1987-05-27

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the western Premiers recommended that Canada reduce its growing stockpiles of grain by sending the surplus to feed the hungry peoples of our world.
It hurts the food producers of western Canada to see the food they have grown going to waste while other people in the world go hungry. In our world half a billion people live in a state of constant hunger and 40 million people, half of them children, die of hunger every year.
In spite of the humanitarian desire to share our surplus with Third World peoples, we need to realize that food aid does not provide the answer to world hunger. Except in cases of extreme emergency, food aid can do more harm than good by distorting the price paid for food and destroying the incentive for local agriculture.
Canada already provides a very large percentage of its development assistance in the form of food aid, larger than that of any other nation. CIDA is already a major customer of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The solution to Canada's agricultural problems is urgently needed but this solution cannot be found in a proposal that destroys food production in Africa, Asia or South America. These nations need development assistance, not food aid.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Last Saturday, May 23, Mr. Speaker, Alma in my riding was the site of a rocking chair endurance contest sponsored by the Lac-Saint-Jean Regional Cystic Fibrosis Association.
I was glad to join the "rockers" and make my modest contribution to help finance research which gives every child victim a ray of hope for the future.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the participation of Mrs. Diane Hebert who epitomizes genuine determination and whose presence was undoubtedly a major factor behind the outstanding success of this event which proved rewarding beyond expectations.
I conclude by emphasizing the good work accomplished by all volunteers who have been actively supporting this association for a number of years.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to and anger at the comments made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with regard to the effects of Bill C-22. In a recent speech in Montreal, the Prime Minister misled the people of Quebec by indicating to them that there would be untold benefits as a result of the passage of Bill C-22. What the Prime Minister failed to say is what benefits will be bestowed upon the people of Manitoba. Particularly, will those in Brandon, Manitoba, see any benefits for research and development as a result of Bill C-22? Will Nova Scotians receive any benefits for research and technology as a result of Bill C-22? The answer is an unequivocal no.
The benefits of Bill C-22 will not be distributed across Canada in an equitable way. The people of Canada are once again being hosed by a Government that wishes to cater to the

May 27, 1987
multinational corporations centered in New York, Philadelphia and elsewhere. I call upon the Government to change this most regressive piece of legislation.


THE LATE HUGH CAMPBELL
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that this House records the recent death of Air Marshal Hugh Campbell, former Chief of Air Staff and a man of long and distinguished service in the Canadian military who did much to develop the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Air Marshal Campbell earned his wings at Camp Borden in 1930, and served in the United Kingdom and the Middle East during World War II, rising to the rank of Air Vice Marshal when appointed to the Air Council. After the War, he was much involved with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
In northern Canada, Hugh Campbell will be remembered as an appointed Member of the Northwest Territories Council who worked himself out of a job as he promoted elected and democratic government for northerners. We extend our thanks for a lifetime of service, and our condolences to family and friends.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory Government shields rich, powerful crooks by attacking the poor and weak. Two years ago immigration officials knew that crooks were bringing phoney refugee claimants from Portugal by means of the "persecuted Jehovah's Witness scam". Not until January, 1986, did the RCMP investigate and not until July, 1986, after thousands of duped Portuguese paid thousands of dollars each to crooks, did the Government impose a visa requirement on Portuguese visitors.
At that time the Hon. Minister promised, privately to me and publicly: "We're going to lay charges and we're going to make them stick, if I have to hire the lawyers myself." One year later, no RCMP investigators have gone to Lisbon and no charges have been laid. The Government has rewarded rich crooks by stalling the investigation.
But to cover up this shameful action, the Government attacks real refugees. Men, women and children fleeing brutal police states in Chile and El Salvador are called "liars, phoneys" and "economic migrants" so as to shield the rich crooks. What a disgrace to Canada this Tory Government is.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, ever mindful of its commitments, our Government signed a draft agreement with Mirabel's expropriated people on March 25, 1985, a historic date. Since then the land resale process has been going on as expected, and today I fully support and endorse the expropriated owners' request that the Montreal International Airport North Terminal buffer zone be reduced to 8,000 acres and the surplus land be restored to the original owners.
Mr. Speaker, whereas the 8,000 acres are more than enough to meet current and future needs of the airport over the next 50 years; whereas this surplus land was needlessly expropriated, thus playing havoc with the lives of hundreds of families and uprooting entire villages; and whereas the expropriation deprived Quebec and Mirabel residents of a major agricultural output, I earnestly hope, Mr. Speaker, that the surplus land of this 8,000-acre buffer zone will be resold at the earliest opportunity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with the leaders of the Quebec coalition that is opposed to the Conservative Government's decision to cut unemployment insurance benefits for elderly workers. These people, from Conservative ridings in Montreal West and on the South Shore, were extremely disappointed about the way this dossier was handled by Conservative Members.
These people have been fighthing for a year and a half. Six months ago, the Government promised it would reimburse them. About a month and a half ago, the Government admitted it had made a mistake and had to reimburse these people, but since then, nothing has happened. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Conservative Members in this place . . . and I repeat what I was told: "We have lost the battle, but we will win the war at the next election. We are going to beat all those Conservative Members in Quebec."
May 27, 1987

[DOT] (MIO)


THE LATE PAUL RIMSTEAD
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the passing of Canada's quintessential King of joie de vivre within the sporting world. Paul Rimstead, renowned newspaper columnist and television personality, died in Florida yesterday.
A long-time resident in my constituency, Paul won the respect of fellow writers and the people he wrote about. His years with the now defunct Canadian magazine, The Toronto Telegram and The Toronto Sun proved he could always get the story behind the story. Paul had that special quality in a writer-he built his interviews on a foundation of trust. His eccentric lifestyle was a matter of public record, and his energy often the envy of his peers.
Paul is survived by his wife, his mother, five sisters, a brother and a daughter. He will long be remembered for his ability to make ordinary people larger than life and make common events veritable Superbowls. Paul Rimstead has come and gone in the tradition of a true Canadian newspaperman, and his insights will be missed among the morning news.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, this is the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. In Canada, despite our wealth, between 20,000 and 30,000 people are without a place to sleep at night. Yet CMHC, the federal agency charged with housing policy, estimates it accounts for only 1 per cent of total federal government expenditures. It is obvious the Government's commitment is totally inadequate.
In addition to those who must resort to sleeping in public places and those who find shelter on a short-term basis with churches and other charitable organizations, we must be aware of the hidden homeless in Canada. Because of high housing costs and the shortage of decent housing, many people, for example young couples, are forced to share living accommodation with parents, relatives and others.
We need imaginative policies and an increase in resources to meet the challenge of decent and adequate housing for all Canadians. The federal Government, through CMHC, should take the responsibility and address the crisis. I call upon the Minister to show the political will to deal realistically with this shameful situation.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Laurentian region will be advertised throughout the world, thanks to an extensive industrial promotion campaign launched recently by members from the region, together with the regional industrial commissioners and the Corporation de developpement des Laurentides.
This campaign, launched under the theme Laurentides Plus, with the slogan: More than an environment, an industrial site, will make our region better known, not only in Canada but also abroad where there are major markets for our goods.
The campaign includes a Laurentides Plus poster, which will be sent to more than 50 Canadian embassies, high commissioners' offices and consulates throughout the world.
I am convinced that the Government's assistance will have a major impact on the economy of the Laurentian region.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I had the honour last week-end to be a Canadian delegate to the spring session which took place in the lovely city of Quebec.
In the course of discussions at the Economic Commission on May 22, 1987, Professor Rodrigue Tremblay of the University of Montreal made a speech, which I found very apt, relating to international trade negotiations in which Canada is an active participant.
In discussing free trade, Professor Tremblay pointed out that Canada and the United States were setting an example to countries presently negotiating the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade agreements. The Canada-U.S. talks have shown that economic barriers between countries can be abolished, as they were in Europe in 1958.
The spring NATO session, the discussions on the economy and the responsibilities of Canadian delegates within the various commissions all reminded me, Mr. Speaker, of the major role that Canada can play on the international scene.
By taking the initiative for the Canada-U.S. talks and by taking an active part in the new Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, our Government has shown the kind of priority it sets on reducing trade barriers and its concern for giving Canadians better opportunities for selling their products on international markets.

May 27, 1987
Oral Questions



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Stabilization Act has been a very worth-while safety net for farmers for many years. The amendments instituted by the Government made it somewhat more sensitive to the economics of the farm community, one of the weaknesses of the program is that it lacks universality for all western grain farmers. About 75 per cent of farmers are covered by the program.
The Minister is considering amendments to the Act. When he brings forth those amendments would he consider making the Western Grain Stabilization Act more universal by giving assistance to the 25 per cent of farmers who are not presently involved?



NARCOTICS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as a parent 1 would like to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for initiating his campaign against drug abuse. The critics say there is no crisis but I think the fact that over 200,000 Canadians were using cocaine in 1985 more than proves that something needs to be done about drug abuse in our country. The Government's five-year $210 million program emphasizes public education, research, and rehabilitation. I think it will certainly help some people who now have addictions and will help prevent others from becoming drug abusers.
Those of us who are blessed with the opportunity and responsibility of being parents recognize all too often how ill-prepared we are for some of the challenges which parenting presents. The worry that a family member may become addicted to drugs or alcohol is one of the most fearsome challenges facing parents today.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the public education aspect of this program will be extremely valuable in helping parents and educators put across the message that using drugs is not "cool". The program will also be a big help to families of drug abusers who fear that their love alone may not be enough to help someone with a serious drug problem, a problem with which they have neither experience nor understanding.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning the Premiers at the Western Premiers Conference issued a communique calling on the Government of Canada to make an early announcement of an increased and substantial deficiency payment to western farmers due to declining prices and income. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that we should not be recommending exactly the kind of thing that the western Premiers are calling for.
Will the Prime Minister make it clear now whether or not his Government will make a commitment to a deficiency payment as was requested by the four western Premiers at their conference in Saskatchewan?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the Government has stood behind the western farmers. We have in the past, and we will again in the future. We recognize the contribution of the agricultural community to the well-being of the nation and I have indicated on many occasions that we clearly established our bona fides in this regard. This Government understands the problems and the commitment of farmers and shall stand behind farmers.
I also indicated yesterday that there was a very important international dimension to the problem, which dealt with the crippling trade subsidy war in agricultural subsidies between the European Community and the United States of America. This is very much a debilitating problem for Canadian farmers because this kind of highly subsidized traffic is in the process of artificially taking part and parcel of traditional Canadian markets unfairly.
It is this particular practice which, if allowed to extend, could fatally wound free traders in agriculture like Canada. That is why at the Cairns Group, at the OECD and at the Summit, we have elevated agriculture and the very significant real problems of agricultural subsidies to an international forum so that we can hopefully bring a degree of sanity to this very grave problem of agricultural subsidies. If it is not solved, the Canadian farmer will pay an unfair price. We must make sure that the farmer is not called upon to pay that kind of unfair price.



AGENDA FOR VIENNA SUMMIT MEETING

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, President Fanfani of Italy is reported to have told the Prime Minister that the grain trade wars would probably not even be on the agenda of the Venice Summit in June. How can the Prime
May 27, 1987

Minister raise expectations that he can solve this problem for our grain farmers, which will put thousands of them off the farms this year, if it is not even on the agenda of the Summit?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First, Mr. Speaker, the statement attributed to the President of the Council, Mr. Fanfani, is false. There was no such statement made.
In fact, I, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Finance, repeatedly with him and others, yesterday raised the question that it is the resolve of Canada to make sure that agriculture and agricultural subsidies were very much dealt with at the Summit. We did it in Tokyo and we will do it again in Venice. That is very much in keeping with the international posture of this nation, to recognize that there is a domestic component to the problem and a solution, but without an international solution the problem will persist. That is why it is so important that we be vigilant at the international fora which is precisely the area where Canada is providing the leadership which must come on behalf of Canadian farmers.



SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER'S POSITION-SIZE OF FRENCH WHEAT SUBSIDY

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Premier Devine of Saskatchewan said following the conference in Regina that he would be pointing out to President Mitterrand that French farmers are guaranteed some $9 or $10 a bushel for their wheat, whereas Canada's farmers so far are only guaranteed $2.50 a bushel and that we must not let those farmers down. Will the Prime Minister be a little more precise and give a commitment now that our farmers will receive at least the same returns from the market-place and from a deficiency payment this fall as they did in the past crop year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, farm revenues are up in that area this year because of the very major historic deficiency payment that this Government granted to western farmers which, incidentally, is in the process of being received right now, with $700 million in new money going into the pockets of western farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that agriculture is not a priority for the Liberal Party, but I would ask that you please listen to the answer because it is important to Canadian farmers.
I am pleased to learn that Premier Devine will maintain his vigorous action on behalf of western farmers by raising this disparity in subsidies with President Mitterrand. The dollar figures that my hon. friend mentioned demonstrate very eloquently the dimensions of the problem. The problem is that the apparently bottomless pit of the European treasuries, when placed against that of the American treasury, provides subsidies which countries like Canada, and other fair traders, cannot reasonably meet, and creates an absolutely artificial situation. So the argument put forward by Premier Devine is
Oral Questions
consistent with every single action this Government has taken, namely, that we must rid ourselves of these artificial subsidies because, in the long run, they cripple Canadian farmers by depriving Canadian farmers, who are fair traders, of a fair share of world markets.



AID TO FARMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Prime Minister a question concerning the statement made by the western Premiers. I should say we are certainly pleased that Premier Devine is going to raise the matter with the French President. However, we are more interested in what the Canadian Government is going to do. We did not hear the French President commit himself on Monday to providing direct assistance to western Canadian farmers. It is the responsibility of this Government.
Is the Prime Minister saying in his statement yesterday that, because of the international dimension of the problem, his Government is refusing to provide any further direct assistance to western Canadian farmers by way of a deficiency payment? Or will the Prime Minister commit now to saying that in the forthcoming crop year the Government is prepared to stand by the Canadian farmers and not allow them to be pushed out of the market by the Europeans or the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was a member of the Ministry-and he is from western Canada-which in 1984-85 provided federal assistance to grain and oilseed producers of $1,185 billion. This Government has provided to the same farmers an amount of $3,750 billion. That is a 350 per cent increase in terms of aid to western agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tobin:: Are the farmers better off?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the Newfoundland farmer being heard from.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my answers yesterday and in other circumstances indicate very clearly that we are doing what a responsible national Government must do, which is to fight this at both levels, namely, provide the farmers with required domestic support, which is incontrovertible-the figures indicate an increase of some 350 per cent of federal assistance to western farmers from the time we were sworn in, approximately-second, a very vigorous international program at the OECD with the Cairns Group, with the Summit leaders, to ensure that the ultimate solution is one which benefits Canadian farmers.
Canadian farmers know better than most people in this House of Commons, and most bureaucrats, the international dimension of the problem. They know full well that the

May 27, 1987
Oral Questions
international commodity pricing problem was not created on the floor of this House of Commons and that it requires an international solution. They approve the initiatives of this Government to bring about an international solution to a problem which is crippling their growth.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out to the Prime Minister that in his answers he forgot a couple of important facts.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


Lloyd Axworthy: He forgot that in 1984 the average price of grain was $170 a tonne, not $110 as it is now. In 1984, 30 per cent of Canadian farmers were not facing bankruptcy. That is the difference between now and then.



PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION

Lloyd Axworthy: I want to ask the Prime Minister the question again. No one argues at all with the need to find an international solution, but what about the domestic solution, not a domestic solution in the past, a domestic solution now? Is the Prime Minister once again saying that he is refusing to respond to the western Premiers and the western farmers and will not provide a deficiency payment? Or will he say today that he will provide the solution wanted by western farmers and keep them in business for the forthcoming crop year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the question. The answer is clearly in the action that we have taken, as well as in the responses to questions asked yesterday on this specific point in which we indicated that, on the one hand, we are very directly involved in assisting western farmers at this particular point in time while, on the other hand, we are very desirous of working internationally to bring about a solution.
Two weeks ago I had meetings with leading members of farm groups and farmers in western Canada. A few days ago with the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Agriculture, I met with leaders of the Cairns Group with regard to the international dimension. On Friday, in just a few days, I will meet again with western agricultural leaders here in Ottawa to refine our national strategy in regard to the presentations at the Summit.
Apart from assistance nationally, and a complex, but we think effective, program internationally, there is also a fundamental other ingredient which has to enter this mix. It is attitudinal. It has to deal with our desire to help farmers and family farms.
With respect to the contrast in attitudes, I ask my hon. friend from western Canada to consider this. When the call came to this Government to assist western farmers we said: "Yes". When it came in the past the response from someone
else was: "Why should I sell your wheat?" That is the difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



DOME PETROLEUM-CITICORP'S REPORTED REJECTION OF AMOCO CANADA DEAL-REQUEST THAT PETRO-CANADA INTERVENE

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question that concerns western Canadians in particular, but also all Canadians. It has to do with the fate of Dome Petroleum. It is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As the Minister knows, Citicorp is Dome Petroleum's largest creditor. It has just announced that it is turning down the proposed takeover by Amoco. Yesterday the Minister refused to make it clear whether the Government of Canada would now permit Petro-Canada to become involved with other companies to make a counter-bid.
Given the seriousness of this matter for western Canada immediately, but for the energy needs of all Canadians ultimately, will the Minister not only give his okay for Petro-Canada to become involved but ask it to do so?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question refers to another development in the situation with respect to Dome. It is another stage in the process.
As far as Petro-Canada is concerned, yesterday I was quite clear in my answer to this question.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER ASK PETRO-CANADA TO INTERVENE

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that he was asked the question not once but several times yesterday. He refused to answer then, just as he is refusing now.
Since it has already appeared in print in the financial papers of Canada that Petro-Canada is interested in making a bid, along with certain other companies, to further Canadian interests, will the Minister live up to his national responsibilities now and ask Petro-Canada to get in there and do the job it was intended to do for Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government has set certain procedures for dealing with the difficult situation at Dome, and the points raised by the Opposition today were raised two or three months ago by people with an interest in the matter.
May 27, 1987

Just because the New Democratic Party now realizes that Petro-Canada exists is no reason for insisting on instant results. We answered the question yesterday, and if the Leader of the Opposition did not understand the answer, he should read it over.



ABILITY OF PETRO-CANADA TO UNDERTAKE PURCHASE

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that he did not reply yesterday. He knows that he is being evasive today. I wish to ask him this.
Has anyone from Petro-Canada told the Minister that they have the financial resources at their disposal now that would enable them to get involved without getting one penny of additional revenue from the Government of Canada? If the Government has been so informed why has it not acted in terms of its responsibility and told Petro-Canada to get moving?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to respond daily to what the Leader of the Opposition is pleased to speculate.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery today of Mr. Ton Frinking, President of the North Atlantic Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It involves the perjury trial in the United States of former Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Deaver.
We know that the Canadian Government has instructed our Ambassador, Allan Gotlieb, not to honour a subpoena to testify at Mr. Deaver's trial. At the very least will the Secretary of State for External Affairs instruct Mr. Gotlieb to appear before the External Affairs Committee to explain fully Canada's role in this rather unfortunate affair?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised by members of the committee, and I have replied. There is a letter on record with which the Hon. Member may want to acquaint himself.
With respect to the decision regarding the United States, it would be a substantial breach of Canadian sovereignty for us to depart from the protections of the Geneva Convention and allow a Canadian diplomat to appear before United States courts. Not only would that affect our sovereignty with regard to the United States but it would affect our position as a trading nation in which Canadian diplomats are involved in commercial confidences in dealing with Japan, India, and Germany. I ask the Hon. Member this. Does he also want to betray Canadian sovereignty in the case of Japan, India, and Germany? Does he want us to give away all of the protections that make this a sovereign country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT POSITION

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect that was not an answer to my question.
I submit to the Minister that it would be a breach of his responsibility not to allow Mr. Gotlieb to appear before the External Affairs Committee to explain the Canadian Government's involvement in this affair in view of the facts which seem to suggest Canadian complicity in the matter, and in view of the facts which seem to suggest that the Canadian Government aided and abetted Mr. Deaver in the breach of American law. Will he allow Mr. Gotlieb to appear? If not, why not? What is he hiding?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member very carefully used the language "seem to suggest". He knows that the facts are the opposite to what he is trying to convey in the House of Commons.
The charge against Mr. Deaver is a charge of perjury. The charge has nothing at all to do-nothing at all-with any activity he undertook with regard to his contractual relations with Canada. I think the Hon. Member knows that. Certainly people who have been following the case know that. That was the substance of the discussion with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, and others, in the standing committee.
I made it clear that if there was a breach of Canadian law, or any suggestion of a breach of Canadian law, then of course we would be prepared to consider the appearance of the Ambassador before the Canadian parliamentary committee. There has not been. The Hon. Member owes a duty to the truth not to leave false suggestions on the floor of the House of Commons.
Oral Questions ENERGY

May 27, 1987



PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM-POSSIBLE ROLE FOR PETRO-CANADA

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the Dome matter. I will give him a chance not to be a lame-duck Minister of Energy, a canard boiteux-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: With respect to Petro-Canada's involvement will the Minister tell the House whether Petro-Canada can become involved in bidding for Dome on a commercial basis? Is the answer yes or no?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, there was some distraction. Could the Hon. Member repeat the first part of his question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is just a little quacking back there.
Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one, so that we are all clear. Can Petro-Canada bid on Dome on a commercial basis? Is the answer yes or no?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say the question itself is rather shaky.

1 still prefer, if it is possible to say lame duck than a dead duck.

As for Petro-Canada's position, it is public knowledge. It may not be what the socialist Party would like it to be. It may not be in line with the philosophy or ideology of the socialist Party, but it is the position of a Government that was elected by a majority of Canadians. This Government has given Petro-Canada a business mandate, and that is how Petro-Canada should act, Mr. Speaker. The socialist Party knows that perfectly well, although it may not appreciate the fact.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, and I challenge him to have the courage to answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A majority of Canadians clearly want a Canadian solution to this question. They want Petro-Canada to act. Why is the Government acting like a bunch of wimps,
standing back and letting Amoco get the deal? Why is the Government not putting a deal together or helping to put a deal together?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the socialist Party has a short memory. In fact, it helped create the situation in which Dome now finds itself. It should at least remember that.
Furthermore, that party tends to forget that in the first round of bids for Dome, there was a bid by a Canadian company, TransCanada PipeLines. We had a solution presented by a Canadian group, but that is no reason for obliging Dome to accept it. What the Government has been saying from the outset, and we shall not depart from this policy, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not up to the Department of Finance to bail out Dome.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Government House Leader.
After one year the Government finally decided to reimburse some of the pre-retired pensioners whose unemployment benefits were savagely cut by the Government on January 5, 1986, and on April 1, 1987, the Government introduced Bill C-
50.
Since there are thousands of pensioners who are anxiously awaiting reimbursement of benefits and the Government has not yet moved on Bill C-50, would the Minister consider reimbursing these individuals by administrative action?
The Government cut their benefits by administrative action; the Minister can reimburse them by administrative action. Why does he not do that immediately?
Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has spoken with his critics, informing them that he wants a speedy passage of the Bill. The critics have responded, and a possible arrangement will be ironed out among the three House Leaders.



REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE REGULATORY ACTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Government could immediately reimburse these thousands of pensioners by administrative action. It made the cuts by administrative action, by regulation, and it could reimburse by regulation.
May 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
What it is doing is holding these pensioners hostage in order to get through other provisions of the Bill which are unacceptable.
Will the Minister reimburse these people by regulation and do it today?
Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister needs the approval of Parliament, from what I understand, to reimburse retroactively the early retirees since this money is to be taken from the Unemployment Insurance Fund.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Canadian banks may suffer revenue losses of an estimated $446 million this year due to Brazil defaulting on its foreign debt interest payments.
Many analysts fear that banks will increase personal service charges and personal loan rates to make up these losses.
Could the Minister monitor these charges to ascertain if Canadian customers will be paying the shot for Brazilian defaulters?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend, I assure him that we will monitor the charges. However, I might tell him that since the competitors of the banks-the trust companies, the insurance companies, and others-will now be increasingly into consumer lending and commercial lending as a result of our policy in December, there will be increased competition.
Because they do not have foreign loan exposures, it means that there will be enormous pressure on the banks not to increase those service charges.
The role of the federal Government is not to have rules regulating levels but proper disclosure. I can assure the Hon. Member that not only will we monitor this but we will make sure that the rules of disclosure are adhered to.



AGRICULTURE


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It also involves the crisis in world grain markets.
Oral Questions
We recognize that the Venice Summit and the GATT meetings may help resolve the grain crisis over the next few years. However, in the meantime, Canadian grain farmers are asking for assistance in the short term.
Why is the Prime Minister unwilling or unable to make it clear to Canadian grain farmers all across Canada that there will be deficiency payments for the 1987-88 crop year?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this is simply a repetition of questions that we not only received today but questions that we have been receiving from across the way for quite some time.
Members opposite have been ranting and raving-and they were doing so after we met with farm leaders-that we should play some leadership role and suggest to Canadian farmers what their cropping pattern should be this year, 1987.
That is exactly what farmers did not want us to do. Really, it is humiliating to farmers to suggest-and this is the type of suggestions we have been receiving from across the way-that farmers do not know best to read the market signals or that farmers do not know best what cropping patterns they should follow in 1987. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: We are not asking for the details of the payments. We are asking for the payments, the Government's assurance that the payments will be made.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, western Premiers have asked for $1.6 billion. Across Canada that comes to a ball-park figure of $2.2 billion at that rate.
Why is the Government unwilling to be committed to even the idea that it will pay some kind of deficiency payments for the 1987-88 crop year? It has never given us that assurance.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure why the Opposition has so many problems with this, because as we talk with Canadian farmers that is not first and foremost on their minds.
What we are seeing today and what we have seen over the last number of weeks is an attempt to force us into making a commitment for the next crop year, and indeed the present crop year is not completed and will not be completed until the end of July.
We met with farm leaders on March 5. The Prime Minister indicated that this Friday we will meet with farm leaders again. I had some discussions with farm leaders during the Cairns meeting, and the message which I got from them loud and clear was the fact that they wanted a bit more time to have a series of meetings among themselves-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

May 27, 1987
Oral Questions



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or to the Prime Minister.
We all know that as far as the elderly are concerned, this Government's record has been very negative. Remember the de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions, the unemployment insurance question, the New Horizons program, the discrimination against people who are single, separated or divorced.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I seem to have hit several sore spots.
Mr. Speaker, my question, if there is anyone capable of answering and if the Prime Minister has the courage to rise in the House and defend the interests of the elderly, my question is as follows: It was one year and four months ago today that the elderly asked that justice be done in the case of elderly workers. More than eight weeks ago, the Government moved a motion for first reading of a Bill that would reimburse elderly workers. Could the Prime Minister inform the House why he did not ask his Government to schedule a debate on this matter eight weeks ago instead of talking about the death penalty? Why not discuss the Bill to reimburse elderly workers instead of having a debate on the death penalty?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, in my answer I said quite clearly that the Minister has consulted with his colleagues, and I think that after these discussions we can expect matters to progress, with the cooperation of the leaders of all parties in this House.



BILL C-50-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not understand a thing and is merely parroting what the Minister told him. We want to know the facts. Eight weeks ago, the Government admitted it was wrong, that there had been a mistake and that there had been injustice in dealing with elderly workers. There are 210 of you and you cannot even decide which Bills will be brought before the House. What we want to know and what the Deputy Prime Minister should tell us is: Is he prepared to introduce the second reading stage, tomorrow or Monday at the latest, of Bill C-50? Is he prepared to have this Bill passed and to split the Bill so that the reimbursement provisions can be adopted immediately? Yes or no?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to bring in the Bill. We are also hoping that we can get some co-operation from the Opposition. If the Opposition is agreed to pass it in one day, I am sure those arrangements could be made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister has answered. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.



VIA RAIL


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Would he not agree that when his Government asked Bombardier and UTDC to form a partnership to sell new passenger rail cars to VIA that a commitment was made both to the companies and to the workers? Because of that commitment and the fact that the new cars would pay for themselves in seven years, would he be prepared to go back to Cabinet and really fight to get the necessary funds to buy this new equipment for VIA? Would the Minister do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, no commitment has been made or was made to the consortium that there would be any purchase unless the price and terms and conditions were found to be satisfactory. Unfortunately, that did not turn out to be the case.
The Government has considered carefully what can be done for VIA Rail in light of everything the Government must do for every nook and cranny of Canada and for every service across Canada in transportation and outside transportation. The maximum we can do for VIA Rail in the next period, five years I think it is, is to put forward $2.5 billion, and since that amount would not also permit the purchase of these passenger cars at the price suggested, I am afraid that has had to be deferred.



REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET CANCAR WORKERS

Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be in Thunder Bay this Friday to open National Transportation Week. The workers at CanCar have asked for an opportunity to meet with him to indicate the impact of this decision on their livelihood.
Is the Minister of Transport prepared to meet with them, or is he going to give them the same kind of cold shoulder that he
May 27, 1987

gave to the Tory MLA representing the same area, that is, refuse to meet with them?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have never, as far as I know, given anyone a cold shoulder. My shoulder is always receptive to any head that wishes to lay itself upon it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I always suspected that, John.


Lloyd Axworthy: Remember what happened to Gary Hart.


John Carnell Crosbie: That, of course, is within the bounds of the legislation proposed by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



WAR CRIMINALS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to resist the shoulder of the Minister of Transport. In the absence of the Minister of Justice, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Last December the Government received the Deschenes Commission's report dealing with war criminals in Canada. The Government indicated that it would accept the recommendation that the Criminal Code be amended so that war criminals found in Canada could be prosecuted here.
Recently the Ukrainian community added its voice to many others wanting this legislation brought forward as quickly as possible because the time clock is running, not only for people who might be accused, but for witnesses as well.
Why the delay, Mr. Speaker? Will this legislation be brought forward soon? In any event, will the Government commit itself to bringing the legislation forward by the end of June?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am acting for the Minister of Justice today and I am proud to say that the appointment of the Deschenes Commission was an initiative of the Prime Minister and myself when I was the Minister of Justice. For 40 years-and for most of those years there was another administration, I will not mention its name because it would be invidious-no action was taken at all.
We appointed the Deschenes Commission, and the Minister of Justice is now acting to see that the recommendations are carried out in so far as they can be. I will pass on to him the
Oral Questions
hon. gentleman's anxiety in connection with the matters that he mentions. The Member can be assured that the Deschenes Commission report is getting very, very active attention and will continue to.



RODAL REPORT-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION

Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to praise the Government if any substantive action had, in fact, been taken.
One of the things the Deschenes Commission recommended was that the Rodal Report, which deals with how war criminals here in Canada got here in the first place, be given the widest possible circulation, but the Government has been sitting on it since it received it in December.
When will that report be made public? Will the Government make a commitment to make public that report which Deschenes recommended be made public? What good is the Commission if none of the recommendations are going to be taken?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Justice is making sure that every step of the process along the way is proceeded with very carefully in the interests of fairness to everyone who may be involved.
I will pass on the Member's anxiety with respect to the circulation of that report, and I am sure the Minister will give him an answer when he returns to the House. He is in a meeting today with the country's Ministers of Justice, Mr. Speaker, otherwise he would be in this House as he loves every moment of his attendance here.



TELEVISION


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Consumers in Canada today are buying stereo capable television at the rate of two to one. As the number of stereo televisions increase, Canadians are demanding stereo television programming using this state-of-the-art technology.
Will the Minister urge the CRTC and our broadcasters to ensure that Canadians have access to this new age of television programming, or will we remain in the monolithic age?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has always prided itself on being on the leading edge of technology in our broadcasting system. I am sure we will continue to remain so. In fact, the broadcasting industry has to realize that in order to remain competitive it must continue to implement leading edge technology, including capability in stereo systems.

May 27, 1987
Oral Questions
I would like to inform the Hon. Member that at present there are discussions taking place between the CRTC and the broadcasting industry in order to ensure that Canadians continue to receive the best possible service.



HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is he aware that in Winnipeg we had a by-law dealing with solvent abuse, in particular, glue sniffing, which by-law made a positive contribution in reducing the amount of solvent abuse in our city. This law was thrown out by the courts and said to be within federal jurisdiction.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to bring in legislation regulating the sale of solvents to minors as part of his national drug plan?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the drug strategy and to see reports in the press this morning saying that some young people, at least in Montreal, have congratulated the federal Government on its effort and have approved of the effort.
My hon. colleague has brought up a precise question about the regulation of solvents. I will be happy to bring it up with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and maybe also with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.



REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is simply not enough to answer by saying that it will be referred to another Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would face up to this issue since he made drug abuse a national priority.
In Winnipeg we had legislation that was effective and that was reducing solvent abuse but now it is under federal jurisdiction. Is the Prime Minister prepared to take legislative action in order to reduce the amount of damage solvent abuse is doing to kids, permanent damage to neurological systems and to brains, and even causing death?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last autumn when I spoke in Vancouver and indicated that, in my judgment, the drug abuse problem had reached epidemic proportions, some trendy types in this country thought that was cute and exaggerated, and so conveyed that
message. This Government and this Party felt that drug abuse of this kind-


Ms. Copps:: Ronnie felt.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton East speaking on this from her seat?
We felt that this kind of abuse required a national comprehensive program which we have put together.
My hon. friend raises another point which we will certainly take note of and which I will discuss with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but fundamentally our commitment is to the real-


Mr. Marchi:: Yes, sir, Mr. President.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not find that the problem of drug abuse is serious. That is a typical reaction. What happens to ordinary Canadians does not interest them, but when it damages families, I guarantee you it interests us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF CANADA


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Recently the Government announced the dismantling of National Museums of Canada, alleging administrative problems. Among these problems, the Commissioner of Official Languages singled out the non-application of the Official Languages Act. I have here a rather thick report containing 30 recommendations on the way to implement an official languages policy within the National Museums of Canada. Since the Minister says she wants to solve these problems, can she confirm that she will give or has given firm directions to the new independent museums, namely that they must abide by the law, that they must implement an official languages program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member, and my answer is yes.



INQUIRY WHETHER EACH MUSEUM DIRECTOR WILL BE HELD


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since each museum will now be independent, can the Minister tell us whether each museum
May 27, 1987

director will be held responsible for applying and implementing a program, at the earliest opportunity, so that the public may be given services in the language of its choice, that people who work in museums may do so in the language of their choice, and that both official languages be equitably represented in national museums?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: During the transition period, Mr. Speaker, new Secretary General Edwards will continue the work of his predecessor. But in future, once the legislation has been passed, each museum director will have that responsibility.



REFUGEES


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. On Thursday, May 21, 1987, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North asked about Francesco Piperno who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for helping establish an armed group responsible for the murder of former Italian Premier Aldo Moro. Can the Minister assure the House that Mr. Piperno, a convicted terrorist, will not under any circumstances be considered eligible for staying in Canada under the conditions issued by the Immigration Department memorandum of April 14, 1987, for criminally inadmissible applicants?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Piperno was refused admission to Canada in June, 1982. He claimed refugee status and his claim was rejected in December, 1983. Since our decision, Mr. Piperno of course has been using all legal avenues available to him to have our decision overturned. The case is presently before the Immigration Appeal Board and it is inappropriate to comment. Of course this is symptomatic of the clogged, cumbersome, complicated system that was left to us by the previous Government.


Mr. Kindy:: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be from the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville. One question only, please, because we are over time.
Points of Order CORPORATE



ACTIVITIES OF WINDSOR ORGANIZATION PURPORTEDLY ACTING AS OMBUDSMAN FOR MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he could be summoned from behind the curtain. In Windsor there is an outfit operating that describes itself as the ombudsman for the Minister of National Revenue. This outfit fraudulently uses Department of National Revenue letterhead, issues press releases as authorized by and issued on behalf of the office of the Minister of National Revenue, and is involved in other fraudulent activities claimed to be on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue. Why has the Government allowed this situation to exist for two and a half years without an effective response?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of this. If the Hon. Member will let me know, we will look into it.



POINTS OF ORDER


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was rising to ask a supplementary question and you called the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) who was behind the curtain and was not standing. I really do not appreciate that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair realizes that the Hon. Member was in fact seeking the floor for a supplementary question. There were other Hon. Members as well who the Chair saw rising and those were government Members hoping to put some questions, but as I indicated to the House, we were getting a little over time.
Under the admittedly informal arrangements and cooperation that exists between the Parties and the Chair, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) was the next delegated Hon. Member to put a question and I noticed that the question was certainly put immediately after the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville was recognized. I also want to note that the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville went along with the Chair's request to limit his usual two questions to just one question. With respect to the Hon. Member's point, I regret that I was not able to work him into this Question Period and I will try to do better on another occasion.

May 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Young ALLEGED USE OF IMPROPER PARTY TITLES


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take under consideration whether or not it is proper for a Minister of the Crown to address the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) by any other terminology. I have noticed an increasing tendency, specifically from the cabinet benches, to use names other than proper Party names in the House.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who made the point that it is considered offensive by members of the New Democratic Party to use the term "socialist". I have to say that we did not realize they found this offensive. I will certainly make it well known that they do.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that once Members have an opportunity to read the "blues" they will see I never said any such thing. I asked the Speaker to consider the use of terms to describe political Parties in this House other than the correct titles. That is all I asked you to do.


Ms. Jewett:: The Neanderthal Tories.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) did not say the word he was referring to, but I heard very clearly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) refer to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) as the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he is jumping the gun but I personally do not object to it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is pleased to note that the complaint raised by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) concerns the courtesies in this House. At times Hon. Members seeking to attract the attention of other Hon. Members sometimes use less complimentary terms in referring to their respective Parties. However, there is some legitimacy in the point the Hon. Member for Beaches makes. Those courtesies are expected, respected, and help to maintain order. I ask all Hon. Members to remember, in referring directly to the Leader of a Party, that it is probably more courteous to express the name of the Party in exact terms. I also ask members of the Opposition to extend those courtesies when referring to the government Party.


John Carnell Crosbie: Don't call us Tories, call us Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is taken and I think we can move on to another matter.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has a short question of privilege.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I believe is a question of privilege and I have given notice to you and the Minister involved.
I believe 1 and other Members of this House, particularly those in the Opposition but also government back-benchers, have to be sure the information we take from this House or committee is a clear reflection of why the Government makes a decision and what that decision is. If a Member is provided with two different versions or interpretations by the same Minister on the same day, then I believe that individual's ability to function as a Member of Parliament is somewhat compromised; in this case, perhaps my privilege has been violated.
1 would like to read to you two short excerpts from the Standing Committee on Transport and the House last Thursday. This is the nub of my concern. Reading first from the committee, and to give you the context I will start with the question 1 put to the Minister:
Do you have any indication whatsoever that the increase in the price per car- or to what extent the increase in the price per car-was due to design changes after the initial proposal was sent by VIA to the consortium?


John Carnell Crosbie: No, I do not. I do not have that information. It has been suggested that there was a premium because this Trans Consortium was formed. You know that there might have been a saving if the tenders had been called and they were both bidding against one and another. And that is possible that there was a cost premium there, but 1 do not have any figure for what you are discussing there.


Iain Francis Angus: Your department has not analysed the bid and the negotiated agreement as it relates to the-because I mean you yourself have said we are not doing it because we cannot afford it. The price is higher than we anticipated.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, as I understand, there is a certain price tender per car which was too much and that price was substantially reduced after a series of discussions and negotiation. So the consortium reduced the price some hundreds of thousands of dollars per car as a result of discussions and negotiations after their original price was put in. But it still left it well in excess of three million dollars per car.


Iain Francis Angus: Just a final question. Mr. Minister, would you conclude then, that the final price per car was realistic, separate from the issue whether the money was available, but that the Government and VIA were not getting taken to the cleaners by the Trans Consortium because of a lack of competition?
Here is the key element in the Minister's response:


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think Trans Consortium were attempting to take anyone to the cleaners. Naturally if you are bidding against one and another you are going to do everything you can to be competitive and shave prices. So probably the effect of inviting them both to work and tender together on it would result in a higher cost, but 1 do not think they were attempting to take anyone to the cleaners.
Later that day in the House, in response to my question, the Minister said:
The hon. gentleman should ask the companies which he mentioned whether they were keeping that problem in mind when they submitted their prices to do
May 27, 1987

this work. The cars came in at hundreds of thousands of dollars in excess of what had originally been estimated.
The hon. gentleman might well ask them why they did not sharpen their pencils and come in with a price which we might have found sustainable rather than one $100 million in excess of what was originally envisaged.
The concern I have is that because the Minister provided me with two different answers I am unable to accurately reflect to my constituents, people whose employment is dependent upon that contract, the real reason for the decision. Is it because of the financial system of the company or is it because of a decision of the Government?
I would ask you, Sir, if you could examine those two answers in full. I should point out that the answer in the House is on page 6294 of Hansard. I do not have the final Hansard transcript of the Standing Committee on Transport. I only have the unedited copy which was made available to me immediately after the sitting. I would ask you to review them and see whether or not a Member's rights have been violated because of a difference in information given.
I have no dispute with the Minister or any other Minister when they say the Government is not doing something for the following reasons. However, when we get two different sets of reasons I think it is important that we have an idea as to whether that is an appropriate approach for this House and committee. I respectfully ask you to review that and I look forward to your decision.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident that if you can find a question of privilege in what the Hon. Member has put before you, you will be more than suited to getting through the eye of a needle. In the first place you have to look at the context of both-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the Hon. Minister is not referring to the Speaker as a camel.


John Carnell Crosbie: No. Mr. Speaker, you would have to look at the questions in both cases. In his question asked here in the House the hon. gentleman was trying to blame the Government for a future loss of employment for those people who work for UTDC in Thunder Bay because the Government is not purchasing these cars. I was simply pointing out that surely their employer has to share any responsibility in that direction. The Government cannot be expected to base its decision purely on the employment creation any particular decision will provide.
In the next five years, with S2.5 billion in public funds, we are going to provide jobs at VIA Rail in the area of 8,000 or 10,000. I cannot remember exactly. We will provide thousands of other jobs in the supply and service industries. We have simply had to make a decision as to where the available money can best be spent. We had to decide whether we could afford to buy 130 of these particular new cars at a price in excess of $3 million. The answer was that we cannot. We will be providing great employment through the refurbishing of 200 older cars. If I remember the figure right, that will provide something like 8,000 man-years of employment.
Privilege-Mr. Angus
There was nothing incorrect in either of my statements. I believe that both of the companies which the hon. gentleman mentioned were acting in good faith. However, the price they came up with plus other factors did not permit us to proceed.
I will be seeing some of the Hon. Member's constituents when I visit Thunder Bay on Friday. I would much prefer to be going there having been responsible for their receiving this contract, but I hope they will get other contracts. We will do whatever we can to assist.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Minister has highlighted the fact that this is really more a matter for debate than a question of privilege. The Hon. Member has highlighted a problem in his community. That is what we are all here for, but I submit that there is no prima facie case of a breach of privilege. There is no proof that his ability to function as a Member of Parliament has been impeded. I believe the Hon. Member has clarified the situation. In conclusion, I submit that no question of privilege has been brought before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on whether he believes that the situation is now more clear to him in terms of his obligations to report back to his constituents.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in terms of process I think the answer would have to be no. Obviously the information given by the Minister today is an accurate reflection of his feelings and his approach. However, in the broader sense there is perhaps a need for a review. Perhaps that is something which, in the generic sense, can be referred to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for consideration of the responsibilities of Members vis-a-vis Government for the passing on of information. I will accept whatever judgment you may make either now or at some other time.


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members will know, whenever I think it is necessary I reserve judgment. However, in this case I think I can make a ruling at this time.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is pursuing a matter of very great importance, not only nationally but particularly in the Hon. Member's riding. As the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, that is very much respected in this place and it is expected.
It seems to the Speaker that the difficulty arises from the fact that things said by the Minister in committee may have been interpreted as being somewhat different than things he said when addressing the same issue in the House.
The difficulty the Chair is in, of course, is that strictly speaking the Chair ought not to be inquiring into what goes on in a committee. I have tried to be very careful not to transgress that rule. Speaking hypothetically is never too wise in this place, but if the Chair believed that there had been any

May 27, 1987
Tabling of Documents
deliberate attempt to leave one impression in a committee and another in the House we might all be in some difficulty in addressing this matter. However, I do not take anything the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has said as an indication that there was any deliberate attempt by the Minister to do that. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in this place. While I think there is a difference of view as to what was said in one place as compared to what was said here, I do not think it goes so far as to be a charge of any deliberate attempt to mislead.
Of course, in making this ruling I am more than prepared to assure the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that I constantly bring more difficult situations to the chairman of the appropriate committee in an informal way in order that the committee, which is constantly surveying our rules, is made aware of them.
1 hope that that response satisfies the Hon. Member. I want to tell him again that every Member of this House recognizes the importance of the issue, not just nationally, as I said, but especially in the Hon. Member's riding, and respects the concern of the Hon. Member for it. I want to thank the Hon. Minister for remaining for a few minutes in order to help the Chair settle this matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions Nos. 332-2439, 332-2440 and 332-2449 to 332-2451, inclusive.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who point out that the low-level flight training of pilots from the NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador, disrupts the way of life of many of the native people there and is also a provocative and aggressive war fighting action that tends to endanger world peace.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from about 200 residents of Toronto and several other cities pointing out that there are many people who are forced by the troubles of the world to seek safety from persecution by coming to Canada, that Canada in the past has had a reasonably good refugee status determination system and standards, that the standing committee of Parliament has proposed one better able to deal with the problems which were created by overload, and that this has very, very widespread public support from leading bodies in our country. Therefore, they ask Parliament to ensure that the Government and Parliament will enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board which is independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure for me to present a petition signed by 306 residents of Grande Prairie, Alberta, who request that the Government of Canada support my motion, Motion M-37, to allow the rights of unborn babies to be enshrined in the Constitution and protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents from British Columbia who are calling upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 to allow unborn babies to be protected by the Charter of Rights.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about changes to the Criminal Code regarding young people.
They are, therefore, asking Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to provide that the "corroboration not required'' provision in Section 246.4 of the Criminal Code apply to all sexual offences and not only those offences currently listed in Section 246.4.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to table in the House today a petition received from a number of people from different parts of my
May 27, 1987

constituency in support of Motion M-37, the motion to enshrine in the Charter of Rights protection of the rights of the unborn.

This does not happen to me very often, but I have just received from Saskatchewan a petition written in French which humbly prays and calls upon Parliament to support Motion M-37 and allow unborn children protection under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The petition is signed by Saskatchewan residents of Ferland, Gravelbourg, Regina, McCord, Kincaid, Saskatoon and two or three other towns and villages.



COPYRIGHT ACT


Flora Isabel MacDonald: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Copyright Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 94 and 113.


Mr. Nickerson: Since December 1, 1986, did Soviet military aircraft make incursions into the Beaufort Sea area and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates (c) what type of aircraft were involved?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: In general, the TU85 BEAR H which can be used as a Cruise missile launch platform, routinely flies training missions in the North Atlantic, off the north slope of
Order Paper Questions
Alaska and also over the Beaufort Sea. In all cases, other than below, these aircraft have remained over international waters.
It is a matter of public record that the Soviets effected an incursion into the Beaufort Sea on February 17, 1987, using BEAR H long range bombers. These were intercepted and identified by North American Aerospace Defence (NORAD) aircraft.


Mr. Manly: In each of the past five years, did the Department of National Defence hire any teachers and, if so (a) how many (b) from which provinces?


T.A. Bud Bradley: University Professors Appointed to Canadian Military Colleges by Province of Origin during 1982-1987
College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean
1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987Quebec	8	5	14	4	17	Ontario	2	1	Royal Military College of Canada -	Kingston	1982	1983	1984	1985 1986	1987Quebec 3	3	2 1	1Ontario 4 Nova Scotia Alberta Great Britain	3 1	3	3 3 1 1	1 1
Royal Roads Military College - Victoria
1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987British Columbia	1	2	3	5	6	1Alberta	1	1	Manitoba	1	Ontario	2	1	
Nova
Scotia	1

(California)	1

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
Language Teachers Appointed to Canadian Military Colleges by Province of Origin during 1982-1987
College Militaire Royal de Saint-Jean
1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987Quebec	10	3	3	3
Royal Military College of Canada - Kingston
Ontario	6	15	15	15	3
Royal Roads Military College - Victoria British
Columbia	3	5	4	4	4


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pat Carney (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, on April 8, I announced the Government's intention to introduce an amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act to permit the monitoring of all steel exports and imports. Members will recall the importance I placed then on maintaining open access to the U.S. steel market. A major element in our program involves obtaining more accurate data on exports and imports of both carbon
steel and specialty steel. This is intended to ensure that Canada is not used as a back door to the U.S. market for offshore suppliers. Monitoring will provide a better appreciation of the complexities of our steel trade, not only with the United States, but with all countries.
As Members know, there are continuing pressures in the United States for Canada to reduce its share of the U.S. steel market. We believe that Canadian steel is fairly traded and that trade restrictive measures at the U.S. or any other border are not warranted. We expect the United States administration to continue resisting pressures from the U.S. industry and Congress to deal fairly with steel imports from Canada.
It is our view that the monitoring program, which will be implemented as a result of the amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act, will be very useful both to the Government and to the industry in resisting American pressures against Canadian imports.
One of the major characteristics of trade in steel between Canada and the United States is its integrated and mutually beneficial nature. We do not restrict access of American steel into our country. In fact, steel imports from the United States average about 5 per cent of the Canadian market and about one-quarter of our total steel imports. For every dollar of steel Canadian primary producers export to the United States, they import about $1.30 worth of equipment and materials from the United States.
Carbon steel has been subject to monitoring under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act since September, 1986. This arrangement was introduced on the basis of a recommendation from the Canadian Import Tribunal. It has been successful in producing very useful and timely information on carbon steel imports into Canada. However, with respect to steel exports, there is currently no provision in the Export and Import Permits Act that would let the Government introduce a similar program for exports. This amendment will overcome this problem. Furthermore, to ensure that we have a comprehensive program in place for imports and exports of all steel and reflecting the industry's desire for full coverage, the amendment will enable the Government to monitor imports of specialty steel.
This amendment provides for monitoring for a period of up to three years and is specific to the steel situation. It does not affect other products, nor does it alter the existing criteria under which any other goods may be placed under the import and export controls.
This amendment provides only for the collection of information and both import and export permits will be freely issued. It is not a measure to introduce controls.
The amendment requires us to provide Parliament with an annual statistical summary of information as soon as possible after the end of each calendar year. We believe that this information will generate a better appreciation of the complexities in the steel trade. We will, of course, publish regular
May 27, 1987

monthly reports for the trade. These will normally be issued within a matter of days following the end of each month.
Once the monitoring program is in place and the data on trade flows are available, it will provide a very accurate and precise picture of our trade in steel products with the United States and other countries. This, we believe, will help to ensure that our access to the U.S. market will remain open and that it will dispel any misunderstanding about the nature of Canadian steel exports.
In the period since I announced the monitoring program, we have consulted with all segments of the industry and told them of the general thrust of the monitoring program. We have been assured of the full support of the industry in this initiative. Many industry suggestions will be reflected in the administrative guidelines I will be announcing.
I am well aware of the views of some exporters that controls are inevitable. They may think that it will be to their long-term advantage to raise their level of exports in the immediate future, in the belief that they will eventually gain a higher quota. I do not expect that such controls will become a reality, but let me be very clear that increased exports will not be rewarded, and exporters should be aware of this.
We have continued to work toward maintaining free access to the United States. Consultations have been held between the parliamentary and congressional steel caucuses under the capable leadership of the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). The parliamentary steel caucus has held several meetings with its U.S. counterpart and, as a result of such meetings, we believe that a better understanding has been reached.


Mr. de Jong:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member, with good reason, applauds. In addition, Canadian officials have been meeting on a quarterly basis with their U.S. counterparts. Canada and the U.S. steel industry and labour representatives have frequent contact through trade associations, unions and other organizations. These continuing contacts are particularly important in identifying the issues and avoiding conflict, which is in all our interests.
Hon. Members will appreciate that other important initiatives have been taken by the Government in support of our steel policy. For instance, in late August of 1985, country of origin marking requirements were introduced for imported steel pipes and tubes. As I mentioned, an import monitoring system for carbon steel became effective in September, 1986, and in the February, 1987 Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced the withdrawal of the general preferential tariff on steel imports.
Clearly it is essential for both Government and the private sector to have the best possible data available on steel trade as
Export and Import Permits Act
soon as possible. This amendment will permit the collection of such data and allow us to disseminate it quickly.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as we have previously indicated, it would be the intention of the Official Opposition to support this initiative which was brought forward by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and to expedite, as quickly as possible, its passage in this House.
We certainly accept the argument that this particular measure can provide some response to the various pressures which have been put forward by members of the U.S. steel industry and, perhaps more particularly, by certain members of the U.S. Congress who have suggested that Canada has become a staging ground for trans-shipments of steel from countries which are presently subject to the U.S. voluntary restraint program. I think we have been quite insistent all along that that should not be a major factor in affecting the flow of steel between the two countries.
I think the argument has certainly been made clear over time that the increase in the percentage of the steel market occupied by Canadian exports is as much due to the increased demand by U.S. steel manufacturers themselves for Canadian product because of their own labour or market conditions.
I certainly join with the Minister in supporting the work which has been done by Members of Parliament in the steel caucus representing the three Parties. I believe they have undertaken a very important educational program and have been a large contributor to the level of discussion which has taken place.
I would want to use a few moments during my remarks, however, to look at this legislation and raise some questions and perhaps some cautions about what it suggests. First, there have been certain remarks made by the Minister publicly; in fact she made a statement today which does provide a certain slight jar to the hearing. In an interview which was given and reported in The Globe and Mail just after the announcement of the Bill there was a suggestion that this was an evolutionary process.
The question, of course, is what are we evolving toward? Is this seen as a first or another step toward more of a control system being imposed by the United States? When the Minister provided a caution today to Canadian manufacturers, who attempt to inflate their exports into the United States, that that would not be considered, does that mean that something further is on the books? I do not want to draw direct conclusions but I think it would be important for the Minister, perhaps at report stage, as we move through today, to clarify that we are seeing these amendments to the Export Import Act as a terminal step and not necessarily as one of a series of steps which will be taken; that we are simply softening the ground.
I also want to point out that the procedure which has gone on in coming to grips with the dispute and discussion between

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
the two countries, does demonstrate the utility and effectiveness of looking at trade between the two countries in a sectoral fashion. One of the interesting and important historical experiences of Canada-U.S. trade has been that we have worked out trade problems on a sectoral basis. Of course, the most obvious example has been the automobile industry where we have a managed trade arrangement which has been certainly beneficial to both sides.
There have been a number of similar cases over the years in which trade disputes have arisen on both sides of the border. By way of different scale and spectrum of trade arrangements, whether by changes in legislation or by rules, understandings or various accords, we have been able to resolve those differences at a reasonably minimal price to the limits of own Parliamentary, political and governmental ways of doing things.
I would suggest to the Minister, who has often admonished Members of this House that the only answer to trade disputes with the United States is a broad comprehensive free trade agreement, that in fact the legislation she is introducing today is another way of doing it. It is an alternative. It does demonstrate that we can resolve these matters, that we can come to grips with these matters on a sectoral basis, on a product by product basis. That has worked in the past and is clearly working in this situation.
I would simply suggest that one of the reasons we find it easier to support this Bill is that it does support one of our own contentions; that is, when it comes to the matter of resolving trade disputes and responding to protectionists measures there are ways of doing it which does not involve the heavy price which would be encountered in a comprehensive, all inclusive, free trade arrangement. When Government spokespersons, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on down, say there is no alternative, 1 suggest to the Minister that we are glad to see that the Government does not always believe its own rhetoric and is prepared to adopt different ways of coming to grips with these measures. I think that is certainly important as we continue the ongoing trade discussions with the United States.
I would suggest that with more diligence and application, similar kinds of results and positive constructions could be put upon other areas where trade disputes also occur. One does not have to resort to the "all or nothing" approach, which is presently the position adopted by the Government opposite.
I would also like to suggest that we hope this is not necessarily the end of the discussion, as far as the Government is concerned, relating to the broader issue of the steel industry in Canada. 1 recognize that the Minister who introduced this legislation is speaking only from a trade aspect and that her colleagues in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and others who have economic portfolios such as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), should be looking at the broader issues of the steel industry. We recognize that there is a big issue out there which is not addressed by this legislation; the production capacity for steel in the world far exceeds the
consumption. The modernization that is taking place in a variety of countries such as Brazil, Taiwan, other Pacific Rim countries, and even some European countries, will continue to place pressure on traditional steel companies.
On the trade side, what that really means is that coming to grips with this issue by way of the GATT negotiations will be very crucial. It also suggests that there has to be some clear understanding, at least by way of industrial guidelines, as to where the steel industry in Canada will be seeking its markets, and to what extent we will be able to continue in our modernization programs, our research and development and in improvement of our technology.
One of the most important features to be emphasized in this whole examination is the reason the Canadian steel industry is running into some static from the Americans. It is that we are better steel producers in key areas. We have modernized our plants and we have improved the technology. That has compared very favourably with the traditional and somewhat obsolete steel plants in the United States.
1 can recall reading the comments of one economic observer back in the late seventies when United States Steel was responding to a number of pressures on the stock market to inflate its stock value so that it would not be taken over and have to go through all the shenanigans of takeover and acquisition. He said it was exceedingly strange that U.S. Steel, which is the largest U.S. producer, was spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the acquisition of Marathon Oil as opposed to putting its money into improving its steel products.
I think that is a lesson that is only now being learned in the U.S. steel industry. Its industry is allowed to use its capital to invest in a number of industries totally incidental to its own product, something which does not improve a product, that does not come to grips with the need to rationalize and to improve the industry which is now suffering that type of competition.
Fortunately, our own steel producers did not respond to that. That is one of the reasons it is important to maintain Canadian ownership of our industries. I think there is a clear record which demonstrates that through Canadian ownership we make much better choices in this key manufacturing sector than many foreign operators have done.
I hope that along the way we will be able to see a more clear-cut steel policy. That does not mean intervention or necessarily that we will be throwing money at the problem. I am not suggesting that. But I do believe that the kind of cooperation that has been evidenced in coming to grips with this specific problem might continue. There could be a broader application of that co-operative sense in the steel industry, certainly with respect to where it fits into the large Canadian picture and where in fact government regulation and efforts must be used.
May 27, 1987

We must recognize that we do have continuing problems in our own industry. There are major lay-offs taking place at Algoma that must be faced. Workers are being deeply affected by that. So far there has been very little done in the way of adjustment programs to assist those workers.
There is an ongoing problem with Sysco in Cape Breton. It is an industry of major importance to the East Coast and to the Cape Breton region. We understand that there may be a certain countervail applied to it in the United States in terms of steel rails. Where does that fit into the question of procurement?
I again raise the question, under a free trade agreement in which we apply the concept of national treatment to procurement, will the type of privileged position that has been offered up to now to Sysco to sell steel rail to Canadian National and others no longer be acceptable? It could no longer apply under the principles of national treatment. The Minister mentioned in her speech that that would be the guideline that would be applied under a free trade arrangement. We would have to accept a national treatment concept.
I see that my friend from Regina is in the Chamber. He clearly has the interest of IPSCO at heart. Over the years IPSCO has received subsidies, support and preferences from the Government of Saskatchewan and from the federal Government. In terms of the new subsidy legislation that is coming in there cannot be subsidies directed to specific industries. That type of preferential program for parts of the steel industry will no longer be available. Therefore the concept that we have had up until now, that the steel industry is a national steel industry and that it deserves attention on both the East Coast and in western Canada, will be in some jeopardy.
I must say that none of those questions have been answered. We have not received any detailed elaboration in terms of the future of the steel industry, particularly with respect to those parts of it that I have just mentioned. If a signature is put to paper within three, four or five months by the chief trade negotiators on both sides, then clearly the steel industry in Canada will be facing quite substantial and serious questions. I am not referring to those which are in specialized areas, but certainly the ones that I have mentioned, as well as others. They will no longer be able to face that.
I see that the Hon. Member for Burlington, who has been the chairman of the steel caucus, is in the Chamber. 1 know that he and I have shared some differences of opinion about trade over time. I suggest this might be an issue that the steel caucus will want to look at. I think it is a matter of some concern to members of my Party which deal with this matter.
I am not attempting to talk out the clock, Mr. Speaker. It is not often that we get an opportunity to talk about the steel industry in this Chamber. I wish to use this opportunity to raise the type of questions that I have raised and to point out that there are lessons to be learned, that there are issues that we must address.
Export and Import Permits Act
We will certainly support the Government in this very specific piece of legislation. We certainly look forward to its passage before the end of the day. We want to ensure that many other questions which we have will be answered. We hope that we can use this debate to have an exchange on these questions so that we can determine whether this measure has a broader meaning than simply the specific issue it is designed to meet.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in the debate on Bill C-57. As has been mentioned by the Minister and by the spokesperson for the Liberal Party, this Bill will receive all-Party support. I think everyone is in favour of it. I know that everyone in the steel industry is in favour of it. Those in management and in labour have been asking for this type of legislation for some time.
As has been explained in the remarks of the Minister and in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the Canadian steel industry is facing some problems, particularly with respect to its exports to the United States. The protectionist mood in the United States, coupled with the serious problems that the American steel industry is facing on the whole, has created ongoing pressures within the United States to restrict the importation of steel, including Canadian steel.
As has been pointed out, the voluntary restraint agreement that the United States has with a series of steel-producing countries restricts the amount of steel that those countries can export into the American market. It has been alleged that some of those countries get around the voluntary restraint agreement by shipping their steel through Canada and having it enter into the American market as Canadian steel. Of course this legislation will, hopefully, if not prevent then at least be able to verify that this is happening and the degree to which it is occurring.
I think it is certainly in the interests of Canadian steel producers, Canadian steelworkers and Members of Parliament from all political Parties, to make certain that the steel that is being exported into the United States is Canadian steel. We are certainly in support of anything that would help prevent steel from VRA countries entering into the United States as Canadian steel.
The Minister was quite right in pointing out that the Canadian relationship with the United States is quite different, especially when it comes to steel. The Minister also pointed out in terms of steel products that for every dollar we export into the American market, the Americans export $1.30 in steel products to Canada.
One could refer to many examples in this area. For example, IPSCO, which is in my district, imports most of its scrap from the United States. Many steel mills in eastern Canada use American coal. Our relationship with the United States in terms of steel is indeed a special one. It is not the same as the

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
relationships which Brazil, Japan, and Germany have with the United States. It is a special relationship, and I think it deserves special attention and consideration by the United States.
I would tend to think that the area of adequate information and statistics has been weak on both sides of the border. The American ability to determine how much they actually export into Canada, particularly with the deregulation of the transportation industry, has resulted in some statistics which have not been all that valid. I think the Americans are recognizing this and are boning up their ability to collect data at the border. Certainly the Bill would enable Canada to develop better statistics so we would have a more accurate picture of what we are exporting into the United States.
Let us not be fooled. If some producers wish to circumvent the legislation or the intent of the legislation, they can still do so.


Pat Carney: At their peril.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Yes, but there is no clause in the legislation which would punish those producers.
What is also missing in the legislation is the demand that the originating mill be listed. I know that in some circumstances, particularly in this day and age of bartering and swaps, this would be difficult. However, I think it would be helpful to have in the legislation that the application and the permit must show the mill where the steel products originate. As I mentioned, this might be difficult in some circumstances.
I was made aware by the chairman of the steel caucus, the Hon. Member for Burlington, that he spoke with Japanese steel makers who told him of an incident in which they had traded with another country for coffee. The Brazilians were interested in getting its coffee off the market, so they traded steel. The steel was swapped. It had several different owners. By the time it reached its destination, one could not really tell its origin. I recognize that in some circumstances it will be difficult to determine the originating mill.
If we are to have adequate data, we must make an attempt to determine what country produced the steel products we are importing and exporting. Only in that way could we verify what countries or what particular mills are trying to get around their voluntary restraint agreements with the United States. Only in that way would we be able to demonstrate that particular mills and countries are using Canada as a means of laundering their steel.
The world situation in steel is quite bleak. There is tremendous over-production and over capacity for steel and steel products. In years ahead we will see that the world-wide industry will have to be rationalized. We just do not know who will be the winners and the losers. We must make certain that Canadian steel workers and mills are left in the game. When the industry gets itself straightened out and when the dust settles, we must ensure that there is a viable steel industry in Canada.
Of course there is a major problem with the steel industry in the United States. That is not to say that all American steel mills have antiquated and obsolete equipment; there are some quite efficient steel mills, particularly along their West Coast. They are not huge mills. They are smaller and have more up to date equipment. They are technologically more advanced. They produce steel at a very cost efficient price. However, large, traditional steel producers, particularly those in the east, did not think ahead. It was a case of greed. They took all the profits and either used them to acquire other interests or to disburse it to shareholders. What they did not do was reinvest in new plant and equipment.
The result today is that some of the major steel producers in the United States are quite sick and are on the brink of going bankrupt. If some of them go bankrupt, it would be catastrophic, not only to local communities, steel workers, and the pension plans of retired steel workers, but to the economies of the States in which they are located. It would also shake up some of the secondary suppliers, many of whom are Canadian concerns. All of us who are interested in the question of steel share a concern that some of the major players in the United States are on the brink of filing for bankruptcy.
I should like to conclude my remarks by mentioning the steel caucus of which I am a member and of which the Hon. Member for Burlington has been the chairman. The steel caucus is an example of how Parliament and parliamentarians can work. We do not attempt to score political points at the expense of each other. We have a common interest: the viability of the Canadian steel industry in its total sense-not only management or the shareholders, but the steel workers. Our mutual concern allows us to work in a co-operative manner and on behalf of our country and its steel industry. It allows us to lobby on behalf of Canada in the United States and to help engender and bring forth beneficial public policy. It is an example of how Parliament can and should work in many other areas. It is not a matter of ideological differences between political Parties. Members of Parliament work together toward the common good, coming to common sense solutions rather than playing politics at the expense of common sense solutions and the common good. I wish to express to you, Mr. Speaker, that the steel caucus is one example; I think it is an excellent example of how parliamentarians can take a different track and work together toward common sense solutions. As Members of Parliament we can be proud of the steel caucus and the very capable leadership given by the chairman, the Hon. Member for Burlington.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: I do not wish to take up much more time on Bill C-57. It has the support of our caucus and Members. We are concerned with one or two things that we would like to address when the Bill gets to Committee of the Whole.
May 27, 1987


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for this Bill to be sent to Committee of the Whole House rather than a legislative committee. I understand there is a willingness to dispose of all three stages of the Bill this afternoon. I would also advise the House that the Minister during clause by clause study will have officials in the House to answer any questions which Members of the Opposition may have.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no objection to the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to ensure that what he has proposed takes place after second reading has concluded. I think there are still some people in the House who would like to continue with second reading.


Philip Derek Lewis: Obviously, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we concur with this arrangement. We will be pleased to see this Bill pass all stages today.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank the Official Opposition, particularly the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and the Member from the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), for their co-operation in the passage of this Bill. The Member from Regina East made reference to the steel caucus that I happen to be fortunate enough to chair, and I might say that the caucus is made up of a fine group of people. Indeed, we are non-political. We work on behalf of the steel industry and I applaud them for their assistance and good counsel when difficult issues arise.
This legislation before us today was requested firstly by the steel industry and secondly by the steelworkers of Canada. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and her officials had long and serious discussions with the various elements of the steel trade in Canada, not only with the industry and the United Steelworkers of America, but also with those in the steel service centres, in secondary production and those in the steel fabricating end of the industry. All agreed that this legislation should come forward. We have tried to deal with how to get a handle on the monitoring of steel exported from Canada for some time, but with little or no success and so we have moved to this monitoring stage.
1 would like to review briefly why we had to come to this stage. The American industry has experienced some difficulties. In 1984, the U.S. Department of Commerce became aware that about 26 per cent of the American steel market was dominated by imported steel. An effort was made to put quotas and restrictions on the importers and the exporters of steel in the American market. Much of that steel was being dumped onto the American market. Canada was exempted from a voluntary restraint agreement quota at that time. We were not and have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever dumped steel on the American market. Odd cases have gone before the International Trade Commission, and there have
Export and Import Permits Act
been anti-dumping investigations here and there, but by and large the process that we have in place, and that the Americans have in place, has taken care of any distortions that may have appeared on the price side of the steel business.
Initially the steel manufacturers complained that the price of steel was being unfairly depressed in the American marketplace because imported steel was coming in at low and dumped prices. The administration moved to what it called the VRA, the voluntary restraint agreement, which was signed with about 19 countries. For a portion of the apparent American market they were not to countervail or anti-dump and were to abide by the voluntary restraint agreement. Canada, not being a part of that arrangement, did not have a commitment. Our traditional share of the American market at that time was about 3 per cent. Our primary producers being very responsible people said they would endeavour to maintain our share of the American market at about 3 per cent. They have done that fairly well until recently.
In any commercial arrangement, people after a while find avenues of escape. What we have found, and the Americans have concurred with us, is that there have been some purchasers of steel in the U.S., other than producers, who have been buying steel from countries which have signed a VRA with the Americans. When the steel quota assigned to a particular country runs out they have shipped steel into a facility here in Canada, into a warehouse, a bonding house or something of that nature. Then the steel is trans-shipped into the United States and is counted as Canadian steel, which is clearly unfair to our producers. Our difficulty is that we do not know the dimension, the dynamics, the size, the amount involved, but we know that happens.
My colleague from Regina East has also made mention of steel found in counter-trade. Counter-trade is a practice that is becoming more and more important in the world. Some Third World countries which have put steel exporting facilities and steel production facilities together have found that they could trade semi-finished steel, billets or raw steel to other countries in exchange for other commodities required. That steel is floating around in warehouses in the Third World waiting for a place to park. Some of it could find its way into Canada. If so, it would be transformed in some way and would enter the American market and counted as Canadian steel. Therefore, we had to move to see how we could get a handle on how much was involved and if we could ensure that it was not counted as Canadian steel.
We had discussions in Washington last week with officials of the American Iron and Steel Institute and with the executives of the congressional steel caucus on the monitoring Bill. I can say that we were well received. Officials from the Departments of International Trade and External Affairs did an outstanding job in presenting the monitoring Bill and the regulations behind it to the officials.

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
I must say that the Americans were very impressed with the speed with which we were able to move with legislation as compared to the speed of their process, bearing in mind that the United States is a larger country with more people and more complex issues. They were openly complimentary about the way we could talk about a problem and then, in a very short period of time, put together a program and tell them what it was.
The Americans feel that what we are doing will be effective. For the first time, it will provide clear information about the origin of steel entering the American market. I think that will help our companies tremendously.
The other point we tried to make is that our mill-to-mill shipments should be exempt from any agreed to or voluntary quota in the American market. In fact, when we ship steel from our mills to their mills, we are helping their steel industry. As Hon. Members are aware, there have been shutdowns, strikes and bankruptcies in the American steel industry and when we make mill-to-mill shipments, we act almost like a just-in-time supplier.
Many people know what steel is, but they do not know the politics of steel. It is a very political business. Canada is the largest customer of the United States steel industry. As the Minister pointed out, we buy about 500,000 tonnes, worth something in the neighbourhood of $450 million per year to the Americans. As well, the United States is our largest customer. It is a relationship that is unparalleled. There are no two other countries in the world trading in a commodity like steel with the relationship we have with the United States of America.
Canada buys 90 per cent of its metallurgical coal from Tennessee, Virginia and Pennsylvania. As well, about 45 per cent of the pellets used in Canada are bought from American mines. In fact, we own some of the coal and iron ore mines. The Canadian steel industry owns several steel facilities in the United States, facilities which employ about 12,000 Americans. Truly we have a relationship that is unparalleled and unequalled in the world.
When we go there, one of our great difficulties in the hustle and bustle of Washington is getting our colleagues to recognize our relationship. We tell them we are not Brazil, Taiwan or Korea, we are Canada. We spend $1.30 in the American market for every dollar we ship in and we are the United States' largest customer. We trade facilities back and forth. We send steel to the United States for a process that is not done in Canada and indeed we receive American steel for heat treating because there is no comparable facility in the United States. Our arrangement is very unique, and our objective in this legislation is to see that that relationship continues and is not diminished in any way.
What happens in most commercial relationships is that a VRA is put on in an attempt to have a measure of control over a situation, but then people find a way to circumvent the VRA.
That has happened here and that is what we are trying to correct. We want to know the country of origin of steel going into the United States. For all we know, some of the American steel that comes into Canada and is processed here and then returned to the United States may be going into the United States as Canadian steel. We do not know that but we will find out through this monitoring process.
In the years since 1984, when the VRA system was put in place by the American Government, the number of companies shipping steel into the United States has increased. I was absolutely flabbergasted when I learned that there are approximately 700 companies shipping steel into the United States. There are 14 primary producers in Canada but there are 700 companies shipping steel into the United States. Of those companies, 350 have emerged in the last couple of years.
We must realize that there are a great many people involved in this trade and we simply do not know the depth of it. We do not know if some of these companies are operating out of a telephone booth, out of a steel warehouse or out of a mill that transforms steel. We simply do not know the dimensions of it and the monitoring Bill will allow the Minister for International Trade to monitor the situation. When my colleagues in the steel caucus and our officials go to the United States to talk to the American administration and the Congressional authorities, we will be able to do so armed with some good, hard information that will help us make our case.
We have much to gain by putting this legislation in place. When it was originally brought forward by the Minister, her officials, her Parliamentary Secretary and others sat down with opposition Members and told them the story. Opposition Members listened to what we wanted to do and they agreed. I think that is a fine example of how Parliament can work when serious matters that have to be dealt with in an expeditious way come before it.
I look forward to hearing other comments. I understand the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will make some comments on this matter and I look forward to hearing what she has to say. Then I look forward to going through the other stages of this Bill and to its final passage. I am told that the Senate will handle it in the same fashion. This is a good example of how we can do things when they have to be done.


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, a number of Hon. Members have outlined the situation facing the Canadian steel industry and have indicated why this Bill is before us today. We in the Opposition will support the Bill. If the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) were present, he would certainly have said that he himself has been asking for this legislation in the form of questions in the House. We are pleased to see that the Government has taken the initiative which was launched by Canadian steel producers as well as the labour movement.
May 27, 1987

Indeed, this is a very good example of how dealing with trade on a sectoral basis is working. The steel industry is a good example of how Canada and the United States have historically been able to hammer out solutions to cross-border problems that vex both countries.
One thing we have not touched on is the reason for the malaise in the American steel industry. While I know U.S. Senator Heinz is motivated to bring forth protectionist legislation merely to ward off competition from a number of countries, Canada among them, one reason is that the plants in the U.S. have not been modernized. They have not received the support from Government that we have. I might say that past Liberal Governments have been in a position to permit modernization of the steel industry so that Dofasco and Stelco, the two major steel companies in Canada, both in my riding, have among the most modern plants in the world. The companies, in concert with workers and Government, moved very early on to modernize their facilities.
A second issue relates to the fact we in Canada have had the export edge. This is because of the inflated value of the American dollar. Unfortunately, some of the measures being considered in the U.S. Congress to deal with the so-called steel import problem are really tied to that fact. That in turn, because of our close proximity as well as our first-class product, has given us an edge in the American market.
The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) pointed out that we have 14 major steel producers in Canada. The major players have worked very closely to try to develop a good working relationship with the U.S. so that we would not be forced to accept a voluntary restraint agreement. We know that people like Don Belch and Bob Varah of Stelco and Dofasco have been working together, going to Washington on a regular basis. Any time I phone Stelco it usually turns out that Mr. Belch is working in Washington to try to convince the Americans of what we in Canada already know, that is, that we are fair trading partners, we are not dumping steel. In the isolated cases of alleged steel dumping which have been brought to the attention of the Americans, we have actually seen a situation where some of these maverick companies, those which are jobbing steel from third countries via Canada into the U.S. because the importing of steel from those countries is limited, have set up subsidiary companies in Canada which they use to divert steel from third countries through Canada into the U.S. We have seen that in the case of a couple of concrete floor manufacturers in the U.S. who import steel rod from other countries via Canada. In fact, the American entrepreneur is subverting his own legislation and the Canadian steel industry is taking the brunt of criticism for the alleged increase in the amount of steel imports into the U.S.
I think the other issue that was lightly touched on by the Hon. Member for Burlington is the fact that for every dollar we sell to the U.S. we consume $1.30 in imported product to
Export and Import Permits Act
make steel. We should emphasize that point. When the U.S. Congress is dealing with the increase in steel imports they also must realize they are benefiting directly through the sale of goods to Canada to the tune of $1.30 for every dollar we sell to the U.S.
I know that a number of editorialists and a number of Americans have pointed to what I would characterize as a small blip in the U.S. import market in the early part of this year. The reason for that blip has been articulated by other Members, but when USX went on strike I spoke to steel producers in Hamilton who told me they were being begged to sell our first quality steel to the U.S. Of course they chose not to fill the orders because they did not want to create a situation where Canadian imports increased so much as to encourage any further protectionist action by the U.S.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian steel industry, through the Canadian Steel Producers Association as well as the steelworkers and their tripartite approach with the Government, has literally bent over backwards to inhibit any thinking in the U.S. Congress that Canada is not a fair trading partner, we continue to be assaulted by claims of dumping. One of the elements of discussion raised in the House over the last number of months has been the allegation of dumping of Canadian steel being considered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
When you look at the telex which deals with the allegations you see they are being levelled at companies which are not even producing the particular type of steel about which the allegations are made. In fact, there has been absolutely no substance at all to American claims about dumping by Stelco and Algoma Steel, for example. These companies are prepared to go to the U.S. Department of Commerce and fight their case. They will win. We have done it in the past and we will continue to do it. Yet at the same time we are tying up valuable dollars and the valuable time of some of our top people who go back and forth to the U.S. constantly lobbying on issues which have been won time and time again. If we adopted a sectoral approach to making sure that Canadian steel producers are able to sell our top quality products in the U.S. without being aggravated at every turn by congressional protectionist measures, it would receive the support of all Canadians.
I remember that a couple of years ago, when the Government was in the process of launching its free trade initiative, a secret document was leaked to the press. It dealt with what kind of strategies the Opposition should be approached with. That document suggested that Members who represented steel-producing ridings, like myself, were particularly vulnerable and must de facto support a trade agreement because in effect the steel industry would be a potential beneficiary. Our response is that time and time again we have shown, through our producers and our labour movement, that we are prepared to deal with the questions of U.S. protectionism as they are raised on an ongoing basis.

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
I think this legislation is another attempt by Parliament, with the assistance and support of the trade unions as well as the management of most of our steel companies, to deal with the problem and head it off at the pass. It will work to show the Americans we are very serious about maintaining the quota of exports to the U.S. at around the 3.5 per cent or 3.7 per cent level. I think 3.7 per cent is the level which certainly Mr. Varah has publicly stated we were prepared to live with. As long as we show this good faith in Parliament as well as in the steel industry we should be in a position to convince the Americans that we mean fair business but we intend to protect our share of the steel market.
My concern in the long term is that the American Government will see weakness in the Canadian position. It will see weakness in our position as it did when the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) went to Washington on the softwood lumber deal. The Minister said, "We are prepared to saw off and make you an offer, and if that offer does not work, it is our final offer". Yet she subsequently came back with a second final offer and so on.
If the American Congress perceives a weakness in the position of the Canadian Government, if it sees blood, it is going to go for the jugular. If it goes for the jugular and is successful in introducing protectionist measures as they affect the Canadian steel industry, we run the risk of losing tens of thousands of Canadian jobs.
1 certainly support the measure that is being introduced today by the Government. I think it is long overdue and I think it will send a signal to the United States that the Canadian steel industry is very serious about being a fair trading partner and that we are prepared to put our reputation on the line, prepared to say that we do not want steel to be diverted from third countries through Canada merely to subvert the voluntary restraint agreement, that by God we do not want any more possibility for export control curbs from Canada to the United States and we do not want a VRA imposed on Canada.
We have heard the President say that Canada's steel industry will continue to be able to trade with the United States, but we have also seen him circle the wagons when need be. In introducing this legislation in Parliament and in getting the support of the steel producers and the labour movement, the Minister for International Trade must send that message to Washington in the strongest possible terms. If we can do it through the steel caucus or through debate here in the Houses of Parliament, that is terrific.
However, it must be done. We have to tell Washington that these export control curbs are being put in place so that we can prove once and for all that we are fair trading partners and are not dumping our steel into the United States.
We can pass this legislation with a clean conscience, but we must ensure that the Americans, including Senator Heinz, get the message loud and clear. Far too much Canadian time and
energy is currently being spent fighting phantom legal battles in Washington following allegations of dumping such as those recently put before the Department of Commerce. Enough Canadian steel producers have shown that we are prepared to play ball. We have to protect our option because as the American dollar reaches a more reasonable level the world strata of steel sales could change. It is important that we recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say it is a good thing that the support for this Bill is unanimous, because it gives the Canadian Government a strong position from which to tell Americans that we have already gone far enough to prove we are fair and equitable producers, that we are not about to sell steel from other countries across Canada, to try and circumvent U.S. regulations. Our conscience is pretty clear on that, and we would like to pass this Bill to convince Americans they should not react by passing a lot of new protectionist legislation in the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, I think that with this Bill, with the unanimous support of producers and workers, opposition Parties and the Government, we can send a fairly strong message to the Minister for International Trade. We can give him the strength to tell the Americans we do not want to be subject to so-called voluntary restrictions. I think we should not give Americans the impression that we are weak-kneed on this point, which was the case in the softwood lumber affair, where we had a weak Minister, a Minister who promised, who made a final offer and who in the final instance made a second and a third final offer. We do not want the same thing to happen in the steel industry because thousands of jobs would be lost if the Americans decided to impose a restrictive, so-called voluntary agreement, which is a contradiction in terms since restrictions are never voluntary. We are prepared to support the Government, but we want it to speak with a strong voice. We are concerned, and not just about this Bill, but generally speaking, that the policy set forth by the Government so far in our free trade talks gives the Americans the impression that we are not speaking from strength but from weakness. We must speak with a strong voice to protect jobs in the steel industry and in other sectors. And that is why we in the Liberal Party are prepared to support this Bill.

I would like to conclude by asking the Minister to consider the possibility of introducing further legislation containing a real steel policy. In essence, this is fire-fighting at an early stage, but it is not dealing with the situation at Sysco and in other regions of the country where the steel industry is essentially being deindustrialized. We are lucky in the City of Hamilton that in the first fiscal quarter of 1987 The Steel Company of Canada showed a profit. Dofasco did not show a profit for the reason that it is writing off some of its modernization improvements, but it had a pre-tax profit. We are doing very well in Hamilton and are fair trading partners.
May 27, 1987


Mr. Siddon:: Thanks to a good Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister says "thanks to a good Government". It is actually thanks to a great workforce in the City of Hamilton. Our workers, both at The Steel Company of Canada and at Dofasco, are producing the best quality product in the world thanks to previous Liberal Governments which permitted them to have the most state of the art equipment available. They have a one-track rolling process which allows our steel to be as competitive as any found in any country, even when pitted against the low salaries paid in Korea, Brazil, and some other countries.
We are the number one steel-producing community in the world. Hamilton East is the number one steel riding in Canada. That is because past Liberal Governments had the foresight to recognize that we had to modernize and upgrade the industry and not allow the type of deterioration of plants that we have seen in the United States. That is why Pittsburgh is in the mess in which it is at the moment. American Governments did not have the same foresight as the Canadian Government. In addition, we have the best workforce in the world, so it is natural that we should be doing well.
However, there are other parts of the country which are not doing that well. I think about Sydney, Regina, and other areas of the country which need help. I do not think this particular measure goes far enough toward actually introducing a steel policy which will deal with the deindustrialization which is occurring in some of the less fortunate areas of the country in the steel industry.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, other members of the Official Opposition, and Members on the government side in speaking in support of this legislation which is quite clearly not intended to establish a steel policy however needful we might be of the development of such a policy. We have before us a piece of legislation which will complete the cycle of the monitoring system initiated as a result of last year's report of the Canadian Import Tribunal with regard to carbon steel which established the requirement for import permits. This legislation would impose a requirement for export permits.
There has been a great deal said about the state of the steel industry world-wide and the conditions which have evolved over the last little while. This topic was dealt with in quite considerable detail in the report of the Canadian Import Tribunal which points out that changes in the kinds of material used in manufacture, the entry of Third World countries into the field of steel production, the development of an overcapacity matched by the use of subsidies and import controls in many nations historically involved in the export of steel have created a situation which has posed, poses, and will pose a danger to our steel industry and the steel industry of the United States.
Export and Import Permits Act
It has been indicated that the reaction of Senator Heinz to the state of affairs in Pennsylvania is not very different from the kind of reaction expressed by those who speak on behalf of those who depend upon the steel industry of Sydney, for example. The threatened imposition of a 2.4 per cent quota on Canadian steel imported into the United States raises the question about the level playing field and the issues of the relative rate of importation of steel into our respective countries. This flies in the face of the agreement reached previously with 18 countries importing steel to the United States to restrain their imports to the United States voluntarily. Canada was omitted from that requirement because it was found not to be engaging in unfair trading practices with respect to steel.
While Canada has restrained itself during this, in an attempt to maintain its 3 per cent traditional level of steel import, we nevertheless face a challenge with respect to steel as we have faced with respect to other items.
It has been noted that the American steel industry has not kept pace with the need for technological change and greater efficiency. The Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) ascribed the failure of the American steel industry to the absence of federal aid to the industry in that country. However, I believe the record will show that many of the large corporations in the United States greedily distributed the profits to shareholders rather than reinvesting in the modernization of the steel industry. Therefore, the fault cannot be exclusively laid at the door of the Government, but must partly be attributed to those who own and operate steel companies.
While the Liberal Government in the past provided some help to the steel industry in Canada, I believe it is evident that the Canadian steel industry had more foresight and therefore did not require the same level of subsidy as other countries in order to modernize and maintain a level of competitiveness. That has allowed it even to exceed the quotas that have been imposed by general agreement because those in the United States who purchase steel recognize the quality of steel that is produced here.
A voluntary restraint agreement was reached with a number of nations that previously not only imported steel but potentially exceeded the levels of importation in the United States. It now seems clear that with Canada's situation becoming somewhat different, they were possibly trying to take advantage of Canada's unique position by trans-shipping cheap steel to the United States after transforming and processing it to a substantial extent to allow such steel to gain access to the United States.
It is important to adopt this legislation so that there is a clear understanding and clear information about the transshipment of steel or the exceeding of the traditional levels of importation of steel in the United States from Canada. It will provide for discussion and agreement with the United States on the basis of sound information. This is very appropriate

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
legislation and I hope it will demonstrate that Canada has honestly pursued its voluntary restraints.
While the major exporters of steel have respected restraint, there is some evidence that smaller corporations-some of which may be subsidiaries of American companies-have abused the understanding and taken advantage of a situation that is at least partly created by the Americans who come here and try to sneak steel in from those smaller producers. This legislation will enable us to ascertain whether that is true. We will be able to determine whether the suspicions of people like Senator Heinz are supported by that data. This legislation will give us a basis to argue strongly on Canada's behalf that the same situation not be created with steel as was created with respect to softwood lumber.
The imposition of the import permit in September, 1986, caused considerable concern about steel importation by those associated with the automobile industry where "on-time" delivery and the efficient and rapid transfer of products across the border is very important. I want to congratulate the Government for having found ways to facilitate that rapid processing of permits in order to allay the fears that most manufacturers had about the effect of the permits in terms of automobile production.
Since steel products in the automobile industry go both ways and "on-time" delivery is still as important, I hope the Government will be as forthcoming as it was then in ensuring that the imposition of an export permit requirement will not constitute an impediment to commerce in the export and import of steel in the automobile industry.
On behalf of my Party I am pleased to join with my colleague in support of this legislation and seek its rapid passage and implementation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Shall Clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-Addition to Export Control List or Import Control List


Lloyd Axworthy: With respect to Clause 1, I want to refer the Minister to a very central question. We know that the purpose of the legislation, particularly in this clause, is to determine whether there is trans-shipment taking place and to ensure that countries are not avoiding or evading the VRA imposed by the United States Government. One of the key questions is how much reprocessing must take place in a Canadian mill using certain foreign steel components before it is considered to be Canadian. Under this clause we have the right to put it on the prohibited list. I suppose the key question is, if we are going to be applying certificates, can the Minister tell us how we are going to determine whether or not it is in fact covered by this particular section?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, I could tell the House that the Government is not attempting in this Bill to establish criteria for a substantial transformation or rules of origin on steel. We believe the existing procedures, including auditing, will enable us to identify non-Canadian steel exported to the U.S. We are confident that through close co-operation between the Canadian and U.S. customs authorities, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that Canada is not used as a back door for foreign steel into the U.S. market.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure the Minister quite answered my question. I think we are dealing in an area where perhaps she is prepared to elaborate. I understand Senator John Heinz, who was visiting here in Ottawa, is currently threatening to introduce a new Steel Bill in the United States Senate which would be incorporated in its new Trade Bill, He indicated that one of the problems they face is that Canadian steel for export is in fact a reprocessed steel, transformed from other products. I suppose the question is, if there is nothing in this Bill which captures that, then what will be the response from the United States and our response to that particular issue which has been raised by the United States Senators in discussing their own Trade Bill?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the Hon. Member is sufficiently aware of the fact that it is up to the Americans to ensure that American law is being kept in this case. We do not intend to run around the border being the policemen for American law. We will co-operate. We will collect statistics. We will transmit those statistics. However, the issue the Hon. Member raises deals with the requirements set by the Americans in their market. I am sure that, given his stand on sovereignty issues in the past, the Hon. Member would not expect us to be the policemen in enforcing American law.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is certainly right that I would not want the Canadian Government to be involved in setting those standards. One reason I am asking the question is to determine under this section, where the Minister has the right to place certain products on the prohibited list, what those products will in fact incorporate
May 27, 1987

and whether they will take into account that there are various ranges of reprocessing which takes place between using certain steel products and the level of transformation which can be from 5 per cent to 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 70 per cent. I am asking whether we are intending to apply any test of that kind to determine whether or not they would be put on the list. That is the question I am asking.


Pat Carney: I have answered that by saying that after looking at this issue and studying it, and seeing whether it would be appropriate, we have decided it is not useful to establish criteria for substantial transformation or the rules of origin issue.
The purpose of this is to monitor steel, and we will be auditing the process so that those companies which in any way indicate they are cheating on the process or incorrectly identifying the origins of steel will be identified.


Simon Leendert de Jong: If I could just follow through on that answer, Mr. Chairman, I think the industry itself has expressed its concern to the Government that if the monitoring process itself is not strong enough, it is wondering if the Government is prepared for further action.
In some ways it is perhaps a hypothetical question at this stage. I am sure the Minister will say: "Well, we are taking this step and then we will see what happens", but I am asking the Minister in essence to put on the record what her thinking is. At what stage would the Government consider taking some other measures?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, I hope the Hon. Member is not suggesting that he is pushing or pressing for other measures. Other measures, of course, would get us into controls and voluntary restraints, and this House has worked hard to ensure that this measure is workable and will be productive. Beyond that I think we are very much into a hypothetical question. I am not going to say: "When this process fails, I will consider other things or other steps". I am saying that this process will work, that it will meet the needs for which it was designed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 have another concern. Does the Government feel it has the power in Clause 1 to be able to get the data it is seeking? Does the Minister believe she will get in all cases the mill of origin and the country of origin for steel imports and exports?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is, of course, yes. We have had a lot of consultation with the industry and with the union. We are advised that we will get the information we require in this process because it has been worked out with a lot of consultation from the affected parties. The other measure, which I mentioned earlier in answer to the question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), is that we are going to be auditing. We are going to have people in the field examining how this system is working. They will be reporting back to us on a continual basis.
Export and Import Permits Act


Simon Leendert de Jong: Will the Minister also have a program in place that the Government will be able to follow with respect to, let us say, steel coming into the country being either reprocessed, altered or not altered at all, so that the Government will be able to follow it through and see how it comes into the country, what happens to it and when and how it gets exported?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have already answered that by saying that this is the kind of information we are seeking. This process has been designed in consultation with the industry and the union. We are advised that we will get this information as we require it. The auditing process, I think, is a good back-up to ensure we do. If we find that there is some technical way by which we can improve it, of course, we will.


Lloyd Axworthy: Can the Minister elaborate on the auditing process that will be introduced? Will it take the form of inspection or will it be just a paper examination? What kind of inspection or enforcement system will be put in place?


Pat Carney: The audit about which we have talked here will be carried out by the auditing services of the Department of Supply and Services. It will conform to the normal practices of the Department.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change the focus slightly and ask the Minister if she can tell the House whether this information-gathering system is satisfactory to her counterparts in the United States with whom she has discussed it. Can we assume that the implementation of an information-gathering system, as the Minister has described it, will meet the objections of the Steel Institute, the Commerce Department and the steel Senators?
The reason I raise this question is for a very specific reason. As the Minister knows the Senator from Pennsylvania has suggested that he will be introducing in the Senate the inclusion of a specific trade Bill directed at Canada which would be incorporated into the large omnibus trade Bill which is now on the floor of the Senate. Can the Minister report whether in fact the implementation of this particular measure will succeed, in her estimation, in satisfying those various critics and forestalling those initiatives?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, we have had many discussions on this issue with the U.S. Cabinet Ministers involved. It has been raised by my American counterparts on numerous occasions, including just recently at the OECD. They have indicated to me that they are pleased that we have responded to this bilateral irritant in a positive way. Of course, we are happy that we have done this in a made-in-Canada way since a global problem is involved.
At the administration level in the U.S., they are quite prepared to see if this brings forward the type of information for which we are looking. There have been many discussions

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
between officials, and the same type of positive response has been forthcoming.
The Hon. Member for Burlington recently returned from talks with the steel caucus. He has advised me that there is great interest in seeing if this can work.
The information that we will be collecting has not been collected before. We are looking to the fact that that information will give us some idea of what the trends are and what is happening both on the import and the export side.
If the Hon. Member is asking whether this will resolve once and for all our problems in the steel trade with the United States, I can say that this is not likely, but it is a good positive step. Everyone is interested in seeing it work. Because of the co-operation that we have had from members of the Opposition on this issue I assume that the Hon. Member is similarly disposed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Chairman, on the latter point raised by the Hon. Minister, hopefully the Americans will accept our statistics. Once these amendments have been put through, we will have a much better source of statistics than will the Americans. We will also have better statistics with respect to American imports than what the Americans have concerning their exports of steel to Canada. Hopefully, the Americans will accept our statistics.
1 have one other question which deals with Subclause (3) of Clause 1 which requires the Minister to table the statistical summaries in Parliament as soon as possible at the end of each calendar year. Can the Minister tell us whether or not the Government might be in a position to issue statistics on a more regular basis? The nature of the steel trade right now is that each month's figures are now looked at, and that can affect and influence what is happening in Congress. We often hear that Congressmen are reacting to figures that they received a month prior or the month prior to that. It would certainly be useful if we could have more regular statistics.


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is a member of the parliamentary steel caucus. He is well aware of the fact that the present steel statistics that are published by the Americans are very often out of whack, to use a colloquial expression. One of the difficulties we face is that by the time the corrected figures are announced, figures which are usually lower than the initial ones, there is a public perception that we are flooding the American market with Canadian steel exports. So everyone in this House and anyone who has been party to this matter would agree that we have had a statistical problem. That is one of the reasons we are suggesting this amendment. It is so that we can collect statistics which will be better. Yes, they will be better than the ones produced by the Americans. That is why we will be transmitting them to and sharing them with the Americans. That is also why we will be publishing them on a monthly basis for the trade, which addresses the Hon. Member's point about when they would be available.
I want to underline that while there will be a monthly publication as soon as possible, there will only be one annual report to Parliament. I think that is perhaps where the Hon. Member may have been confused.
I also want to say that we have suggested to the Americans the setting up of a steel commission which would tackle such problems as the co-ordination of statistics and possibly look in a global fashion at the steel market from a North American perspective. The Americans have expressed interest in such a proposal. However, they have some concerns that it might violate their anti-trust laws. They are presently looking at it and will get back to us on it. That would deal with the problem identified by the Hon. Member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 2-Import and Export Permits
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Chairman, as I understand Clause 2 it is that the Minister shall issue, upon application, the permits. I have just one concern in this respect. It is to do with the speed with which these permits will be issued. Will there be any problem at all? When an application is made, what sort of timeframe are we looking at in terms of the issuance of the permit?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, as I said in my speech, this is not a control program. We would strongly oppose any suggestion that it is a control program. Export and import permits will be freely available on request.
My officials advise me that they will be available from 44 or 48 computerized terminals across the country. So they will be available on an automatic computerized system. I think it will be done as expeditiously as possible.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Chairman, I take from the Minister's answer that it would be almost automatic. The application is made, the paperwork is put through, and in a matter of days, at most, the permit would be issued, if not sooner.
Under what circumstance would the Minister deny a permit? If a company seeking a permit has a record of falsifying data and for some reason does not want to disclose fully the information requested, would the Minister deny a permit under such circumstances?


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, in order to respond further to the Hon. Member's question, these terminals are in customs brokers' offices or External Affairs offices, but they are readily available to the trade. We have taken great care to ensure that the terminals and access to the system are where people need them to be.
In terms of refusing permits, a permit would be refused if the information was falsified. I think the system is set up so
May 27, 1987

that if the data is incomplete it is rejected. However, I am not familiar with the squeaks and bugs in the computer system. I would be glad to get more information on the technical operation of the computer system to the Hon. Member if he would desire.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may obtain some clarification from the Minister on the statement she made and on what apparently she has indicated on other occasions in the House that the provisions of Bill C-57, particularly Clause 2, are not intended to be control measures but are designed for the purpose of information gathering.
1 want to indicate to the Minister the nature of my concern. This very day in media reports in the City of Halifax, there was an indication that the proposal to assist Sydney Steel Corporation might result in adverse consequences in that it would be suggested or the allegation would be made, in relation to international trade, particularly with the United States of America, that the Sydney Steel Corporation was being improperly subsidized, and that in turn this would result in or create difficulties in the United States in respect of the fair aspects of trading.
Because the new provisions require the issuance of an export permit in circumstances, I would like to ask the Minister whether there would be any intention at present or in the future that Sydney Steel would be placed in any jeopardy in relation to its trading with the United States because of any assistance it might receive.
On the face of it, the consideration may go beyond the provisions now before the House, but the fact of the matter is that the claim has been made that Sydney Steel, notwithstanding the minute amount of trading it does in steel transactions with the United States, might be creating difficulties in relation to free trade generally and steel trading particularly.
May I point out to the Minister, although I am sure she is aware, that the amount of trading Sydney Steel does with the United States is infinitesimal. In terms of general trading, I think it amounts to less than half of 1 per cent of the amount of steel exported to the United States. Yet it is claimed by some people, particularly other interested parties in the Province of Ontario-and it has even been suggested that it might be coming from Algoma Steel-that any assistance to Sydney Steel could result in serious consequences in terms of our international trade relations in general and steel trading in particular.
If the Minister could clarify that matter in relation to this Bill, I would be indebted to her.


Pat Carney: Mr. Chairman, the matters which the Hon. Member raised go far beyond Bill C-57. I do not feel this is the appropriate forum to comment on them.
This legislation has no relation to the issue he raises. The only comment I could make is that the American industry has available to it American trade remedy law. If they feel that there are unfair trade practices, they have recourse under
Export and Import Permits Act
American law. Presumably the tests of that would be not only subsidy but injury.
However, the steel Bill about which we are talking here is to protect our status as a fair trader in steel. It does not deal with the issues the Hon. Member has raised.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By unanimous consent, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pat Carney: that Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the third time and passed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-57, an Act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, provides a great deal of assistance to the steel industry. Since 1984, when the United States decided that it would cut back on imports of steel from offshore, the industry has been in tremendous turmoil and great uncertainty.
The problem before us now in steel, with the mentality and attitude of the United States Congress, is the kind of problem with which we will be dealing in the future. The United States Congress, if not the administration, is clearly moving toward an approach of managed trade. I do not believe that that is necessarily the view of the administration of the United States, but it is clearly the view of Congress. Since last November, when the Democrats took charge of the Congress, they have been in the driver's seat and have shown on two recent Bills relating to the water Act and the highways Act that they are clearly in charge in the United States Government.
The Bill really results from the exercise to establish voluntary restraint agreements in 1984. The U.S. administration and the Congress wished to back out from millions and millions of tonnes of steel coming into the U.S. market and from established voluntary restraint agreements with a couple of dozen countries. Some countries were trying to get several million tonnes of steel into the United States. The most obvious access to that tremendous U.S. market was Canada. We have always been fair traders with the United States. Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie buys all of its coal from the U.S. Much of the iron ore, a great deal of supplies and equipment are bought in the United States. The industry is very integrated. The steel caucus of the House of Commons has done a great deal to build an understanding and a liaison with Congressmen in the U.S., who have been going through a terrible time facing the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the steel industry. Clearly, when those voluntary restraint agreements were put in place in 1984 and early 1985, our share of the market was something around 3 per cent. In the

May 27, 1987
Export and Import Permits Act
first quarter of 1987, our share jumped dramatically. The pressure was on to prevent that.
There are Bills in the Congress. One is Senator Heinz' Bill which will limit Canada, Taiwan and other countries not under the voluntary restraint agreement to their share of the U.S. market. Hopefully, the legislation before us today to monitor exports to the United States will not only identify which steel is coming from fabricators and processors and which is coming from the basic steel producers, such as Algoma, Dofasco and Stelco, but it will also identify steel coming from Japan, South Korea and Brazil being fabricated, even to a modest extent in Canada, and then being trans-shipped to the United States.
If we find that large volumes of steel are from countries under voluntary restraint agreements with the United States, steel being trans-shipped through Canada will be identified and it will be included in their quotas going into the U.S. As a result, we will be able to secure and stabilize jobs for the basic steel producers, which is extremely important. We are hoping that the oil and gas industry will pick up. Companies like Algoma Steel have had a tremendous market in the United States for seamless steel tubing used in the oil and gas drilling exploration industry. They will not be subject to the kinds of quota impositions which Senator Heinz's Bill would be providing.
The Bill before us today will identify where the steel is coming from and where it is going to in the United States. When we create a tonne of steel and sell it to the United States from a fabricator or processor, we get about an hour's work on a tonne of steel. When we create it from iron ore or coal we get about eight hours' work.
We may be facing this same situation on other fronts. Clearly we will if the Government's move toward a free trade agreement were to be established. Regardless of that, our largest customer for many commodities is the United States. If the U.S. Congress moves to a have a managed trade system on other commodities this kind of monitoring service may be required.
Although Algoma Steel showed a profit in the first quarter-other companies have been more profitable-I do not think anyone believes that the steel industry is out of the woods yet. In the United States in the last four or five years over 300,000 jobs have been lost in the steel industry. We have lost many in Algoma Steel. We want to look to the day when there will be an opportunity for things to pick up in the oil and gas industry and so be able to sell steel to the U.S. If this action
being taken through Bill C-57, were not taken we could not be sure when a Bill would come through the Senate or the House of Representatives to roll us back to some unreasonable percentage of our historical share of the U.S. market. The steel industry faces a long period of difficulty because of new commodities and products coming onto the market-place today.
If we are to work on a sectoral basis as we have with the Auto Pact, this can be done with steel. This industry is highly integrated. We buy American material and equipment and sell our finished product to them, and vice-versa. It is really a North American integrated industry. Percentages like Canada's 4.7 per cent of the American market send people like Senator Heinz into orbit. Often we find that the big steel manufacturing companies in the U.S. are buying semi-finished steel from Canadian companies. That kind of information will be revealed. It is very hard for the American steel industry to be complaining about Canadian imports when Americans are buying semi-finished material from our steel mills because the industry is highly integrated. There is movement back and forth.
I want to mention that the steel caucus of the House of Commons and the steel caucus in the United States made up of people in the Congress and House of Representatives have done a lot to assist in the understanding and provision of cooperation between the two countries on this issue. I hope the passage of this Bill well lead to an even greater understanding of the Canadian position so that we will not have this vital industry hampered by unreasonable protectionist methods in the United States. If it does, countries importing steel which are under voluntary restraint agreements will be affected. They will be caught by the mechanism, and the Draconian effect that protectionist methods would have on our integrated steel operations will not occur.
With those few comments, I would like to indicate my support for this legislation. I think it will be very important to the Canadian steel industry.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is unanimous consent to call it six o'clock. It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.41 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers