed by our Government, and it was in a letter from the President to the United States forestry industry. He also said that if Canada did not live up to the terms of the agreement, action might include tariffs. This means that if any form of action is taken whatsoever to help the forestry industry, the President and the American industry will return with more tariffs. That is the way I read it.
Similarly, in the letter of December 30, 1986 to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter and Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige identified seven different types of Canadian Government assistancse to industry which the United States would not accept. These included a rebate, remission, or deferral of an export charge, provision of grants or low-cost loans, exemption from other federal or provincial government charges, assumption of obligations currently borne by the industry; reduction in stumpage or other fees, changes in the way the volume of timber harvest is measured, and noncompetitive awarding of contracts for silviculture, roadbuilding, recreation, and other forestry activities. In other words, in the interpretation of the United States Clause 6 severely limits if not outright prohibits Canada from helping the forest industry and the communities involved. This is where I have a great deal of concern about the Bill.
The forest industry in Atlantic Canada certainly needs some upgrading. The mills need help; they are not very affluent. In fact, they need a lot of help in order to upgrade their equipment and productivity. From where will they receive help? I can only say that without some of the DREE grants, or DRIE grants as they are called now, and some help from the provincial governments, many of the small operations could not improve their technology and efficiency.
I wonder how the Americans will look at some of the spraying programs of the Government of New Brunswick. What would happen to the many forests in Atlantic Canada which were hit hard by the spruce budworm if there were no spraying programs? Unless action is taken by aerial spraying or other means, we will have no forests to talk about.
These are my concerns. We have seen many things happen between our Government and the Government of the United States. We could look at fisheries and the taxes placed on fresh fish and salt cod going to the United States. We could also look at how the Government was supposed to have tremendous relations with our good neighbours south of the border. After the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) met with President Reagan at the Shamrock Summit he indicated that there would be great new innovations in the control of acid rain by the two countries. However, we have found out that once again the United States is reneging on that commitment.
Of course, the Americans are fighting a deficit situation. They are implementing a new tax Bill. They cannot spend, under legislation, a whole lot of money on some programs which are very important to Canada. Therefore, they are not adhering to their agreements. They come up here and tell the Government that they will do something. They use nice words but there is no action. We have seen much of this. We have seen the Government's reaction to Christmas tree operations. There are many very unsatisfied people in Atlantic Canada in terms of the tax which Canada placed upon the importation of American Christmas trees. It is a big industry.
I would like to refer to a letter to Mr. Jim Barkhouse from Mr. Duncan Walker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Could I ask him to conclude very briefly, please.


George Roland Henderson: I just want to put this letter on record. It is from Duncan Walker, a Christmas tree producer in Nova Scotia. He wrote about the tax and how it would affect the Christmas tree industry, a very important industry. They are here today to express their concerns to Members of Parliament. He said:



January 27, 1987

I have been a Tory all my life, but with moves like this tariff, it is becoming increasingly difficult to stay one. This is also the feeling of a large number of the Tories in the industry.
The Government is foolish if it ever thinks it will elect anyone in Atlantic Canda when it imposes user fees and taxes which once again hurt the poorest part of the country.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Hon. Member has points which he has been unable to develop fully, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House for him to expand his points about the Christmas tree industry, which are clearly important to Atlantic Canada and very much related to this matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cardiff:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.
OO)


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some of my views and those of a number of constituents and others who live in areas that are not directly involved with the lumber export tax. However, they have many concerns about the Government's incompetence in this situation and some of its implications on Canadian sovereignty.
There are some direct implications on the area of communications and culture, an area in which I work very hard. The link between the lumber industry and the free trade negotiations generally, and the health, vitality and independence of the communications and cultural sector are very important issues. Therefore, I want to examine some of the effects the export tax will have on the lumber industry and the Canadian economy as a whole.
The New Democratic Party believes that this agreement is a very dangerous assault on Canadian sovereignty. For example, the replacement of the export charge with stumpage increases can only be done through American agreement that the value of the stumpage increase alternative must be equivalent to the export charge.
While there has been considerable consensus that the stumpage, particularly in British Columbia, is low and should be increased, we take great offence to the idea that the United States should decide on the value of this resource which our Constitution regards as provincially controlled. Furthermore, this sets a dangerous precedent for other industries because the United States has identified many irritants in other industries, some of which are vital to the health and economic welfare of families and communities in Canada.
The American interpretation of the agreement specifically prohibits: "The provision of grants, low-cost loans and other benefits" to the forest industry by either the federal or provincial Governments. In other words, the Government has agreed not to extend any subsidies, as described by the
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Americans, to the forest industry which might in their view offset the export tax. The NDP and many independent experts have argued that there must be government support for modernization in the industry. There are some old mills in the industry, especially on the British Columbia coast where assistance is needed to help the industry build new facilities that are capable of producing higher value added and more finished products. However, these programs and even those to train displaced workers in the forest industry would be subject to American control. That is an offensive intrusion into economic decision-making in Canada. The United States has the power to shape the evolution of a vital, major exporting Canadian industry that is absolutely essential to our economy. We have never experienced so much intrusion into our decision-making.
The fact that the export tax applies only to the United States is illegal according to the rules under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Government admits that this tax is contrary to commitments it has made under GATT and that our forest competitors from Sweden, for example, could go to GATT and insist that we similarly increase our forest product prices on goods exported to the EEC and elsewhere where Sweden competes with us. The Government's action has created the potential for more damage to the industry and its exports to other parts of the world.
Canadians are extremely concerned about the ineptness and vacillation on the part of the Government in this matter and do not accept the argument that it was necessary to have such an agreement in order to keep the money in Canada.
The transition from an export charge to stumpage increase can only be made through a federal-provincial agreement. Yet, the provinces have very different histories, with different methods of applying stumpage fees with these industries. For example, the stumpage fee in British Columbia is approximately one-third of that in Ontario and Quebec. Will Ontario and Quebec have to raise their stumpage as much as British Columbia, or can British Columbia change its system if Ontario does not wish to do the same? These are complicated issues that we expect will cause enormous difficulties in relationships between the provinces.
The fundamental concern of Canadians is that this measure represents a precedent for the United States to exert pressure for other concessions it is demanding with respect to other resource industries, agriculture and the cultural industries. The Americans have not been shy in demanding these concessions in negotiations. For instance, the copyright committee held hearings a year ago last summer, where American corporations, such as CBS, NBC and ABC made the most outlandish demands for further compensation from the Canadian Government and broadcasters in Canada. They claimed that the enormous amount they were making in Canada from their cultural exports was not enough. One of the outstanding irritants between Canada and the United States is in broadcasting where millions and millions of dollars are at stake. We are opposed to any negotiation of our cultural industries.

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
We saw as a result of the American action on shakes and shingles the absolutely ludicrous 10 per cent tariff on books, which only hurt our own book publishing industry. It was a very prejudicial action because it discriminates against English language books and against books in Britain as well as the United States. The Government has shown very poor judgment in its negotiations. It took steps which it believed to be swift, sure and effective, but which were in fact more harmful to our industry than that in the United States.
I am very dismayed about the long-term effects of this extremely misguided provision. Anomalies have been raised about this provision, but the Minister has responded to them in a most casual, off-hand manner. She says that they will be investigated. Yet we are dealing with the life or death of a community with a single industry that will not be exempt from this tax, while the industry in a nearby town will be exempt. These measures are only damaging our economy and affecting the political relationships between communities and provinces.
Our Party will fight this misguided approach as hard as we can because of the economic consequences to those communities, and the long-term political consequences for a country that wants to run its own affairs and is perfectly capable of doing so. We are already spending far too much money on the cultural industry in the United States, from which we may face even greater interference.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, by asking us to adopt Bill C-37 which imposes a charge on the export of softwood lumber, the Government is in fact asking us to ratify and approve the shameful agreement on softwood lumber now in place between the Canadian Government and the U.S. Government. I am not saying this only because I sit on the opposite side of the House. This reflects the views of many important people who play a key role in Canada's lumber industry, people who have expressed themselves in similar terms. For instance, Mr. Adam Zimmerman, President of MacMillan-Bloedel Ltd., one of Canada's biggest lumber companies. Mr. Zimmerman is President of the Canadian Forest Industries Council and thus represents a large number of people in the industry in Canada. On December 31 last year, he said in The Ottawa Citizen, and I quote:
In one fell swoop, the softwood lumber agreement has made an industrial paraplegic of the lumber industry.
Those are strong words from a President of the Canadian Forest Industries Council, Mr. Speaker. On January 6, he said: We have given up our sovereignty and ruined our industry. Those are prophetic words from someone who knows the lumber industry. Professor Max Cohen, one of Canada's greatest experts on international law, who sat on the International Court of Justice, is a former President of the International Joint Commission and is now a professor of international law, said on January 3, again as reported in The Ottawa Citizen:
The lumber deal is a dangerous precedent that threatens Canadian sovereignty-
He went on to say:
It is a strange procedure to allow someone else to monitor our own stuff-They maintained the unilateralness of something that is joint in effect because the Americans have a right to know everything about Canada's activity, information or anything else.
Here we have another expert in his field who, after looking at the agreement between Canada and the United States, is firmly opposed to it and in this specific case talks about a violation of our sovereignty. I understand how Mr. Cohen feels because, if I may get into some of the details, the Minister claimed that Clause 5(a) of the Agreement protects Canada's sovereignty. However, she tends to forget that the following clause, Clause 5(b), obliges Canada to consult with the United States, and if the United States disapproves of a measure imposed by Canada to replace the export tax, they may object. The Canadian Government has made the Canadian lumber industry fair game for whatever the Americans may want to inflict on the industry.
President Reagan has promised to take action if the Canadian Government does not observe the agreement according to his interpretation. And in the letter, the infamous letter sent on December 30 to the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports by trade representative Clayton Yeutter and Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, seven areas were identified where the Americans could object if any level of government in Canada attempted to help the lumber industry. I will name the two areas I find particularly obnoxious. There is the exemption. What would happen if for any reason, the Canadian Government decided to exempt certain lumber companies from the tax? A number of specific examples were raised in the House, but the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) did not comment. There are some lumber companies, especially in eastern Canada that import U.S. lumber to process and then export to the United States. Do you know what we will have to do if we want to exempt these companies, these sawmills? We will have to go to the United States to have the exemption approved. I think that is unconscionable. There are obvious cases where the provinces and the Canadian Government should themselves be able to judge whether or not a sawmill or lumber company should be exempted from the tax. But no, we first have to go down on our knees before the Americans and ask whether they agree to an exemption. I must say I find this caving in to the Americans profoundly nauseating.
But there is worse. On the list of seven capital sins, the seven types of measures the Canadian Government may not take to help its industry, we find granting subsidies or low interest loans to the industry. This means that the Americans will now be sticking their noses in every single decision the Canadian Government makes with respect to regional development grants. What happens if the Canadian Government decides to help a lumber company or a sawmill? It has to go and ask Uncle Sam whether it may proceed.
January 27, 1987

Mr. Speaker, do you understand why we on this side of the House are opposed to Bill C-37? I would go on, but my time is up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will have four minutes this afternoon to finish his speech.
It being 1.16 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.16 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before Christmas I drew the attention of the House and the Government to the plight of the former employees of the Dominion Coal Company of Canada. The Government, through its Crown corporation the Cape Breton Development Corporation, has completely ignored the plea for assistance that I made on behalf of those individuals last December.
In this day and age, in a country as rich as Canada, people should not be made to live under such circumstances. The Cape Breton Development Corporation has no legal responsibility for these people; on that there is no dispute. However, there are many who argue that this Crown corporation has a very large moral responsibility to assist these individuals. These people have devoted their lives to the coal industry and the island of Cape Breton, and are owed something by this Crown corporation.
I call upon the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) to come to the assistance of these people at once. Many of these people are living well below the poverty line. It is time for the Minister to initiate an investigation into this matter, report to Parliament forthwith, and provide substantial funds for these individuals.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1984, the Government announced its agenda for economic renewal which included a policy of
privatizing those Crown corporations that no longer serve a public policy purpose.
The goal of privatization is not primarily to correct the mistakes of the past but, rather, to ensure the best possible future for the companies and their employees. To date, six Crown corporations, including Canadian Arsenals, de Havil-land, and Canadair have been sold. In every case the divestiture was successful.
Privatization reduces the size of government, stimulates private initiative, promotes competition and better use of resources, and improves the efficiency of the corporation by subjecting it to the practicalities of the market-place and by reducing the opportunities for political and bureaucratic interference.
I congratulate the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) and urge her to proceed with privatization of the Petro-Canada empire as soon as possible.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday service at the post office is being cut off in rural areas. We have received documentation from Sudbury in this regard. This move continues the pattern of treating rural citizens as second-class citizens when it comes to postal service.
When the plan for the Post Office was announced it was done so after its development behind closed doors. As a consequence, when Conservative back-benchers saw how terrible the plan was for rural Canadians, they revolted. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was quoted as saying that no longer would rural citizens be treated as second-class citizens.
The committee has held its hearings, and they were a farce. The plans are still in place to cut back on service in rural Canada. Rural Canadians are still being treated as second-class citizens. They have been forced to organize. They have organized a group called Rural Dignity, which is holding meetings across the country and which is seeking a meeting with the Minister. The Minister has refused to meet with this group. He has refused to respond to its request for a meeting. The committee continues to refuse calls for public hearings with regard to postal service.
We on this side of the House call for the first-class treatment of rural residents. We call for a reinstatement of Saturday delivery in rural areas. We ask the Government to reverse its policy of cut-backs in rural service.
2734

January 27, 1987



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Dr. Weitzman appeared as a witness this morning in front of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
Dr. Weitzman is known world-wide as the author of The Share Economy: Conquering Stagflation, which is acclaimed in many quarters as the best idea since Keynes.
We were privileged to have had the opportunity to hear Dr. Weitzman. We encourage the Government to follow suit with the examination of labour force adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Weitzman for sharing with us here his expertise and knowledge.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, "Was there ever a worse year for science and technology than 1986?" This question was asked by the English magazine, New Scientist, in a year-end editorial pointing to, among other things, the Challenger and Chernobyl disasters.
Similarly, many Canadians could not be faulted for asking: was there ever a worse year for science and technolgy in Canada? Let us face it. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) had a downright miserable year in 1986. But he has the opportunity to redeem himself in 1987. He could start off by cancelling his ill-considered cuts at the National Research Council. In light of new revelations that these cuts could seriously damage our air defences, the Minister should immediately order that the cuts be cancelled.
The Minister does not need the task force that he appointed to tell him what is right and what is wrong. How much more evidence does he need? Our national security is at risk. The Minister should act now.



CANADA-UNITED STATES SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT-CRITICISM OF ONTARIO PREMIER'S POSITION

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial statement which was read by Warren Barker of radio station CKNW. I wish to read it unedited:
Among the provinces Ontario is the principal critic of the softwood lumber deal with the Americans.
Ontario Premier David Peterson has become a loud voice in the chorus protesting that the 15 per cent export tax jeopardizes Canadians' sovereignty and creates a dangerous precedent, under which the U.S. may now demand similar concessions from a string of other Canadian export industries.
The December 30th softwood lumber agreement did not create the precedent. The real precedent-the landmark "special deal" on over-the-border trade-was the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, which for a generation has enriched Ontario. While Peterson condemns Ottawa for making an agreement with Washington to protect the forest industry, the Ontario Premier is loudly defending the special deal that has artificially concentrated a disproportionate share of the North American auto industry in his province. Peterson demands that the Mulroney Government scuttle free trade negotiations rather than consider any revision of the Auto Pact.
The Americans argued that our lumber industry was unfairly subsidized. But what about government subsidies to the auto manufacturing industry in central Canada-particularly Ontario?-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of the House should note with pride the appointment of Canada's first female General. Brigadier-General Sheila Hellstrom has breached one of the last bastions of male domination in Canadian society. She has done so on her own merits.
Brigadier-General Hellstrom has been a member of the Armed Forces for 30 years. She earned her promotion by working her way up through the ranks. It is also important to note that Brigadier-General Hellstrom spent her entire career in either personnel or administration. I am not denigrating her chosen career. But it must be tough to reach the rank of General in a narrow field. After all, there are only so many senior positions in personnel and administration.
We may see more women Generals if more areas were open to them in the Canadian Armed Forces. That will only happen when the Government realizes that women should compete with men on the basis of individual merit for all positions in the Armed Forces. I look forward to the day when the promotion of a woman to the rank of General is no news at all.
January 27, 1987



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, recent reductions of prime rates by major Canadian banks have been like a sleight of hand trick designed to persuade people that appearance is reality. The appearance last week was the cut in prime rates. The reality was that one week ago the spread between the bank rate and the prime rate was 1.55. Today it is 1.51. The reality is no significant difference at all.
This situation is all the more shocking when we realize that one year ago the spread between these two rates was .67. In one year the spread between the bank rate and the prime rate has more than doubled. The Government and the Bank of Canada are helping the economy by slashing interest rates. When will the chartered banks do their part?



FISHERIES


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Newfoundlanders were alarmed when they realized that a very important bilateral agreement had been struck between Canada and France which negatively affects the fishermen of Newfoundland, their traditional rights, and fishing grounds. Apparently that agreement was struck without consultation with any Member of Parliament from Newfoundland, including the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who is Newfoundland's sole cabinet representative.
The Member for St. John's West, as Newfoundland's cabinet representative, this morning said that he too was concerned with the way this matter was managed. If that is the case, if we are being told now that an agreement which negatively affects our people for a long time was reached without any consultation with our sole cabinet representative, then I demand, on behalf of all Newfoundlanders, that the agreement be declared null and void by the Government, and that it be renegotiated with Newfoundland's best interests at heart.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant
(Mr. Blackburn), in stating that Canadian history is being made today of the utmost importance. I am delighted that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has just appointed the first woman to the rank of General since Confederation. Sheila Hellstrom, a native of Nova Scotia, is today promoted to Director General, Personnel Carriers Officers. This is a key position within the Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians may be justifiably proud of this event.
Ms. Hellstrom first served her country in 1954 as a Flight Cadet in the Royal Canadian Air Force and received her commission two years later. She has an impressive history with our Armed Forces and is an excellent choice on the part of the Minister. I sincerely hope that this is the first of a trend to appoint women of Canada to postings of such dignity and importance.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been advocating the appointment of a woman General to at least six Ministers of National Defence. I wish to commend the present one for Finally bringing this about.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, tenants at Bracondale House, an apartment building for seniors and low to moderate income households in Toronto, are angry and outraged at the rent increases being imposed by CMHC.
Yearly increases of between 11 per cent and 21 per cent will continue for the next three years. Compounded over that period of time, a two-bedroom apartment rent will go up an incredible 77 per cent.
Tenants in the private market would have some recourse to this sort of extortion by going to the Residential Tenancy Commission where, in 1987, property owners must justify rent increases over 5.2 per cent.
CMHC went ahead with exorbitant increases of over 10 per cent at Main Square in my riding last year and the year before. The Government refused to have those increases submitted for independent appraisal by the Ontario Residential Tenancy Commission. It seems that the Government is becoming more brazen and uncaring in squeezing those Canadians of moderate income who have chosen to live in CMHC controlled housing. It should be ashamed of itself, Mr. Speaker.

January 27, 1987
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY



IMPROVED ECONOMIC STATISTICS

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: I have nothing but good news, Mr. Speaker. Canadians continue to applaud the Government's increased job creation, low interest rates for consumer loans and mortgages, stable inflation, increased housing starts, and improved federal government finances.
Since September, 1984, some 660,000 jobs have been created, resulting in a decline in the unemployment rate from 11.7 per cent to its current 9.4 per cent. Over three-quarters of these jobs have been full-time. This compares with the previous Government's record of less than 20 per cent full-time job creation.
For the first time in almost 20 years, home buyers can obtain a six-month mortgage for 8 per cent. What a far cry from the 20 per cent to 22 per cent mortgage rates of six and seven years ago. Dreams of owning a home are once again a reality for thousands of additional Canadians as housing starts continue to rise to meet consumer demands. Our Government has met the challenge for an improved economy and all Canadians are benefiting.
* *
*



INCREASE IN INCIDENCE OF AIDS DISEASE

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, more and more Canadians are becoming increasingly alarmed by the increased incidence of AIDS. The latest medical evidence reports that the rate of disease in British Columbia has now risen to 65.6 per million people for the month of November compared to a rate of 46.6 in October. As of mid-December, 823 cases of the deadly AIDS virus were reported and 432 victims died as a result.
Education is certainly an important vehicle in making the public aware. However, we must recognize that the root of this problem lies with alternative lifestyles practised by some Canadians, including homosexuals and intravenous drug users. This has spilled over into heterosexual relationships in which one partner has practised both heterosexual and homosexual relations.
Unequivocally, we as a society should not encourage deviation from the norm of sexual relationships between men and women. With the passing of Bill 7 in Ontario by the provincial Liberal Government of Premier Peterson, the Ontario Government is doing just that. Clearly we must get to the root cause of this problem and not get sidetracked by surface issues.



FOREST INDUSTRY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadian Christmas tree producers came to Parliament Hill and tried to have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) realize the situation in which he has placed them.
When the Minister of Finance levied a 30 percent duty on American Christmas tree imports, he jeopardized the very existence of Canadian producers who export for nearly $90 million's worth of trees to the United States.
The Canadian Christmas tree industry is shaken because the Americans threaten to hit it with retaliatory measures.
Until now, the Minister of Finance has turned a deaf ear to the representations of our producers.
Time is of the essence, and the Minister must abolish the tariff on American trees, failing which American producers will ask for retaliatory measures that could mean the loss of thousands of jobs in Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on July 24 last after the revelations about the former Minister of Regional Industrial expansion, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister in this House to take steps to ensure that Ministers were obeying the conflict of interest guidelines. The Deputy Prime Minister refused to do so saying that compliance was up to the Ministers. Now we have the spectacle of the blind trust of the Minister of State for Transport.
Again, are the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government prepared to take steps to ensure that these Ministers are not simply telling the Assistant Deputy Registrar General that they are complying with the guidelines but that in fact they are complying with the guidelines?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the process is very clear. The conflict of interest guidelines are established, and they are administered by the Assistant Deputy Registrar
January 27, 1987

General. If the Hon. Member has any specific recommendations to make, I would be pleased to receive them.


TRUSTEES OF BLIND TRUSTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, let me ask
the Deputy Prime Minister for this assurance, because when I met this morning with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General he refused to give me the assurance that none of the Ministers have among their blind trustees spouses, business associates, or riding association executives. No such assurance was given to me by the official to whom I spoke this morning and I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister for that assurance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The Hon. Member is perpetuating innuendo in his question and is implying that that is the case. I cannot give him that categorical assurance right at the present time but I will undertake to find out.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH PUBLIC JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I think that what the Deputy Prime Minister has just stated is very serious, and since the question of standards with regard to conflicts of interest does not involve criminal law in Canada, nor the current investigation by the RCMP, I would like to ask him whether he is ready to give Canadians a public judicial inquiry in order to give us all the facts on those issues and others.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that that question is coming from an Hon. Member who is a former Solicitor General. He knows very well that it is the considered opinion of the senior law officers of the Crown, of legal experts across the country, and of most people who have looked at this matter in a serious way that anything that would impair, impede or interfere with the RCMP investigation at this time would certainly not be in the best interests of seeing justice carried out.


OERLIKON CORPORATION-EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER BRIGADIER-GENERAL
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. On June 12, 1986, when the $1-billion contract was awarded to Oerlikon, Mr. J. B. Peart was the Chief of Staff of the then Minister of Defence and subsequently became a senior policy adviser to the present Minister. What information did Mr. Peart give to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General to convince him that Mr. Peart had no significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately prior to the termination of his service in public office? Would he table the relevant data in the House?
Oral Questions


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, because of the privacy legislation I cannot table the letter sent by Brigadier-General Peart. I can say that in the letter he indicated to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General that, first, he was not involved with the dossier, that it was handled by the office of the Associate Minister of National Defence. Secondly, he had joined the staff of my predecessor after the short list had been drawn up for the awarding of the LLAD contract.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence will know that the Assistant Deputy Registrar General does not do in-depth investigations. The ultimate responsibility for compliance rests with the Minister. What did the Minister do to ensure that Mr. Peart was not in an apparent conflict of interest? In other words, what transpired between the Minister and Mr. Peart to avoid this apparent conflict of interest?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in this case I did what I would do with any employee looking to go to the private sector. I asked him to comply fully with the conflict of interest guidelines, to disclose fully to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, to seek the advice of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, and to follow it.


FISHERIES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday the news of an interim agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of France concerning fishing of our northern cod stocks off the coast of Newfoundland leaked out, producing outrage in that province. The industry opposes this agreement. The unions affected oppose it. The Government of Newfoundland opposes it. Therefore, how could the Government of Canada ever agree to something which is totally opposed by the people of Newfoundland?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the media yesterday that the agreement reached between Canada and France on the weekend would be released as soon as editorial measures were completed. That release has taken place in this hour. The agreement will move us along the road to resolving a very unsatisfactory situation, the boundary dispute between Canada and France, which must be resolved in the long-term interests



January 27, 1987
Oral Questions
of the fishery and to the benefit of Canadian fishermen throughout Atlantic Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: I would add, all being done at the expense of the people of Newfoundland.


EXTENT OF CONSULTATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made much of the need for process in reaching decisions. The industry, the unions, and the Government of Newfoundland were part of all the discussions up until the December meeting. Why were those central players in this decision cut out entirely when the Government entered into this secret deal with the Government of France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the agreement does not exceed conditions which have been the subject of extensive negotiations with the Government of Newfoundland and the industry. It will assure once and for all an end to the blatant overfishing by France in this disputed zone. I must add that the benefit to be received by Atlantic fishermen by the ending of this overfishing will far exceed any modest cost to get France to sit down and negotiate this very important question.


John Edward Broadbent: If the Minister contacts Newfoundland now he will find that all over the province on radio programs they are conducting a referendum on Confederation as a result of the incompetence and insensitivity of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT WITHDRAW FROM AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, who is snickering over there, has publicly expressed opposition to the process of this agreement. The industry, the fishermen, and the Government of Newfoundland are all opposed. Therefore, will the Government now give us its assurances that it will not make an agreement with France on this important matter unless it has the support of the people of Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the NDP may never come to realize that from time to time Governments must take difficult decisions and act. In this case we will be able to demonstrate very clearly, as these negotiations proceed, that a substantial long-term benefit will accrue to all of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada if a successful conclusion is reached on this very difficult problem.
I might add that in the process of this negotiation not one fish, not one additional benefit, has been given away by Canada.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, to conserve fish stocks the Government banned Canadians from fishing on the Nose of the Banks; to conserve fish stocks the Government restricted Canadians from fishing on the south coast of Newfoundland; and to conserve fish stocks it has reduced the fishing quotas for Canadians in the northern cod stock. Since all that was done to conserve fish stocks, I ask the Minister of Fisheries why the Americans are allowed to fish the Nose of the Banks, the French, unrestricted, on the south coast of Newfoundland, and now, worst of all, we learn of quotas being given to the French in the northern cod stock. Is it because the word "conserve" to the Government means to con Canadians and to serve foreigners?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted a response, in June of last year a number of important initiatives were taken and announced by the Government to protect Canada's sovereignty and to ensure a strengthening of our vigilance and our surveillance of the resources along our 200 mile limit. The remaining unresolved problem is to remove this irritant of an unresolved boundary dispute with France and blatant overfishing. I might add again that we have not given one additional fish, by way of a commitment to France, to achieve the signed agreement which is being announced today.


George Baker: To have this Minister representing Canadian fishing interests in negotiations with the Americans and with the French is like having a jellyfish in with a bunch of sharks.


ALLOCATION OF QUOTA TO FRENCH VESSELS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to Canadian fishermen why he has asked them to conserve the cod resources in the northern cod stock and reduced their fishing quotas, while at the same time a major policy change was being made in secret, behind the scenes, to give a foreign country a quota in that very zone? Does he think the Canadian fishermen will swallow that hook, line, and sinker? They will not, you know.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, once again the Opposition does not want to hear the response. It would do well for the Hon. Member and the opposition Party which was in government to reflect on all the reasons that led to Canada being in this unsatisfactory state where French trawlers are blatantly overfishing in the disputed area. We have now achieved an agreement, an agreement whereby that boundary decision will be referred to international third party arbitration, solving once and for all a problem, and bringing untold benefits to Newfoundland fishermen.
January 27, 1987


NEED TO CONSERVE COD STOCKS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we can always get an agreement if we are prepared to go down on our knees. In the fishery sector paper which the Minister tabled in November at the First Ministers' Conference it says:
Resources surplus to Canadian needs should be allocated to foreign fleets in accordance with bilateral treaty obligations and international law, but conditional primarily on conservation co-operation.
Why did the Minister, in violation of this agreement by provincial Fishery Ministers, agree with the French to give them an extra 15,000 tonnes when Canadian fishermen had been cut back in order to conserve stocks?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Members who like to fire first and ask questions later will read the text of the agreement which is being released in this hour, and the terms under which these negotiations will conclude. The Hon. Member will see that we have given nothing in addition to that contained in the 1987 groundfish plan which was published at the end of December, and nothing that industry was not well aware of in terms of contemplating the conditions under which this important boundary dispute would be referred for international arbitration.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT RATIFICATION BE POSTPONED
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, considering that even the codfather, who is a member of the Cabinet, does not agree with this process, will the Minister either postpone ratification or cancel this deal until it has been brought into conformity with the agreement that had been reached by the provincial Fisheries Ministers and is acceptable to the province and the people of Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to be known as the codfather, not my hon. colleague.


John R. Rodriguez: You are a flounder.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Some of the opposition Members are floundering.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon Minister could answer the question as directly as possible.


Thomas Edward Siddon: We had three choices in this serious matter of overfishing by France in a disputed area outside the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. They were to continue to ignore the overfishing, fight by way of direct confrontation between two nations, or negotiate. We chose the latter course-


John Edward Broadbent: Or to sell out.
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: -and have acted in the best interests of the Atlantic fishermen.


INTERESTS OF CANADIAN FISHERMEN
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns this outrageous decision to allow factory freezer trawlers from France into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Minister has not consulted the Premier of Newfoundland or the Premiers of the other three Atlantic provinces. He says that this agreement will go to arbitration. He knows that it will take four years and there will be nothing left to arbitrate. The Minister has given everything away.
When will he begin looking after the interests of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, the fishermen of British Columbia, and certainly those most affected, the fishermen of Newfoundland especially in the area of the northern cod stocks?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what this Minister is doing and will continue to do as we gradually and forcefully turn all of the fish resources within our 200-mile economic limit to the advantage of Canadian fishermen. While previous Governments may not have had the courage to address this serious question of sovereignty over our resources and tough negotiations with countries such as France, this Government does have the courage and is not giving away any interests of Canadian fishermen in the process.


George Roland Henderson: It does not take much courage to give everything away.


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, we need someone who has a strong will to stand up to foreigners. How can the Minister decrease allocations for Canadian fishermen on the one hand while, on the other, give all our fish away to the foreigners? How can he do that and expect to have any kind of respect at all from the fishing industry?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the phraseology in the Hon. Member's question reveals his total misunderstanding and, I suggest, almost total ignorance of the situation. He referred to a total giveaway-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Who are you trying to kid? You are the expert on ignorance.


Thomas Edward Siddon: There has been no giveaway. In fact this is a positive step forward that is long overdue. It will pay many benefits to the industry in Atlantic Canada about which I have been maintaining close contact with the office of the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland and other representatives of the fishing industry.

January 27, 1987
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister explain how it is that our officials can leave the Department of National Defence and immediately take charge of the Government Relations department with Oerlikon Aerospace in Ottawa without being in violation of the Government's guidelines under which former civil servants are barred from making representations to their former department on behalf of a corporation for a one-year period?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I can repeat the answer that I gave yesterday to exactly the same question. It is the obligation of all Government employees covered by the conflict of interest guidelines, who are leaving to seek outside employment, to disclose fully to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, to seek the guidance of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, and to abide by his decision.


APPLICATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the integrity of the Government. We are also talking about the integrity of the guidelines which say that, for a period of a year, former office holders shall not make representations on behalf of a company to their former department. What good are those guidelines if the Government will not enforce them in order to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest when a senior defence official can leave the Government and show up the next day as a lobbyist seeking government work. What good are guidelines that allow that?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question is essentially rhetorical. The obligation of any employee of the Government who is leaving to seek outside employment is to seek the advice and counsel of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, to disclose fully the situation to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, and to abide by the decision taken.


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans whose answers today to Members in the House have all the attractiveness of a beached sculpin to the fishermen of Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland want to know whether anyone in Ottawa is representing their interests
around the cabinet table? Will the Minister tell us whether or not the Newfoundland representative in the federal Cabinet, the Member for St. John's West, was consulted or advised in advance of this decision being taken with respect to the French fleet?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, when a Government deliberates on very difficult matters and reaches a decision, a Government takes that decision. That is exactly what this Government has done. We have an example here of overfishing by France, to the extent of tens of thousands of tonnes of fish a year in the disputed area. That problem must be resolved once and for all. I hear the Opposition saying that we should not solve that problem to the benefit of Atlantic Canada.


James Douglas Manly: You have not solved it.


INTERESTS OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the opposition Member is saying that Newfoundlanders want to know whether they have a voice, a squeak, or the sound of silence sitting around the cabinet table. Was the Member for St. John's West-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -our representative in the Cabinet, consulted before this decision was taken, or is he braying like a banshee in Newfoundland while quietly agreeing to this agreement in Ottawa? He cannot have it both ways.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the Chair is reluctant to interfere in a matter about which the Hon. Member feels very strongly and concerns the province from which he comes, but Hon. Members will realize that the question of where one Minister was when cabinet matters were discussed is not appropriate for the Chamber.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question has been asked. I will only assure the Hon. Member that as always, his colleague, the Minister of Transport, speaks very loudly, strongly and positively-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Was he consulted?


Thomas Edward Siddon: -on behalf of the interests of the Newfoundland fishery. I would just conclude my response by saying that there is no bloody way that we are going to give up fish to France in an exchange or any way that diminishes the rights and economic viability of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 27, 1987


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will recall that just four months ago Chilean dictator Pinochet made the following pronouncement: "We are going to get tough. Those people talking about human rights must be expelled from the country or locked up". The Minister will know that last year he authorized the export of $11,261 million worth of military equipment to Chile. Does the Minister feel that he has blood on his hands-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: -for permitting the export of military equipment to a regime that tortures and jails its own citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member if it might not be appropriate to put that question another way. I think the very vivid words he used and the direction in which they were pointed are perhaps exceeding what is necessary to make the point. I would ask the Hon. Member to put the question again in more appropriate words.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs explain to the House why he personally approved the export of over $11 million worth of arms to Chile?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your intervention. I had thought there were lows to which the New Democratic Party could not sink, but I guess I was wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Right down in the scum.


Miss MacDonald:: Right on.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will know that the Chair is always reluctant to intervene. However, when the Chair has intervened, I would hope that might be the end to the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member, I believe, knows, and it would be well for the House to know, that the content of those export orders to Chile had to do primarily with electrical equipment, not to do with arms, matters which are technically described as defence equipment.
While I am on my feet I should repeat to the Hon. Member my request made three times and ignored three times, that if he is seriously interested in contributing to more effective export control laws in our country, he can help us with positive suggestions of how that might be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Order.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: I have asked him three times. I have heard a resounding silence because he is interested only in scurrilous accusations and not in effective results.


Finlay MacDonald: Right on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap in this question can offer some of the suggestions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Finlay MacDonald: That would be unusual.


Mr. Nystrom:: Joe Clark sure needs them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, three times I have asked and three times I have been denied lists of the equipment which has been shipped to countries like Chile. I have been denied them at every request-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Why?


Nelson Andrew Riis: -which I will repeat, and perhaps this time the Secretary of State for External Affairs will see fit to provide that list of so-called non-military goods.


ALLEGED EXPORT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO SYRIA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Not only did the Minister approve the sale of $11 million worth of military equipment to Chile, but to other countries as well. Would the Minister explain why the Government of Canada, through himself, approved the export of military equipment to Syria, a country which has been condemned by many countries as actively supporting terrorism in the Middle East and Europe? Why are we exporting arms to that country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, again to be clear, we are not exporting arms to Syria. I will make a deal with the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Watch it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will be prepared on a confidential basis-and I will make the assumption that since he is an Hon. Member of the House I can trust his word and confidence-I will make available to him the details of those particular exports with regard to Chile, on a confidential basis, if he will agree-


Mr. Orlikow:: Why confidential?


Ms. Jewett:: Why not to all of us?


Charles Joseph Clark: Why confidential? Because there are commercial confidences involved here.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about human rights?

January 27, 1987
Oral Questions


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Get out of the business.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are thousands of Canadian jobs involved here. I know the New Democratic Party does not care about Canadian jobs, but I do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You should get out of the arms business.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence concerning the Oerlikon affair.
In his letter dated October 2, 1986 and addressed to my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke the Minister wrote, and I quote:
The Oerlikon-Burhle project met all specifications- including the requirement that it be fully operational in any kind of weather.
I have here a document from Oerlikon Aerospace which contradicts the Minister, so my question is this: Why did he give such assurances concerning a $1 billion project, knowing as he did that such was not the case?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Because, Mr. Speaker, the evaluation team which looked at Oerlikon and the other proposals found that the Oerlikon proposal was able to shoot down anything which was able to fly in any weather.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister said that. I also have a document from the Department of National Defence which states that it is essential "that the LLAD system deployed in defence of the brigades-" not just in the air "-be capable of defending in all weather conditions". How can the Minister justify spending that kind of money? How can he justify the response he just made when it is clearly in contradiction to both the Oerlikon document and the review made by the Minister's own department, which I have right here in my hand? How can he explain that?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the review which was made by my department was anxious to determine whether or not the Oerlikon system would be capable of shooting down anything able to fly and the response was, yes it would.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It shot down the Government.


An Hon. Member:: You guys never could fly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You never could fly in your life.


THE PAPACY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a result of the meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and His Holiness the Pope, can it now be confirmed that the Pope will be visiting Fort Simpson in the Northwest Territories next fall? And have the dates for such a visit been set?


An Hon. Member:: Good question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Don't waffle now, Joe.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister met His Holiness in the Vatican. I can confirm that the visit to Fort Simpson will occur. His Holiness expressed a very strong desire to come to Canada and the Prime Minister, of course, indicated how welcome he would be. There was a question as to dates. The Hon. Member will know that this is an invitation which has been issued in the course of a parochial visit on the part of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. They will be discussing with the Pope the establishment of the date.


PROPOSED UNITED STATES' WHEAT SALE TO CHINA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdcbo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister will be aware of reports today indicating that the United States has extended its unfair trade practices to China by selling to China one million metric tonnes of heavily subsidized wheat. Has the Government sent an appropriately worded message to Washington indicating that the Canadian Government has a strong displeasure at this kind of trade action?
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat
Board)): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises, I think, what everyone would agree is a very serious matter. The Hon. Member should know that what has been extended is an offer,
January 27, 1987

and the Chinese have not yet purchased. We continually say to the Americans that we do not think their approach to markets will work and, better than sending them messages, we have been taking action.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It hasn't worked.


Mr. Mayer:: In fact our percentage of world wheat markets actually went up last year-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The price went down.


Charles James Mayer: -and the prospects in the coming year are that we are going to increase our markets again. We are taking action, not just sending protests.


UNITED STATES' TRADE POLICIES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has publicly supported and defended U.S. action in Algeria. Does the Minister not believe it is time he stopped defending the United States' unfair policies and started taking action on behalf of Canadian farmers instead?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that I have not been defending the American actions.


Mr. Benjamin:: You sure did.


Charles James Mayer: We have been saying consistently, and loudly and clearly, that we do not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: Spineless.


Charles James Mayer: We all know you can print anything in the press-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Blame the media.


Charles James Mayer: -so what the Hon. Member is holding up does not hold any weight as far as I am concerned. We have been publicly and consistently raising protests not only about what the Americans are doing but about what the Europeans are doing. We are not supporting the Americans, we are supporting our farmers, that is what we are doing.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last fall when I asked questions regarding the allweather capability of the Low Level Air Defence system awarded to Oerlikon, the Associate Minister of National Defence stated: "All weather does not include blizzards, sleet,
Oral Questions
hail, hurricanes and tornadoes". In answer to the same question the Low Level Air Defence Project Manager, Mr. Dave Hampson, stated recently: "This system will fight anywhere in any weather". How can the Minister expect the public to share his confidence in this system when the Associate Minister and the chief official involved cannot themselves agree on its capability?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, first, let me sincerely say to the Hon. Member that I am pleased to see him back and pleased to see him in good health.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I understand what the Hon. Member is saying, my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence, said that the system could shoot down anything that could fly in any weather. The disagreement was with whether it might even be able to go beyond that. The critical question is: if something can fly and attack either our bases or our troops can it be shot down? The answer is yes.


ALLEGED CONFLICTING STATEMENTS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the former Associate Minister of National Defence announced that the Low Level Air Defence system will provide protection "under all weather conditions", which is contrary to what has been said, while the chief technical adviser of the Low Level Air Defence project office has stated the system "will be useless in foul weather". What does the Minister really expect the public to believe when Ministers disagree with each other, when officials disagree with each other, and when Ministers disagree with their own officials?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has received an offer of a full briefing with regard to our LLAD system. We will be offering the same thing to all members of the Defence Committee this Thursday.
I suppose the question the Hon. member would want answered is this: if it can fly, can it be shot down? The answer is yes. If it cannot fly, it cannot be shot down.


FINANCE
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance.

January 27, 1987
Oral Questions
Yesterday the Minister said that he was looking forward to acting on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs regarding credit card interest
rates.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister make sure that the action he is talking about will include both a decrease in and a ceiling on credit card usurious interest rates of up to nearly 29 per cent?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West brought this subject to the attention of the House over a year ago.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Then do something about it!


Thomas Hockin: It has been looked at very carefully by the Government.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for raising this issue. With regard to ceilings, the concern that any Government would have with ceilings is that ceilings very often become floors. What we have to do is take a look at this question in the broadest possible context. We have to look at not only the levels themselves but the terms of the interest rate being calculated, as well as the amount of the loan on which the interest rate is calculated. There have been concerns expressed about all three of these issues. They must all be considered in the Government's response.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, what I really think and hope is that in fact the Minister is, first, conscious of the gravity of this situation and, second, conscious of the necessity to take immediate action in this matter. As the Minister has just said, the Conservative Member for Scarborough West finds it unconscionable.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wants the Government to act on ceilings only. We will act across the whole range when the time is appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Thomas Hockin: I remind the Hon. Member today, as I did yesterday, the market itself yields all sorts of different interest rates for different credit cards, and I ask him to shop around.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice who knows that many Canadians were very disappointed when his predecessor's proposed legislation on pornography died at the
end of the session. Can the Minister of Justice reassure the House that legislation will be introduced into the House in the very near future and that it will be strong and effective legislation?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


TARIFFS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The implementation of the 30 per cent tariff on the importation of American Christmas trees is threatening Canadian Christmas tree producers. In particular, it has a very negative effect on the Nova Scotia industry which is valued at approximately $25 million.
Will the Minister of Finance give an undertaking to the Christmas tree producers in this country, accede to the request of the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia and eliminate this tariff forthwith, a move which will restore stability and confidence in this most important sector of our economy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question on a number of occasions, and as recently as two days ago in response to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.
We are very conscious of the concerns of the Christmas tree growers in Nova Scotia, as well as in other parts of the country, including Quebec. We raised this issue at the discussions that were held between the Prime Minister, VicePresident Bush and Secretary Baker last week. We are looking for ways of trying to resolve the matter on a joint basis with the United States. I hope that we will be seeing good progress over the coming weeks and months.


Mr. Penner:: Rescind the tariff.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMPENSATION FUND
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Finance that shingles cannot be made out of Christmas trees.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Charles Dingwall: If the Minister of Finance is so confident about the outcome of his discussions with his American counterparts, will he not undertake to set aside a sum of money in trust so that in the event those discussions break down, or in the event the Americans retaliate against Canada in this particular sector, the Christmas tree growers will have a fund
January 27, 1987

that will directly benefit them? If the Minister is so confident, will he now put his money where his mouth is?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Hon. Member that this action was not taken with a great deal of pleasure on the part of the Government. I made that quite clear at the time the announcement was made last May. But we have a national problem, a problem that we felt necessitated a strong response to the Government of the United States in order to make it very clear that the protectionist actions it had undertaken were wrong and had to be dealt with. We took that action. We got our message very clearly through to Washington. If we had not taken strong action, I am sure the Hon. Member would be on his feet saying: "Why are you not taking the action? Why are you not showing the Americans that you are against this type of protection?" That is the reason why.


B. Keith Penner: Rescind the tariff on Christmas trees.


David Charles Dingwall: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


REQUEST THAT TARIFF BE ABOLISHED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a Christmas tree war may be very amusing to the Minister of Finance. If he really believes that the message has gotten through clearly to the United States then why is he not prepared now to cut out that tariff and give security to these workers for the future?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the two sides of the fence on which the Hon. Member plays the trade issue. On the one hand he says: "You guys better stand up to those Americans and hold firm on the Auto Pact and make sure you do some things that protect the sovereignty of Canada, because if you do not we are going to whip you and we are going to whip you hard". Then he turns around and says: "Roll over, Mike. Roll over and do those things that the Americans want you to do". On which side is the Hon. Member?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a
short question, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have hoped for many years that the Minister would roll over and find some sensible-


Mr. Speaker:: I have been hoping for some minutes that the Hon. Member would put his second question succinctly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: My supplementary question to the Minister is this. Since there has been so much discussion with reference to this issue, as he has outlined, why does he continue to defend what was a bad decision to start with and remains a bad decision, especially because it will lead to potential retaliation in the future?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have always said that the decision by the Americans to impose a tariff on shakes and shingles was a bad decision. The Hon. Member and I are in full agreement on that.


POSSIBLE ACTION BY UNITED STATES
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of any individual rolling over. The industry will roll over and be dead if action is not taken. I wonder if the Minister knows that in the first week of February the American Christmas Tree Association is meeting in Atlantic City, and it will start preparation for its retaliatory action against the massive importation of Canadian Christmas trees, $30 million alone from Nova Scotia, against $1 million of American Christmas trees that come into Canada.
Why has the Minister of Finance taken a national problem of shakes and shingles and levered and lumbered the Christmas tree industry of Atlantic Canada, particularly Nova Scotia?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: The Opposition wishes it could ask questions like that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Say goodbye, Pat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Nobody is going to say that was a planted question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot outdo you on that, and I will not even try.
That is probably the first good question that we have had in a long time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let's hear a good answer, Mike.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: I will shortly be meeting with the representatives of the Christmas tree industry. I was supposed to be meeting with them two minutes ago, and I will leave right from the Chamber to meet with them. I am sure the matters that the Hon. Members have raised will be the subject of our discussion.
We are concerned about the possible actions that the United States may take. This is the very reason why we have taken the matter as forcefully as we have with the Americans, and why we are following through and trying to find a resolution of this matter.

January 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Caccia


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Promise you won't send Carney.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that I am now ready to deal with the complaint raised by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). The point raised by the Hon. Member for Davenport concerned a reply given to a question by the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) on Thursday, January 22, 1987. The essence of the complaint of the Hon. Member for Davenport was that there was a discrepancy between the Hansard record of the 'Hon. Minister's reply and the electronic record of his reply. I wish to inform the House that there is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy.
I have received a letter from the Editor in Chief of English Hansard which pointed out that, in the interests of accuracy, Hansard obtained a copy of the report in question that the Minister was referring to when he gave his reply, and noted that the Minister had omitted from his answer two words which were contained in the report. Hansard included these two words in the printed record, in spite of the fact that they had been omitted by the Minister. The Hon. Minister did not alter his "blues", and is completely innocent of any attempt to change the meaning of what he said in the House.
Hansard has the responsibility of producing an accurate report which does not change the meaning of anything said in the House. To perform this task a certain amount of editorial flexibility must be allowed.
In his letter to me the Editor of Hansard apologizes for an error in judgment, and for having embarrassed the Hon. Minister of the Environment, and the Hon. Member for Davenport. However, I do not attach any great blame to Hansard. They were only trying to perform their task in a professional manner by ensuring that the reply of the Minister conformed to the wording of the report to which the Minister was referring.
I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on a question of privilege.



Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the proceedings this morning before the Standing Committee on Government Operations. I wish to make it quite clear that I consider this a
question of privilege, because the actions before that committee prevented me from doing my job as a Member of Parliament. I will relate to you my reasons for coming to that conclusion.
In the specific instance this morning, my job was to call for public hearings into the Post Office plan. This is a matter of public policy which the committee has the responsibility to investigate. There were impediments and blocks put in my way when making this call for such hearings. The impediments were as follows. One, an unprecedented ruling by the chairman of the Committee that a motion before the Committee to call for public hearings on the Post Office was out of order. This is a matter under consideration by that committee. That was the first impediment. After I discussed this with the Chairman by way of a point of order, the chairman agreed that this motion would be considered at the end of the meeting. So this was understood by the members of the committee.
The second impediment was when I asked the committee to call for these hearings. By the end of the meeting, all the government members of the committee, except for the chairperson, had left the room, had vacated and abandoned the committee. Therefore, they robbed the committee of a quorum and the opportunity to consider the motion.
The effect of these impediments was that I was prevented from doing my job as a Member of Parliament, and calling upon Parliament, through its Committee, to perform the function of holding public hearings with regard to a plan that was being considered.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but may I ask him whether he will have another opportunity to make the representations at the Committee which he feels he was not able to make today?


Cyril Keeper: I do not know, and I will explain why. The next scheduled meeting of the committee is on February 5, which is some time from now. This matter is fast proceeding, since the Minister only has 60 days within which to consider public input. The reason I say that I do not know whether I will have the opportunity is that I took the opportunity to bring the resolution forward at the meeting this morning. We previously had in camera meetings, at which this was considered. This was the first opportunity in a public forum to ask the Committee to call for these hearings. The committee could have voted me down, or debated it out. By way of ruling the motion out of order, and by way of abandoning the committee, it simply refused to give me an opportunity to call for the committee to fulfil one of its functions. I do not know whether I will have an opportunity to call for this again, because I do not know whether they will behave in the same manner at another meeting.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to briefly respond to the Hon. Member's point with
January 27, 1987

respect to the alleged breach of privilege in a committee hearing.
First, as we all know, the committees are masters of their own destiny. I think the Hon. Member had the opportunity to place his motion on the floor. There may have been some discussion as to when it came on the committee's agenda but I do not think the Member can complain that he was prevented from putting the motion on the floor of the committee.
Second, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member commented that Members had other business on a busy day, such as Tuesday. They might have had other meetings to go to. I do not think it is in order to comment on this matter without thinking about the fact that the Member had his opportunity. He placed his motion on the floor at committee. We have all lost votes in committee-


Cyril Keeper: There was no vote.


Philip Derek Lewis: We have all had quorums disappear on us. I think the Hon. Member will have an opportunity at another meeting to place his motion on the floor. Let the will of the committee decide. This activity goes on daily, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot see that it is a question of privilege. The Member's privileges have not been abridged. I submit, therefore, that there is no question of privilege to be considered by the Chair.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government and its supporters make much of the change in the rules of the House whereby so much of the work of the House is done in committees. The Government and its supporters claim that the rules as they are now give unprecedented power to Members with respect to legislation and the operations of Government. If this is to be the case, the system must work fairly for all Members, including those of the Opposition.
There may be those who argue that the propriety of raising such a matter in this Chamber is perhaps of some question. However, I submit that you, Sir, at the very least have moral authority if not formal authority on behalf of all Members of this House to ensure that all portions of our parliamentary system, as they pertain to the House of Commons and its committees, are operating fairly for all Members. Nothing more quickly undermines the credibility, in the eyes of the public suggestions, particularly on behalf of the Government, that Parliament now works better, more fully and more freely in the interests of individual Members of Parliament if there is a multiplying of cases, piling one on top of the other, which indicate that Members in support of the Government are doing things but which have the result, whether intentional or not, of preventing or making it difficult for Members of the Opposition Parties to do the jobs for which they are elected.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you do have authority, at least moral authority, to ensure that all portions of our system,
Privilege-Mr. Keeper
including the committees, are operating fairly for all concerned. I respectfully urge you to take very seriously the submissions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken and to take such steps as you can, as I feel you want to take to make sure that the committee system as well as what goes on in this House of Commons operates fairly for all concerned in the interests of the effective operation and, perhaps more important, the integrity and good reputation of this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann). I will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) in a moment.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short intervention on this issue brought forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). Like this House, which has a standard set of orders for the day which establishes what it is going to discuss and lays it out, the committee also has business meetings to set its agenda. In fact, the agenda was set and duly transmitted to committee members about what we were going to do today, and what we were going to do the following Thursday and next week. The Hon. Member sat in on this meeting. But here we were commencing a committee hearing with a Member jumping up to change that whole direction agreed to at a meeting which he attended.
I have been at a committee meeting and seen a chairman make a ruling. I guess a Member could question, according to Beauchesne, the ruling of the Chair, and if that exercise had been carried out this morning we would have had no problem. But that did not happen.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I could put the same question that I put to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). Could the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) give the Chair any assistance as to when the next occasion might be that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre might raise the matter that he wished to raise?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I had asked the Hon. Member whether he would like to attend a special in camera session to adjust our agenda, to which he replied no.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, as deputy chairman of the committee, I would like to try to offer some assistance to the Chair. As the chairman has mentioned, the committee met in camera on January 20 to set a specific agenda. At that meeting we discussed the very point which the Hon. Member raised today in his motion and there was committee concurrence to deal with the matter at a later point. In agreement with my chairman, the opportunity again was put to the Member to discuss a specific time or date for this issue. The motion today was made in the presence of a number of members of the media. With all due respect to the Member, I really question whether he was dealing more with

January 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Keeper
the agenda or more with a topical news item of particular concern to him.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to some of the statements that have been made by way of information.
First, I want to respond to two points which the Deputy House Leader made. I think he would want to be aware of these facts because they affect the operation of all committees, not just our committee. The Deputy House Leader said that I had an opportunity to present the motion. That was not the case. I invite him to read the record of the committee. There was no opportunity to present the motion.
Second, people leave committees. I want to inform the Deputy House Leader that these Members left the committee after there had been an understanding with the Chair that the resolution would be dealt with toward the end of the meeting. It was within the allotted time for the committee, between 9 and 11. It was not any unusual time. I wanted the Deputy House Leader to be aware of those two points.
Third, there was a standard set of orders, I think my colleague said. The business of the committee was discussed in an in camera session. I made my proposal at that point. I did not discuss it publicly because 1 wanted to respect the confidence of the committee, which has been a matter of controversy before. My first opportunity to raise the matter was in public session. 1 must say that even the order that came out of the in camera session was not presented to the public session by way of a motion, which I think would be a normal procedure. Whatever comes out of the in camera session to the public session to adopt as the business of the committee by way of a motion was not done.
The chairman on a previous occasion had allowed such a motion by a government Member to be tabled before the committee. That is in the minutes of the committee. On a previous occasion when hearing a witness, a Government Member introduced a motion for us to take certain action. He allowed that. He reversed his own ruling.
What I was seeking was an opportunity to deal with this matter in a public forum because I found that the in camera sessions had not dealt with it adequately. What 1 was seeking was an opportunity to call upon the committee to do its public work. Obviously, the media was there. That is part of our work in this environment. I do not know what else to say.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would like to rise on this question of privilege because I was present at that committee meeting and I feel that my privilege as a Member was affected. I would like to make two sets of remarks, Mr. Speaker. I will start with the decision of the committee Chairman not to accept the motion because we had a witness, whereas in a similar circumstance, on December 4, 1986, when a witness was being questioned, the chairman of that same Committee, the same chairman accepted a motion by Government Members. Although some discussion had taken place, we
decided as opposition Members to accept the reasons put forward and for the sake of the witnesses and media attending, we reached an agreement that the motion would be debated after the committee had heard all the witnesses.
After hearing all the evidence, Mr. Speaker, Members left one after the other and the committee had to adjourn for want of a quorum. Mr. Speaker, although Members are free to withdraw at will from a Committee meeting, 1 consider that the chairman was applying a double standard system in his decision, and we also tend to think that the behavior of the Members on that occasion was not proper, unless they had good reasons, and I am willing to say that it was not the case, so we have serious doubts, we are left to wonder why. Why was there an agreement to debate the motion at the end of the meeting at which time in fact we were left without a quorum?


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank Hon. Members for the views expressed. Hon. Members will know that it is unusual for the Chair to get involved in committee matters. This is therefore a very difficult situation for the Chair as we are dealing with a substantive claim, and also a difficult situation for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). I think the question is quite simple. Would there be a situation in a Committee meeting where the Hon. Member might have leave to introduce a motion or a statement, possibly in another form, the right to ... It is of course a problem for the Chair, and I believe that in the present situation we might be better advised to adjourn this debate for a while to examine whether the possibility exists where a Member might raise the question on another occasion in a committee meeting. If that were the case, there would be no point in pursuing this discussion.

As a consequence, I will adjourn this debate and perhaps the Hon. Member can have a discussion with his colleagues in the committee to work out the problem among themselves.
If the complaint that comes to the Chair is that a Member has no opportunity at all to speak in a committee, that causes the Chair concern because it gets close to breaking the fundamental rule of privilege by closing off the right of free speech. I would reiterate by saying that I would hope the committees would work together in such a way that the Chair is not put in the position of exercising an authority which in the long history of Parliament it has been deemed wise for the Chair not to exercise. There can always be the accusation that the Chair is interfering in the affairs of the committee.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said that the Chair has a certain moral authority in a case like this, even if the Chair might not have the strict procedural authority to intervene. I recognize that the Chair, exercising common sense, and calling on the good sense of all Hon. Members, does have a certain moral authority, but that moral authority can certainly get pretty thin if the Chair exercises it too often.
January 27, 1987

If Hon. Members would leave this matter for a few days, I would invite them to discuss it, and if after that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre still feels that his complaint is there I shall hear the Hon. Member.



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. McDermid (p. 2601).
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor when the House adjourned for lunch, and as you will recall, I was describing the seven capital sins mentioned in the December 30 letter sent to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports by the American Trade Representative, Clayton Yeutter, and the American Secretary for Trade, Malcolm Baldrige. The letter identified seven types of measures which the Americans would not accept that Canada, that is either the federal Government or the provinces, take to help the lumber industry.
I had just pointed out that the granting of subsidies or low cost loans to a lumber company would be viewed by the American Government as a violation of the odious agreement between the two countries.
To continue, the letter also mentions forest management as a forbidden area of intervention. This means that provincial Governments would not be able to develop reforestation programs.
Yet, as we know, in many Canadian provinces, especially my own Province of Quebec, there is an acute need for reforestation. Forest management and stock renewal have long been neglected in Quebec. In many parts of my province, log cutters have to go further and further to find trees to harvest, which increases their operational costs.
In addition, the Quebec Government has just announced measures to promote reforestation in the province and members of the industry will be asked to contribute. The representatives of the forest industry whom I had an opportunity to meet recently told me that it is financially impossible for them to contribute to the reforestation program of the Quebec Government while paying a 15 per cent tax on the wood they export to the United States.
This means that this odious agreement between the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States on the lumber issue threatens the reforestation programs of the various Canadian provinces. This is one more thing which leads me to say that this agreement between our two countries came about because the Canadian Government decided to
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
capitulate and go down on its knees before the American Government.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons why Members on this side of the House are strongly opposed to giving second and even third reading to Bill C-37. We would prefer the Bill to be shelved. The only way to get out of this mess would be for the Canadian Government to get back to the table with the Americans to negotiate a more reasonable agreement which would benefit, not harm or diminish, the Canadian forest industry.
That is what we want, Mr. Speaker. Since my allotted time has expired, I shall now resume my seat.


Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on a Bill that is extremely important for the entire country. We must not forget that the forestry industry involves one million Canadian workers, with over 200,000 in Quebec.
The previous speaker pointed out that our Canadian forests had been neglected, especially the forests in Quebec. I think that is an indication of the previous Liberal administration's failure to act, Mr. Speaker.
Agreed, we have not been sufficiently concerned about reforestation in Canada, and that is why this Government has signed a number of very important agreements with the provinces, including Quebec. It signed an agreement involving $300 million a few months ago, to help make up for the lack of reforestation in recent years.
Mr. Speaker, Members from ridings where the forestry industry is very important have a hard time keeping a straight face when Liberal Members make comments that are sometimes entirely incorrect. I remember the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who said that all the provinces were against this agreement. I think it is absurd to say that, when we all know that nine provinces out of ten spoke out in favour of the agreement and that the province that was opposed has about 4.5 per cent of total production in the industry.
Mr. Speaker, I think people should know that this Government is fully aware of the importance of the forestry sector. How could anyone be against an agreement introduced here in the House that will enable us to inject another $600 million into rescuing our Canadian forests? Instead of letting the Americans skim off $1.4 billion, we will be able to reinvest that money here in our own forests.
I think this amply demonstrates that Members who do not represent ridings with forest areas are not well-informed on the subject. How could anyone say that the provinces are opposed when the Quebec Minister of Trade has said that this is a very important agreement, because of what it contains and also in terms of Quebec's sovereignty? I would like to quote what was said by Mr. MacDonald of the Quebec Government, which is certainly not against the agreement, Mr. Speaker. He said,
2750

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
and I quote: "I would like to draw a parallel to clear up the misunderstanding about the differences referred to by Miss Carney. We are talking here about monitoring. A shareholder of a company receives a financial statement every year. He can look at the statement and find out what has been happening. If a decision to impose countervail had been made, the United States would have had the right to send in a team of internal auditors regularly to check our books. The difference is that under the present agreement, we will be producing our own statistics which will then be made available to the parties concerned. If the Americans want to look at those figures, they may do so. But there will be no team of internal auditors traipsing around our Department of Forestry."
Mr. Speaker, this means that even the Liberal Party will have access to the statistics published by the Canadian governments concerned.
I may point out that the official Opposition, as represented by the speakers I have heard up to now, consists mainly of Members from basically urban ridings. I do not have the impression that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has a lot of forestry activity in his riding.
I would like to take this opportunity to read to you part of an editorial by Michel Roy who is possibly one of the most objective journalists in Canada and who described even better than I could what motivates Liberal Members in their eloquent rhetoric on practically every subject.
This particular issue, with its forestry connection, is a good example of the confusion reigning in the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker. Later on, I will have an opportunity to address the Liberals' confusion about the economy, the Constitution and national defence-three issues on which that party has no idea where it is going, and in which Canadians cannot place their trust.
To get back to the debate on this Bill, Mr. Roy pointed out, and I quote:
"The Opposition whose exaggerated language gives a gross caricature of a very disturbing issue for the future of the Canadian economy will not be taken seriously by Canadians who are aware of the facts. And the Canadian people will not listen either to its criticism because they know that the Liberal Party has no clear policy on free trade". To say the least.
We only have to read over excerpts from the proceedings of a seminar held by western Liberals on July 2 and 3 to learn about the spokesman of the Liberal Party on trade, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). We also have to read the comments of Senator Van Roggen who is not a Tory senator. That Liberal senator is an authority on trade and he attended the seminar led by the Liberal Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
Senator Roggen said the following: "You heard no fair-minded statement at our seminar. There was only an appeal to your lowest instincts".
Therefore, I think, Mr. Speaker that such a statement made by a Liberal senator, a Canadian authority on trade relations, has resulted in the Liberal spokesman on trade issues, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, losing all credibility.
The same senator added this:
"Canada is now part of a world that is increasingly competitive and protectionnist and which no longer allows for discussing and waiting indefinitely before taking action." I will'say to my dear colleagues opposite that the status quo is unacceptable and provides no solution for the future. Current and future economic prospects in Canada are inextricably linked with those in the United States, whether we like it or not, and Ottawa had better realize it and act accordingly."
This is what this Government has done, Mr. Speaker, negotiating day after day agreements of major importance to all Canadian provinces, and this agreement that has just been reached is a good illustration of this Government's pattern of action. We were used to living in a country where quarrels and frictions were the way of life. This has changed over the last two and a half years. And the results are there to prove it.
All this to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the area of trade relations and the economy, this Government has absolutely no lesson to learn from the official Opposition, and especially from their trade critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who even in western Canada is yet unable to strike a consensus among Liberals on the matter of freer trade negotiations with the Americans.
Mr. Speaker, they keep talking about sovereignty. The best way for a country to exercize its sovereignty is in the first instance to ensure an economic renewal, and if this Government has failed to prove it in two and a half years, remember the Liberal Party's record. During the last five years of their mandate, they were creating 1,255 jobs a month, while this Government has created 25,000 jobs a month for two and a half years. In all areas of Canada the unemployment rate is steadily declining, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to hear Liberals talk about sovereignty, about protecting our sovereignty when we know so well that in Liberal parlance this is the be-all and end-all of the constitutional issue in Canada. After having put Quebecers to sleep for fifteen, twenty years, Mr. Speaker, they threw us out in 1982. It is also interesting to see Members from the New Democratic Party use the word "sovereignty" on each and every occasion. I look forward to the next convention of the New Democratic Party, to see how far they will bend backwards to get votes in Quebec.
You may rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that Quebecers remember where the New Democratic Members were in 1982 when it was time to defend minority rights. All that, and certainly I will have the opportunity to return to that in other debates, to illustrate the Liberal Party's lack of specific policies, the total absence of programs on economic matters, on constitutional matters. How can we have confidence in a
January 27, 1987

party that has governed during three-quarters of a century and that has just passed a resolution at its convention to withdraw from NATO? I am anxious to see the Liberal Party with its electoral platform and its resolutions. I think, Mr. Speaker, they will have to strap their suspenders tight, because when the time comes to look at the record of this Government's management, it will be a pleasure to confront it with Liberal goals, and especially to point out the Liberal Party's economic failure, in the face of which we had to assume our responsibilities two and one-half years ago.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too am very pleased to take the floor for the second time and express my views on this very important measure. If I may, I should like to refer generally to the conclusion of my colleague from Chicoutimi who has just spoken to this subject and referred to the Liberal record over the past twenty years. Well, I am glad to point out to him that during the past twenty years under the administration of the Liberal Party which I represent and to which I belong, it never had to face as many difficulties as this Government did in only two years. I think Canadians will know what I am referring to when I say that.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, they talk about Liberal Members as being totally unfamiliar with the lumber industry, they talk about some of my Party colleagues who spoke strongly against this measure as being babes in the woods, most of them representing urban ridings, they say. My colleague who rose before me and spoke on this matter appears to be patting himself on the back while saying: I know this business because I represent in the House a riding or a region where lumber is a major industry.
Mr. Speaker, how very strange, how very peculiar that the Hon. Member who uttered these words should go on to say: Hats off to the Government for signing the agreement, we will recoup $600 million and be in a strong position to help the forest industry. He made that kind of statement after telling us that his Government had signed a $300 million agreement with the Province of Quebec.
But that is the whole problem, Mr. Speaker, and the most eloquent proof that the Hon. Member from Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) knows absolutely nothing of the consequences of this major Bill, for this is precisely the reason why the political party I am a member of has denounced, denounces and will continue to denounce this initiative. Of course, if instead of investing them in the United States, Canada had had the choice, the freedom and possibility to do with these $600 million as it pleased, the critics from this side would have been a lot less caustic. But that is beside the point. That is not at all the result of this agreement. The result of this agreement is this: this 15 per cent export tax will cost our producers some $600 million. But what makes this problem particularly difficult is that the Canadian Government and the provincial governments will not be able to use this money as they please,
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
meaning that they won't be able to spend or invest these large amounts of money in the areas of activity of their choice. That is the reason we say-and I think we have every reason to do so-that this is an extremely painful and serious blow to our sovereignty.
On the one hand, the Canadian Government, because it feared being imposed a burden heavier than this 15 per cent tax, has yielded to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I feel it has kowtowed to them, as a way of saying: Yes, gentlemen, we are going to do exactly what you want, we are going to collect this 15 per cent export tax, and we will try to convince Canadians that we are collecting, thanks to this agreement, $600 million which otherwise would have been spent in the United States. If we can, we will have them believe that because of this agreement, they are $600 million richer. That is utterly false. In order for that to be true, we would have to presume that Canada would have lost its case during the hearings which are held in the United States on similar issues.
Mr. Speaker, I find the situation of our trade relations with the United States all the more tragic since this is an issue of vital importance for Canadians and Quebecers. It affects 250,000 jobs in Quebec and nearly one million jobs in Canada. We just have to look at how many jobs are involved to see how important this is.
Mr. Speaker, what is frightening in the recent agreement is the precedent it could set. I believe that Canadians and Quebecers have every reason to be worried about the future.
I represent a riding which is a major lumber producer. Pulp and paper is also important in my constituency. I have the privilege to have in my constituency the dynamic Cascades group, the Kruger company and Domtar, which account for thousands of jobs and use wood products in their operations.
It is therefore quite reasonable to fear the worst, namely that in the near future, the Americans will tell us: Canada is sending us a product whose major component is wood. We are going to impose a tax to curtail exports of this product to our country, which is one of your best customers. I think that this will happen in the case of many other products and materials.
That is why the agreement signed by the Government should be rejected outright, not because of potential threats, but because of very real threats which will become evident within a few months or years.
Another thing which I find just as unfortunate is that the Canadian Government will be forced to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction in one way or another. The Canadian Government will decide how this money is distributed by telling the provinces: You cannot do such or such a thing with this money because, if you do, for instance to stimulate the forest industry, our agreement with the Americans could be denounced since our good friends, the Americans, have reserved the right to denounce the agreement with 30 days' notice.

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is really sad and disastrous that the Government does not allow a more thorough, a more in-depth debate and has decided with that notice to curtail the debate in order to deliver the goods to their good American friends, and show them once again that Canada is just a tiny partner, and that this tiny partner is willing to do whatever the Americans wish in the end.
Mr. Speaker, that decision will have painful and dramatic effects in the long run, and thousands of jobs will be lost in Quebec as well as in every other province.
The problem may prove to be particularly severe in Quebec. My colleagues before me have described the situation as it exists in Quebec. The problems of the forest industry may have been overlooked these past few years. Massive investments will have to be made in that strategic area. The Government will have to do its share, but so will producers. They will have to contribute huge amounts of money. Producers will therefore be forced in a way to co-operate, to share in the reforestation process, and on top of that participation, they will have to pay the famous 15 per cent tax.
I don't think you have to be an accountant, an expert in that field to understand that lumber producers in Quebec, in the very short term, will be clearly powerless, will be at a clear disadvantage in comparison with other producers in other provinces.
That is another outcome of that Bill, Mr. Speaker.
A number of speakers have also dealt at length with the disastrous consequences of that agreement on the very important lumber sector.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I will once again urge all my colleagues in the ministerial team opposite to take a closer, deeper look at this matter. They will realize that this Bill will have other consequences, other impacts beyond the fact that the $600 million will stay in Canada rather than go to the United States. I believe that if they took the trouble to meet with producers, they would soon realize the painful and dramatic consequence or consequences of that agreement on those producers and on a very large number of jobs, as I said earlier. Some people have said that 250,000 jobs may be affected in Quebec.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to participate in the dying moments of the debate on this very important subject. It is interesting to note that today we had another example of a tough negotiator on the Government side. First, we had General Custer who is not here now, but she is probably somewhere. Today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) gave us an example of his negotiating skill with the French Government. Look how tough he was, Mr. Speaker. He has given away everything.


Mr. Fulton:: Fifteen thousand extra tonnes.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right, 15,000 extra tonnes, and no agreement on conservation of the fish stocks. He just gave it away. That is really tough negotiating. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) negotiated with the western premiers with respect to the National Energy Program. Even I could come out a winner if I gave everything away. She negotiated with the Governments in the Atlantic regions with respect to offshore resources. Anyone can come up smelling like roses if they are prepared to surrender certain interests like the national interests of the country.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) was saying to me that the way in which the Minister negotiated with the Americans was all political and she really gave up on this softwood lumber issue. I replied that there seems to me to be more to it than meets the eye. I thought what was really betrayed was the courage, conviction, perseverance and determination to stand firm when the interests of the nation are at stake. As a democratic socialist, I believe in the decentralization of political power and the evolution of federal powers. I think there are certain concerns which are vital to the existence of the nation. One of those concerns has to be our relationship with other countries. Another concern has to do with the natural resources of the country.
Mr. Vander Zalm, the Premier of British Columbia, obviously convinced the Conservative Government that his position should carry the day, which was that we should negotiate our rights. But, we cannot have a foreign power telling a sovereign nation how it is going to exploit its resources. We cannot have a foreign nation telling us what stumpage fees we are going to charge. We cannot have a foreign nation telling us which particular remanufacturing will be exempt and which will not, and how much tax we have to put on. No self-respecting nation would allow itself to be pushed around like that, but this Conservative Government did. The dangerous part about that is that a precedent is set. The Americans had a patsy negotiating with them, and once they found the soft spot they proceeded to push the Government around on softwood. What will be next, the Auto Pact?


James Ross Fulton: Steel and fish.


John R. Rodriguez: Whatever.


An Hon. Member:: Nickel.


John R. Rodriguez: You have it, brother. The Conservatives have allowed themselves to be pushed around. They have allowed this to happen. John A. Macdonald is probably rolling over right now at the sad and sorry state to which the Conservative Party has fallen. For example, what came out of the initial ruling of the Commerce Department in the United States-
January 27, 1987


James Ross Fulton: October 16.


John R. Rodriguez: -on October 16? It stated it was British Columbia and Ontario which was really subsidizing the softwood industry with low stumpage fees. The Atlantic region had the highest stumpage fees of the whole nation. There was some feeling even among the First Ministers when they met in the west on this issue that the Atlantic Provinces would be exempt from the 15 per cent export tax. But after General Custer finished negotiating at Little Big Horn in Waikiki, it turned out that the Atlantic region got included. Then there was a fight to get some exclusions and exemptions and who got exempted, Mr. Speaker?


James Ross Fulton: Irving.


John R. Rodriguez: Irving is not exactly a struggling softwood lumber producer. I think it owns just about everything that is not planted and rooted.


James Ross Fulton: Or tied down.


John R. Rodriguez: All the small and medium producers of softwood lumber in the Atlantic region are now subject to this 15 per cent tax.


Steven W. Langdon: Ninety-seven of them.


John R. Rodriguez: Ninety-seven in at least 40 single industry towns in the Atlantic region. There are all sorts of studies done about the single industry towns. Here is one particular situation where the Government has been digging the hole and acting as pallbearer for the single industry towns in the Atlantic region. One would get the distinct impression during this last week as we have been debating this particular Bill that we are pallbearers for those communities in the Atlantic region which depend on the softwood lumber industry. They are now subject to this 15 per cent. That is tough negotiating?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave the ball to the Minister of State for International Trade. He said: "I have given her the ball. Watch her go". She took the ball and what did she do with it?
She said: "We looked the Americans in the eye and they blinked three times". As far as she was concerned it was a blinking contest. What has she done in the process? We had such a good case, one which we won in 1983. Right was on our side. Yet in this process of negotiation she even gave away our right to prosecute the matter before the GATT.
Surely, if it was believed that we were right and that we had won the case in 1983 then the response should have been: "I will see you in court, brother". The Minister said: "Blink, blink, blink," and it was gone. If we had such a good case then why did we not say to the Premier of British Columbia: "In the interests of Canada and our sovereignty, Mr. Premier, you just sit tight there in British Columbia. We are going to prosecute this case. The Americans are wrong. They are dead wrong in
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
accusing Canada of subsidizing our softwood lumber industry."
I think we should have fought the case in court. We are now just whipped on the issue, and we will be whipped down the line on another issue while all the Government can do in terms of retaliation is pick on Christmas trees and books. Just look how tough we are. We sell $30 million worth of Christmas trees to the Americans and they sell us $1 million worth. What do we do? We are going to be tough and tax their Christmas tree imports into Canada. We are going to tax reading. That is Tory toughness. I think the Government should be ashamed of itself for having sold away the birthright of this nation with respect to this particular issue. It is a marshmallow government. I think it should be dismissed to the dustbin of history.


James Ross Fulton: As soon as possible.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin)-Unemployment insurance-Payment of benefits in Atlantic region, (b) Regional disparity; the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer)-External affairs- Lifting of sanctions against Soviet Union; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Natural resources-Utilization of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coal in Ontario-Request for study, (b) Request for government consideration.



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. McDermid (p. 2601).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. McDermid:

January 27, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
That the question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried.


Mr. McKnight:: I was inadvertently delayed in entering the Chamber. You were reading the question when I entered, Mr. Speaker, and respecting tradition and having decorum maintained in the House, I did not vote. I would have voted with the Government had I been here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
January 27, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the
bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Five o'clock.


Philip Derek Lewis: Orders of the Day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that we call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: No. Orders of the Day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the Day.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker rose to ask whether it was agreed that we call it five o'clock.


Philip Derek Lewis: I said no.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Everyone in the House agreed. Some Members somewhat belatedly changed their minds. The Speaker has ruled. If Members are challenging the ruling of the Speaker, there is an appropriate way in which to do it, not by yelling "no" belatedly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed with Orders of the Day.

National Transportation Act, 1986 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1986
January 27, 1987


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 19, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When Bill C-18 was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) proposed an amendment which the Chair took under advisement. I have now had an opportunity to study the amendment. I am prepared to accept it and will therefore propose it to the House. Mr. Benjamin moves in amendment thereto:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be not now read a
second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the
subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, very seldom do we have an opportunity to come to grips with part of our destiny, our future. In the area of transportation, the last major legislation, the last significant amendment was passed in 1967. So many things have happened during those 20 years, Mr. Speaker. Serious changes here in Canada, in Ontario, in Quebec, in British Columbia, changes in attitudes and significant changes in the way we negotiate with our neighbours, close and remote. Our products and methods of production also have changed.
Our whole history, Mr. Speaker, was already based on our ability to move around in the best possible way, in the fastest possible way, to best survive against the worst of elements. Transportation, Mr. Speaker, always has been the mortar of our national policy.
We depend to a great extent on our transportation systems more especially as a major part of our economic strength is based on the export of our products. The quality of our products, our costs and the reliability of our delivery systems can and should make the difference. So let us have the courage to ask certain questions, Mr. Speaker. Does Canada now have, and will it have tomorrow, the passenger and freight transportation systems required by those new realities?
Does Government approach to transportation problems correspond to recent changes, the last economic upheavals at home and in our other traditional markets?
Recently, our major economic partner has taken new steps in the area of transportation.
It is clear that we are under no obligation to copy what is being done by our neighbours to the south. It is also clear that we cannot afford to ignore the implications of decisions made by those neighbours. So much so, that nearly 80 percent of our external trade is dependent on them. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Speaker, that is a fact.
We have no intention of forgetting that fact. If we do not change, if we do not evolve, we might very well see a significant part of our external trade escape us, and it is rather more difficult to regain markets than to lose them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
[DOT] (UOO)


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   TRADE UNRESTRAINED INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Dave Nickerson: That, in the opinion of this House, interprovincial trade ought to be unrestrained.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable pleasure to rise to begin debate on this motion. It is probably one of the shortest motions on the Order Paper but that is certainly not on account of it lacking in importance. I must confess that I am an unabashed supporter of free trade. I firmly believe both in theory and in practice that it has been demonstrated that the unrestrained flow of goods and capital, and labour for that matter, results in the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. In general, I think that concept is supported by most Canadians and by the Governments of those Canadians both at the provincial and federal levels. In general, they would agree with it but then go on to state they have certain exceptions.
The Macdonald Commission report, which was largely prepared under the auspices of the previous Government, was, of course, in support of free trade. The Government of Canada is in continuing GATT negotiations on a world scale. We also, of course, have very important bilateral discussions going on with the United States of America. The harmful effects of recent United States protectionist measures show how important it is that we get this bilateral agreement with the United States, our greatest trading partner.
However, I think it is time that we took a look at what is happening within our own borders, right here at home, right here in Canada. The initial concept of Canada, as we know it today, at the time of Confederation was that there would be a customs and commercial union. This was the idea espoused by the Fathers of Confederation. If we look at what was then the British North America Act of 1867, now renamed the Constitution Act, we see in Section 91, which gives the jurisdiction to the federal Government, that the federal Government was to have the exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of trade and commerce. That was to prevent the various provinces, the former colonies, from making restrictions among themselves. Similarly, the Constitution of that
January 27, 1987

day gave jurisdiction in other areas along the same lines to the federal Government, areas such as navigation and shipping, bills of exchange, promissory notes, legal tender and patents. All that type of thing was put fully into the hands of the federal Government.
More specifically, in the Constitution of 1867, we should look at Section 121 which states: "All articles of growth, produce or manufacture of any one of the provinces shall, from and after the union, be admitted free into each of the other provinces". It is quite clear what was envisaged at that time, that is that there was to be a customs union and no restriction.
What has happened over the last 100 years as a result of special invested interest and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies? I do not want to be too forceful because I know how some of these things come about. These types of policies were pursued by the provinces, often with the concurrence of the federal authorities. We now have a veritable mishmash of restrictive practices which have grown up. It is probably worse in the agricultural field. There are, I believe, 144 various marketing boards marketing agricultural products in Canada. If one is trying to sell milk from a province outside of Ontario into Ontario, it is almost impossible. It is the same in British Columbia with respect to pork and eggs, for example. I am familiar with the CEMA problems because the egg producers in the area I represent are unable to sell 60 or 70 miles across the border. It is impossible for them to do that and that is an unnecessary restriction on trade within our own country.
There are various subsidies set up in the agricultural field both federally and provincially. There are differential prices. The Liquor Commission of the Province of British Columbia has a 50 per cent mark-up on wines from British Columbia and 110 per cent mark-up on wines coming in from other provinces of the same country. Surely, that is not fair. The field of Government procurement is another very important aspect. For certain jobs in the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia, no bids are even entertained from firms outside of those provinces. There are systems of provincial preference of one kind or another in most provinces of Canada. There are big differentials put into effect where I come from. We are one of the worst offenders. We have a bid differential in favour of resident companies when it comes to construction contracts.
With respect to provincial hiring practices, there is practically no province which is immune. There were special rules put into effect for the limestone project in Manitoba. Look at construction in Quebec. If one is not from Quebec, there is practically no way one can get a job on a construction site in that province. Work in the oil industry was reserved for Newfoundlanders in their province. There is unnecessary labour licensing legislation. Although we are now trying to make an effort at deregulation in transportation, the trucking industry is a veritable jungle of red tape.
There are all kinds of competitive giveaways and tax incentives to try to get people to locate in specific areas. Of course, there are the back-door methods such as the imposition of British Columbia's sales tax. If one has a construction job in
Interprovincial Trade
British Columbia and one wants to move one's machinery, one has to pay a British Columbia sales tax. If it is only a two-week job, it is hardly worth-while. Those are the kinds of backdoor methods being used.
The result of all this is a lack of competitiveness with Canadian industry and Canadian suppliers. It results in higher consumer prices to the eventual consumer. The cost of all the lobbying which has to go on to get these special favours has to be paid for by someone. A lot of these restrictive practices were put on with the effect of guarding employment within a certain area. However, the wider effect is to create more unemployment elsewhere. In general, it results in an inefficient allocation of resources which in turn results in lower over-all standards of living for Canadians.
How do we reverse this trend? How do we get back to the economic union envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation? First, it will take self-restraint on the part of the special interests involved. They should not look at their special daily interest, they have to be able to look further ahead and try to be fair to all Canadians. There must be self-restraint on the part of governments and legislators who really never like to say no to people. It might take the form of court action because I am sure a lot of these restraints are clearly contrary to Section 121 of the Constitution Act.
I have put forward a proposal which was put forward by the Canada West Foundation for an interprovincial trade commission made up of representatives of various provinces and the federal authorities. The reason for this would be for the negotiation to reduce all these unnecessary barriers. No one likes to say: "I am going to go first", so if we can do it in a coordinated way, the Canada West proposal for an interprovincial trade commission might work to our advantage.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to begin my remarks by complimenting the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for introducing this resolution. I think it is a useful contribution to debate in the House. Frankly, it is a resolution that should have been introduced much earlier. It has a major bearing on the broad discussion we have been having over the past 18 months or so with respect to the free trade initiative the Government has inaugurated with the United States of America. The two cannot be divorced.
The theory being put forward by the Hon. Member who argues for a greater sense of economic union is one to which we would all adhere. We all believe that it would be useful to have a clear examination of how we can reduce provincial barriers. From my experience as the Minister of Employment and Immigration I can certainly testify that the seeming irrationality of various labour licensing codes and professional codes from province to province totally impeded the movement of labour across Canada.

January 27, 1987
Interprovincial Trade
There is one thing which we should have learned from that experience, that is, why do we have this mosaic of different rules and regulations that provides preferences or allows differences from province to province? In large part they have emerged historically as a result of economic necessity and imperative. If the economy of a particular province is dependent upon a certain resource, whether it be the fruits and vegetables of the interior of British Columbia, or similar products in Nova Scotia, then it is important for those producers either to find a way of maintaining a market against all the odds of transportation, and sometimes geography, or going out of business.
The peculiar Canadian genus which has developed over the years has been a willingness to pay slightly more in order to maintain this curious amalgam of regions called Canada. It has been to say that we are not a derivative of the Adam Smith textbook, that in Canada, in some ways, we fly against the logic of the economic theorists, whether they be the 18th century Adam Smith or the 20th century Donald Macdonald. The fact of the matter is we fly against that logic and maintain ourselves accordingly.
The reason I say that those are important factors is because if the objectives set forward by the Hon. Member to reduce provincial barriers is to be taken legitimately, then we must recognize that the problem has been compounded geometrically by the initiation of the negotiations with the United States. Not only has that placed an initial burden on each of the provinces to try to reconcile its differences with its neighbours, they must now reconcile their differences with their American competitors. We saw such an example of that raised in the House today. There were members of the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party who stood up to try to protect the interests of the Christmas tree producers in the Province of Nova Scotia. Why? Because they recognize that it is an important industry in that province and that it needs to be represented. However, what we know as a result of dealing with the free trade negotiations is that there are a couple of central issues at stake.
The first issue is that the major American objective is to have a good go at our subsidy programs. That was certainly the case when I met with a senior trade negotiator two weeks ago in Washington. He very clearly told me that the issue comes down to one thing. We have been told by the Americans: "We do not like the way you subsidize your industries. We want you to get rid of those subsidies." That means freight rates in the Maritimes and the marketing boards in British Columbia. It means procurement policies in Manitoba. We are told that we have to wipe those out. We have been told by the Americans: "If you want to change our countervailing policies and laws, if you want greater access to our markets, then you will have to be prepared to accept the elimination or reduction in the type of programs and policies that ensure or have maintained the regional vitality of Canada". We have been told that we cannot have a maritime freight rate or a vegetable or fruit marketing board in British Columbia under the
concept of free trade with the United States. The Americans are insisting upon the principle of national treatment.
By the way, this is a principle that has been accepted by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) in two of his major official statements on free trade. Once that is accepted as a principle then it must be said: "You cannot discriminate against the activities or entrepreneurs in the United States by giving preference to someone in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia". So we have thrown a real curve ball at the fruit and vegetable producers of British Columbia, the brewery workers of Nova Scotia and the corn producers of southern Ontario by saying that they can no longer have any form of preference, advantage or discrimination in terms of local industry.
In presenting his resolution promoting a national economic union, the Hon. Member must do so with the immense overarching knowledge that that union is very much threatened by the integration into a continental market. That continental market carries with it certain fundamental principles which basically eliminate, or have the potential to eliminate, the 120 some-odd years of development that have allowed us to maintain a regional balance in Canada.
I see the new Member for Pembina (Mr. Van de Walle) is here in the House. I know that he is interested in the question of the use of Alberta coal in Ontario Hydro proposals. It makes a great deal of economic sense for British Columbia and Alberta to move clean coal into southern Ontario for hydro purposes. But it cannot be done under the free trade negotiations. I say that because the Americans say: "How can you provide a preferential rail rate to move western coal to Ontario and discriminate against the movement of coal from Ohio, Indiana or West Virginia?" It is forbidden. It cannot take place.
If the Hon. Member is sincerely interested in pursuing the very difficult but necessary objective of trying to reduce the barriers between provinces, then I say to him: Why add on to that the incredible weight of having to cope with the elimination of all our regional programs and initiatives by negotiating an economic integration in the entire North American continent? I have nothing against dealing with the United States on trade issues. As a Minister I was part of those negotiations. I negotiated the new air pact-[DOT]


Mr. Forrestall:: You ignored it for years.


Lloyd Axworthy: I did not. I was responsible for breaking through the negotiation on new air routes to the benefit of the province from which the Hon. Member for Dartmouth- Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) hails in terms of opening up routes into Boston and the New England markets. But we did it on a one-by-one basis. We did not make the kind of commitments to the principle of national treatment that placed at threat the Maritime Freight Rates Subsidization Program, the marketing boards and the specific procurement policies that allow this country to give certain incentives to our own industries on a regional basis.
January 27, 1987

That is the real issue at stake here. Until the Government is prepared either to develop an effective regional development program, as opposed to cutting back to the tune of $600 million or $700 million as has been done over the past two years, while at the same time ensuring that there is an effective program for adjustment for the industries and workers affected, then we cannot make those changes. Rather than knocking out the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program or the Community Futures Program that allow industries to meet competition, rather than wiping those out and leaving people naked to deal with the change, we cannot make those changes. We cannot go about taking away the livelihood of people, destroying communities and pulling out the regional props and say that we will do absolutely nothing to provide for an adjustment or transition in between.
The Hon. Member's resolution is inadequate. It does not complete the statement. The statement is that in order for the Government of Canada to fully support the reduction of interprovincial trade barriers, the Government of Canada must also ensure a fair and equitable distribution of regional economic opportunity and adjustment programs to ensure that there can be transitions. Then the Provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, or Ontario will be interested in negotiation. If those programs are wiped out and there is nothing in return, the type of progress that we would all like to see in reducing interprovincial trade barriers will not take place.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is short and sweet, and perhaps one might say a little simplistic:
That, in the opinion of this House, interprovincial trade ought to be unrestrained.
When the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) raised this question, what occurred to me first was: Is he really calling for exactly this type of unrestrained market system across Canada? If so, what will that do to many of the privileges presently built into our legislation to assist the Arctic areas? These systems create certain tax advantages which attempt to offset the geographic problems which exist. When the Member has a chance to comment further on some of the points raised I would be interested in his capacity to say "Yes, I am prepared to see my region suffer because of the unrestricted, beautiful market system which I want to see operating."
I think that hidden in this vision of a complete market system are very serious dangers which would not only damage what we have historically built in this country, but damage a great many people. For instance, our social progress has come province by province. That is part of the reason that we have a patchwork quilt system of different regulations and structures in different provinces. This capacity has allowed provinces to experiment and put into place new systems of social and
Interprovincial Trade
economic relationships which, in the end, has benefited Canadians a great deal.
For example, tremendous differences in approach were taken with respect to pay equity and to affirmative action in the different provinces as they affect the women of Canada. The Province of Manitoba has taken a different position and is experimenting with different approaches than the Province of Quebec followed in the past. The Province of Ontario is now experimenting with systems which are again different than those in British Columbia. That is part of the value of the provincial structure that we have in Canada that permits us to experiment and compare different approaches in different contexts.
I am sure the Hon. Member himself, and many Members of the House recognize that there are parts of the country which are far less advantaged than the part of Ontario which I represent. The economic development of those parts of Canada also must be encouraged by specific measures which try to run in the face of the normal push of the market which would leave those parts of Canada as disadvantaged, and perhaps even more disadvantaged in the future.
There are experiments taking place in Yukon under the New Democratic Party territorial government that has been established there. For the first time, it has established a strict policy of local purchase for quite a number of its needs in Government. This has led to considerable increases in local jobs, local production, and to a new sense of economic growth and expansion in Yukon which I applaud.
From my trips across Canada two years ago with the action group of the federal New Democratic Party, I have a sense of the dreams that many Canadians have of being able to have a much greater sense of local control, a much greater handle locally on what is happening to them and to their economy, whether it is shipbuilders in Saint John, fishermen in Newfoundland, carpenters in Saskatoon, groups who have formed co-ops in British Columbia, or municipal development corporations. These groups at the grass roots have attempted to build in their locality a sense of something that they can do about the economic problems which face them. It worries me that an expression of opinion which says that the market system should rule supreme would very much undercut their dreams and their hopes for the future.
Picking up here on one of the positive points that the Member made in his introduction to his motion, I think it is important that we have more integration of our economy. For us to do that, we have to plan for it in co-operation with the private sector for the development of high technology sectors in certain parts of the country. We have to shape our transportation system so that western coal, for instance, does serve Ontario Hydro, and so that Cape Breton is producing steel for CN across Canada. That type of planning is the antithesis of the unrestrained market system which I think has been put before us in this motion today.

January 27, 1987
Interprovincial Trade
I think if we as Members in this House of Commons want to reflect somehow on the dream that most Canadians have, that dream has to be a dream in which we build our country from the bottom up, through planning, through organization, not through some kind of market based unrestrained allocation of resources.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: There is a guy who doesn't trust anybody. He thinks the Government can better do for them than what they can do for themselves.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must at the outset of my remarks in response to the intervention this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) say that I regret very much the literally supercilious argument that we have had from the socialist in this Chamber. He waffled and was on all sides of the question. He was in favour of a great Canadian community but "By God, we have got to plan it. We can't trust anybody to do it himself. Don't trust the private sector".
What did the distinguished Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) say? Just as my socialist friend, he was on four sides of the question. I lost track when he was waffling through the third one. Where was he for 20 years? Where was the Liberal Government for the last 20 years except asleep at the switch? Let there be no equivocation whatsoever, this Party stands for free interprovincial trade. We stand for the removal of the barrier, the lowering of the difficulties that frustrate interprovincial trade.


Steven W. Langdon: Especially in Newfoundland.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) who, God love him, if he is watching, I hope is resting comfortably. He is in hospital with some minor difficulties. Bernie, I will do my best. I am pleased to report on his behalf that he and his provincial colleagues, Ministers responsible for regional and economic development, met last October to discuss this very issue. They did agree in principle. Unlike my socialist and Liberal friends, there is some common sense among our provincial counterparts with regard to a very substantial program, substantial in the sense that it is an historic first step. We will recommend to the First Ministers the putting in place of mechanisms to begin to deal with the questions raised by the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic.
The Minister will recommend to Government and through the Government to the First Ministers the establishment of a priority short list that will really move this question off centre, off the base it has apparently been stuck on for some years. We will start with Government procurement policies. We will look particularly, for example, at liquor regulations that cause enormous problems between the provinces.
If the First Ministers accept these recommendations, and I would hasten to add that recent events encourage us to believe that this will be the case, the federal and provincial Governments will be embarking on a very historic process of reducing barriers to interprovincial trade for the first time. This process will bring long-term benefits for all Canadians by stimulating growth and encouraging a dynamic and a relatively more competitive economy.
The agreement which was reached on October 29 has, as its origin, a recognition by the federal and provincial Governments that increasing interprovincial trade can be an important means for stimulating regional development. With access to the larger Canadian market, competitive firms will be encouraged to grow and become more competitive. This is particularly important to firms located in the less populous regions of the country where markets are often too small to support an economically viable operation. For such firms, ensuring freer interprovincial trade could well be crucial to their continued growth.
Encouraging interprovincial trade will also encourage the development of a dynamic and competitive economy. That is, after all, what we are after. Entrepreneurs in all parts of the country will have greater access to the wider Canadian market. Those with the ability and ambition to take advantage of the opportunity will become those entrepreneurs who will be our success in the future.
Encouraging the development of competitive and dynamic businesses is essential to Canada's long term economic wellbeing. We are, as we all know, heavily dependent for our wellbeing on our ability to export and on our ability to compete in foreign markets. In today's world, foreign markets are increasingly competitive. Only the most competitive suppliers can succeed. For our own good, we must encourage Canadian firms to become competitive internationally. How better to do this than by first encouraging Canadians to become more competitive within Canada. But to do this, Canadians must first have access to as wide a market as possible within Canada. When I talk about market, I refer to the topic areas that range through the whole spectrum of our culture and economic well-being. They range and touch upon everything.
On this subject of international trade, I should note in passing that the said practices that result in barriers to interprovincial trade also result in barriers to international trade. Consequently, some of them will arise in the context of our trade negotiations on an international basis. I would like to emphasize, and I am sure the Minister would want me to do so, that we are concentrating on the domestic effects of these practices rather than on their role in the international trade discussions.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) will be dealing with their effect as barriers to international trade in another context and at another time. Needless to say, whatever happens on the domestic front, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point we are trying to make, will be of importance on the trade front, just as the trade negotiations will have to be factored
January 27, 1987

into whatever we do in terms of international barriers. Consequently, the Minister of State will be working closely with the Minister for International Trade to ensure that we achieve compatible results in the international and domestic aspects of this question.
The current international trade talks have focused attention on barriers to interprovincial trade. People have, quite rightly, argued that we must put our own house in order if we are to negotiate closer trade ties with other countries. Reducing barriers to interprovincial trade is one way of putting our own house in order, so to speak, as we enter international free trade discussions.
While the connection with international trade talks is important, I do not want to leave the impression that this is the only reason we are pursuing this subject. Quite the contrary. Barriers to interprovincial trade predate the trade talks as an issue and have repeatedly arisen in many other contexts. Such barriers restrain economic growth, raise costs to consumers and hinder the development of competitive Canadian suppliers. We must work to reduce barriers to interprovincial trade come what may on the international free trade talk scene.
In embarking on this consultative process, all provincial Governments have demonstrated a great deal of goodwill. They have recognized that we as Canadians must work together to ensure our mutual prosperity. Discussions have taken place in a cordial and co-operative atmosphere. The provincial Governments are to be commended on the positive approach which they themselves have brought to these discussions.
The federal Government has also been an active participant in these discussions. I intend to continue to participate in support of my Minister on behalf of the talks that are going on. I would urge members of this Chamber to commend the Member for Western Arctic for his beautifully simplistic statement. We must work toward the removing of interprovincial trade barriers and we, as a Government, have pledged to do that.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add a few words to this debate.
I would first like to mention that I am very pleased to have as much as ten minutes of time, and not only three minutes, as was the case earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I shall begin by congratulating my hon. friend for the Bill which he introduced in the House this afternoon. To my mind, it is a very important Bill for the federal Government as well as for the provinces of eastern and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I believe also that my hon. friend has put an important question. For several years now we have been talking about Canadians and Quebecers. I am a Quebecer and proud of it, but I am also a Canadian and therefore proud to be a Canadian from Quebec.
Interprovincial Trade
With regard to the Bill which is before us this afternoon, we knew the obstacles beforehand, but we must be aware of the fact that in each province of our beautiful country, whether in the Gaspe Peninsula or elsewhere, jobs are important to us.
Sometimes we tend to say that the Gaspe region is where we want to live and the jobs we want saved are those we have at home. Well, that is what we want, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I am working for.
But we are looking further ahead with a plan of action for our future: that is what we aim to do, and that is why we were elected in 1984. Canadians had had enough of the former Government.
Once again I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing this motion. As I pointed out earlier to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) when he said "we are prepared to hold consultations with the provinces", I would suggest that the fact this process is already under way is indeed very significant, Mr. Speaker.
A few examples might be in order. I am sure that the example of the sidewalks conveys a message to us, to our constituents, and to all Canadians. As you may recall, because the paving materials had been bought in a neighbouring province, the municipality had to demolish the sidewalks. Here is another example, Mr. Speaker. The Hay River Dene band was considering setting up a commercial egg producing company, and the only way it could have shown a profit would have been to get access to the egg markets outside the Northwest Territories. However, not being signatory to the first egg marketing agreement reached in 1967, the Territories will not have a quota and the company will be allowed to sell its products only within the Northwest Territories market.
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians, Hay River Denes or others want to market their eggs in Quebec or the Maritime Provinces, as a federal Member, as a Canadian and as a Quebecer I would suggest that they be allowed to sell their products anywhere they want in this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect to all this. We know that interprovincially the more we buy at home and the freer we are to shop at home or elsewhere, the more buoyant our economy-and it has been a thousand times more buoyant since 1984. The stronger our economy, the more jobs we create on a national, provincial and regional basis.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, each province has its own marketing board. I would not want the federal Government to disturb existing programs.
I am asking this House and this Government, as well as my hon. colleague, to work in co-operation. This is what we want to do; it is our formula for success in Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, in addition to the economic importance of these proposals, it will be because of Canadian solidarity that our country and we ourselves as citizens will grow stronger. Think of what has

January 27, 1987
Interprovincial Trade
happened in the past and look at our discussions and negotiations with the provinces, and that does not necessarily always mean good or positive things-I could speak longer on this subject. If we take another example, such as transport which was mentioned earlier, the rules change from province to province. This is illogical, Mr. Speaker. However, I understand that the provinces have agreed to discuss the matter and to try to improve our economy and our society for the good of Canada.
It is time for each of us in the House of Commons, regardless of Party, to look at this question because it is important to Canadians. It is important that we can negotiate between provinces. Interprovincial trade is important to the Dene band in Hay River, to the people on the Gaspe, to the people in the west, to the people of British Columbia, to the people of the Maritimes and to the people of Nova Scotia. The secret to our success is working together as good Canadian citizens.


Mr. Chuck Cook (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than delighted to have an opportunity to speak to this particular motion. Twill vote for it if it does come to a vote because it is a move in the right direction. I am a western Canadian. In fact, I come from the far west. I have watched what has been happening in this country for a lifetime. The fact that central Canada is so favoured by freight rates quite frankly appals me.
We in Canada talk about unity. We talk about the country being unified and about all of us working together. That should include everyone. I have several examples of inequities I would like to cite.
A farmer with a farm in Saskatchewan and an egg ranch in Alberta was not allowed by the Canadian Wheat Board to move his own grain from Saskatchewan to Alberta to feed his own chickens. Is that free trade? Flour mills basically no longer exist in western Canada because it is much cheaper to ship grain to eastern flour mills than it is to ship flour. There is nothing fair about that whatsoever. The rate on flour should be the same both ways. Freight rates must be part of the issue of free trade. That an egg farm in the Northwest Territories cannot ship eggs anywhere in Canada it can compete I find offensive as well.
Let us talk about marketing boards for a moment. They have been mentioned and looked on with favour by some of my political opponents. Why is there no one who speaks for the consumers? Quite frankly, marketing boards increase the cost of everything to consumers and I defy any marketing board to deny that statement. In effect, marketing boards subsidize the inefficient producer. That was the case with egg marketing, milk marketing and many other areas in my Province of British Columbia. I am against them. They achieve nothing except to subsidize the inefficient.
My home in Vancouver is within an hour's drive of the City of Bellingham, Washington. The difference in prices between those two cities is intolerable in many respects. I will give you one concrete example dating from a few years ago when I became interested in the issue. A major manufacturer of paper products, Westminster Paper Products, is located in New Westminster, British Columbia. The paper towels they manufacture can be bought in Bellingham, Washington, for something like 40 per cent less than in Vancouver. They are manufactured in my city yet they charge me more than they do 50 miles away in Bellingham, Washington.
I inquired as to why. The reason was very simple, they said. In order to have a Canadian market they add the freight rates on in Canada, equalize the price, and sell the product for exactly the same in Toronto as they do in Vancouver and other regions of the country. Of course, export sales are a different matter. That is all very good except for one thing. If you were buying an automobile in Ontario at that time it was $300 less than it would cost in Vancouver. It suddenly occurred to me that there is something manifestly unfair about that because if our manufacturers equalize their rates and charge the same price across the country, why are we paying that extra amount in Vancouver? Perhaps General Motors should equalize its rates and allow those who buy cars in Ontario next to the factory to subsidize those who are further away. Yet that does not happen. There are many examples of this kind of thing where free trade does not truly exist in Canada.
Another small example. Why can we ship our cattle to eastern feedlots at a very low freight rate, yet if we want to ship dressed beef from our own feedlots in refrigerated cars to eastern Canada the freight rate makes it almost impossible to do so? We are talking about free trade now so let us talk about free trade and economic freedom for the west. Rail freight rates are a major issue in that respect. For years and years and years in the City of Kamloops, about 160 miles into the interior from Vancouver, if you wanted to ship two-by-fours to eastern Canada the freight rate was structured in such a way that it was cheaper to ship the lumber all the way to Vancouver and then turn around and ship it to eastern Canada. Kamloops did not get the benefit of the lower rate directly.
If we want this country to work, if we want to discuss free trade with any intelligence at all, we have to look very closely at not only federal but provincial marketing boards. Who do they really help? Believe me, they do not help the consumer and it is about time we stopped using marketing boards to subsidize inefficient producers who should not be in the business at all because they do not know what they are doing. As long as we allow them to exist, no one is looking after the consumer's interests. As someone who represents consumers, I would certainly like to see a lot more protection for them.
Let us turn now to the alcohol business. I do not think there is any doubt at all that if there had not been provincial protection across this country, there would be very few breweries in Canada. In any event, all of them would be
January 27, 1987

located in eastern Canada. I am not so sure that is bad. 1 believe my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), mentioned the Maritimes and beer. Obviously he is not aware that Moosehead beer out of the Maritimes is sold all over North America and extremely successfully. That company knows what it is doing. It has good business people. If you are running an inefficient brewery, if you do not know what you are doing, why are you in the brewery business? We have breweries in British Columbia that can compete with any in the world and should be allowed the same right across this country.
Again, so many of these things have built up over the years. There is such a patchwork of regulation that it will be a terrible job to get back to where the efficient survive and do well and the marginal producers who really do not know what they are doing are forced out of business. Market forces will do that. More than that, I believe the role of Government is to ensure safety and health standards, but when you have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to obtain a quota for some product, that is where the problem begins. The simple fact is that it is the consumer who is paying that money and it is about time someone spoke up in favour of consumer protection as opposed to inefficient producer protection.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to express the view that I am glad eastern Canada did not get blamed for the number of breweries we have in the country. Second, I want to tell the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) how pleased I am to be able to participate in this debate.
At the outset I want to say that Governments at both levels have been paying lip service to a reduction in interprovincial trade barriers for as long as I can remember. For those of us who come here from industry and who happened to be involved in industries which are vitally dependent upon interprovincial trade, this has been an almost insurmountable road-block. We as Canadians are being urged to become more competitive so that we can take our rightful place in the world in bilateral and multilateral trade with the U.S. and the rest of the world. Yet we have all these road-blocks thrown in our way in our own country. In a nation as large as ours, regional disparity is a fact of life. It is a problem we have to address and there is no doubt about that. Unfortunately, the way we have chosen to attack that particular problem in many cases impacts on the way we do business across the country.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, just as I was getting started.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on October 14, 1986,1 put a series of questions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) regarding the recommendations of the Forget Commission, recommendations which would see the Government of Canada cutting the sum of $3 billion from the Unemployment Insurance Commission fund, with some $727 million coming out of the Atlantic Canada economy. I asked the Prime Minister to give the House and Canadians the position of the Government of Canada to the report of the Forget Commission. At that time the Prime Minister said that the report had not been tabled, that it was not formalized, and that therefore he could not speculate on what indeed would be the response of the Government of Canada.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the Forget Commission report has been tabled for some months, since the end of November. The House and the people of Canada have still not received from the Government of Canada a response to the recommendation to cut some $3 billion from the UIC fund and, more specifically, to cut three-quarters of a billion dollars out of the economy of Atlantic Canada alone.
The Government has now had a matter of months to study the report. I would like its formal response to what I would call Draconian recommendations.
The other matter I raised was the whole question of a government strategy or policy to deal with regional disparity in the country. On October 14 the Prime Minister indicated that he was going to Charlottetown to meet the provincial Premiers and hoped to initiate a new day of consultation, co-operation, and discussion to ensure that a regional development policy was forthcoming soon. That was in October; much water has gone under the bridge since then, and we still see no regional development policy. We certainly have not seen the dawning of a new day of consultation and co-operation.
The fact of the matter is that even today in Question Period there were some very strong and angry questions being asked about the actions of the Minister of Fisheriess and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) who proposes to sign an agreement or a protocol with France on fish stocks off Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which will have the effect of denying to Newfoundlanders their traditional and historic right to catch fish in Canadian waters.
That agreement was signed without consulting any Atlantic Premiers, the unions of Atlantic fishermen, Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, or even, we have been told today, cabinet members from Atlantic Canada. If that is the

January 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
dawning of the new day of consultation and co-operation in federal-provincial relations, then God forbid that this new policy should ever mature beyond the present mess which was exhibited today by the Minister of Fisheries.
We will not let the matter die. Again I ask the Government: What is the formal response to the report of the Forget Commission? Will it attempt to balance the books on the backs of the people who can afford it least? Is that the policy of the Government, or is it something else? When will the Prime Miniser and this administration recognize that, beyond the borders of southern Ontario and the growth centres, people in the extremities of the land are suffering unbearably high unemployment. People are asking that their existence be recognized. People are asking that a policy for all Canadian citizens, not only some of them, be developed.
Will we see co-operation, consultation, sensitivity, and caring from the Government which would prevent the kind of brutal and insensitive decision taken by the federal Minister of Fisheries in the absence of any consultation with Atlantic Canadians, a decision which resulted today in otherwise intelligent and rational people calling open-line programs in Newfoundland and talking about having a referendum on getting out of Confederation just as we had a referendum on getting into Confederation. That kind of talk is not the answer and I do not endorse it, but neither do I endorse the kind of arrogant action by a federal Government that would give rise to that kind of arrogant reaction and anger. We expect an answer.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) I wish to respond in greater detail to the question of October 14 from the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).
The objective of the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance was to study thoroughly and impartially the unemployment insurance program and make recommendations to the Government to improve and simplify the program.
In the past few years, the Macdonald Royal Commission, the House Commission in Newfoundland and other studies have reviewed the unemployment insurance program. The recommendations of these several studies are not compatible in many instances. They were studies that were prescribed by the Liberal Party of Canada.
The Government does not endorse the Commission of Inquiry's or any individual report and will not respond directly and specifically to the details in them. All these reports, however, will be used as references in the Government's consideration of unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance in its present form is imperfect and adjustments are required. Our objective, as stated in the 1985 Budget, is to improve and simplify the unemployment
insurance system to make it fairer and to ensure that it encourages opportunities in the labour market.
I want to emphasize, as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget in May, 1985, that our purpose is not to reduce federal contributions to the unemployed. The main objective of unemployment insurance will always be to provide temporary income protection for unemployed workers. The unemployment insurance program should also be able to enhance work incentives and prospects for long-lasting and productive employment. The Government has embarked on such a program.
The Government will listen to the public debate that will follow these studies and will return to the House by May 15 with the Government's proposals.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are no points of order. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer).


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-LIFTING OF SANCTIONS AGAINST SOVIET UNION
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement that the Canadian Government decided to restore cultural, educational, scientific and technical contracts with the Soviet Union led me to question the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) as to the reasons for his decision and the timing of the announcement. As my hon. colleagues will recall, the sanctions were imposed in order to censure the Soviets for their invasion of Afghanistan.
The Minister responded to my question by stating that while the sanctions were successful when first imposed, it was time to consider using other instruments in order to change the practices of the Soviet Government. He has stated his belief that sanctions against the U.S.S.R. do not work.
Almost simultaneously, the Minister has imposed sanctions against South Africa and on numerous occasions has stated his belief in their effectiveness. This would appear to be a contradiction and I would welcome the Minister's further elaboration on why sanctions work against South Africa and not against the Soviet Union.
If we accept the premise that sanctions were originally imposed to lend moral weight to our opposition to the Soviet invasion and illegal occupation of Afghanistan, then the question is raised:	have circumstances in Afghanistan
improved to warrant withdrawal from our earlier position? I submit that circumstances have not improved in Afghanistan since 1980. As a matter of fact, they have worsened significantly.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, and Helsinki Watch have all reported numerous documented human rights violations and that violations by the Soviet and regime forces continue on a massive scale. The Soviets have mounted reprisal attacks and an indiscriminate air and artillery bombardment. The use of anti-personnel
January 27, 1987

mines has been widespread. Bombs have been concealed in pens, soap, matchboxes and bundles of bank notes. For more than a year now we have had proof of the most horrendous of their activities, the use of butterfly shaped bombs disguised as toys whose primary target are children.
Canada's Ambassador to the United Nations, Stephen Lewis, has stated: "It is inconceivable that in 1986 any invading army, no matter what the circumstances, no matter what the provocation, would use such weapons against innnocent children. But it is being done. It suggests a sickness equivalent to depravity".
There is no question that Afghanistan has become one of the great horrors of our time, a scene of devastation, torture, massacre and famine. Surely, in light of the Soviet Government's role in these atrocities, Canada should be considering strengthening our stance in opposition to the U.S.S.R., not weakening it. The United Nations has put the number of official political murders at 12,000 and disappearances at 9,000. Amnesty International adds another 4,500 unofficial "liquidations". About one half millon people have been reduced to a state of famine. Total casualties amount to over one million while 4.5 million refugees have fled the country. These figures are appalling, yet the international community seems to be reluctant to intensify pressure against the aggressive and repugnant tactics adopted by the Soviet Government. The United Nations Human Rights Commission Report of February 1986 sums up the situation. It concludes: "Continuation of the military solution in Afghanistan will lead to a situation approaching genocide".
It is clear that Canada must not forget with whom we are dealing. To suggest that the pursuit of normal relations with the Soviet Union will allow us to exert a more effective influence on the Soviets vis-a-vis Afghanistan, is to, and I quote from the Minister's own statement at the CSCE Conference in Vienna: "-forget that one participating state, U.S.S.R., has over the past seven years violated virtually all principles guiding relations between states".
The time for questioning the effectiveness of sanctions has passed. Canada has a duty and responsibility to uphold sanctions until such time as the Soviets cease their illegal occupation of Afghanistan.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs in answer to my question stated that sanctions have helped to galvanize world opinion on Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. He was correct in this assessment and I urge him to once again focus international attention on the abhorrent situation in Afghanistan by setting an example of Canadian commitment and opposition to Soviet aggression. Canada has a moral obligation to do so.
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize last year, Elie Wiesel said:
We must always take sides, neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented ... When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities
Adjournment Debate
become irrelevant. Whenever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion or political views, that place must, at that moment, become the centre of the universe".
Will the Minister accept this noble challenge on behalf of Canada? And will he act to ensure that Canada's opposition to the unconscionable Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is expressed by strong and tangible action? Will he reimpose sanctions against the U.S.S.R.?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I know of no Minister more aware of the cowardice of the neutrality position than the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I welcome the Hon. Member's intervention and his expansion on his earlier question.
In response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the Government did in fact introduce, in concert with similar actions by our NATO allies, sanctions designed to demonstrate our condemnation of this unjustified act of military aggression. As was stated before by the Secretary of State for External Affairs: "These sanctions were successful at the time because they helped galvanize world opinion against the Soviet actions in Afghanistan". They were also intended to warn the Soviet Union against further adventures of this kind.
It is clear, though, that by their very nature many of these sanctions could only be temporary since high-level dialogue, wider contacts and greater co-operation are all necessary in order to develop more secure and broadly-based East-West relations. In deciding to resume our academic, scientific and cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union, we not only acted in accord with our efforts to contribute to better East-West relations, we also took into account our own interests and needs. The program we have drawn up is very much on a mutually profitable basis.
Moreover, the resumption of these exchanges at last puts Canada in a similar position to its NATO allies, many of whom did not suspend such exchanges. In fact, since Afghanistan, Canada has been generally more conservative than many of its NATO allies in the reinstatement of suspended programs.
With respect to Afghanistan, we are bringing pressure to bear on the Soviet Union by other means. We do not accept the continued Soviet military intervention in that country nor its flagrant violations of human rights.
We are working hard to ensure a continuing and increasing international pressure on the U.S.S.R. vis-a-vis Afghanistan. The statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs during the Shevardnadze visit and at the opening of the CSCE review meeting in Vienna leave absolutely no doubt about that.
While our sanctions against the U.S.S.R. were meant as a political signal that would have an immediate impact on that country, our sanctions against South Africa are intended to convince the South African authorities that they should

January 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
change their policies. Because of a different political and economic context, and South Africa's greater vulnerability, we believe there exists a possibility of real progress. We are hopeful that in his visit to that part of the world the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be able to bring about some meaningful progress. I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention.


NATURAL RESOURCES-UTILIZATION OF NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK COAL IN ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR STUDY. (B) REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with regard to a question I posed to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on December 10, 1986. At that time I asked about the utilization of Nova Scotia coal and New Brunswick coal in Ontario. At the time I was somewhat amazed, but not really surprised, that the Government had taken upon itself the initiation of a coal utilization study for western Canadian low-sulphur coal. With respect to the substance of the matter, I am happy to see that research and development in this very important area will take place, and has taken place, in terms of coal technologies and the utilization of coal.
But there is another region of the country that deserves some consideration by the Government of Canada. When the federal Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources combine their resources to look at one region of the country and purposefully forget about another entire region of the country whose coal reserves are somewhat substantial, then I say that something must be done. Indeed, the economic base of eastern Nova Scotia has been predicated on the utilization of coal, not only for the purposes of export markets, but also for the production of power in the Province of Nova Scotia. On that very day I directed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister as to whether any consideration was or will be given to the utilization of coal from the Atlantic area. He was not in a position to give me an undertaking, but he took it under advisement. I hope that today the Parliamentary Secretary or his representative will give the House a clear undertaking and commitment that studies will commence forthwith into the utilization of coal from eastern Nova Scotia and parts of New Brunswick, both for the purpose of Ontario Hydro and the purpose of the added-on value that will take place as a result of new coal technologies which may result from any investigation.
It is high time that the Government of the day stopped playing cheap, dirty politics in placing one region against another. To those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada, it seems that we are the brunt and the goat with regard to national policies taken by the Conservative Government of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I wish to give you two other examples, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) placed a 30 per cent tax on the importation of Christmas trees from the United States.
Who does it affect most negatively? The Province of Nova Scotia. What about the sovereignty issue with regard to the giving of the nine factory freezer licences to France to fish in an area in Newfoundland where Newfoundlanders have been told that they must conserve?
Now when we look at a Canadian resource, the Government has totally abandoned and forgotten eastern Nova Scotia, which is a region whose economic livelihood has been based on the utilization of coal. We are not asking for anything to which we are not entitled. We are just asking for fair treatment for the future so that the coal industry in those communities can be buttressed and embellished to create new jobs and wealth for the people in that area. How can it be done if the national Government refuses to recognize its importance, and refuses to spend dollars for research and development and the utilization of our coal in both domestic and international markets? It is very difficult to achieve those objectives that all people would like to see in eastern Nova Scotia, particularly in industrial Cape Breton.
I am disappointed that to date the Government has only moved on one front, that is for western coal. I am not against western Canadians. I am for western Canadians. But I am also for Atlantic Canadians. We do not like this unfair treatment. I echo those words not in a partisan way. There are members and union representatives of the United Mine Workers of America who have written to the Prime Minister, asking him to deliver on his election promises of 1984 and come up with an eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Canadian low sulphur coal utilization study. Who knows what the results of that study may be. They may be very good for the economy of Canada. But stop forthwith this playing of one region against another. It is unfair, un-Canadian, and in breach of the intent of the Canadian Constitution which quite clearly states that all Canadians notwithstanding where they may reside should have an equal economic opportunity.
I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Parliamentary Secretary who will be responding tonight: Give us some answers. Give us an undertaking that you will utilize our coal in eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Stop playing one region against the other region because it is fundamental to the economic well-being of eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who I know has a great interest in energy-related matters, to give me that undertaking not two weeks from now, but tonight on the floor of the House of Commons.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is reprehensible that the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) would demean a very sincere representation he made to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on December 10 by his rhetoric tonight.
In response to a question in the House on December 10, 1986 from the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the
January 27, 1987

Deputy Prime Minister indicated that he would take into consideration the Elon. Member's representation to consider the utilization of eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coal in the Province of Ontario by Ontario Hydro.
As the Hon. Member knows, references the Deputy Prime Minister has made to western Canadian coal have been in response to the joint federal provincial task force on the use of western Canadian low sulphur coal in Ontario that was tabled in August of last year. This report was initiated in response to important environmental considerations, particularly acid gas emissions that result from the use of high sulphur coal.
As Ontario Hydro has to reduce its acid gas emissions by 50 per cent by 1994, the two levels of Government agreed to study the potential to meet these requirements by utilizing low sulphur coal in Canada. As well, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has been meeting with all concerned parties in order to work toward a possible solution to some existing barriers to the project. The Deputy Prime Minister has met with union officials, Ontario Hydro officials, federal officials, and next month he will be meeting with Premier Peterson in order to discuss this proposal.
There are, for instance, transportation costs that must be dealt with in order to make this project a reality. Through the National Transportation Act we can reduce the unit costs in our transportation industry, whether it be by rail or lake vessel. We can be more competitive and attract more business, such as this, and ultimately create more jobs.
Adjournment Debate
This project is one which this Government supports and one which 1 am sure the Hon. Member understands is good for the economy, good for the environment and good for Canadians.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond suggested that the Government consider eastern coal from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Certainly this is an idea worth considering which, if possible, would also be good for regional development reasons and create jobs in a very depressed area. The environmental concerns that are the driving force behind the decision to use low sulphur coal in Ontario are, of course, central to the development of any proposal.
Officials are investigating the possible use of low-sulphur coal from regions in Canada and whether there are these important environmental benefits. I know all Parties support a proposal which will reduce environmental concerns and create important jobs across the country, and our Government has taken the lead to ensure that this can become a reality.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.