1987-01-26

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present petitions on behalf of Canadians concerning a monopoly situation being created for drug companies engaged in research which will prevent competition by less expensive generic drugs, thus leading to an increase in the price of drugs for the Canadian consumer and severely restricting the ability of many Canadians to buy the drugs they need; and the amendments to the Patent Act that will directly affect all Canadian men and women not covered by public or private health insurance plans; and Government proposals that will further increase the high cost of provincial drug plans; and the fact that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's making concessions to the United States during the free trade talks, to the detriment of the average consumer.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject these proposals that will increase the price of drugs for Canadians.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have other petitions dealing with another subject.
The petitioners humbly submit that whereas the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language, which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information; whereas the tariff has little negative effect upon the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canadian consumers, book publishers, sellers, distributors, and Canada's culture; and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain upon the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens
irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade.
These petitioners come from the Windsor area, from out west, and from the Toronto area.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I again have the honour to present a petition under the provisions of Standing Order 106. This petition is signed by people from Flin Flon, Manitoba; Flin Flon, Saskatchewan; and Creighton, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners humbly call upon the House of Commons to reject the proposals of the federal Government which will result in an increase in prescription drug prices for Canadians. In their petition the petitioners state that they believe this is yet another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States, at the expense of the average Canadian, in the free trade negotiations. They state their belief that this will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs and will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers.
[ Translation]


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from Canadians living in Montreal, Ahuntsic and Montreal North who respectfully state:
That the monopoly position given drug companies engaging in research will prevent competition by less expensive generic drugs, thus leading to an increase in the price of drugs for Canadian consumers and severely restricting the ability of many people to purchase the drugs they need;
That the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will have a direct impact on Canadians who are not covered by public or private drug plans;
That the Government's proposals will further increase the high cost of provincial health insurance plans and that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's making concessions to the United States in the course of the free trade talks, to the detriment of the average consumer.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject the proposals that will increase the price of drugs for Canadians.

January 26, 1987
Canada Elections Act
[English)


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have with me today, pursuant to Standing Order 106, many petitions which are calling for the removal of the offensive tax on reading which is both discriminatory and a disincentive to our population. The petition reads:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited access to Canadians to literature and information, and;
WHEREAS the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and;
WHEREAS rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries.
WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to: rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.
I have thousands of names. People from Glencoe, Ontario, Collingwood, Ontario, Calgary, Grand Forks, Toronto, Vancouver, Hanover, Ontario, Winnipeg, Windsor and Marine Drive, Vancouver. The petitioners are from across the land and each and every one of them from Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal and the Northwest Territories hope that the Government will listen to and heed their plea to remove the tax on reading.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, the first from petitioners from across Canada. They call upon the Parliament of Canada, first to rescind the funding cut-backs to the National Research Council, including all consequent terminations and cut-backs in research activities, second, to provide funding for the space program from sources other than the National Research Council's budget and, third, to develop a national policy for research, science and technology based upon a target of 2.5 per cent of the gross national product devoted to research and development.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from constituents in my riding in the Wynyard, Dafoe and Mozart area who call upon Parliament to reject proposals before the House now that will, in their opinion, increase the price of prescription drugs. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject that legislation.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents from a wide-ranging number of communities in Canada, from
Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Victoria, Winnipeg, Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa and parts of Nova Scotia. The petition concerns the proposal of the Government to impose a tax on the book publishing industry. The tariff that has been achieved is seen by these petitioners as one that will have a severe deleterious effect on our book publishing industry. It will cause a major rise in book prices, place a strain on our libraries by a cut-back of budgets and, therefore, the petitioners present and humbly pray that Parliament to rescind this tariff because it represents irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and will severely compromise in many ways the cultural industries as we negotiate a new trade arrangement with the United States.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners mostly from my home constituency and surrounding areas. I add these names to the hundreds of names that have already been presented on this particular issue. These petitioners call upon the Government to withdraw or reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians. They recognize that these proposals are already before Parliament.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 106 I would like to present petitions at this time from residents of Vancouver, West Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and other centres on Vancouver Island. They relate to the Government's decision to place a retaliatory tariff on book imports, and state that this measure is hurting Canadians much more than it is hurting Americans. It is limiting the access of Canadians to literature and information from very important sources.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-246, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, sale of liquor.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-introduce, and I wish to emphasize the word "reintroduce", my private Member's Bill of March, 1986, from the first session of the 33rd Parliament, entitled an Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act repealing Section 67 which prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages during federal elections and federal by-elections.
January 26, 1987

Over the past year I have received considerable positive response for such an amendment from organizations like the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association, the tourism industries of Alberta and Ontario, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and the Canadian Restaurant and Food Association. Many small businesses in Canada will be very pleased to have this amendment passed because it will have a positive effect on our tourism industry. I should add, Sir, that it will also expand the federal treasury.
I call upon the House to ensure that this Bill is agreed to, as has been called for a number of times by Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean Marc Hamel.


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


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

['Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the referral made earlier of appointments by Order in Council which were tabled last week. Orders Nos. 2810 and 2811 respecting the Canadian Development Investment Corporation which were referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations should be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion. I would ask that the record show that.']
Rodney Edward Murphy: for leave to inroduce Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (political rights).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to introduce this Bill which amends the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is a very contradictory set of rules which apply to federal Government employees who wish to take part in elections, go to conventions, assist in elections and the like. It is the intent of my proposed legislation to ensure that people who work for the federal Government are able to act like other Canadian citizens by being politically involved.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand today.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the referral made earlier of appointments by Order in Council which were tabled last week. Orders Nos. 2810 and 2811 respecting the Canadian Development Investment Corporation which were referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations should be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion. I would ask that the record show that.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call Orders of the Day, I have a ruling to make arising out of the debate which occurred on Friday, January 23, 1987. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) rose on a point of order to argue that violence had been done to Standing Order 108 in Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products.
Standing Order 108 reads as follows:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West referred to Subclause (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill in which the Memorandum of Understanding is clearly mentioned establishing the relationship between this Bill and the Canada-U.S. Agreement. The Hon. Member complained particularly of lines 11, 12 and 13 at page 2 of the Bill where reference is made to the tabling of the Canada-U.S. memorandum on softwood products as having been made on January 19, 1987, and recorded as a Sessional Paper, the number of which is omitted in the Bill. He subsequently submitted that debate on the Bill should be deemed a nullity and that the Government should be required

January 26, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
to reintroduce the Bill and commence the debate and its proceedings all over again.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) admitted that the Memorandum of Understanding had not been tabled as had been originally intended and conceded that a clerical error had been made. He suggested that the correction of the date of the tabling and the insertion of the proper Sessional Paper number in Clause 2 could be made by way of amendment at committee stage. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary argued that the date of the tabling of the Memorandum of Understanding and the absence of the Sessional Paper number did not go to the essence of Bill C-37.

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) maintained that because there was a blank in line 12 on page 2 of this Bill, this made the Bill entirely unacceptable, according to Standing Order 108, and that consequently, the Government should withdraw the faulty Bill and present an amended version with the correct date and the correct numbers of related documents.

The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) referred the Chair to a previous Speaker's ruling on the drug patent Bill which occurred in June 1986 when the Speaker refused to propose the question on the introduction of the said Bill because the Royal Recommendation which was required in that case had not been secured. They drew the analogy that, not having gone through the proper procedures, Bill C-37 ought to be rejected in the same manner.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) claimed that since the Memorandum of Understanding is essential to the functioning of the law, Bill C-37 is defective because the said Memorandum of Understanding is not contained therein. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski), in his presentation, attempted to define an imperfect Bill. He stated that a blank Bill would be imperfect. He submitted that failure to outline the principles of a Bill or details pertaining to the principles of a Bill could render a Bill void, but that in the present case the House is faced with "simply a slight technicality that can be easily changed".
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) contended that because of the wrong date and the omitted document number, Bill C-37 is flawed, that the flaw is fatal, that the proceedings thus far are irregular and that the Bill and the debate thereon should be ruled void ab initio.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Kilgour) countered that no Bill was perfect in itself and
that Bill C-37 was sufficiently complete to be adopted on second reading and referred to a committee, where it could be improved. He added that no Members had been prejudiced by this and that the Chair should decide to let the debate continue.

The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) referred to a ruling of the Chair in the previous Parliament which can be found at Hansard, page 5139, of June 26, 1984. At that time there were blanks in copies of the printed Bill in the hands of Hon. Members but, as the Deputy Speaker informed the House, there were no blanks in the House copy filed with the Table at the time of introduction. Therefore, that particular case is unfortunately of little guidance since there was in fact a blank in Bill C-37 when it was introduced on January 19 last.
At this point, it might be desirable to relate what proceedings have transpired so far on Bill C-37.
On January 19, 1987, during Routine Proceedings, the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) tabled a Notice of Ways and Means motion relating to the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber Memorandum of Understanding and asked that a day be designated for its consideration pursuant to Standing Order 84(1) and 84(2). At three o'clock p.m. the same day, by unanimous consent so as to waive the restrictions of Standing Orders 84(1) which prevent the consideration of such motions on the same day they are tabled, the said motion of Ways and Means was concurred in on recorded division.
Bill C-37, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, was introduced and read the first time, again by unanimous consent so as to waive the notice prescriptions of the Standing Orders. A Royal Recommendation duly signed by the Governor General was properly attached to the Bill.
The House gave unanimous consent once again to proceed forthwith with the consideration of the second-reading motion, thereby suspending Standing Order 111(1) which stipulates that the three several readings of a Bill shall occur on separate sitting days. During the debate on the same day, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) moved a six-month hoist amendment to the second-reading motion. On Thursday, January 22, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived on a recorded division.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) subsequently moved the previous question, namely: "That the question now be put."
That is where we were after four days of debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-37, and it was at this point that the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) raised his point of order.
January 26, 1987

In arriving at a decision the Chair has reviewed all of the arguments and I will attempt to deal with most of them. I have already told the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that the precedent he alluded to, while similar in its content, was of little guidance because the official copy of the Bill he referred to did not contain blanks at the time of introduction in June of 1984. I thank him nevertheless for his comments.
The Hon. Member for Churchill and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre make reference to the June, 1986 drug patent Bill and I must say that that precedent is not quite on point either. If the Speaker ruled, as he did in June, 1986, it was not because of Standing Order 108 but because of Standing Order 86(2) which requires that the Royal Recommendation be annexed to every Bill which requires one. Bill C-37 had, on January 19, 1987, a Royal Recommendation properly attached to it.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and the Hon. Member for Spadina made reference to the fact that the Memorandum of Understanding is not contained in the Bill. I refer them to a ruling made on May 17, 1956 which established that it was not necessary to include agreements in Bills providing for the carrying into effect of those agreements. The Speaker referred the House to Chapter 71 of the Statutes of 1948, an Act to provide for the carrying into effect of treaties of peace between Canada and Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland, in which none of the agreements were inserted in the Bill.

After resolving these two important points, the Chair still has to deal with what was said by the Hon. Members for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), with respect to Standing Order 108 and their statement that Bill C-37 was a Bill in blank and in an imperfect shape owing to lines 11 and 12 on page 2 of said Bill.

My predecessors have been very diligent in the past in ruling blank Bills out of order. These Bills were usually Private Members' Bills introduced and read a first time and subsequently found to have only a title and for which no text existed or had been finalized. I refer Hon. Members to a ruling of Speaker Jerome on May 16, 1978, at page 5461 of Hansard, and more particularly to a ruling of Speaker Sauve who, on December 15, 1980, declared the proceedings relating to Bill C-622 null and void. She said the following and I quote from page 5746 of Hansard:
-while the document with respect to the motion was prepared, the Bill itself had not been drafted and, therefore, was not ready for introduction.
Standing Order 69 is very clear:
No Bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape.
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
It seems that Standing Order 108 was very clear to Speaker Sauve and the Bill in blank shape meant simply a Bill with only a title or only partially drafted.
The aforementioned references are cited to establish the difference between a Bill in blank shape and a Bill containing a blank. In the opinion of the Chair, Bill C-37 is not a blank Bill according to our practice and previous Speakers' rulings, but without doubt, as was so ably demonstrated by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), Bill C-37 does contain a blank. It also contains an error, namely, the reference to the tabling of the Memorandum of Understanding on January 19, 1987. Having come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with are errors or anomalies in this Bill, the Chair must decide whether these errors render the Bill imperfect in relation to Standing Order 108.
On September 24, 1985 the President of the Privy Council sought the unanimous consent of the House to correct errors in Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, which had been introduced earlier, and stated that a new Royal Recommendation had been obtained accordingly. The House gave its consent. While there was no ruling from the Chair, it was obvious at the time that the errors in Bill C-75, which omitted in its title and text as well as in the Royal Recommendation, references to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, were so grave as to render the Bill imperfect. Because the errors were fundamental to Bill C-75, only two recourses were available to the Minister; either obtain consent to correct the errors or start again.
The Chair has reviewed the errors at page 2 of Bill C-37 and the arguments surrounding them, including those of the Deputy Prime Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I have concluded that the two mistakes do not affect the essence, the principles, the objects, the purposes or the conditions of Bill C-37. The Chair is also satisfied that the terms of the Royal Recommendation are not affected or altered.
However, the matter cannot lie there. This point of order has taken up much of the House's time, indeed a full sitting day. The House might allow me to add that it has preoccupied your Speaker over the past weekend.
In seeking a solution I was inspired by the ruling of May 17, 1956, which I referred to earlier. In elaborating on the first reading procedure Speaker Beaudoin said:
-at the moment the Honourable Member cannot raise a point of order because he does not have a copy of the bill. The bill has not been printed. My satisfaction must be made on a very summary basis because Honourable Members cannot expect the Speaker to study every bill in an effort to find whether or not something has been omitted. Honourable Members have taken care of that situation themselves by insisting in their procedure that after second reading all bills be referred to one of their standing committees or to the Committee of the Whole.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 79, Citation 238, says:
When a bill is under consideration, points of order should not be raised on matters which could be disposed of by moving amendments.
The errors in Bill C-37 could indeed be corrected by an amendment in committee, but it seems to the Chair a rather

January 26, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
cumbersome solution to correct what is essentially a minor error or oversight.
Pursuant to Standing Order No. 1, 1 have reviewed the practice in the United Kingdom and in the Lok Sabha of India and found the following. At page 493 of the Practice and Procedure of Parliament, Third Edition, edited by Kaul and Shakdher it is stated:
No alteration can be made in a Bill as introduced or as reported by a Select or Joint Committee except by way of an amendment adopted in the House. However, the Speaker has the power to correct any obvious printing or clerical error at any stage of a Bill by issue of a corrigendum to the Bill.
In the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May at pages 377, 383 and 526 the Speaker of the House of Commons at Westminster is given considerable latitude in altering minor errors in motions and bills.
Therefore, I hereby order the Clerk of the House to alter the House copy of Bill C-37 as follows:
lines 11, 12 and 13 shall be struck from the Bill, line 10 shall be altered by adding a period after the words "December 30, 1986" and by striking out the word "and".
By doing this the incorrect tabling date and blank document number are removed from the Bill. However, that part of Subclause 2(3) which allows for recourse to the Memorandum of Understanding in interpreting the schedule remains. The alteration being made is therefore not one of substance but one which will correct the errors complained of. The Law Clerk and parliamentary Counsel shall also reprint the Bill accordingly, including an explanatory note referring to this ruling and the above-mentioned alterations ordered by the Chair.
This is not an innovation on the part of the Chair, for Speaker Jerome on April 23, 1975 ordered certain amendments made in committee, stripped from a Bill, and ordered a reprint of the Bill. Members may wish to consult Hansard, page 469 of that day.
In closing, I wish to add a few comments on clerical errors and oversights, for I do not necessarily take them to be of little significance. This error has been the subject of a full day's debate; it has now caused the reprint of a Bill at considerable expense. It has proccupied Members on both sides of the House for several days, and has been of grave concern to your Speaker. No doubt this error will continue to be a point of some controversy. Let not those responsible for it be confident that in the future this ruling may be used to cure their mistakes. It is possible that a clerical error can affect the fundamental principles of fair play that govern parliamentary proceedings and debate. This ruling addresses the clerical error in Bill C-37 only. In future such clerical errors will have to be assessed with regard to their impact on the draft legislation before the House, and the consequences that will flow therefrom.

Let there be no misunderstanding. This kind of error can affect the rules of fair play that govern our proceedings. This
ruling corrects only the anomaly in Bill C-37. In future, such errors will have to be considered in terms of their impact on the proposed legislation before the House and the consequences that may result.

Accordingly, debate on the second reading of Bill C-37, as altered by the Speaker, will proceed.
I wish to thank all Hon. Members for their contribution to the debate on Friday, which the Chair took as extremely serious. I hope that the comments in this ruling will make it very clear that if mistakes are made this is not a ruling to be looked to with much comfort for the correction of those mistakes, and as a precedent it must be viewed in its most narrow and factual form.
Again, I thank all Hon. Members for their conduct during what was a very difficult question, a question that touches on the rights of all Members, and especially what must be accepted and understood in our parliamentary tradition, that the rules of procedure are very important to the conduct of this place.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may seek your guidance on a matter arising out of your very thoughtful and complete ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Since we do not have before us copies of Bill C-37 reprinted as directed by you in your ruling, would it not be more consistent with the appropriate operation of House business that debate on this Bill be deferred until we can have the Bill before us corrected as set forth in your ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West raises an important question to which the Chair gave some consideration last evening.
The practice is that the Bill is in the process, immediately upon my ruling, of being corrected at the table. Copies of the Bill as corrected in longhand are available to Members. That is a practice that has been followed in the past.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question which I would like to put, with your indulgence.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, you have set out the authority you have with respect to correcting errors in Bills. Under the circumstances, would it be possible for you to use this authority to strike out the clause imposing the export tax on our softwood lumber going to the United States, because it is clearly an error on the part of the Government which is very harmful to the public interest, if it is perpetuated.
January 26, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has illustrated how many various issues were raised, obliquely as they may have been, during the debate on Friday.
I apologize to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). 1 have notice of a question of privilege, and I will hear the Hon. Member.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I have to rise this morning on a matter which I think is a very serious question of privilege reflecting on all Members of this House. It arises out of comments made on Friday by the Member of Parliament for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), which I think reflect upon Parliament and may be in contempt of Parliament itself.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is pertinent to this question of privilege?


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is directly related to the point of privilege.
The Member quite rightly brought the question of privilege to the attention of the Chair and the Chamber at the earliest possible moment. But, in view of the nature of my colleague's question of privilege, I submit to you that it is inappropriate that it proceed at this time without the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) being in the Chamber to hear the comments of Members, and to participate in the debate. We will try to reach him immediately in order that he may be in attendance for any comments on this matter. I would ask you to defer it until that time.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has raised a matter. Without ruling as to whether it is a question of privilege, the Chair has no hesitation in saying that it is an important matter, and it may well be a grievance of some weight, and, depending on what is heard, it might be a question of privilege.
I would ask Hon. Members to consider that it has been my practice whenever a matter was raised as a question of privilege to ask if the Hon. Member who might be the Member complained of was in the Chamber. It has been the disposition of the House to try to be as reasonable as possible in ensuring that when a complaint is made of the conduct of another Hon. Member that if that Hon. Member can be in the Chamber, even if it requires a deferral of the matter for a short period of time, that is probably the better course.
Having that in mind, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville who now has his point on the record, could defer his remarks until a little later on in the day when the
Points of Order-Mr. McKinnon
Hon. Member, whose remarks are complained of, might be in the Chamber. That would be the disposition of the Chair.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with what you have suggested. My only concern is that, for reasons that we may not be able to predict, the Member may be away from the House for some length of time. We would have some concern that this issue be raised at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure Hon. Members that the Chair is very cognizant of the concern just mentioned by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). Without in any way imputing anything to any Member, the Chair would expect that the Hon. Member would be here soon.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In that case, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for your feelings in the matter, I will wait until the Hon. Member appears in the House, on the understanding that he will be here soon. I do not receive that understanding directly from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I understand that he is not far away.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the House has the sense of the Speaker's intention in this regard.
On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the petition that was just submitted by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). During her presentation she said that there were thousands of signatures on the petition. An examination of the petition indicates that there are less than 375 names on it.
This constant exaggeration of the names on a petition is demeaning what is a very honourable and time honoured practice of Members of Parliament to present petitions on behalf of their constituents.
It is a good petition. Its wording is quite suitable and the petitioners raise a good point about the tariff on books. That feeling is shared by many Canadians. Why should Members demean this practice by these phoney numbers and passing petitions about from one Member to another to make it appear that there is more feeling out there in the constituencies than there is? It is beyond me.
I know I have your agreement on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but we do not seem to be able to get any probity among the
2670

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Members of some parties. I do not know what the answer will be, unless we completely change the rules about petitions in the House.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in making the presentation, and having made presentations during the last six to eight weeks when the House has been in operation, I have alluded to the fact that I have received thousands of names. I have had two cartons full of petitions containing at least 25 names per page which, I suggest, add up to thousands of names. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not understand the meaning of thousands of names with respect to all of the petitions. This is only part of what is left to be presented in the House. I suggest that if he looks at these petitions and adds the names he will find to his surprise that there are thousands and thousands of names.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) has raised a point which has concerned the Chair. I have noticed an improvement over a number of weeks in the tone of comment and the content of comment in the presentation of petitions. I am grateful for it.
I believe the Hon. Member for Victoria does have an important point. It is very necessary that the comments that pertain to the petition relate to the petition that is in fact presented. I am sure the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) will, as a consequence of a concern raised by a fellow Member of the House, be very careful to take this into account in the presentation of her petitions.
The Hon. Member for Victoria in fact praised the Hon. Member for Mount Royal for having a petition that is legitimate and in the proper form. I am sure the Hon. Member for Mount Royal will try to accede to the wishes of other Hon. Members in the chamber.


APPROPRIATENESS OF COMMENTS ON PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could give some advice with respect to the subject of petitions. How long may a Member speak when presenting a petition? It seems to vary from Member to Member, since some presentations are one or two sentences while others are longer and almost become a speech. Perhaps the Speaker could give us some guidance?


Mr. Speaker:: The rules are clear. A speech is not acceptable. The Chair has made it quite clear that as far as I am concerned, inflammatory language in introducing the petition is not acceptable to the Chair because it causes difficulties in the chamber. Brevity is the soul of wit, as someone once said, and I also believe that brevity ought to be sought.
Having said that, I say to all Hon. Members that it takes more mental effort to say something with precision and brevity than it does to ramble. I know that all Hon. Members would wish that the Speaker, in listening to their remarks, realize
that they are indeed capable of using succinct language, in brief form, to make their point. I would ask all Hon. Members to do the best they can in that regard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, January 23, 1987, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. McDermid (p. 2601).
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) had the floor.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you have suggested that we make our comments brief and try to do in half the time what otherwise might take the full time. I spoke for five minutes on Friday and I believe I made my point. Therefore, in keeping with your suggestion, I shall yield the floor.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the decision to be brief has been made for me since the House has placed a restriction of ten minutes on speeches. I do not believe I can be much more brief than what has already been dictated to me.
This Bill is extremely important in its ramifications on the country. I have already mentioned that there are two very important aspects to this debate; one is the provisions of the Bill respecting the sale of softwood lumber to the United States, the second being the ramifications of the bill itself.
The Bill is detrimental to softwood lumber exporters and the Canadian economy as a whole. It was poorly drafted by the Government and the best arguments on our behalf were not put forward in the negotiations because our negotiators failed to recognize the increased profitability of the softwood lumber industry in the United States.
This memorandum did not come as a result of the negotiating expertise of the Canadian delegation, but because the Americans realized that the profitability of the lumber industry in the United States was improving and that it would be advantageous now to enter into this Memorandum of Understanding that is more favourable to the Americans than to Canada. If the matter went further and on to another forum, the Americans would not be able to reach such an agreement as this.
As a result of this agreement, Canada will allow the United States to dictate to us how we conduct our trade with them. They will have a right to make periodic checks of the softwood
January 26, 1987

lumber industry in Canada to assure themselves that we are adhering to their interpretation-not the written word-of the agreement.
The actual wording of the memorandum makes it very clear that we have given the United States complete jurisdiction over the setting of guidelines and terms of reference for our trade in softwood lumber with the Americans. That is unacceptable for a Canadian industry.
This agreement has serious ramifications for our softwood lumber exports to other nations. It may seriously affect arguments we may make before GATT on other matters that will undoubtedly arise in very difficult trading problems with the United States. The United States has now set its sights on curtailing Canadian imports into the United States, certainly from the point of view of ensuring that trade with the United States is less favourable vis-a-vis, first, prior circumstances and, second, to give its own people more of an edge in the market-place. This is at a time when we are in negotiatons on the whole question of free trade.
This is not the first instance of a setback in the intentions of the federal Government to secure free trade with the United States. This has happened right from the very beginning. In fact, it has happened since September of 1985 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made his speech in New York wherein he said that Canada is open for business. Indeed, it is not only open for business, but we are giving away a lot of free samples, and this is very unfortunate.
The trend has been consistently downward. We have gone from one thing to another. From the opening bell of the Government's intentions to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States there has been a red flag raised to all lobbyists in the United States that somehow Canada was going to get a preferential deal and there was going to be a great give-away of opportunity to Canadians. That is certainly not the case and it was never the case.
However, these lobbyists then went to Washington buoyed by the comments from the industry to talk to the respective politicians. The politicians, of course, were very interested and concerned about their vested interest and immediately went into action. The curtains started to come down on Canadian commerce with the United States. This is very unfortunate because we have had a very proud tradition and a very good relationship in our trade with the United States. Now, of course, one thing just leads to another. There is a domino effect happening which could only mean a great deal of difficulty for Canadians.
We have seen this effect on the shakes and shingles industry, and there are so many other examples. We are now in the position of dealing with softwood lumber. There is a ripple effect from the actual Government and the immediate Government agencies to regulatory bodies in the United States. There is the case where the Federal Energy Regulatory
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Commission has stated Canadian exporters of natural gas cannot pass along the pipeline charges to the buyers of this natural gas in the United States, even though the Canadian producers and American buyers have a signed agreement that this is going to take place, and even though the National Energy Board has approved this manner of doing business. This is just not some trivial inconvenience for Canadian exporters of natural gas. This will mean the loss of approximately $450 million in sales of natural gas to the United States at a time when our energy sector is undergoing a very severe downturn.
What is being done? The Government did not really twig to this danger and did not respond to it because it does not want to alarm the United States or hurt its tender feelings. However, Canadians have tender feelings. Canadian businessmen and Canadian exporters have tender feelings; not only are their tender feelings not being eased any, they are being made worse because there is alarm in this country that the Government is not standing up to the rights of Canadians. The Government is not putting the interests of Canadians first. It is putting the interests of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States first.
What is the President of the United States doing? Instead of saying that the Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the softwood lumber industry is not fair, he is telling the producers of softwood lumber in the United States: "Do not worry. We are looking after you. Canadians are not going to have the rights they once had in trading with us. We are going to make sure they are hobbled and hobbled severely". This is not the action we expected from the First Summit in Quebec City between the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States. It is not what we anticipated when we listened to the words of the Prime Minister, and it is not fair to Canadians.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: I have a number of comments I would like to make about this Bill. I regret the Bill is not going straight to a vote according to the terms of the motion before us to call a question on second reading. I regret that because it was said on the weekend that there was one Minister who was happy with the Government's problems with the former Minister of State for Transport and with other Ministers. That Minister, of course, was the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She was happy because the problems of the Conservative Party in Quebec and its problems with patronage deflected public attention from the fact that we had effectively two weeks of debate last week on the softwood lumber issue. The House agreed to have extended hours last week which meant that the debate which might have gathered more momentum across the country was compressed into one week. But that does not alter the fact that there are very serious questions the Government has not at all satisfactorily resolved. I want to speak to a few of them in the time available to me.
The first question quite simply is what does this say about the Government's free trade negotiations? You will recall,

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Madam Speaker, that on May 8, 1986, in order to get the fast track agreement from the U.S. Senate, President Reagan wrote to Senator Packwood and told him he would press for an expedited resolution to what they called the softwood lumber problem "independent of the comprehensive negotiations". He concluded his letter by saying: "We fully realize that lumber and other pending trade irritants must be resolved before we submit to the Senate the results of the comprehensive negotiations". In other words, by the time they resolve all of the trade irritants, as they are viewed by the Americans, there will be no reason for the Americans to want to conclude a free trade agreement on any other issues with Canada.
I then turn to the Minister's own speech in the House last January 19. She made a number of statements which are at variance with the facts. I cannot be more specific and be parliamentary. However, for example, she said this agreement is supported by the union which represents the forestry workers. Last week I met with the paperworkers' union representing large numbers of forest workers who are cutting timber and producing lumber. They are opposed to this 15 per cent agreement. I met with the President of the CSN, the Quebec Union, and a number of those workers of the forest industry are opposed. I met with people from 1'Union des producteurs agricoles in Quebec. They are very concerned about what is happening. At least three unions which represent substantial numbers of workers in the forest industry are opposed, and when the Minister of State for International Trade (Miss Carney) says otherwise it seems to me she is misleading the House. I would hope it is inadvertent-I cannot say it was advertent-but nevertheless the conclusion is obvious.
The next point the Minister made is that this is supported by the nine provinces which own the resource. Everyone agrees there is no forestry to speak of in Prince Edward Island, therefore, I presume the Minister for International Trade was maintaining that Ontario, among other provinces, supports this agreement with the United States. That is certainly not what I am hearing from Premier Peterson and from the Government of Ontario.
I would like to go back a year or two to my visits to Washington. From my contacts in Washington I heard very clearly, first, that our Embassy was not reporting the state of congressional opinion with respect to the lumber industry, and I accept there were problems there, and second, that the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada had not seized on the problem, but instead was steering towards what we now have, which I would say is disaster. It may have been possible to have found out more about what was on the minds of the Americans and possibly have found a way out of the impasse into which the Government had steered, had it seized on this problem seriously at the beginning of 1985. It did not do so. It is my information that by the beginning of 1986, although the situation was becoming more serious, the good friends of the Canadian Embassy and of the Government in the Reagan administration were saying that there was no need
to worry. Our officials, both in Washington and in Ottawa, were not keeping a weather eye out for what was happening in Congress. The result is what we now know, that is, a substantial opinion grew up in Congress and we did not head it off. It grew into a firestorm.
[DOT] (UlO)
The Government has said that we had but two choices. There was either this deal or accept a countervail which could have been much greater than 15 per cent. In the Minister's speech on this matter she said there were three choices. First, she said that we could fight and risk losing the case. Second, she said that we could plead guilty and enter into a suspension agreement. She said the third option was to negotiate a settlement. What she did not say is that if we had done what the lumber industry wanted us to do, which was to continue the fight as it had been carried out successfully in 1983, then there was still the option of reaching some type of an agreement in the event that the case did prove to be unsuccessful.
In November the Minister said that she had concluded that something had to be done, that we had to reach some kind of deal. She said this despite the fact that on October 21 she told the House of Commons we would fight to reverse this verdict, that the U.S. ruling was deplorable, artificial and contrived, and that it would not stand up to extensive analysis. A week later she told the House that the decision was unacceptable. She said it was an unacceptable attempt to impose U.S. views on how other Governments should manage their natural resources. What was unacceptable on October 27 became so acceptable that on December 30 the Government agreed to exactly that.
The Minister also said on October 27 that the Government felt the preliminary ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department had no basis in U.S. law. But the Government would not fight it in the courts. She said that it was badly flawed. But the Government would not challenge it, it knuckled under. She said that it was inconsistent with the U.S. obligations under the GATT. So much for Tory backbone!
1 wish to point out something else which I think will come back to haunt the Government. From reading the letter which was sent to the U.S. industry I know the Americans understand that the agreed replacement measures to the 15 per cent export tax will have the equivalent economic impact, on average, on each unit of export to the United States as the 15 per cent charge or that portion of it which is being replaced. I know, and I have told the House again and again, that this tax is 50 per cent higher on production in Quebec than it is in British Columbia. This is so because the f.o.b. price in Quebec is around $230 per 1,000 board feet as compared to about $150 or $160 per 1,000 board feet in British Columbia. The tax is computed on the f.o.b. price.
In equity, it would seem to me that the replacement measures, if they are to be put in place, should bear more heavily in British Columbia than in Quebec. In other words, a replacement measure in British Columbia should be something
January 26, 1987

in the order of 20 per cent or 25 per cent as opposed to 8 per cent or 10 per cent in Quebec. This is borne out as well by the fact that stumpage in Quebec is 50 per cent higher than in British Columbia. But our great Canadian negotiators, led by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) from the beaches of Hawaii, bore no reference to that fact at all. They were not aware that they were negotiating the Quebec industry into a tax which would be $10 or $11 per 1,000 board feet higher than the tax in British Columbia.
Effectively, unless they can persuade British Columbia to bear a much greater burden with the replacement measures than Quebec, they are permanently disadvantaging the industry in eastern Canada as opposed to western Canada. The situation in Ontario falls somewhere between that in Quebec and British Columbia. However, the two major producing provinces are Quebec and British Columbia. The tax is much higher in Quebec than it is in British Columbia.

I ask the 56 remaining members of the Progressive Conservative Party in Quebec how they can justify the fact that the tax on lumber produced in Quebec is higher than on lumber from British Columbia. How many of them will be reelected after showing that they were willing to accept a tax and replacement measures which were much more costly for Quebec lumber producers than for producers in British Columbia?

I will conclude on that note. Contrary to what the Minister said, the industry is furious at the way it has been drawn into this particular situation. It is furious at the way that its good reputation is now being used and abused by the Minister who says that it supports this rotten deal entered into by the Government of Canada.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the question before the House concerns the previous question, namely that the debate come to an and after a few more hours, and it was the Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) who moved that we end the debate and vote on the motion for second reading of Bill C-37. Madam Speaker, this is another example of the impatience of this Government and its complete inability to read public opinion.
The situation is rather serious. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has just made an important comment. He invited Members from Quebec to tell us what they think about the lumber issue and the 15 per cent export tax which would cost the industry at least $600 million and probably $800 million if it applies to all categories of lumber.
Madam Speaker, I asked the same thing in the House on January 22. I invited the Members from Quebec to take part in the debate and tell us what they think of this issue. They replied that they agreed with the Government. I could name
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
all those who were shouting during my speech, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Gerin) who told us some strange things. I told him at the time, and I can still assure him that Ontario does not agree with this export tax on lumber. I wish to emphasize another point now that I have the opportunity to do so. The fact is that the sovereignty of our country of Canada in the area of natural resources is being jeopardized and probably prejudiced by this agreement.

In the agreement which we finally saw on Friday we see that indeed the Government has signed an agreement which gives the American Government and the American lumber industry the right to look into our affairs in regard to the 15 per cent export tax. They can look into how we set the rate, how we collect it and how we disburse the funds collected. That is an attack on our sovereignty. It is regrettable that the Government has agreed to give the United States Government and the American lumber industry the right to look into how our provinces, which are responsible and autonomous on questions of natural resources, will set the rate in regard to the tax and how they will collect it and disburse it.
The next point I wish to make is perhaps one of the most important. It is that the U.S. Government can object to the way we manage our natural resources. It can object to the ways and means by which we will set the rate, collect and disburse it. I repeat that this is in direct contradiction to maintaining one's sovereignty over one's natural resources. It is a direct weakening of Canadian sovereignty and our control over our natural resources.
In her remarks in the House the Minister drew our attention to Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Understanding as the possible sovereignty clause. It provides the following:
The Government of Canada may reduce or eliminate the export charge on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces on softwood lumber production.
Clause 2(3) of the Bill respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products indicates that the Memorandum of Understanding, tabled in the House on Friday of last week, may be referred to when interpreting the export charge Act. In the Minister's mind this establishes that the sovereignty claim is protected.
Clause 5b of the Canada-U.S. agreement provides the following:
Calculation of the value of any replacement measures in relation to the export charge will be subject to further consultations and agreement between the two Governments.
According to this clause, should the U.S. disapprove of any measure which Canada may introduce to replace the export tax, it could conceivably oppose it and possibly have it changed on the grounds that it does not have an effect on total Canadian softwood exports which is equal in value to the export tax-

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
the huge amount of money about which we are talking, the $600 million at best.
Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding provides the following:
The Government of Canada will take no action, and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that no other governmental body in Canada takes any action, directly or indirectly, which has the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charge or replacement measures-
Furthermore, in early January, President Ronald Reagan pledged in writing: "I will take action if Canada does not live up to the terms of the agreement". The question is, what action will he take. President Reagan said that the action might include tariffs.
Similarly, on December 30, 1986, a letter was written to the Coalition for Fair Lumber Exports by U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter and Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige, identifying seven different types of Canadian government assistance to industry which the U.S. Government would not accept. These included rebate, remission or deferral of the export charge, provision of grants or low-cost loans, exemption from other federal or provincial government charges, assumption of obligations currently borne by the industry, reduction in stumpage or other fees, changes in the way that the volume of timber is measured, and the noncompetitive awarding of contracts for silvaculture, road building, recreational, and other forestry activities.
In other words, and I am quoting from Clayton Yeutter and Malcolm Baldrige, Clause 6, according to the U.S. interpretation, severely limits if not outrightly prohibits Canada and its provinces from helping the forest industry and the communities involved. That is about what we are talking when we say our sovereignty is at stake here and our sovereignty has been affected by the agreement. This is why we strongly oppose the Bill. This is why we object to the Government bringing in a measure which prevents us from debating further or prevents us from bringing in further amendments. We will have to vote at the end of the debate, when our 40 Members and the 30 members of the NDP have finished debating.
We have not heard what members on the government side have to say about it. Its Members from Quebec and everywhere else have been very quiet and very subdued in this debate. They remind us of little trained seals when they say "yes, yes, yes" and "no, no, no".


Mr. Mantha:: Oh, come on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear the Hon. Member from North Bay. The Government of Ontario, through Mr. Peterson, said that it opposed this issue. The Hon. Member, coming from North Bay, should know better than to vote for the measure. I happen to know that in his area there are large interests in the wood industry. He has lumber mills and forestry operations. They need roads and they need to develop that resource. If I am mistaken, the Hon. Member can rise in his place and say so; I would invite him to do that. However, he will act like a trained seal and say "yes, yes, yes, Mr. Prime Minister", will he not? I
invite him to answer that question since he made a comment. Does he want the floor?


Moe Mantha: Why didn't you settle it in 1983?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear the Hon. Member. We settled it in 1983; we obtained a favourable judgment.


Moe Mantha: Short term.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He is debating with me, Madam Speaker. I invite the Hon. Member from North Bay to rise in his place. I realize my time is coming to an end, Madam Speaker. I hope you will recognize the Hon. Member from North Bay and that he will get up to give us the benefit of his thoughts on the matter.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, you may note that I took a considerable length of time rising to my feet. It was in the hopes that perhaps the Hon. Member from North Bay would accept the invitation to speak, or that perhaps a government Member from Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or any other province adversely affected by the proposed legislation would rise to speak.


Moe Mantha: Speak for yourself.


Rodney Edward Murphy: All of us in the House face a serious problem when government Members refuse to rise to defend legislation. We can speak about the faults we see in the legislation, and we see many of them.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Put the question.


Rodney Edward Murphy: All we get from government is heckling from a back-bencher who will not get up to speak on the piece of legislation. That is not what Parliament is all about. We can point out error after error, mistake after mistake, in the Memorandum of Understanding and in the legislation before us. We can also point out how the legislation will negatively affect vast regions of the country. However, the Government will not put up any of its Members to explain what they believe is positive in the legislation. If the Government will not rise to say that we are wrong because of this or that, then it leaves the impression that it does not have a good case.
The proceedings of the House of Commons are being televised. Reporters will be covering some of the debate. People watching the debate will ask why the Government is not explaining its own case? This broadcast is going across the country to many people and communities directly affected by the legislation. Those people will say that a good point was made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and perhaps the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), but that the Government did not respond to it. They will be rightfully concerned because it is their jobs, communities, and livelihoods which are being affected. It is a serious problem.
It is not new to this Government; we had the same problem with the previous Government. When it wanted legislation

January 26, 1987

passed it would not rise in the House to explain it. Rather, it would hope that the Opposition, especially when its numbers are limited as in the present House, would not be able to continue the debate at the end of its 10-minute speeches and, therefore, the whole issue would go to committee or elsewhere and not be in the public light. That is a concern of not only the Opposition but of many Canadians across the country.
Dealing with the legislation itself, I am concerned that there is so much doubt in the country and in the House about what it will do. We have already heard quotes from the infamous letter which American government officials sent to the American lumber industry. We have heard the interpretation which senior cabinet level people in the United States put on the agreement. We are told that the American government interpretation, which has been sent out to their industry, is not correct. We are told by government Ministers that it is not correct. That is not very informative. We would like more information from the Government as to what it believes the Bill means. People in our communities would feel a lot better if they knew that employees who will lose their jobs as a result of this legislation were eligible for government programs. If the Member wishes to speak, he will have an opportunity afterwards.


Mr. Oostrom:: Tell us the truth then.


Rodney Edward Murphy: As I was saying before I was interrupted by those who do not have the courage to speak, people in these communities will lose their jobs as a result of this legislation. Even the Minister admitted that people will lose their jobs. She said so with regret, but she admitted that. People, Madam Speaker, have no understanding of what is allowed and what is not allowed under this Memorandum of Understanding. We have read the American interpretation but we do not have the equivalent Canadian interpretation. Whether there are any disparities between the two views, we have no way of knowing. If I were a person who lost my job as a result of this legislation and the Memorandum of Understanding behind it, I would like to know what the forest companies can do, what the provincial Governments can do and what the federal Government can do and cannot do in order to give me a job, maybe not with the forest industry but perhaps a forest related job.
It is interesting to read the American letter. It points out that road construction and recreation efforts, if not tendered, cannot take place. In other words, people employed in northern Ontario or northern Manitoba who lose employment as a result of this Memorandum of Understanding may find themselves in a situation where they cannot work on Government or company projects which are set up to help resolve the unemployment problem. That is a serious concern, Mr. Speaker, and one that Government members and the ministry itself have not addressed.
Obviously, if we do have large pockets of unemployment in northern Saskatchewan, northern Ontario or elsewhere the
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
provincial Government and unions affected will want something to help people. We do not want to see communities in northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba or elsewhere having large numbers of young people unemployed and being unable to do anything about it.
What happens if the Government of Manitoba decides- presumably Manitoba will have more money as a result of this legislation in the long run-it wants to expand the recreational network in northern Manitoba? According to the American interpretation that is not acceptable unless some funny tendering system is set up to allow many other people to make application for those same jobs.
We recognize the right of governments and we certainly recognize the right of employers to direct work toward a certain group of people within the population. Obviously if 2,000 people become unemployed in northern Ontario or 1,000 in northern Saskatchewan, northern B.C. or other parts of B.C. as a result of this legislation, we would have to look at projects to create employment. It does not make a lot of sense, Madam Speaker, to tender jobs if it really means that people in Vancouver, Winnipeg or Toronto will end up doing the work. That is the irony of it all.
We as a Government may have compassion, companies may have compassion but communities may have real worries as a result of this legislation. There may be a desire on the part of many of those components to do something for the unemployed but the Memorandum of Understanding, as the Americans understand it and as our Government has yet to refute it, may prevent it. For example, expansion of the recreation network and road construction, although providing necessary services to our communities, if that work happens to be perceived by the Americans as an undue benefit to people normally working in the wood industry it cannot be done. That is a real problem and a problem which the Government and its backbenchers should have the moral courage to address.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, we are looking at Bill C-37 which has created a great deal of concern throughout the country. I have been hearing from many of my constituents concerned about Canadian sovereignty. This Bill, which the House has been asked to address, includes a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the Americans will look at the softwood lumber industry of Canada and have the right to determine what, how and where we are to make our determinations concerning the rates we pay for our softwood lumber.
We have been party to an agreement, through the Government's action while the Minister sunned herself on the beaches of Hawaii. The Minister, with her deputies signed an agreement which will have a very serious effect on the cost of the export of softwood lumber and will be detrimental to this industry in great measure. It is really the greatest sell-out in the history of our negotiations with the United States. It is the greatest betrayal of a major industry by a Minister who should be more responsible than she was.

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Our softwood lumber industry will now pay a 15 per cent export tax on every bit of softwood lumber going into the United States. It will cost the lumber industry, on the basis of this tax, supposedly $600 million; perhaps more when we start looking at how this tax is to be converted into timber cutting fees, or as we call it stumpage fees, at the provincial level. This will create great disharmony for a Government that has touted harmony at the federal-provincial level, as it tries to figure out and negotiate who shall get paid what, how it will distribute the money coming in through the tariff and how to convert it into the stumpage fee. This amount may well be $950 million to $1 billion levied against an industry year by year, not just one year.
A number of industries in Quebec have told us that mills will close and thousands of workers will lose their jobs, but the Minister has said that everyone except Ontario approved of this particular direction. I do not think that is what the country wanted. I do not think that is what the industry wanted. It has not done very much for the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Canadians in making decisions in our own name. It gives the United States the right to examine how we will set our rates, how our provinces will, can, should and may collect the tax on softwood lumber. It gives the United States the right to see how we manage our own industry. This is not the way Canada wants to be open for business, despite what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said.
Maxwell Cohen, one of Canada's foremost experts on international law, a Judge on the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine resource dispute, a former Professor of International Law at the University of Ottawa and a renowned expert in the field, said on January 3 the following:
The lumber deal is a dangerous precedent that threatens Canadian sovereignty ... It is a strange procedure to allow someone else to monitor our own stuff- They maintained the unilateralness of something that is joint in effect because the Americans have a right to know everything about Canada's activity, information or anything else.
Notwithstanding the fact that all the other provinces are not 100 per cent in agreement, Premier David Peterson has been very outspoken. Lie said:
They (U.S. Government) will have the thumb screws on us at all times and if we don't behave they will put the blocks to us. 1 don't like a deal like that... We've turned not only our resource and taxation policies but in a sense our regional development and employment policies over to another sovereign country. It's a dangerous precedent.
As to the industry itself, Adam Zimmerman, the Chairman of MacMillan Bloedel, has said that the lumber deal at one step creates an industrial paraplegic out of the lumber industry and that we have handed over our sovereignty and ruined our industry. The President of the Pulp and Paper Workers of Canada, Stan Shewaga, has said that the deal will only encourage the United States to widen its protectionist net to other areas. I would suggest that we have seen that that particular observation might come true. We now have concerns about the Auto Pact and our cultural industries. This kind of
move only opens up all kinds of concerns with respect to what the Americans can do while spreading their net. Let us look at what happened with regard to shakes and shingles industry, our book-publishing industry, our Christmas tree industry and our exports of natural gas.
I would suggest that this signed agreement is far from being in the best interests of Canada and certainly has an impact on our sovereign right to decide what we want to do with our own industries. As an example, will we have the right to use stumpage fees to reforest our land or will the Americans tell us that that is not part and parcel of the agreement? There is serious concern on the part of the industry.
We met with representatives of the industry who said that they cannot even compete because of the 15 per cent export charge contained in the Memorandum of Understanding. This 15 per cent charge makes it non-competitive for Canadians to move into the American market. That is one of the reasons that Americans felt that this was a good move for them. It cuts back on a good Canadian product which had been able penetrate into the American market and compete on a fair basis.
We must also remember the self-interest of the United States in this matter. In the United States there is a different environment in which to grow trees. The weather is warmer, the trees grow faster and Americans have a much easier time than Canadians when cutting lumber.
I am very concerned about what is going on. Clayton Yeutter, the trade representative, and Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldrige identified seven different types of Canadian Government assistance to the industry that the United States will not accept. They have some nerve determining what they will or will not accept. They consider to be Canadian Government assistance any kind of rebate, remission or deferral of the export charge, provision of grants or low-cost loans, exemption from other federal or provincial Government charges, assumption of obligations currently borne by the industry, reduction in the stumpage or other fees, changes in the way the volume of timber harvest is measured and the non-competitive awarding of contracts for silviculture, road building, recreational and other forestry activities. In other words, the interpretation of the U.S. of Clause 6 severely limits, if not outrightly prohibits Canada and the provinces from helping the forest industry and the communities involved, irrespective of what it will cost in terms of lost jobs and industries.
We must be very, very cautious in this debate because of its implications on our sovereignty and on our other industries. I see that you are signalling that I have less than a minute left, Madam Speaker. I would point out that the Canadian Council of Forest Industries estimates that the tax will eventually cost between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of the current Canadian production and between 15,000 and 17,000 jobs. This includes 6,000 sawmill and logging jobs and 11,000 jobs in allied industries and services. I think this is something we can ill afford. We ought to examine it very cautiously before we move in this area.

January 26, 1987


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of saying a few words on this tax on softwood lumber that has been imposed through our Government's acquiescence to the requirements of the United States. It is a major loss of sovereignty on the part of the Canadian Government. The speed with which the Government acquiesced to the requirements of the United States was almost indecent. The decision to take this action provides not just a simple solution to one problem but has an impact on all related forestry industries as well as many other industries. With the loss of sovereignty which this implies, the Government of the United States can step tomorrow or next week into other Canadian industries.
For instance, there is already considerable concern in the United States that the Canadian pulp and paper industry is taking what Americans consider to be unfair advantage. The key phrase of the American protectionist vocabulary is their definition of unfair advantage. They have said that they do not mind trade of any kind as long as it is on a level playing field. However, what really is an unfair advantage? Canada has many remote areas in which the harvesting of lumber is difficult. If we were to suggest that because of the cost of transportation in the remote areas, we should allow harvesting there without charging any stumpage fees at all we would be told immediately that we could not do so. A side effect of this agreement has been that it has become impossible to begin harvesting lumber in many remote areas of Canada. The lowering of the price, which is another effect of this tax measure, will give two reasons for remote areas to either quit harvesting or never begin harvesting. Any advantage the Government might suggest would be considered an unfair advantage by the United States Government and the Americans would immediately react by imposing further tariffs. The point I am making is that any advantage we try to give any industry in Canada can now be designated by the U.S. Government as an unfair advantage if we try to sell the product into their market, and subject that product to a countervailing duty.
The NDP has for years been lamenting the fact that the provinces and the federal Government have not been spending enough money on forestry. I suppose if there is any advantage to this Bill it is that there will now be some money to be spent on forest development. However, the U.S. interpretation of how that money can be spent is very restrictive. According to Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, and Malcom Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce, we cannot use the money for silviculture, to provide grants, low-cost loans or other benefits to the industry. They also suggest they will take action if there is a reduction in stumpage fees or other changes. We have forests in Saskatchewan which, because of the cost of transportation, cannot be harvested unless we assist the industry. Therefore, they cannot be harvested without endangering an agreement which was bad to begin with.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
When the Government made this agreement it was, theoretically, to assist the sale of Canadian softwood lumber into the U.S. market. However, all the peripheral effects of this agreement appear to be negative for other parts of Canada and other industries in Canada. The methods used by the U.S. to get its way in this case can be used to hurt many other industries. We have a long tradition in Canada of attempting to assist industry with its problems, and I suppose many people in the forest industry would feel better if at the same time it took this decision the Government said it would address the problem of job losses and closing of mills which will occur. Yet it appears that the Government has no real concern for the primary producers of this country; the farmers, fishermen and lumbermen who have now all been affected adversely by the policies put forward by the Government. What is next, the pulp and paper industry?


Carlo Rossi: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the 15 per cent softwood lumber tax. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre and Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) refers to Canada-United States Memorandum of Understanding paragraph 5(a) as being the sovereignty clause because it relates to the export charge on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces on softwood lumber production-Clause 2: Softwood Lumber Production-The export charge measure tabled on January 19, 1987 provides that recourse may be made to the Memorandun of Understanding to interpret the law.
Madam Speaker, this indicates quite clearly that the Minister is wrong when she claims that Canadian sovereignty is intact, because Memorandun of Understanding paragraph 5(b) stipulates that calculation of the value of any replacement measure in relation to the export charge will be subject to further consultations and agreement between the two Governments.
Pursuant to this paragraph, if the United States-Madam Speaker, I see that a Quebec Member on the other side is laughing. I would urge him to take the floor and speak up because I am sure his riding is home to some people who are involved in the lumber industry. The Hon. Member indicates that I am right. Well, I urge all Quebec Members to stand up and defend this piece of legislation, this tax. The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) should speak up. Quite a few of your constituents are in the lumber business-I should know, I travel to Portneuf very often-stand up and have the courage to defend your Portneuf constituents.
He could still oppose this measure and ask that it be amended by claiming that its over-all impact on Canadian softwood lumber exports is not the same as that of the export tax.
And speaking ... You are not standing up as Member for Portneuf. I will go and see your constituents, I know the people of Portneuf very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa should address the Chair. Undoubtedly the Hon. Member for Bourassa will want to continue his remarks when the debate resumes and, upon his return, I would strongly urge him to address the House through the Chair.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: On
December 5, 1986, Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), it was stated, and I quote from page 1820 of Hansard:
First and foremost must be the interest and welfare of Canadian citizens, particularly, for example, in rural areas. There shall be no second-class citizens in this country as long as this Government remains in office, postal services or otherwise.
Those Canadians who were following the House of Commons proceedings on that day were reassured by the commitment to maintain similar postal services for all Canadians.
Despite their promise not to create second-class citizens in this country, Canada Post management continue to discriminate against Canadians in both rural and urban areas. This is why Canadians from coast to coast are rallying to protest against the decision which was made by the Government and Canada Post and which undermines our whole postal system.
I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to bring pressure to bear on his colleague responsible for Canada Post to ensure that no shutdown of rural post offices will be considered, that the installation of superboxes will end once and for all, and that home delivery will be restored for all Canadian taxpayers.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-OTTAWA ROUGH RIDERS- COMMUNITY OWNERSHIP
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, whoever said that Investment Canada was not working was dead wrong. Whoever said that the National Capital Region
did not have any normal, down-to-earth grass root people, also was dead wrong.
Last Friday, January 27, the Ottawa Rough Riders finally came home. The governors of the CFL unanimously agreed that the team ownership be passed from foreign hands in Toronto to community-based ones here in Ottawa. That great western spirit of local ownership and initiative has finally arrived in eastern Canada, and none too soon. The one day of the year when we all continued to put aside our regional differences on Grey Cup day will now continue more vigorously with this transfer of ownership.
My congratulations to Hillary, Tucker, Hamilton, Gasvie, Holtby, Kielty, Logue, Nicholls, Robson, and all the rest. You have kicked your first extra point of the 1987 season-Good luck to all!


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the accomplishments of the co-op housing movement are being threatened by the Conservative Government. In addition to going back on its promise to provide 5,000 co-op housing units per year, the Government has tampered with the formula for setting rent supplement assistance. Because of the narrowly defined criteria set by CMHC many people who previously would have been eligible will be denied assistance and thus denied the opportunity to live in co-op housing. The restrictions now being imposed by the Government threaten this type of housing.
In addition to the eligibility changes, the over-all amounts for rent supplements have been lowered. The Government had budgeted rent supplement assistance for 1,500 co-op units for 1986, but now, because of over-all cut-backs to the program, it is only providing 950.
I call upon the Government to reassess its rent supplement program, and to provide the already budgeted rent supplement to 1,500 co-op housing units. If the Government were interested in creating jobs, jobs, jobs, this is one of the most productive things that it could do to create employment, and decent, affordable, adequate housing.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Coast Guard. For the past quarter century it has provided exemplary services in all
January 26, 1987

aspects of marine navigation and safety for shippers, fishermen, and recreational boaters alike.
On January 26, 1962, the Hon. Leon Balcer, Minister of Transport in the Diefeabaker Government, stated that the Department of Transport's fleet of ships would, from that day forward, be known as the Canadian Coast Guard. Today's Coast Guard has evolved considerably since then in keeping with time, technology and tradition in all facets of marine activity. This includes aids to navigation, coast guard radio stations, ice-breaking, eastern Arctic sealift, ship inspection, pleasure craft regulations, marine search and rescue, as well as public harbours and wharves. Indeed, Canada's maritime history, which predates Confederation with the first lighthouse at the Fortress of Louisbourg, now entails satellite-assisted vessel traffic services, and the like.
Our Coast Guard fleet is now comprised of some one hundred vessels ranging from the heavy gulf ice-breaker CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent to inflatable inshore rescue boats. There is much enthusiasm for the proposed Polar 8 ice-breaker which will continue the Coast Guard legacy of quiet pride and service for the benefit of all mariners and, of course, fly with pride the Maple Leaf in the Canadian high Arctic. I take great pleasure in honouring the Canadian Coast Guard on this milestone, on behalf of the Minister, and all Members of the House. I trust that all Members will feel likewise with respect to its plans, missions, and aspirations for the future.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, last year Canadian fishermen were outraged to hear that French trawlers had caught 26,000 tonnes of fish, more than four times their quota. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has now issued licences to nine French factory freezer trawlers to conduct an open season on Canadian fisheries.
The Minister should know that one factory freezer trawler can catch up to 12,000 tonnes. The Minister has stated that the quota of 6,400 tonnes remains. This is complete and utter nonsense. The Canadian Government will not even be monitoring these trawlers.
Canadian fishermen are horrified. They cannot understand why the Minister is constantly giving in to the demands of the French trawler fleet. On behalf of my colleagues and Atlantic fishermen, I demand that the Minister reverse this bizarre decision and cancel these licences forthwith.
________________________________________2679


VICTORIAN ORDER OF NURSES
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House, during national VON Week, the contribution that VON Canada has made to the development of health services in our country. This year the Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada is celebrating 90 years of caring for Canadians.
Since its earliest days VON has pioneered the development of health services. Today a network of 72 branches across the country provides a range of health services designed to meet needs of local communities. VON believes that everyone has the right to comprehensive and compassionate health care. This includes a commitment to enabling people to maintain their independence and to remain in their communities and homes near family and friends.
Last year VON nurses provided over 2.8 million nursing visits to 127,000 people. Some 14,000 others received adult day care, volunteer visiting, meals-on-wheels, homemaker services, and educational preparation for expectant couples.
VON also believes that increasing the knowledge and expertise of staff, evaluation of existing services, the development of new programs and research projects directed toward finding new and better ways to care for people, are essential to ensure that VON continues to respond effectively to the changing health needs of Canadians.



ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MEMBER

["Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas break in a debate on Bill C-23 the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the finance critic for the NDP, rose in the House and called for an end to the flow-through shares program. In his comments he stated that flow-through shares benefit only the rich and do nothing for exploration and development in northern Ontario and Quebec. How misguided are those statements by New Democrats!\nIn fact, flow-through shares have created benefit to the people of northern Canada in terms of real economic growth. For instance, one company in my riding reported an impressive increase in volume. In the last half of 1984 it had an increase of 49 per cent. In the last half of 1985 it had an increase of 80 per cent. In the first quarter of 1986 it has had an increase of 100 per cent. This translates into more jobs and further development in the North, for the North. We can certainly see from the Hon. Member's statements that the NDP has no idea about the grass roots of the North.", 'January 26, 1987\nOral Questions']
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the comment which the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) is reported to have made to the effect that cronyism, backroom deals and bribes are generalized and part of the accepted political mores in the province of Quebec is false and injurious to all Quebec men and women and their elected representatives.
If the Hon. Member for Kitchener wanted to improve the image of Conservative Governments in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, he did not choose the most appropriate way.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is well aware that it is customary in the House, when making references to other Hon. Members reflecting on their character, or even imputing motives to them, to do so with the utmost caution. I suggest the Hon. Member's remarks might be more appropriate elsewhere.

January 26, 1987



Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Ports Canada, a Crown corporation, appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. At one point, the discussion focussed on the port of Churchill in Manitoba. According to Ports Canada authorities, the port of Churchill is not profitable, and if it was up to them, it would be closed.
However, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has intervened and ordered Ports Canada to maintain the Churchill facilities. Good for him! This port represents the major economic activity in that part of Manitoba.
Why is this same Minister refusing to intervene in the case of Moncton to prevent the closing of the CN shops, which belong to another Crown corporation, and to save 1,000 jobs? It is a striking example of how this Government and its Ministers deal with the Atlantic region. They have set us adrift.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, despite the massive farm subsidy and export enhancement programs of the EEC and the United States, Canada's share of the world grain market continues to rise. During the past year Canada actually increased its share of world wheat sales by 1.5 per cent.
There are two reasons for this: first, the high quality of our Canadian wheat which puts it in demand, and second, the outstanding job being done by the Canadian Wheat Board in marketing Canadian grain in the face of fiercely competitive and, at times, hostile international markets.
The International Wheat Council forecasts that Canada's share of the world wheat market will increase even further in 1987, from 19.8 per cent to 21.5 per cent.
Clearly, the Canadian Wheat Board should be applauded for its marketing efforts. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) should also be congratulated for his initiatives both in seeking solutions to the international grain wars and in maintaining and enhancing Canada's export opportunities.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it was well over one year ago that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), in the wake of the Polar Sea transit, announced a series of measures intended to protect and enhance Canadian sovereignty over our Arctic regions. Foremost amongst these initiatives was the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act which was introduced into Parliament as Bill C-104 in April, 1986. This Act would have confirmed Canadian jurisdiction within the area defined by drawing straight base lines around the islands of the Arctic Archipelago.
Bill C-104 died on the Order Paper last June and to date it has not been reintroduced. What has happened to this Bill? Why has it not been brought back? Those of us who take more than just a passing interest in these matters would certainly like to know the reasons for the delay.


HOUSING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, January 11, there was a sod-turning ceremony in my constituency for a new co-operative housing development, Tamil Cooperative Homes. Fortunately this project was approved before the Government reneged on its commitment to provide 5,000 new housing units under its new co-operative housing program.
Co-op housing makes a strong contribution to the housing issues facing Canadians. It ns affordable and it is flexible, meeting the particular needs of seniors, families with children, and people with disabilities. Instead of reducing its support for co-operative housing, the Government should seriously reconsider this matter and demonstrate to Canadians that it is serious about assisting the thousands who are in need of decent affordable housing.

[ Translation]


IMPACT OF CHALLENGE '87
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) announced recently that our Government would be committing $180 million under Challenge '87. This Government initiative is important to our young people. Last year, in the Labelle constituency alone,
January 26, 1987

Challenge '86 created 335 jobs and represented $535,000 in investments. In my constituency, it is vital for young people who want to complete their schooling to work during the summer. As they live far from major centres, they must often go elsewhere and become self-sufficient. Challenge '87 is a concrete example of an initiative taken by our Governement to improve the employment prospects of young people. Indeed, even at a time of budgetary restrictions, our Government is aware that the future of Canada belongs to young people, as clearly shown by Challenge '87.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I continue to cherish the principle that, except in time of war or other national emergency, a Government in a democratic society exists to serve the citizens, not the other way around. Let us put this principle to the test in the Government's payment of accounts policy. This policy, as interpreted for me by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), states that the valid date of an invoice is the date that invoice is received by the Government. It is not the date it is postmarked, but the date it is actually received by the Department. However, the invoice is considered to be paid by the Government on the date the cheque is issued. It is not considered paid on the date the cheque is received by the individual or company which rendered the service, but the date issued. Thus the Government wins both ways. What about the citizen? "Heads you lose, tails you lose. So sorry."


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of all Hon. Members a matter of great concern to Atlantic Canadians. The people of Atlantic Canada are very disturbed by the inconsistent statements made by the Liberal Party on matters affecting defence. At the Liberal Party Convention in November the Liberals called for an end to our NATO commitments. Where does that leave Canada's sovereignty?
Are the Liberals so naive to believe that a country is sovereign if it has no means of defence? Where does that policy leave the thousands of Atlantic Canadians who depend on NATO for employment? A severance of our NATO
obligation will cost Nova Scotia thousands of jobs. The former Liberal defence critic admits that policy conflicts with Canada's NATO commitments, but where is he? Now demoted. The Bay Street boy is back and he will stay at the back. It is time for him to come clean with Atlantic Canadians.

[DOT] (U15)


THE ADMINISTRATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) seems to blame the population of Quebec and immigrants for the problems which the Government faces. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) implies that it is the media which are largely to blame for the perception of the Government, mainly because most people who cover Parliament live in Ottawa. The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Bill Fox, alleges that it is because federal government employees might be Liberals who are responsible for the problems the Government faces. The Government should realize where the blame lies and where the buck stops.


FINANCE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas break in a debate on Bill C-23 the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), the finance critic for the NDP, rose in the House and called for an end to the flow-through shares program. In his comments he stated that flow-through shares benefit only the rich and do nothing for exploration and development in northern Ontario and Quebec. How misguided are those statements by New Democrats!
In fact, flow-through shares have created benefit to the people of northern Canada in terms of real economic growth. For instance, one company in my riding reported an impressive increase in volume. In the last half of 1984 it had an increase of 49 per cent. In the last half of 1985 it had an increase of 80 per cent. In the first quarter of 1986 it has had an increase of 100 per cent. This translates into more jobs and further development in the North, for the North. We can certainly see from the Hon. Member's statements that the NDP has no idea about the grass roots of the North.

January 26, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In commenting upon the Oerlikon affair, the Hon. Member for Kitchener is reported to have made some inflamatory-indeed irresponsible-remarks about Quebec.

I realize the Deputy Prime Minister does not share this view and that is why I want to ask him this: Will he, on behalf of the Government of Canada, officially denounce the offensive remark made by the Hon. Member for Kitchener?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is accurate in his assumption that I do not associate myself with the remarks made by the Hon. Member.
It was an issue that was raised as a question of privilege earlier this day. Because the Hon. Member was absent from the House the Speaker decided that the issue should not be proceeded with. I would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that when the Hon. Member returns to the House I presume he will be making a statement to that effect-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Explain!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -explaining his comments. Until such time as he does that I would submit to you, Sir, it might be inappropriate to speculate or comment upon the meaning or otherwise of the comments that have been made by the Hon. Member.


REQUEST THAT PUBLIC INQUIRY BE HELD INTO OERLIKON AFFAIR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope that at some time the Deputy Prime Minister will find it in himself to be even more explicit about the Government's position in this affair. We will wait for the Hon. Member to arrive in the House, but meanwhile, I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will announce the Government's position.
Mr. Speaker, about the Oerlikon affair, although the former Minister of State for Transport and Hon. Member for Saint-Jean apparently asked the Prime Minister to order a public inquiry, the Prime Minister's Office is selectively leaking information about the Hon. Member.
Will the Government order a public inquiry to meet the personal request made by the Hon. Member in question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 
John Napier Turner: It was reported in the media-yes-until now-I think the Deputy Prime Minister should confirm with the Hon. Member when he returns to the House. But I would like to ask another question.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-EX-MINISTER'S BLIND TRUSTEES
John Napier Turner: have one more question, if I might, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister has a responsibility, as we understand it, for the conflict of interest guidelines and for blind trust arrangements made by Ministers. Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians who were the blind trustees for the ex-Minister? Would he confirm or deny that the ex-Minister's wife was one of those blind trustees, or the president of the provincial riding association of Saint-Jean? Would he clarify that situation for the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is basing his questions on reports in the media. I think that that is one of the difficulties that arises when there is-


Mr. Allmand:: They have been pretty good so far.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -when there is so much speculation and innuendo, fabrication, and I would think the right hon. gentleman would want the RCMP to conduct its investigation in an unfettered way.
With regard to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's questions pertaining to the blind trust, any information that
January 26, 1987

has been ascertained has been turned over to the RCMP, and that is a matter for their investigation.


OERLIKON'S DISMISSAL OF FORMER LEGAL COUNSEL
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not see the need for a public inquiry, now that we have learned that Oerlikon's long-time legal counsel, Raymond Lette, after he informed Oerlikon about the irregularities concerning the land transction, was fired and replaced by the law firm of the Prime Minister's good friend, Jean Bazin, for reasons-and I quote Mr. Lette-that had "absolutely nothing", to do with the practice of law? Didn't it have everything to do with political influence?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the hon. gentleman's comments over the weekend where he suggested that it was not appropriate to engage in innuendo, and I think he has done that just now. I do not know-


An Hon. Member:: Overcome by the rat pack.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -why Oerlikon decided to change-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sometimes the Speaker chooses not to hear things and sometimes the Speaker cannot help but hear things. I would ask the Hon. Member for Sudbury to remember there is a rule that questions should be put to Ministers within the area of their responsibility. I am sure the Hon. Member, in his supplemental question, will be careful to adhere to that.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the question, because I believe the Deputy Prime Minister has the responsibility to request a public inquiry. I have simply quoted the former legal counsel for the firm of Oerlikon where he said that he was fired and replaced by Bazin's firm, specifically Bazin's firm, for reasons that had "absolutely nothing" to do with the practice of law. That is why I am asking the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government appoint a public inquiry. I am not suggesting that there is any legal wrongdoing, but I personally believe that the public needs to have its trust rebuilt in the political process in the country, and that it is his responsibility.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the only people who can answer that question with any accuracy are the Oerlikon people themselves. I have no way of knowing why they chose to change lawyers at the time that they did.
With regard to the repeated request for a judicial inquiry, I think the Prime Minister has outlined and explained in reply to about a hundred questions which were advanced last week the reasons why the Government believes it appropriate to proceed
Oral Questions
with an RCMP complete investigation. He has also left the door open for any further action should that be necessary. There has to be some consistency on the part of all of us.
It is rather interesting to note the vigour with which the Hon. Member and the Leader of the Opposition argued against the appointment of a public inquiry back last year, on May 16, and I could quote ad infinitum-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Minister probably could, but it is getting into debate. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR KITCHENER CONCERNING QUEBEC
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It also pertains to what the Hon. Member for Kitchener is alleged to have said on the weekend. In discussing bribes, the Member went on to say that it is quite common in Quebec. It is a different province. "Quebec is different than the rest of us".
If, after the Deputy Prime Minister checks and finds that the Member for Kitchener actually said this, will he demand an apology from the Member to all the people in the Province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of ifs in that question. As I undertook to the Leader of the Opposition, I will speak to the Hon. Member to determine the accuracy of the press report. First and foremost, I indicated that I disassociate myself from those comments if they are an accurate reflection of the Hon. Member, as do my colleagues. I think at this particular time the Hon. Member would want me at least to discuss the matter with the Hon. Member for Kitchener before making any further comment.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, but I also strongly believe that if the Member did say those things the Deputy Prime Minister must demand an apology from him.


EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER GENERAL BY OERLIKON
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I now have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Today I have learned that a J. B. Peart is now vice-president of corporate affairs for the Oerlikon Corporation. Will the Minister confirm for me that this is the same Mr. Peart who not long ago was his chief of staff-or a special assistant-and was the same man who was chief of staff to the former Minister of National Defence at the time the Oerlikon contract was let? If so, when Mr. Peart left his employment with the Government did he comply with Section 58 of the conflict of interest guidelines?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic

January 26, 1987
Oral Questions
Party need not have waited until today to discover that; that information was in The Toronto Star last week.
Second, no, he was not my chief of staff. He was chief of staff to the Hon. Erik Nielsen and stayed on as a special adviser during the transition period.
Third, General Peart served over 30 years in uniform. He was at no time involved in any way in the Oerlikon dossier. The Oerlikon dossier was handled after his arrival by the office of the Associate Minister of National Defence.
To respond to the other element of the Hon. Member's question, all information related to this matter was fully disclosed by General Peart to the Assistant Deputy Registrar General, who indicated that General Peart was in full compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, Section 60(c) of the conflict of interest guidelines prohibits a person who was in Mr. Peart's position, for a period of 12 months after he has left the Government from advising, for commercial purposes, any company or business entity on the policies and programs of the Department which he left. If this is the case, it would seem to me on the surface that we do have a violation of the conflict of interest guidelines.
Would the Minister explain why Mr. Peart is not in violation of Section 60(c) of the conflict of interest guidelines?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, General Peart fully disclosed all relevant information to the Deputy Registrar General.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: All relevant information was disclosed to the Deputy Registrar General. General Peart received a letter from the Deputy Registrar General indicating he was in full compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines.
I would think that this distinguished gentleman who served for over 30 years in uniform deserves the thanks of our country and not this sort of innuendo.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT FULLY DISCLOSE ROLE OF MR. BAZIN IN OERLIKON AFFAIR
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government is engaged in a cover-up operation. It knows a lot more than it is letting on. Mr. Bernard Roy had a meeting with people who gave him plenty of details. When is the Government, among other things, going to inform the
House fully on the specific role played by Senator Bazin in the Saint-Jean land flip?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again we hear the word "coverup". The Prime Minister has been in the House every day with the exception of one day last week, and he answered every question put to him. We are here today answering questions. An RCMP investigation has been launched. Other action may be taken as the situation unfolds.
Mr. Bazin has issued a public statement. I know of no charges that have been laid against him. He is not accused of anything. Unless the Hon. Member has some clear indication of wrongdoing on the part of Mr. Bazin, perhaps he should cease and desist this sort of innuendo.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury said quite correctly on the weekend that innuendo is certainly something that should not be part and parcel of this very serious matter. Here we have his colleague engaging in that same sort of activity. I think we should allow the RCMP to complete its investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MEMBER OF CABINET

['The Chair will consult the "blues". The explanation may be adequate.\nJanuary 26, 1987']
Jacques Guilbault: The Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that Mr. Bazin issued a statement. He is right. Perhaps he could explain why a Minister of the Crown, the Minister responsible for Federal-Provincial Relations, namely the Hon. Lowell Murray, reproduced this statement word for word under Government letterhead? Why is he circulating Senator Bazin's incomplete and watered down version under his Government letterhead? Can you answer that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is getting at. I know Members of Parliament and Senators have mailing privileges and there are certain guidelines that are adhered to, but certainly Members of Parliament have some latitude in terms of communicating with constituents and/or interested people.


Jacques Guilbault: Why this one?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Perhaps that might be a question that his colleagues in the other place may raise with the Member.



Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and also concerns the Oerlikon Aerospace affair and possible connections to senior Conservatives close to the Prime Minister and the
January 26, 1987

Government. We learned today that Lette & Associates in fact learned of the land speculation in Saint-Jean and informed Oerlikon in January or early February of last year, and that Mr. Bazin and his firm became informed of land speculation in the winter or early spring of last year. Somehow they were not able to bring this together and have what they considered to be sufficient proof of irregularities until January, 1987. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the reason for this long delay between this information which suggested irregularities being in the hands of the company and its legal advisers, including Mr. Bazin, and this information being given to the Government? Will this be investigated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That question wouldn't even be good at Queen's Park.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say to the Hon. Member, with great regret, that that question clearly involves acitivities which are not related to any Minister of the Government or to the Prime Minister. It is outside the ambit of ministerial responsibility.
Under the circumstances, Hon. Members have been asking for a public inquiry and I have allowed those questions. The Government has responded, as is recorded in Hansard. The question now being put is directed at some activity outside this place and outside the responsibility of a Minister.
The rules are quite clear. The Chair cannot allow the question. Perhaps the Hon. Member could seek to find the information he wishes or seek to find the intentions of the Government by rephrasing the question, keeping in mind the admonishment of the Chair.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, you make it a bit difficult to ask questions. I recognize that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Ask proper questions.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: If you can't take the heat, join the RCMP.


John Carnell Crosbie: Learn the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre and his colleagues remained courteously quiet while the Chair made the ruling that the Chair just made. I think equal courtesy is expected when the Hon. Member rises to put his question.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how there will be an investigation of the curious circumstances under which neither Oerlikon, a company with a $600-million contract with the Government, nor Mr. Bazin, its legal adviser and a top Conservative, came to inform the Government of certain irregularities for a period of some 10 months? Will this be subject to the RCMP investigation, or is it the Government's position that there will be no investigation
Oral Questions
on these matters to which the people of Canada deserve to have an answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member asked for a legal opinion. Second, he asked a question which has been answered in this House on many, many occasions. He will just have to be patient and allow this to take place on a step-by-step basis.
There are some who would want a police investigation and a judicial inquiry going on at the same time. There are some who would rather have a judicial inquiry first and perhaps an RCMP investigation later. The Government has charted a course. It has turned this matter over to the RCMP for a complete and full investigation. The Prime Minister has left the door open if at any time during the course of those proceedings, or later, there is the necessity of the further involvement of a Parliamentary Committee or an inquiry of some sort. That option is still available. I wish the Hon. Member would accept that, because it seems to me that it is acceptable to most legal experts in the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Minister has tried to meet the question that was asked and has given a response.


DELAY BY RCMP IN QUESTIONING MR. OUELLETTE AND FORMER MINISTER OF STATE (TRANSPORT)-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Perhaps he could explain why, as we have just been informed, neither Mr. Ouellette nor the former Minister have been questioned by the RCMP. Furthermore, is the RCMP acting this way on instructions from the Government, which wants to avoid a public inquiry about the role played by Mr. Bazin and other friends of the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member. He is now by inference suggesting that we should tell the RCMP how to conduct its investigation. The Government, the Prime Minister, myself and the Cabinet will not do that, I regret to inform him.


FISHERIES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has issued nine fishing licences to French factory freezer trawlers in 3PS. The Minister should know that one of

January 26, 1987
Oral Questions
those large factory freezer trawlers can catch up to 12,000 tonnes of fish.
The Minister knows that the French fleet overfished their quota by 20,000 tonnes last year. When will the Minister stand up to the French fleet and fight for the rights of our fishermen?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, indeed this Government is taking initiatives to resolve finally and once and for all a problem which was started by the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part. It is a matter of history that nine French national fishing vessels have been fishing in 3 PS since 1972 when the Trudeau Government accorded to France the right to fish in those waters without regard for the fact that that was indeed a Canadian resource.


George Roland Henderson: The Minister should know the difference between a wet-fish trawler and a factory freezer trawler.


MINISTER'S POSITION
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's own officials are quoted as saying that the French fleet will overfish by 25,000 metric tonnes. With nine factory freezer trawlers, I contend that it will be more like 60,000 metric tonnes. Will the Minister just sit on his hands and allow Atlantic Canadian fishermen to sit on the wharf twiddling their thumbs while they watch the French fleet take fish from their waters back to France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the practice of licensing these nine French trawlers was initiated by the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part. Over the past several weeks this Government has been advancing negotiations with France which will end, once and for all, that exploitation of our resource which was legitimized in June of 1984 when the Hon. Member's Government agreed to turn a blind eye by way of an exchange of diplomatic notes to French overfishing in the 3PS area.


OBSERVANCE OF QUOTA BY FRENCH VESSELS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough simply to blame this situation on the previous Government. His Government has an obligation to deal responsibly with our fish resource. Can the Minister assure this House, and organizations such as the Newfoundland Fishermen's Union and the Association des pecheries du Quebec, that the French will respect this quota? If not, why did he issue the licence?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canada established a quota for France in the disputed area of 6,400 tonnes of cod. France insisted on its right to harvest 25,000 tonnes. That is why we
have sought an agreement with France, the final details of which will be announced shortly and which will see interim fishing arrangements established for this area for the first time in history.


REASON FOR GRANTING LICENCES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. He did not give the House any assurance that this quota-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know Hon. Members would not want to use preambles just to make a comment that the Minister may not have answered the question asked. The purpose of the supplementary is to ask a question which will evoke from the Minister the answer desired. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


James Douglas Manly: Can the Minister tell the House why he granted these licences before he had any assurance that Canadian quotas were going to be respected?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that in June of 1984 the previous Liberal Government agreed that each party in the disputed zone will abstain from regulating fishing vessels flying the flag of the other party. The solution to this problem is to be found by way of diplomatic negotiations and we are now very close to announcing an agreement which will establish a common management regime in that area.


CONDUCT OF CANADA-FRANCE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have instructed the Secretary of State for External Affairs "to manage our fisheries discussions with the French in a manner that does not jeopardize the cordial relationship between Canada and France." I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in these negotiations was the Minister party to the issuing of enough factory freezer trawler licences to the French not only to surpass their own quota seven times but to catch more fish than the allowable catch on the entire south coast of Newfoundland? Is the Minister planning on running in France in the next election?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not instructing the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this question. We are following a protocol established by the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part and which agreed not to interfere in the regulation of the fishery in the disputed area pending an acceptable settlement of the boundary issue which this Government is advancing very vigorously with France.


CANADIAN POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in their desperation Newfoundland fishermen have actually been
January 26, 1987

driven to inquire into the possibility of obtaining a French registration for their boats to allow them to fish on the south coast of Newfoundland without the danger of being arrested by our Government. A Newfoundland fisherman raising a French flag! Vive le Terre-Neuve libre.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, what negotiating position does the Government have left when it has already given the French everything they have asked for?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, we would not be required to give the French what they insist on in the disputed area had a previous Government not ignored this very important problem. I might add that an agreement to negotiate an interim fishing arrangement will be announced within hours and the Member, I hope, will be well pleased.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Prairie farmers are being denied their tax rebate on fuel used on the highway in the business of farming. As part of the 1987 Budget will the Minister consider amending the Excise Tax Act so as to base the rebate not on artificial considerations such as whether it is used on highway or off highway, but rather on the essential consideration as to whether the fuel is used in the business of farming?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, there was some difficulty, after we announced the fuel tax rebate, with the allocation of what was on and what was off highway use. Last year the Minister of National Revenue changed the procedure to allow for what is admittedly an arbitrary arrangement but one that we felt was fairly close to what would be the normal allocation between on highway and off highway use. We have tried to meet the objections of the farmers in this regard by a simple administrative change, but I would remind the Hon. Member that we have moved a long way on the fuel tax rebate. We have also seen interest rates fall close to five percentage points over the past two and a half years and that has made the life of the farmer an awful lot better.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REBATE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that farmers have already excluded their personal use from their calculations and the Department is still taking a percentage of what is left. I do not think that is fair. Will the Minister reconsider the matter in the Budget?
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern expressed by the Hon. Member. Other Members have made the same views known to me. As the Hon. Member has asked, I will take their views under consideration in the preparation leading up to the Budget.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns his statement last week that the bank rate had been brought down to 7.74 per cent. Could the Minister explain why Canadian consumers are still paying interest rates of up to 28 per cent on credit cards which is a spread of more than 20 per cent? What specifically does the Minister intend to do to correct this situation?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, regarding credit card interest rates, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is going to report on that very soon and I look forward to acting on that report. I may also remind the Hon. Member that if he will shop around he will see there is an enormous number of rates. Trust companies and banks offer different rates with different conditions. We will, of course, look at the report very carefully, but I do urge the Hon. Member to shop around.


Robert Toupin: Interest rates are as high as 28 per cent. We could suggest a number of ways to deal with this.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER IMPOSE CEILING ON CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES
Robert Toupin: Why will the Minister not establish a ceiling on credit card interest rates to protect consumers, as is done in the majority of U.S. States?


Thomas Hockin: A ceiling on credit card interest rates is something that will be considered when the committee reports.


An Hon. Member:: Well, do it.


Thomas Hockin: We must wait for committees to report.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You haven't waited on any so far.

January 26, 1987
Oral Questions


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and, again, concerns the Saint-Jean land flip.
Canadians have now been informed that Lette & Associates, former lawyers for Oerlikon, had warned the company about the land transaction, and that they were sacked for their pains.
Since the business and thus the files went to the law firm of the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Jean Bazin, doesn't it stand to reason that the Prime Minister's friend knew or at least ought to have known about the land deal? And doesn't it also stand to reason today that Mr. Bazin's appointment to the Senate should be reconsidered, at least until the inquiry is over with?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been very precise on the dates when the information was first given to him. Mr. Bazin has issued a statement. If the Hon. Member wished to read and reflect on those statements, he would have the answer to his question.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am asking these questions, because we are getting conflicting information.
The newspapers say this appointment had no connection with the practice of law. Again, as far as hiring the law firm of the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Jean Bazin, is concerned, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Do you have to hire one of the Prime Minister's pals to be awarded a contract by this Government?


John Carnell Crosbie: What a scumball!


Charles Joseph Clark: Contemptible!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, an answer to that question would only dignify the question, and I think it would be inappropriate for me to do that.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-COMPLIANCE BY FORMER GENERAL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister has stated that General Peart had complied with Section 58 of the Conflict of Interest Guidelines, which pertains to the fact that he wrote a letter and received clearance from the Deputy Minister General.
Section 60, Subsection (c) of the Conflict of Interest Guidelines prohibits full-time ministerial appointees from working with or counselling a company for commercial purposes on the policies of the Department which he has left, for a period of one year after he has left that Department. In light of that, my question is this. Since General Peart is now the vice-president of corporate affairs with Oerlikon, which has a significant contract with the Department of Defence, is General Peart not in violation of Section 60, Subsection (c) of these guidelines?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again we have innuendo against a distinguished former General of the Canadian Forces.


John Edward Broadbent: It's a question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We receive questions from the NDP, and then they try to drown out the answer.


Ms. Jewett:: When you make a silly remark like that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wonder if they will give me the courtesy of responding to the Hon. Member's question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask all Hon. Members to permit the Minister to respond. The question, although long, was quite straightforward.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Indeed it was, and the answer is quite straightforward.
As I indicated to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, General Peart communicated with the Assistant Deputy Registrar General and fully disclosed to him. The finding of the Assistant Deputy Registrar General was that he was not in conflict of interest. Since receiving the question from the Leader of the NDP, I have called the Assistant Deputy Registrar General specifically with regard to the section cited by the Leader of the NDP, and by my hon. colleague opposite. Again the Assistant Deputy Registrar General said there was no conflict of interest. The Hon. Member is welcome to call him.


GUIDELINE PROVISION QUERY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Minister then explain why there would not be a conflict when Section 60, Subsection (c) explicitly states that you cannot give counsel for commercial purposes for a period of one year? Could the Minister tell us what the guideline means, if it doesn't mean that he cannot work for a company like Oerlikon for a period of one year after leaving the Department? What does this guideline mean, if that is not the case?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wishes an interpretation of the guidelines, why does not not ask the official charged with the responsibility of interpreting them? His number is 995-0721.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He used that in the Stevens inquiry, too.
January 26, 1987


OERLIKON LAND TRANSACTIONS-STATEMENT ISSUED BY MR. JEAN BAZIN
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether or not the Government stands behind the statement of Mr. Jean Bazin issued on January 18 indicating his involvement in the land transactions by Oerlikon at Saint-Jean, Quebec.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any reason why the Government should stand behind a statement made by any Hon. Member, or any hon. person. In this particular case, the Senator made a statement based upon his knowledge of the facts. Together with Mr. Nantel, he brought this information to light in the first place. The dates that have been alluded to, both in the Prime Minister's statement and in his statement, are dates which we accept.


USE OF MINISTERIAL STATIONERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should know that the statement in question has been issued on the letterhead of a Minister of the Crown, that is, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and one would then presume that the Government would stand behind that statement.
Why is the Government of Canada, and a Minister of the Crown, using his letterhead and his offices to put out a statement of Mr. Bazin-presumably because they supported it-and at the same time carrying on a campaign of selective leaks aimed at the former Minister of Transport? What type of contradictory action is that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure on what basis the Hon. Member can charge the Government of selectively leaking information.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Prime Minister admitted it last week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Perhaps if he has some knowledge, he may wish to impart that information to the RCMP.
As far as the other part of the question is concerned, presumably it was for the intention of imparting some accurate information for a change. That is something we have not been receiving from Members opposite.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. I am concerned
Oral Questions
about the safety and security of persons within the National Capital Region. In the last four months we have had three incidents of machine-gun firings through legs and guard huts by RCMP special constables. This has been endangering innocent lives. I ask the Solcitor General if these dangerous weapons will be replaced, or will adequate training be given to their users?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I share his concern. As late as last week I discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the RCMP. He advised me that they do in fact go under very rigorous specialized training. As a matter of fact, it comprises some 32 hours on the gun alone. He advised me that the gun is a safe gun, and it is used by many other countries. At my request he will review the matter once again.


USE OF EDUCATION TO COMBAT AIDS DISEASE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week the Minister was quoted in the media as having said that while there will be more money provided for research on AIDS, he was not prepared this time to provide any more money for preventive education. My question to him is this. In view of the fact that education is the only effective way of combating this very serious disease, how can the Minister justify such a statement in view of Canada's pitiful effort compared to the United States and Great Britain?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when the Member says that public education is the only manner of combating the disease, that is simply not the case. It is one method. For example, in the same interview I said that $39 million in five years would be used for AIDS, $22.5 million would be used for research. Is he suggesting that is not a good manner in which to combat AIDS?
Additionally, the Canadian Public Health Association is putting forward ads. They have been given the responsibility for those ads. I understand from them that those ads are fairly close to completion and airing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister really believe that research will be a more effective preventive measure than education? If so, we are in serious trouble. Will he not think about the matter and come to the conclusion, about which everyone is aware, that it will be five to ten years before research produces any results?

January 26, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. H. Gray
If we do not have an educational program that is effective now we may face a very, very dangerous situation in this country.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the Hon. Member the background about what was being done with the Canadian Public Health Association in regard to public education. Where does the Hon. Member get the evidence of five to ten years in research? Researchers will not give any time frame. I wish the Hon. Member would not use such inflammatory statements like those he just made, which are simply not the case in this issue.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last Thursday, Algoma Steel Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie announced that within a few days it would commence the shut down of its iron ore mining operations in Wawa unless a solution to the freight rate problem with Algome Central Railway is found. Since 350 jobs in mining are involved and at least 2,000 jobs in the district, when will the Government make a decision? Will it give a commitment today that it will provide the necessary assistance to see that these freight rates are lowered so that this mining operation at Wawa can continue?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, for some months we have been asked, through the Member for Sault Ste. Marie, to look into this matter. There have been ongoing discussions for some time and I understand good news may be announced shortly. The Ontario Government, federal Government, and the companies are continuing these discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: There is time for one further question. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso.


NOVA SCOTIA CHRISTMAS TREES-ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKET
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He is aware of concerns of Nova Scotia Christmas tree growers about access to the United States Christmas tree market. What assurances can he give Christmas tree growers in Nova Scotia that their exports to the United States will not be hit with a tariff in 1987?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the continuing interest that the Hon. Member has expressed in this matter. When Vice-President Bush and Secretary Baker were in Ottawa last Wednesday we discussed the question of shakes and shingles and the desire to work jointly toward the resolution of that problem. We have agreed to take steps in that direction and work is continuing. Hopefully we will be able to deal with the problem of concern to the Hon. Member and the Christmas tree industry, as well as other industries. I should remind him that the decision was taken last May in response to a national problem. It required a national response. We will continue to work on it.


POINT OF ORDER
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a word used by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in one of his answers during the Question Period just concluded. I heard the Deputy Prime Minister use the word "fabrication" in answer, I believe, to the Leader of the Opposition. Citation 320 of Beauchesne says that since 1958 it has been ruled unparliamentary to use a number of expressions, one of them being "fabrication". Apparently this was a ruling made on January 27, 1959, at page 385 of Hansard.
To be perfectly fair, I did not make a note of the total statement in question. I would be quite prepared for you to treat what I just said as notice so that we can check the "blues". I would then be in a position to give further argument based on the total context of the use of the word.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out that the Chair would want to be very careful to ensure that if the word was used, it was used and directed at an Hon. Member. If it had been used to describe a general series of allegations that may have taken place outside the Chamber, of course, it would be in a different category.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have qualified the manner in which I used the word which the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party has raised. I certainly did not accuse any Member of the House of a fabrication. If that appears to be so upon checking the "blues", it would be inadvertent and I would be more than willing to withdraw it. As you suggested, Mr. Speaker, I was describing the sort of state of innuendo, rumours, fabrication and so on that was associated with this. It was certainly not directed at any one individual Member of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will consult the "blues". The explanation may be adequate.
January 26, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. McDermid (p. 2601).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) had the floor. I gather that the Hon. Member has concluded his remarks. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to participate in this debate, I must say that I am discouraged by the motion moved by Members opposite that the question now be put. It can be concluded by any reasonable person that the intent of the motion is to cut off meaningful debate on a subject that is very significant and important, not only to those communities in Canada that are involved in the lumber industry but to Canada as a whole.
While this legislation raises a number of issues that deserve consideration in the House, one particular issue is that of Canadian sovereignty. I have concluded after reading the Bill and listening to arguments by all Members that this Bill will be very damaging, not only to Canada's economic interest but to our sovereignty and independence as well.
Canadians will have to pay a 15 per cent export tax on all softwood lumber exported to the United States, and figures introduced by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) show that it will cost the lumber industry some $600 million on the basis of that tax. If it is converted into a timber cutting fee, or stumpage fee at the provincial level, the figure may well be some $950 million to $1 billion. Such huge sums will negatively affect the forest industry in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, and will have a long-term effect on the people of northern Ontario whose livelihood is based on that sector of our economy. It has serious ramifications for the people of Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
I am shocked and outraged that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) would mislead Members of Parliament and Canadians as a whole with statements that somehow this legislation has been drafted and negotiated with the United States with the paramount interests of Canadians being kept in mind. All Canadians expect their governments, regardless of political affiliation, to stand for the best interests of Canada. They should not be hoodwinked by the United States nor, indeed, by other nations. When we look at the substance of the agreement and see the powers which have
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
been conveyed upon the other signing partner we can see how absolutely devastating it is to Canadian interests.
Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Understanding should be noted:
The Government of Canada will take no action, and will take all reasonable steps to ensure that no other governmental body in Canada takes any action, directly or indirectly, which has the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charge or replacement measures, except as provided in this Understanding.
The heading of Clause 7 is "Exchange of Information and Monitoring". Who has the upper hand with regard to this legislation and, obviously, the agreement which will be subsequently tabled? Is it the people of western Canada or the people of British Columbia? Is it the communities in northern Ontario and Quebec or is it those communities in Atlantic Canada? Are they the ones which will have the upper hand in determining where this information may go? The answer is obviously no.
The agreement provides in Clause 7a:
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America will exchange information necessary for the implementation and monitoring of this Understanding.
The Government of Canada will provide the Government of the United States of America with data concerning the level of Provincial and Federal softwood and total stumpage harvest, the total revenue collected from the sale of Provincial and Federal softwood and total timber, total export charge collected, total shipments of certain softwood lumber products to the United States of America, total lumber production by province and total softwood lumber production by province-
And so on and so on.
The interpretation I put on that clause is that the United States will have the upper hand with regard to this particular agreement. I say to my colleagues opposite that my opinion is an opinion which was put forth in a documented way by the chief American trade representative in a joint letter to the U.S. Coalition of Lumber. I know the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will be very conscious not only of the substance of this particular letter but, indeed, of the very devastating effects it will have for the people of British Columbia, northern Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.
The chief American trade representative said that "The U.S. Government would have to approve"-would have to approve, Madam Speaker-"any changes in the export charge or any calculation of the value of any replacement measures. Any changes made without U.S. Government approval would be considered a violation of the understanding".
We have given away to our good neighbours to the South, the United States, the upper hand on a sector which is extremely important to the Canadian economy. How in good faith can Members opposite, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for International Trade perpetrate such misleading statements to the House and to the general public that somehow this export tax will be in the long term interests of Canadians?

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
We see the signs every day of a Government elected by the majority of the people of Canada which is totally incompetent to have the trust of the people of Canada. In this particular instance it has bungled a most important sector of our Canadian economy by giving way to the United States. The only response which comes from the Government benches, "Well, we did the best we could". But there were other alternatives available to the Government and it chose not to proceed with those alternatives. Clearly, history will tell us that this particular export tax of 15 per cent will be extremely devastating to the Canadian lumber industry. It will have, in particular, devastating effects on those small rural communities throughout Canada, and their livelihood and economic prospects for the future.
This also says something else about the Government. It says that when sovereignty is at issue, the Prime Minister is prepared to sit on the knee of the President of the United States and sing. He has certainly sung in this particular instance. He has given away our sovereignty and the opportunity of Canadians to embellish their livelihoods in this most important Canadian sector. That is what the Prime Minister has done.
In concluding, I wish to say to Hon. Members opposite that there is no shame at all in saying to members of the cabinet "We will vote against this legislation", because their first obligation should be to provide good legislation for all Canadians and not legislation which will only embellish the Prime Minister's personal relationship with the President of the United States.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I took my time in rising because I wanted to give the opportunity to Members of the governing Party to enter into the debate. I must say I am a little disappointed they did not take advantage of that opportunity. We want to hear their point of view with regard to the legislation before the House dealing with the imposition of the lumber export tax.
I have three basic perspectives regarding this legislation that I want to mention. Basically, I want to deal with the question of Canadian sovereignty and some of the things the Canadian Government has given up by entering into this deal with the Americans. I also want to make some comments about the relationship of this legislation to the over-all economic strategy of the Government, the strategy on which it has pinned its future, the free trade negotiations with the United States.
The most shocking aspect of this legislation is the damage it does to Canadian sovereignty and the fact that a Canadian Government would sign this agreement with the United States, one of the most powerful countries in the world which has often been compared to an elephant. It is the elephant under which the Canadian mouse must sleep. If the elephant rolls over, the Canadian mouse is in great danger. The Government has become in fact a mouse in its relationship with the United States.
After the Government puts in place the lumber export tax, it then wants to put in place an equivalent charge under provincial jurisdiction, because resources in our country fall under provincial jurisdiction, but it first has to have the approval of the United States Government. After provincial and federal Governments sit down and devise a regime for replacing the federal tax with a provincial charge, it will then require the approval of the American Government. That is the agreement the Conservative Government has made with the United States. It is giving up a significant portion of Canadian sovereignty. It is getting down on one knee before Ronald Reagan. Living beside such a powerful nation it is important for Canadians to be ever vigilant with regard to our sovereignty, not only with respect to trade matters, such as softwood lumber, but also with regard to boundary matters.
There is a controversial matter concerning boundaries in British Columbia with respect to which the Government must be strong and tough. If a Canadian Government shows weakness in one area, then the Americans will see that weakness and follow up in other areas. The weakness demonstrated by the Canadian Government in this area as a result of backing down on a question of sovereignty will have implications in other areas.
I ask Hon. Members to consider the whole question of northern sovereignty. Canadian maps show that large portions of the Arctic fall within Canadian jurisdiction, and the Americans doubt that jurisdiction. They therefore doubt our sovereignty in this area. If we are weak when it comes to the export of lumber, then they will think that we will be weak when it comes to our boundaries in the Arctic.
So it is important for a Government to be able to stand up to the Americans, not necessarily in a belligerent fashion but in a firm way, in order to demonstrate that when it comes to the question of sovereignty Canadians will not compromise. It took a long time for Canadians to establish their sovereign rights. It took the courage of Prime Minister after Prime Minister. First, we had to stand up to Britain in order to establish the legitimacy of Canadian sovereignty. It took Canadians who fought in the First World War and the Second World War to establish Canadian sovereignty. Canadian sovereignty has been brought about at a very high price and over a long period of time. It is a mistake for the Government to rush into an agreement on softwood lumber in order to save a few dollars, which is the argument we have heard, which will weaken our sovereignty. It is a tragic error in strategy and approach on the international level.
The agreement not only envisions the Canadian Government going on bended knee to the American Government to say: "Can we put this particular provincial tax in place of this federal tax now", it also prohibits the provision of grants, low-cost loans and other benefits to the forestry industry by federal or provincial Governments.
January 26, 1987

One argument the Government has used is that the money that will come from the tax could be funnelled into the forestry industry, thus being of benefit to that industry which is now suffering as a result of this extra barrier to trade with the Americans. The agreement specifically prohibits that money from being used for those purposes. While it is obviously necessary to continue to retool the industry and to ensure that it is capable of being as competitive as possible on the international level, it is necessary to spend money if there are plant closures in the industry so they can adjust and move to other industries. This agreement prohibits the use of grants for those types of purposes since the Americans will simply see them as unfair subsidies to the industry. Thus this agreement hits at not only Canadian sovereignty but at the capacity of the Canadian Government to work in a way that will improve and strengthen the softwood lumber industry.
The Government has given up a number of things in making this agreement with the Americans. One thing it has given up is its opportunity to go the full length with the legal processes in the United States. The last time a Canadian Government went through the legal process of appeal before American authorities on a matter such as this it won and the tariff barrier was not put in place. By making this agreement the Government has given up the opportunity to go all the way with that approach, to test it. There are arguments and evidence to indicate that we would have had a fair-to-even chance to beat this matter before those authorities. But we gave that up.
We also gave up the opportunity to win our appeal under the GATT. We gave up a great deal when we signed this agreement, when we went in such haste to the Americans and said: "Will you make a deal with us?" We gave up at least a couple of other avenues that were open to us for resolving this matter in favour of Canadian interests. We just let them go by the way.
I wish to talk a bit about free trade, something which is central to the Government's economic policy. If the Government handles the free trade issue in the way it has handled the softwood lumber negotiations, then we are in deep trouble. It is time the Government stood on its own two feet. It is time for our Government to get firm with the United States rather than for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to try to be pals with the President of the United States. Our Government must adopt effective negotiation strategies. The Government must be tough with the Americans because the Americans are being tough and ruthless with us.
I call upon the Government to withdraw this legislation and use the other avenues which are open to let the Americans know without a doubt that we will stand up for our interests. We must let the Americans know that we are not ready to lay down just because some particular group in the United States gets angry or feels that competition from the Canadians is too tough.
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members opposite may tell us that practically everything has been said that could be said on the subject. Personally, I read through all the speeches made since the beginning of this debate, starting on Monday, January 19, when Parliament reconvened. Sometimes I think it is pretty hard to come up with anything new, although we do want to make Canadians aware of the threat to our forestry industry this agreement represents, an agreement under which this Government, through the responsible Minister, has decided to make our future dependent on the United States.
I tried to come up with a more practical point and did so after a meeting we had with a distinguished representative of the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association, who met with the caucus to make us aware of the problems that would be facing the Quebec lumber industry.
As far as Canadian sovereignty is concerned, I obviously agree wholeheartedly with what was said by my colleagues in the Official Opposition as well as by our colleagues in the third party in this House. However, I was very surprised no one had talked about the people in Quebec whose lives will certainly be very much affected and who are very, very concerned about what the Government is about to sign or has signed with the United States, without necessarily knowing all the whys and wherefores of this agreement.
Madam Speaker, we could usefully look at some of the facts contained in a document entitled: The Lumber Industry in Quebec, published by the Quebec Lumber Manufacturers Association, 1985 Edition. Delivery of lumber, by administrative region. The Lower St. Lawrence provides 6 per cent of Quebec's production. I see that Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean provides 25 per cent. In the Quebec City area the percentage is 18 per cent, and I was very alarmed to see that in the breakdown by administrative region in Quebec, the North West is responsible for 39 per cent of the lumber production. This is a matter of great concern, because anyone who knows Quebec realizes that the lumber sector is one of our major industries and provides a great many jobs. I have the figures to prove it. In Quebec, the industry provided 21,500 jobs in 1984. It was hard for the industry at times. If we look at 1970, the sector provided 9,135 jobs in Quebec, and in 1980, the figure was up to 24,000. Twenty three thousand and 18,000 in 1982, and 21,000 and 21,500 in 1984.
Madam Speaker, I think that when we look at the details of each of these agreements and of the overall agreement the Government is considering, we have every reason to be concerned. The general concept of a trade agreement with the United States may be a great and noble idea that makes a lot of sense, but when we get into the details, we realize how dangerous such an agreement could be for us in Quebec. I am of course speaking for Quebec, but I also speak as a Canadian, because other sectors may also be affected, eventually.

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
For my own satisfaction and for the information of the House and Hon. Members, I made a quick survey of Members who might be affected. I found out that even the Minister from Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mrs. Landry) is affected. Her riding has a number of industries that belong to the Lumber Manufacturers Association, and if I remember correctly, Blainville and Sainte-Therese are in her riding.
I realized that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the Hon. Member for Roberval, would be severely affected, because 25 per cent of the jobs are in his riding. I see that the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) is very much affected. I noticed that the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) is affected.
To my surprise, when I was looking at the list of members of the Quebec lumber industry, high up on the list I found a large number of small-and medium-sized businesses in Quebec. We all know the Beauce region. We all know that Beauce is an area that is on the move. It is one of Quebec's dynamic growth areas. We know that. However, Madam Speaker, I don't think the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) seems to realize- I hope he knows his riding better than I do-how many industries and small- and medium-sized businesses are directly affected by this agreement, and there are quite a few if we take a close look at the Quebec Lumber Industry, their advertising and if we consider the meeting we had with officers of the Association.
I see that the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) is directly affected by this agreement. Personally, I am a pragmatist, I'm not an ideologue. I am very down to earth, which is probably why I always identify with the Liberal Party. I think we should go back to the source of the problems that will arise in this vast enterprise in which the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) would like to see us involved, this great trade agreement.
Madam Speaker, I am very concerned, and I could go on. I also found that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) is very much affected. There are so many. I could name them all, and if anyone cares to consult this document, the Quebec Lumber Industry, they will find the names of a great many companies in their own ridings. In fact, we intend to write to them to get them moving and on to their Members to tell them: Listen guys and gals, do something because this is getting too close to home. These are all small businesses.
Madam Speaker, in Canada it has often been our experience that when large agreements are signed, people say it doesn't affect them, it isn't serious. However, I may recall the size of the small- and medium-sized business sector in Quebec. Now, this Government wants to sign an agreement covering a specific sector within the trade agreement with the U.S. at any price. Our partner within this vast agreement is the friendly giant next door, I said friendly, and I know the Right Hon. former Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) always says not to attack the United States frivolously. I could not agree more, but our great big
friendly neighbour takes giant steps and when he takes one step he crushes everything in his path. And why not, since they are more powerful than we are. Madam Speaker, let us have no illusions about making the U.S. Government backtrack should its interests clash with ours. What we want to do and what we shall do in the weeks, the months and the year to come is draw the attention of Canadians to the daily dangers inherent not in the overall agreement which will not be signed until the very last but in all those smaller intermediate agreements that with a single signature may wipe out all or part of our small- and medium-sized businesses.
And we have not mentioned all the other possibilities. What will happen next? What will my good friends and colleagues and I hope friends and colleagues of the Government of Quebec say if a U.S. senator or several U.S. senators or members of Congress should decide that all this hydro-electric power from Quebec is unfair competition, and we have another Minister scurrying to Washington? I hope this time they will not be vacationing in Hawaii. If I mention this, it may be because we have heard so much about it or because we are envious not to have been there ourselves. But that's beside the point. The question remains: What will happen? 1 will conclude, Madam Speaker, because I always obey the Chair. I conclude by asking: What will it be? What will our attitude be the next time if the same thing happens in other major areas such as the sale of our electric power resources which is so beneficial to Quebec? The same thing will happen, because the Americans will have the same fear. With the Americans, we should be constantly on the look-out. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Government was not on the look-out when it signed this agreement. If we are continuing this debate now, it is to emphasize that the Government did not exercise the expected cautiousness, and there will be Hon. Members taking part in this debate as long as the Government does not assure us that it will be constantly on the look-out from now on. I thank you for your patience.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I too should like to make a few comments on the very important matter now under consideration in the House, namely Bill C-37 on Canadian softwood lumber and the 15 per cent tax on the export of certain softwood lumber products to the United States. It is an important question with respect to Canada's sovereignty, just as it is an important question with respect to the relations between Canada and the United States, and between Ottawa and the ten Canadian provinces.
Madam Speaker, the softwood lumber industry is very important because thousands of people work directly or indirectly in this industry in most Canadian provinces. As far as I and many more people are concerned, the free trade issue and the free trade negotiations between our country and the United States are also very important, as they are to the chief negotiators of the two countries, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in the House today, and to our chief negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman. I spent a lot of time in my riding during the Christmas recess and I know that many of
January 26, 1987

my constituents are deeply concerned about a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States because we are a small country of only 25 million people. There are a lot of people living in the United States, ten times as many as in Canada, a total population of 250 million. It would create a problem for us. It is somewhat like a mouse and an elephant sharing the same bed. It is a good thing for the mouse to share the bed of a huge elephant, that is until the elephant has a bad dream and turns over. So much for the small mouse.
But, Madam Speaker, it is a question of sovereignty. Some legal experts have told us we gave up much of our sovereignty on this issue. I am afraid that if we continue to steer this course we will end up being the 53rd State of the United States.
Madam Speaker, I wonder what has happened to the Progressive Conservative Party, a party once recognized as truly nationalist here in Canada. I remember Sir John A. Macdonald quite well. He had a national vision. He was truly nationalist. At the time, it was the Liberal Party, not at all the Conservative Party, which had a continental vision. That remained the philosophy of the Conservative Party up through the time of John Diefenbaker. Mr. Diefenbaker also was a great Canadian nationalist. He had a vision of the Canadian North. He spoke very strongly for Canada, claiming that this was an independent country and so on and so forth.
But now, under the new Progressive Conservative Party Leader, there is a different philosophy. The new PC Party Leader often observes that he is a great friend of Mr. Reagan, the President of the United States, and that Canada has very close ties with the United States.
It does not seem to matter, Madam Speaker, whatever happens we seem to respond time after time to what the Americans want us to do. This time it is softwood lumber and an export tax of some 15 per cent. A few months ago, after the March conference with President Reagan and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) we heard about changing our drug legislation, of getting rid of generic pharmaceuticals, something we have had since 1969. This was proposed in response to a request by the President of the United States to change our patent laws in Canada to coincide with the patent laws in the United States. The President wanted a free flow between the two countries. He wanted to have a free flow of pharmaceuticals and a free flow of information. You cannot have that when you have a different law in Canada than in the United States. The Americans have patent protection for drugs. After a certain amount of time we in Canada could have competition from generic companies. Because of that competition drug prices came down to a level much lower than in the United States. I remember well my second year as a Member of Parliament in 1969 when the drug Bill was brought in. At that time prices of drugs in Canada were significantly higher than in the United States. Because we have had real competition between major drug companies drug
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
prices in Canada, according to Professor Eastman, are now much lower than in the United States.
Once again we have had pressure from the Americans to change our law, to change our policy to suit their country and their people. Exactly the same thing is happening to softwood lumber as will happen to pharmaceuticals.
It is time that we stopped acting like a timid little mouse and stood up for our rights and for our country like Diefenbaker and Macdonald did years ago. It is time that the Prime Minister stopped treating Canada as branch plant Canada. I know he worked for many years for huge American multinational companies. He was at one time the president of Iron Ore Canada. He has a mentality, perhaps from his background and where he grew up, that branch plants are absolutely fantastic for this country, and if it were not for Uncle Sam we would not be where we are today. He is also the same man who closed down Schefferville.
I know sometimes that American investment has helped us in the job area. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) is shaking his finger. Maybe he does not agree with me but sometimes American investment may have helped. It is important to remember that we have to be masters in our own house-maitres chez nous. I think the Prime Minister has taken his policy of branch plantism from the private sector. He has a vision of this country as branch plant Canada where Uncle Sam and Uncle Ronnie in the United States call the shots rather than the Parliament of Canada. This is good enough.

I have already mentioned the generic drug issue and the lumber issue here in Canada, Madam Speaker, but there is also the issue of the Canadian energy policy which has been changed under tremendous pressure from the United States. There is also the issue of foreign investments here in Canada. We used to have here a screening agency for investments in Canada, but under pressure from the United States, the Government led by the Prime Minister changed that also. There were four examples. The Prime Minister has listened very well to the President of the United States, but not to the Canadian public.

That is not good enough, Madam Speaker. We have legislation before this House now that will allow the Americans to tell us what we can do without export taxation. We cannot change the stumpage fees unless the Americans agree to it, nor can we set a certain stumpage fee unless they agree to it. It is not good enough to let them call the shots and determine what we do in our own country. We are a sovereign state. We are not the fifty-first state of the United States and it is about time our Prime Minister realized that.
Even in sectors where we have free trade, such as shakes and shingles, a few months ago we saw where the Americans moved with a tariff anyway because we had pierced their market. We had done very well. We were very efficient and

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
the Americans did not like it. They became very protectionist and they protected themselves.

That is exactly the same situation for our farmers here in Canada. There was in the United States a farm bill providing massive subsidies for American wheat and grain exports elsewhere in the world. Sometimes, they take over Canadian markets because of their enormous subsidies.

I say that I cannot support this kind of legislation, Madam Speaker. My constituents do not support this kind of legislation. They fear as I fear that we have a Prime Minister who is gradually selling out this country. It is time to stand up for Canada.

Now is the time for our country to act. The time has come for Canada to act, Madam Speaker.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Madam Speaker, this is the second time I have had the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-37 dealing with the lumber agreement made between Canada and the United States. I would like to review for the benefit of Members of the House several of the reasons that the Conservative Government feels Bill C-37 is necessary. I would like to outline the rationale behind the way in which the Conservative Government went about dealing with the difficulties that Canada's lumber industry was having with the American lumber industry, and in that attempt, to some extent, put some logic to Bill C-37, logic which 1 do not believe can be found but nonetheless I will attempt the task.
First, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) indicated that the deal was made to "protect thousands of jobs in the Canadian lumber industry". Second, she indicated that the deal was signed because "We were convinced we would lose the final determination." Ostensibly I would assume that the Minister for International Trade had a legal opinion to back up that comment, and I will come back to that in a moment. Third, the Minister indicated that "If we lost our case, we would be entrenching a dangerous legal precedent." Lastly, "Why should we as a country be concerned about this agreement when, in fact, the federal Government has not interfered with the provinces rights to use their own resources?" Those are the four major points made by the Minister for International Trade in her address to the House. I would like to respond to each of those reasons for us to support the Bill.
Upon close examination of the arguments in favour of supporting this piece of legislation, one finds that each point has a flaw in its logic. Let us deal with them. The Minister for International Trade mentioned that the deal was made to protect thousands of jobs. I assume that the Minister was
simply referring to jobs in the lumber industry itself. She did not mention what would happen to the thousands of jobs in the value-added industries that will be lost as a direct result of the export tax being applied to these goods.
I would also quarrel with the notion that this agreement will protect thousands of jobs on the grounds that a large segment of the Canadian forestry industry has a great deal of concern about the impact of the export tax on markets. I say this in an attempt to simplify a very complicated situation. There is a danger that as a result of the loss of markets in the United States the lumber industry in British Columbia, which has traditionally not been a competitor in the Ontario market supplied by northern Ontario and Quebec, will find itself faced with competition that never existed before. The concept of thousands of jobs being saved through the imposition of this export tax which is placating our friends South of the 49th parallel has a flaw in its logic.
Second, the Minister indicated that the deal was good because, as the Minister said, we were convinced that we would lose the final determination. That has always been true. That is an inherent danger for any industry that comes under question by our American trading partner. There is a tribunal before which Canadian workers can complain about being unfairly attacked by American products, and that is true of our neighbour South of the border as well.
This problem did not come about overnight. We had the same difficulty in 1982 and 1983 when the American lumber industry complained that our stumpage fees were an unfair subsidization of the Canadian industry. At that time the Liberal Government did not cave in to the pressures of the American lumber industry, but chose to fight the imposition of an offsetting tax. We were very successful in our fight before the tribunal which deals with international trading disputes between the two countries.
As late as December 23, 1986 a preliminary report indicated that the tribunal judging our case may well have voted in favour of Canada. Yet by legislating Bill C-37 we have preempted any choice. We have no choice in this matter now that the Government has caved in to the American demands and has imposed a tax on our own industry. In my opinion, that sets a very dangerous precedent.
Speaking of precedents, the Minister of International Trade went on to say that the third reason we should sign the agreement was that if we lost our case it would entrench a dangerous legal precedent. Good heavens, she was worried about legal precedents, but what kind of precedent is set by acquiescing to the demands of the United States to sign the lumber agreement?
I submit that as a direct result of caving in to pressures from the United States on the lumber industry we have opened up a number of other critical sectors of our economy to the same kind of pressures. The American lumber industry does not operate in isolation from other associations representing the interests of steelworkers and the agricultural sectors of the
January 26, 1987

U.S. econmy. It is no secret that the United States is in more of a protectionist mood than it has been in for several decades.
Canada can complain about falling victim to the pressures put on the U.S. administration by the U.S. lumber lobby, but in fact Americans have moved on several other fronts to put up tariff barriers on products from other countries. One need simply look at the reaction of the United States' chief negotiator, Mr. Yeutter, in reply to the European Economic Community's decision to allow Spain into the EEC. The United States agricultural community lost some $230 million worth of its market as a result of that decision and the U.S. has retaliated against the European Economic Community by imposing a tax of up to 200 per cent on certain items entering the United States from France, including wines and endive from Belgium.
We cannot view the tendency of the United States toward protectionism in isolation from other events that are happening throughout the world. By caving in to the U.S. demands to impose a tax on our own resources we have given up the opportunity to use our rights through the trade tribunal to put forward our own sovereign Canadian viewpoint.
I believe many Canadians feel that because of the way in which the Government has dealt with the lumber issue it has given up many of our traditional rights to protect cases at the international level. I think caving in sets a very dangerous precedent and there will be other industries that will be similarly challenged.
Finally, the Minister indicated that part of the reason we should accept the agreement was that in no way would we tread upon the provinces' rights to use their own resources. I submit that that last point is flawed in its logic as well. The provinces do not have the right to use the money in whatever way they want. Clearly the memo from President Reagan to Baldrige commits the United States to using retaliatory action if Canada slips in any way as defined by the Dennison letter.
Clearly, in submitting Bill C-37, the Canadian Government has given up its rights and this will set a very dangerous precedent. I should hope that members of the Conservative Party will see the error of their ways and vote to throw out Bill C-37.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, this is the second time I have entered debate on Bill C-37. However, this is not just the second time I have spoken about it in this House. I first raised concerns about this Bill in a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 in which I pointed out that remanufacturers in Ontario were being forced to pay a 15 per cent tax on lumber originating at exempt mills in parts of Canada and the United States. At that time, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was furious with me. She heckled from her seat that I had my facts wrong. She went so far as to depart from her own prepared remarks to say that I had misled Canadians. However, I checked my facts.
Apparently, so did the Minister, because when I questioned her on the same matter later in the week her attitude had changed completely. The Minister even thanked me for
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
bringing what she called these anomalies-her word, not mine-to her attention. Evidently her officials had done some checking and advised her that there were indeed loopholes in this Bill. The Minister went so far as to plant another oral question from her own benches to help her correct this mess. This time the Minister agreed with the member of her Party that there were problems with the Bill. She admitted that some remanufactured softwood products had not been covered by the original legislation and she promised that she would meet with industry representatives to get all the facts. Now the Minister will have to get the Americans to agree that other products should be exempted from the export tax. Such an oversight tells me that this legislation was drawn up rather hastily, to put it mildly.
There should be no holes in such important legislation. We are dealing with a Bill that affects thousands of jobs in the softwood industry, a Bill that goes to the very heart of our sovereign rights as a nation. Yet there are obvious problems. I am not an expert on this issue. Indeed, not many in this House are experts on the softwood lumber trade. Yet I was able to find glaring errors in this legislation. How many more might be found by lumber and trade experts with time to examine this proposal in detail? Certainly the Minister must wonder. I imagine there were some red faces and scorched ears in her Department when these mistakes were discovered.
There seems to be ample evidence in just this one illustration to show that a six-month delay is definitely warranted. However, there are other examples as well. Last Friday the Government attempted to force a vote on this Bill. Only then was it pointed out that there were blank spots that had to be filled in. The rules of this House prevent us from voting on blank Bills and for good reason. It goes to the very heart of our responsibilities in this place. We are being asked to consider and approve laws which affect the lives of our constituents. It would be negligent for us to give carte blanche authority by approving a blank Bill. I am not suggesting the Government was seeking carte blanche. Undoubtedly this was just another oversight. Indeed, the sight of people scurrying around the Chamber with copies of the agreement last week showed that this was no sinister plan. Yet again, the Government showed it was ill-prepared. It was seeking House approval without ensuring that it knew exactly what it was asking the House to approve. Again that shows a delay is worth considering.
Finally, there is the U.S. part in this to consider. The problems we have uncovered, and any others which trade and softwood lumber experts might uncover, would have to be negotiated into the agreement with the Americans. It will do us no good to go through the exercise of debates and votes if we have to do it all over again in a few weeks or a few months. Canadians expect us to consider legislation carefully. Let us get it right the first time. Let us make sure we all understand what we are doing when we say yea or nay in this Chamber. Part of that understanding has to be a realization that we are ceding power to the U.S.

January 26, 1987
Adjournment Motion
I know the government benches will be quick to point out that this Bill only authorizes the Canadian Government to collect a tax from its own citizens. However, that is really a technicality. We are not legislating of our own accord. We are doing so under a direct threat from an economic pressure group in a foreign country. This legislation would legitimize the protectionist powers in American society. It would say that we approve of our Government accepting terms of trade dictated from the other side of the border. This is not some penalty imposed by a neutral body. It is not the finding of some international tribunal. This is simple acknowledgement of power. It is the triumph of American economic power over Canadian sovereignty, signed and sealed by the Government of Canada. That is frightening.
No one can say where that power will be exerted next. It could take aim at the regional development programs which have been of such benefit to my riding, for example, and many other ridings in this country. Will some American competitor look at aid to industry and declare that this is the stumpage fee of that industry? That would be disastrous. By all means, let us pause to reconsider this Bill. Do we really want to acknowledge that we lie in the American sphere of economic influence? Canadians may bless or curse us for the consequences of the actions we are considering today. I urge caution, and counsel that we accept the necessity of this delay.
In conclusion, I say that in the eyes of the Americans, in the estimation of Washington, the tougher we act and the tougher we negotiate in this country the more respect they will have not only for this institution, this Government which is faltering very badly right now, but the greater respect they will have for our country. If we simply sit back and acquiesce in virtually everything they demand, and I think this is the beginning of that sad and sorry road, there will be no respect, nothing but utter contempt. They will continue to take us for granted and that indeed will be a very sad day for this country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Herbicides-Use of weed killer 2,4-D; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Trade-United States duty on Canadian softwood lumber, (b) Minister's position-Canadian proposal; the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)- Canadian Human Rights Commission-Appointment of Antonio Arcangel to Human Rights Tribunal, (b) Request for investigation of appointee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. McDermid (p. 2601).
Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I must say that it is the second time I rise in this debate on a Bill which will impose a 15 per cent tax on lumber exports to the United States.
I am a bit shocked by the amendment asking that the question be now put for the simple reason that I believe this Bill to be very important and a threat to our sovereignty.
Government Members would like us to believe that our sovereignty is not being threatened. I respect their views, but I would like to make a few points.
In the memorandum of agreement, it is written that the Americans can come to Canada and impose their will. They can refuse to approve certain measures which the Canadian Government and the provinces might want to take in relation with our natural resources, especially lumber.
Madam Speaker, sovereignty is something that cannot be measured, but it is certainly something that can be felt. As Canadians, we feel proud of our country, proud of being masters of our own destiny, and I believe that all Canadians want the House of Commons and the Government to see to it that this sovereignty is respected by everyone, both in Canada and abroad. We have a very special role to play in this area. As I said, Canadians have the feeling that we are masters of our own destiny, that we can decide what we will do and how we are going to act and how this country will be governed.
Madam Speaker, I believe that the sovereignty of a nation must be respected. This means that our sovereignty should be respected by our neighbours. They must respect us and we must express our concern every time we feel our sovereignty is being threatened.
Hon. Members will recall the Polar Sea icebreaker incident in the Canadian Arctic. All that this icebreaker did, Madam Speaker, was to trace a path in the Arctic waters. There are no signs left of its passage.


An Hon. Member:: It broke the ice.


Fernand Robichaud: It broke the ice, as my colleague has pointed out. In fact, I am certain that the Inuits who live in that region were threatened because the ice is the habitat of the fauna on which they depend.

January 26, 1987

As I was saying, all that this icebreaker did was to leave a path in the ice which has probably disappeared completely by now. The fact remains that the Americans took this initiative without even consulting us. We did not react sufficiently strongly to prevent them from violating our territory. Indeed, I consider that there really was a violation of our territory. I feel that this is important, whether in the northern, the eastern, the western or the southern parts of the country. Canadians must by all possible means seek to preserve that sovereignty.
Of course when I say that our sovereignty is threatened, I do not mean we expect to see tanks at our borders and soldiers marching in to conquer us. Of course not. I think that the Americans have enough respect for us not to do such things. However, as Canadians we must make them realize that this land of ours has boundaries that must be respected.
Madam Speaker, some Hon. Members might say that we cannot build fences between ourselves and our neighbours to the south.
Certainly, we should not offend our friends to the south. However, I should like to say that good fences make good neighbours. We could thus avoid many quarrels and surely a fence is as good as the friends sharing it. We have to show mutual respect for that line dividing both properties, that is our two countries.
Now, Madam Speaker, that is why I said I was rather shocked to see that an immediate vote has been requested on that Bill which I find so important. But let me deviate slightly from the sovereignty concept which I find very important, and deal with New Brunswick, in the Maritimes. I can say that the Bill is most unfair to the lumber industry in the Maritimes. Because, you see, in our area, the lumber industry must pay stumpage fees that are a great deal higher than in the other provinces that our mentioned in the Memorandum of Agreement, that is British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. We pay as much as eight times more than elsewhere. And out of the 130 or so companies in the industry, five from our area have been exempted from the export tax.
Of course, this is good for those being exempted from the tax, but it is very bad for the others that are not. So there are 125 companies, and most of them that provide a livelihood to whole villages will be hurt by that unfair tax, and I say very unfair. Apparently, in this case, our area has been completely ignored, and we find it very hard to understand why we were ignored because, Madam Speaker, you know very well that the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) is from New-Brunswick. This is sad, but on the other hand, we have the representatives of the Maritime Lumber Bureau who said that up to the last minute they thought they were going to be exempt and they could not understand why they were not. Well, personally I find that a little easier to understand. Because, Mr. Speaker, in this case, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), who is from New-Brunswick as I said, has also decided to ignore other very serious problems, problems such as the CN Shops where we are going to lose 1,000 jobs. Besides, this is the same Minister,
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Madam Speaker, who ignored our Christmas tree producers who feel threatened and certainly will be threatened by the Americans if they decide to impose a countervailing duty on Canadian tree imports.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Today is my first opportunity to speak on Bill C-37. I do so under a threat to close off the debate as a result of a motion moved the other day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid).
Later in my brief remarks I wish to point out some of the economic impact of this lumber agreement to Canadian lumber producers and to jobs in Canada. Before I do that, I wish to point out that what we have here is a process which is well established in the United States, the quasi-judicial process with the International Trade Commission. Until this situation came before us, Canada in fact considered it a quasi-judicial process, one that is above political interference. Yet the specific reason that the Minister gave for coming to this questionable agreement was that she thought we would lose the case before that legal body. We had won a similar case on similar arguments in 1983. We had established that our method of assessing stumpage charges to the cutters of logs was not a subsidy on the exportation of our lumber to the United States. This was done on appeal, but we did win it.
This time the Government, together with some of its advisers, threw up its hands. This thinking was best set out by Dr. Peter Pearse, who is a leading resource economist at the University of British Columbia. He appears to have had quite a bit to do with the advice that the Minister followed. At one point he stated: "The U.S. Government had already imposed an interim duty and the political environment in the U.S. has changed totally" since 1983.
If the ITC was in fact a quasi-judicial process that we submitted ourselves to, the political climate in the United States should have nothing to do with the type of rulings that come out of that process. Either it is a legal situation where we have a case, or we do not. Political interference by the United States should not have been a point in question.
As a result of this agreement, we have given the United States some rights over the way we conduct our business as a Government and as a country that it did not have before. Therefore, we have given up some of our sovereignty. The Government entered this agreement without giving due recognition to the fact that provincial rights are infringed upon with this agreement. The forests are directly under the management of the provinces. When they were on this side of the House, the Progressive Conservatives portrayed themselves as the defenders of provincial rights. Now that they are in Government they are ignoring the rights of the provinces to the forestry resource. Suddenly they have discovered that the Constitution contains a section that allows the federal

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Government to use any mode or system of taxation to impose a tax. The Government is using that section of the Constitution.
The solution that has been offered is not only questionable on legal and political grounds, but as one who was elected to stand up for the rights of Canadians, I must also question this deal on economic terms.
In that vein, let me refer to an economic impact study on the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement which was prepared by Widman Management Limited of Vancouver. It points out that the agreement has a negative impact on the Canadian economy. First, the timing of the agreement was bad. My colleagues and I have pointed out that the initiation of the U.S.-Canada free trade talks was badly timed because some 80 per cent of the trade between our countries did not have any type of tariff arrangements. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) initiated an agreement to increase that tariff-free trade to more than 80 per cent, to make it virtually duty free on all products. Since these negotiations began just over one year ago, duty free trade is now slightly over 70 per cent, thanks to the protectionist measures that have been implemented by the Americans as well as by Canadians in retaliation.
In terms of economic initiative, the agreement was badly timed because housing starts in the United States are beginning to decline. In 1983 there were some 1.7 million housing units developed in the United States. In 1984 it went up to 1.74 million units and, in 1985, levelled at 1.74 million units. In 1986 housing starts jumped to 1.825 million units. The forecast for 1987 is that there will be barely 1.5 million units started, which is down 325,000 housing starts.
Not all of these housing starts require lumber, so it is estimated that the total U.S. demand for lumber will be down about 8 per cent this year as opposed to last year. This means that the U.S. market will not absorb a 15 per cent increase in price for Canadian lumber because there will be no demand for Canadian lumber whose price is higher than last year.
Our producers will have to absorb virtually all of the 15 per cent. This is particularly bad news to the stud industry because a number of mills were particularly developed to service that United States demand. There are several in my Province of Saskatchewan. According to this study, in 1986 studs were bringing in about $153 per thousand feet. It estimates that the price for 1987 will drop to about $120 per thousand feet. The production costs in stud mills in northeast Saskatchewan run at approximately $140 per thousand feet, which means that there will be a net loss of $20 per thousand if they continue to try to sell to the United States market. Instead, these mills have done the prudent thing by cutting back production and have actually laid off 30 people in the last couple of weeks as a result of the drop in demand.
Government revenues from the 15 per cent tax will be close to $565 million. However, the loss of approximately 17,000
jobs as a result of this tax by the federal Government, the loss in corporate taxes, unemployment insurance payments and personal income taxes will create a debit of $505,000. This means the Government will have a net gain of $60 million.
The Government boasts that it made this deal by being tough bargainers with the United States and that it did not blink. We know that the Government closed its eyes and Canadians are beginning to wake up.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, technically, at least, we are debating a motion by a Conservative Member that "the question now be put." The question that I and Canadians ask is: why is the Government so anxious to choke off debate on this important measure to impose, we believe wrongly, an export tax on the sale of our softwood lumber to the United States? Why is the Government in such a hurry to bring the debate to an end and force this measure through the House? This measure will impose an additional tax burden of some $600 million directly. It is a measure that we believe and the Government admits will have serious consequences for the softwood lumber industry and the entire Canadian economy.
The leaders of the industry say that $600 million represents their entire profit margin of the softwood lumber section. They say that tens of thousands of jobs could be lost. This debate began last Monday and continued last week. Friday was taken up with what the Speaker has described as a very important point of order. When it comes to debating a measure of this importance, with these likely adverse consequences, I think most people would say that we are far from reaching a point in time when debate on it has gone on for too long.
Why is the Government in such a rush? Why did this motion to choke off debate come when it did, at the end of last week? The thought suddenly struck me that the motion came just after the visit to Ottawa of Vice-President Bush of the United States. I, and I believe all Canadians, should wonder what was discussed at that meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he reprimanded Mr. Bush over the slowness of U.S. action on acid rain. Surely, however, that could not have been the only main subject during those talks.
The Prime Minister also expressed concern about the lack of interest of the United States in the free trade discussions, but surely that did not take up all the time available for the discussions. Surely the Prime Minister must have known for close to a year that the Government of the United States was not taking seriously the famous Accord, the supposed great break-through on reducing acid rain which the Prime Minister and President Reagan entered into at their last Summit. Surely the Prime Minister has known for some time that the United States is not giving the same degree of priority as himself to the desire of the Conservative Government to enter into is an agreement on comprehensive free trade which many of us think would be harmful to Canadian interests. In fact the lack of interest on the American side is leading the Government into a very dangerous and weak bargaining position. It is
January 26, 1987

offering more and more in an effort to keep these talks on the rails in the face of this less than active American interest.
I must, therefore, ask myself what else was discussed at this meeting with Vice-President Bush? I have to raise the suspicion in my mind that the real reason Vice-President Bush rushed here was to give orders to the Prime Minister and his Government to get on with the passage of the Bill to impose the 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber. That is why 1 have to express my suspicion as well about the Government suddenly deciding to bring forward this motion to choke off debate on this Bill when discussion at second reading stage had barely begun. I can see the scene now with Mr. Bush saying to the Prime Minister: "Look here, my boy. If you want us to even remember we are causing a problem with acid rain and that there are discussions going on on free trade, you had better get that export tax Bill through the House or you will be hearing from us on some other matters". I have a feeling that the Canadian representatives at that meeting said in effect: "You told us to jump, Mr. Vice-President, so all we really want to know is just how high?" Vice-President Bush then said: "Get on with that Bill to impose the export tax on Canadian lumber". Therefore, I have a suspicion, as well as do Canadians, that that is the real reason we are now facing this motion to choke off debate on this thoroughly bad Bill.
I have said this is a thoroughly bad Bill and many reasons have been advanced as to why the Bill is bad. In the time remaining to me in this debate, let me advance one or two other reasons. The Government wants to translate the export tax into some form of stumpage fee. I understand the industry is saying that to get the same yield from stumpage fees as it would get from the export tax, it would have to impose higher stumpage fees, not in the area of $600 million but in the area of $1.5 billion or thereabouts. These higher stumpage fees would not just apply on softwood lumber for export but on the entire tree, which would raise the price of new homes for Canadians and even for someone who only wants to put in some new flooring or build an extra room on to their home. That is an unfair burden to be placed on millions of ordinary Canadians because of the Government's bungling of the softwood lumber issue and of its general relationship with the United States.
If the American Government does not agree with the manner in which our Government translates the export tax to stumpage fees, and if it does not agree with the way in which the stumpage fees are to be used for such things as reforestation or training, then all we will have is another tax grab from the pockets of the industry and from the pockets of the Canadian consumer for this Conservative Government and for the provinces, with no real benefit for the Canadian economy.
I might also say, returning to my original point with respect to what happened at the meeting between the Prime Minister and Vice-President Bush, that if the Prime Minister had wanted to do something useful at that meeting, he should have
Point of Order
raised the matter of the Auto Pact and said categorically that the Auto Pact and its safeguards for Canadian jobs cannot and will not be on the free trade table. Instead, he admitted the subject was not even raised. The Prime Minister blew a wonderful opportunity to send a message to the Americans that the Auto Pact and its safeguards are too important to be given up and sold out on the free-trade negotiating table as the Government did with respect to softwood lumber.
I say we have to reject the motion "that the question now be put" just as we have to go on to reject this Bill which is further evidence of the way this Government is selling out our sovereignty to the Americans on softwood lumber. I said before and I will say again that if we let the Americans get away with this, they will do the same thing with the Auto Pact and its safeguards. Canadians do not want that. If the Government will not stand up for Canada, Canadians expect individual Hon. Members to do so. Let us not miss this opportunity to stand up for our country in opposing this Bill and making sure also, to the extent we can do so, that the Auto Pact is not given up and destroyed on the free-trade altar.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, reference was made earlier today to remarks attributed to me in the media as a result of an interview given on Friday, January 23, to a reporter from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I wish to make a full and complete apology to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to my colleagues in this House, to all Canadians and particularly to the people of Quebec.
Further, I wish to withdraw, and apologize for, any direct or indirect inference that reflects negatively upon my colleagues in this House, the people of Quebec and all Canadians.
[Translation}


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure every Member in this House views the statement made by the Hon. Member as being in this House's great tradition. I thank other Hon. Members. Events as we had today are very difficult for the Chair.

I want to emphasize that the comments of the Hon. Member and the restraint exhibited by all Hon. Members I think speaks well of the good will and sense of appropriateness and decorum in this Chamber. I think what has happened today is an example that Hon. Members can rise above events they may regret and concern themselves with that which is of such great importance, the unity of our country and the good will of all our people among themselves and from every region of the country. I thank the Hon. Member for the very full, frank and honest statement he has made.
2702

January 26, 1987
Point of Order


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I know many of my colleagues will not agree with me. I listened closely. First I read with great attention the comments made by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). I listened to his comments. I must tell him that on behalf of all our fellow citizens who today have felt hurt in Quebec-please, I knew that not everyone would agree, but throughout the day people on the "hot lines" as they are called in Montreal, did nothing else but comment on this question-but I listened closely to the comments made by the Hon. Member and I think that, in that spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding in Canada, we should now consider the matter closed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as the person who initiated the Question of Privilege this morning which I thought reflected upon this Chamber and all Hon. Members of the House, I want to say that I appreciate the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) rising and in an unqualified way withdrawing the remarks he apparently was alleged to have made and apologizing to the House. I thank him for that and hopefully this will be the end of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the matter is closed. Thank you.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. McDermid (p. 2601).
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to address the question of the Government's capitulation in the case of the softwood lumber agreement. In listening to the speeches that have been made in this debate I have been struck by the number of exceptions, inconsistencies and evidently unforeseen consequences that have been instanced by Members of this House as flowing from the now notorious agreement. Indeed, after we have reviewed not just the text of the agreement but the text of the letter that was sent by the United States Trade Representative to the President of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports over the signatures of the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, I believe we can only be astounded that the Government of Canada would have signed
such an accord. It is an accord that apparently places such power over our economy and our softwood lumber industry in the hands of a foreign Government, albeit that of our greatest and principal trading partner.
I think it is instructive to quote a part of the statement, the asseverations made in the letter and instance how our Government really has no response to them. It is stated in the letter:
-nothing in this agreement will prejudice the consideration by the Department of Commerce of a petition on behalf of producers of products not enumerated in the Understanding. We would not consider such a petition to be inconsistent with the agreement or its enforcement.
This brings me to a point upon which I was developing and expanding in my last speech on the question of the softwood lumber agreement. What about the situation of Canada's pulp and paper industry? What is there in the present agreement to prevent American producers of newsprint, of pulpwood, from bringing a similar sort of petition to the U.S. Trade Commission and pleading that because Canada has conceded de facto the point by signing the softwood lumber agreement that in fact stumpage rates in Canada constitute a subsidy to the pulp and paper industry and therefore not only could but should be countervailed?
Amazingly enough, as a result of the signing of this agreement the Government has actually strengthened the hand of some American industries in possible future countervailing duty protections and countervail actions. I think Hon. Members will agree that it is astounding that the Government would have signed such an accord, an accord which, essentially, has nothing in it to say that it would not set precedents that might be cited before the Trade Commission of the United States or, indeed, any trade commission that Canada might set up.
We have heard the Government talk about the effect of retaining the money in Canada. I think everyone would agree that there is some definite benefit to retaining this money in Canada. However, the sum of $600 million or so that is projected in fact constitutes more than the entire profits of the softwood lumber industry over the course of a year. Obviously, the tax which our Government as opposed to the American Government will collect puts a tremendous strain on the margins of that industry.
Let us consider the ways in which Canada will be constrained and tied down in the expenditure of this $600 million. We have heard it said that the American Government would consider almost any measure to aid the forest industry from the results of that tax as being something that could be again the basis of a petition. It is instructive to quote the actual statements made in this amazing letter from the United States Trade Representative to the industry representative. It states:
-we would consider that the follow-up actions by the governmental bodies in Canada-
-as if we did not have Governments like any other country-
-could have the effect of offsetting or reducing the export charge or replacement measures within the meaning of paragraph 6 of the Understanding.
January 26, 1987

At this point in the letter we find listed no fewer than seven separate items to which the United States would object under the terms of the agreement. They are: the rebate, remission, deferral or non-collection of the export charge, except as provided in the understanding; the provision of grants, low-cost loans and other benefits; exemption from obligations otherwise imposed by the Government of Canada and other governmental bodies in Canada; assumption of obligations currently borne by the producers or exporters of certain softwood lumber products; reduction in the price of stumpage or other charges on softwood timber harvested from provincial Crown lands; changes in log scaling or lumber measurement rules or procedures which affect volume determination; and awarding contracts for silviculture, road-building, recreational, and other foresting activities on a non-competitive basis. This is a bundle of constraints upon our industry that no Government should have ever contemplated.
Another part of this agreement which I think all would feel is something of questionable implication for Canada and something about which we should be truly concerned is the amazing 30-day opt-out clause. Essentially, what we have in the softwood lumber agreement is a commercial treaty. For the Government of Canada to enter into such a commercial treaty with the provision that the other side, with all the powers that are reserved to it and with all the actions which we have admitted that the United States can still take against Canadian industry, should then opt out at 30 days' notice is to me rather amazing. I might say it is rather appalling.
The implications of the lumber deal for Canadian sovereignty are obvious. Canada's Government has subjected not only the federal Government's actions but also provincial Governments' actions and the traditional negotiation and review of each other's actions by the provincial and federal Governments to the supervision of the United States Department of Commerce. I use these words advisedly because, after all, Canada will be providing the Americans with all sorts of statistics under the provisions of this agreement. So having submitted ourselves once to U.S. supervision in this softwood lumber agreement, what then is to stop the United States Trade Representative from demanding such supervision in any future free trade arrangements? It seems to me that what we have here in the softwood lumber agreement is something that runs completely counter-absolutely opposite-to the whole thrust and spirit of the free trade negotiations that the Government has so foolishly and firmly committed itself to undertake. Surely this point must be made: Is this not the First domino for Canada's trading relationship? Is this not the First block that has been taken out of the wall that must eventually collapse?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


John Edmund Parry: Is this not the first straw of which the last will indeed break the camel's back?


Some Hon. Members:: No!
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I hear cries of dissent from my Conservative colleagues in the House. But do I hear them defending this agreement? No, I do not. Are they telling me that this does not weaken Canada's position in the free trade negotiations? I certainly cannot believe they would make such a ludicrous proposition when we now have one of Canada's major industries on the block and when we know very well that it is the intention of the U.S. Trade Representative to put every other major Canadian industry on the block, or on the table as they say in these free trade negotiations.
With respect to the terms of the free trade negotiations, I keep hearing about the level playing-field. I cannot find a Conservative Member in the House who will tell me that this softwood lumber agreement represents part of the level playing-field concept. Everyone knows what happens on a level playing-field-the larger and heavier, numerically stronger team wins and generally rolls over the side that is smaller, weaker or less represented in terms of numbers. That is the meaning of a level playing-field for the people in Canada's forest industry and for the workers who will be affected by this agreement. It is an agreement in which the Government has not only unthinkingly legislated a whole range of disparities between the industry in the different provinces and different parts within provinces, but it has also put at risk very substantial sectors of Canada's forest economy.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, it is after considerable hesitation that I decided to take part today in the debate on softwood lumber. I was prompted to do so by the comments I heard before lunch from the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who barely used up two or two and a half minutes of his time, only to rail against me. I would have liked him to go on with his comments after lunch, but he did not come back to the House. Should we conclude that he would rather indulge in politicking than attempt to find solutions to very serious problems?
I also heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Of course there are surely many forests and a great number of softwood producers in his riding.
The Hon. Member for Windsor-West (Mr. Gray) is also a great expert on forestry issues. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier told the House that UPA members were not in favor of the proposed agreement with the Americans, which is not quite true. He was probably misinformed, since I had the pleasure today, at noon hour, along with one of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bour-geault), to meet with a number of presidents of the Quebec federation of lumber producers. These people are quite satisfied with the agreement concluded between the Americans and the Canadian government.

January 26, 1987
Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act
Some have tried, as members of the Opposition are doing it now, to draw a red herring by claiming that Canada's sovereignty had been eroded.


Marcel Prud'homme: You bet!


Marc Ferland: Well, I may not entirely agree, and I would like to quote what Mr. Pierre MacDonald said at a press conference in Quebec City, and God knows how much Quebecers value the concept of sovereignty. This might not be true for the Liberals at the time, though.
On the matter of sovereignty, this is what Mr. MacDonald said, and I quote: "I would like to draw a parallel on one aspect of the differences mentioned by Miss Carney which is sometimes misunderstood. We are talking about supervision. Any shareholder of a business receives a financial statement every year. Efe can examine that statement, he can examine the developments in the light of the system which would have been implemented if the countervailing decision had been taken. The United States could have sent us a team of internal auditors on a regular basis. It is quite another possibility for us to produce our own statistics which would then be made available to all interested parties. If the Americans want to examine those figures, let them do it. But no team of internal auditors will come and browse in our Department of Forestry".
I think that is quite clear.
The Hon. Member for Westmorland Kent (Mr. Robichaud) said that to be on good terms with your neighbours, you should have a fence. We should not forget, however, how this debate on forestry came about and how we were led in Canada to take these decisions and to introduce Bill C-37 in the House.
Let us not forget that in the 70s, the percentage of Canadian lumber on the American market was in the order of 25 per cent. That is something that few Members mentioned in the House. Yet, through the efficient efforts of Canadians and the Canadian industry, I should say through its agressive policies on international markets, we have been able to control, by the 1980s, at this very moment, some 33 per cent of the US lumber market.
I also remember hearing people in the forest industry say a few months ago: Maybe we should tone down our agressive policies on the US market. We might shake them awake. Well, we did wake them up. And we got what we might somehow have expected. Of course, it is a good thing to have fences between good neighbours. You can have them as high as you want. But when your neighbour trespasses a little too much or too often on your property you tell him: Listen, Joe, why don't you move back on your side a little? You are stepping on my toes. You are getting to be a nuisance. The Americans took that attitude, somehow. What did we do? We had several alternatives. We could have gone the Liberal way, that is let the Americans levy a 36 or 25 per cent tax which would have been collected by the American Treasury. How bright! Giving out Canadian money to the American Treasury.
There was another alternative which was to negotiate, to try to reach an agreement while protecting our American markets and try to save the greatest possible number of jobs in Canada. We had to find a compromise and that compromise was the 15 per cent tax.
This 15 per cent tax is not inconsistent with the position held by the Quebec Government since it had already decided to reconsider its forestry policy, according to Mr. MacDonald, well before the United States initiated any contervailing measure. I should say that the Federation of Lumber Producers is not so much against an increase if the Quebec Government decides that the 15 per cent tax will be used to reduce the price or the increased stumpage fees because some of those people thought the government was somehow in conflict with private industry or in competition with it. This will allow 120,000 producers... because it should not be forgotten that the Quebec Federation of Lumber Producers represent 120,000 owners of small private wooded lots, small businessmen. Those people will be in a position to develop their business, to have a place in the sun and open up some markets.
When the Opposition refers to sovereignty, I have to say that nothing in that Bill encroaches upon Canadian sovereignty-


Marcel Prud'homme: Come on!


Marc Ferland: You can say what you like, gentlemen, the agreement was negotiated with the consent of the provinces. Of course... I see the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I am sure that he will not agree about that, because negotiating with the consent of the provinces was never the strong point of the Liberal Government to which he has belonged for years. This is quite sure. He could never understand that. We are doing this with the approval of the provinces, with the approval of the Quebec Government. And speaking of sovereignty in Quebec, all Quebec Premiers, from Mr. Duplessis through Mr. Bourassa who is there again, Mr. Levesque and everyone else-


Marcel Prud'homme: Hydroelectric power.


Marc Ferland: Never mind electric power. We are dealing with lumber here. Let us not mix the hare and the hound. That has always been the Liberal position, to try and confuse everyone when there is a very clear-cut and specific matter at hand.


Marcel Prud'homme: It is said that one's precedent can become another's precedent.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, it would be interesting for once if Liberal Members would listen instead of chattering, as they do all the time when we-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.
January 26, 1987


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has just suggested that nothing in the legislation affects this country's sovereignty. It is obvious he has not read the legislation, or the agreement, that I would like to remind him there are things in this Bill, Madam Speaker, things-


Mr. Bernier:: Your comments are silly.


Carlo Rossi: The Hon. Member for Beauce did not even rise. He is the silly one.


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


Carlo Rossi: Stop saying we are silly, because you did not even rise to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier knows very well-


Carlo Rossi: Do not call others silly, you are the silly one.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Carlo Rossi: Madam Speaker, those are unparliamentary terms.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. Dealing first with the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, I say its was not a point of order, but a point of debate in my view. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Beauce has used language I submit is unparliamentary, and I want him to withdraw his unpleasant comment. Rise in your place, if you have the guts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I admit and I will admit to all Hon. Members that, what with the noise and exchanges, conversations in the House, at this point I did not hear the comments made by the Hon. Member for Beauce. He will decide whether he should withdraw.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, it is true that there was a lot of noise, but I think everyone heard the comments made by the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier). It could be that, in a spirit of co-operation, since we readily accepted that the matter be closed concerning his colleague's unfavourable comments about Quebecers, he might do the same and say that the matter is closed and he did not mean to say those things about us.
I for one, when my colleagues are not here, if it is not meant for me, I just ignore it, but if they look at me when saying those things, I presume they are directed to me. I suppose this was not the case. If it was not the case, I would appreciate-


Gilles Bernier: Madam Speaker, I said half of the comments made by Hon. Members opposite were silly. Let us say that half of them are not silly.
Right of Life


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, may I call it 5 o'clock? This could make the proceedings easier.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN HUMAN PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from November 21, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The last time this motion was before the House the Hon. Member for Megan-tic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) had the floor. He has four minutes left. The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Indeed, Madam Speaker, last November 21 I pointed out that this motion moved by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), the topic of a major debate in Canada these days, has certain basic flaws.
First of all, for the benefit of my colleagues in the House and all our viewers, allow me to repeat the Hon. Member's motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982-
-which means amending the Constitution of Canada
to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follow:
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
First, Madam Speaker, I must point out that abortion is not now allowed in Canada, except in very special cases which are examined by hospital therapeutic abortion committees, doctors and people who normally have the expertise required to evaluate these cases. The general principle in Canada is

January 26, 1987
Right of Life
therefore that abortion is not only forbidden, but also subject to very severe penalties under the Criminel Code.
However, two points must be made. First, the famous therapeutic abortion committees for which special legislation was passed a few years ago are now granting, especially in Quebec, an unbelievably high proportion of authorizations.
Archbishop Fortier of the Sherbrooke diocese told me recently that, of 600 requests, a mere ten or so did not end with an abortion, either because the abortion request was withdrawn, because the women involved decided not to have the abortion, or because, in two cases, the therapeutic abortion committees rejected the request. It is therefore obvious that therapeutic abortion committees in Quebec are not examining carefully every request for abortion and are in fact granting abortion on demand.
I believe that this is not in accordance with our laws. In addition, Madam Speaker, Hon. Members will know that many people have tried to bring criminal charges against doctors who practice abortions openly without going through therapeutic abortion committees or, if they do, without applying the spirit and the letter of the law. We are still waiting for the rulings in the case of Regina versus Morgen-taler, Smoling and Scott, for instance. The Supreme Court will perhaps say that, even though Dr. Morgentaler was acquitted several times, the law does not seem to have been respected and another trial is required.
You are indicating, Madam Speaker, that my time has expired. Four minutes is not very long for such an important subject as this one. But I am certain that the House will use the four hours of debate remaining to examine this issue very carefully.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the question before us today is one which has to be addressed. It is not a question that I can say I am pleased to speak to because it is not the kind of thing that brings pleasure to the debate, but it is a question that needs to be addressed and faced. The motion of the Hon. Member is on the question of whether abortion should fall within the purview of the Constitution. In other words, should women in Canada have access to therapeutic abortion as a constitutional right? Should the provinces and the federal Government get together and determine whether the availability of therapeutic abortions will be put in the Constitution?
First, let me question that notion. Why should we turn over such an important moral and medical matter to the courts? In a matter that so divides the country and our communities, a matter on which individuals must reflect, surely it is better handled in public policy, in legislation, so that we can see how it works, to what extent it works and to what extent it does not
serve a public purpose. Legislation is much more readily amended than matters of constitutional import.
The resolution of the Hon. Member fails on the basis that it calls upon us to deal with this matter as a constitutional one. We know that legislative matters are at times difficult to get before the House and difficult to get amended. The present law concerning therapeutic abortion has been on the books for a number of years. Obviously there are people of differing views calling for an amendment to this legislation, but federal governments have backed away from facing up to this question and have chosen not to address it in the House. In fact the Government of the Hon. Member who proposed the motion has chosen not to.
While it is difficult to get legislation amended at times, it is even more difficult to amend constitutional matters, and for that reason I do not believe this should be a matter for the Constitution. For a matter of such deep concern to individuals, it makes more sense that it be a matter of legislation or public policy. If we were to debate and amend the existing law and live with it for a number of years, we could see how it worked and we could have the flexibility to change it if required.
I have a few words to say about the present law, Madam Speaker. The way the law reads presently, a woman who requires a therapeutic abortion must go before a committee of medical doctors. The committee decides whether or not she may have access to this medical procedure. The application of this law is unequal. It is not applied in the same way all over Canada nor is it applied in the same way for women of various income levels. There are inequities in the application of the law let alone the fundamental premises underlying it.
People who live in remote northern communities have less access to hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees and therefore fewer opportunities to apply for this medical procedure. Those who live in cities like Winnipeg have access to major hospitals with committees. A woman faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to have the procedure who lives in Winnipeg could have access to the law whereas a woman living in a remote part of northern Manitoba where there is no large hospital would not have the same access.
Women living below the poverty line cannot afford transportation from, say, Winnipeg to Minneapolis and have less access to this medical procedure than a woman with a middle or upper middle-class income who can afford to take a trip to the United States, spend a few days there, have the procedure and then return. The application of this law is unfair, by virtue of both income and location.
I would also like to discuss the matter of who should decide whether or not a woman should have a therapeutic abortion. Should this decision be made by a committee of doctors or should it be made by the individual who is in fact asking for this procedure? It seems to me that the making of this very difficult decision is better suited to an individual who may be
January 26, 1987

able to reflect upon this procedure and to consult with spiritual or medical advisers. The decision should be made by someone who may reflect upon taking a very difficult step. A committee is much more bureaucratic. People attempt to draw up guidelines and members of committees have other responsibilities. They can be very pressed to make decisions and may not have time to do the kind of adequate reflection that may be necessary when making such a very difficult decision. I think this kind of decision is much more suited to people who have opportunities to reflect upon it because it is obviously a very difficult one to make.
I wish to touch on the question of reducing the number of therapeutic abortions that take place in Canada. It is the contention of this motion that tougher laws and regulations will reduce the number of abortions that take place here. I would suggest that tougher laws will simply put us back to where we were before 1969 when people who needed therapeutic abortions ended up getting them under the table by people who were not qualified. Women's lives were put in danger. Rather than reducing the number of abortions that take place, tougher laws, though they will put the question out of sight, are likely to see that abortions will continue to take place.
A more effective strategy for reducing the number of therapeutic abortions in Canada, a worth-while and worthy objective that we should pursue actively, is to focus upon prevention. We must prevent situations in which women would consider taking this step. We need better education on contraception and better education in human relations for young people so that they will not be taken advantage of as readily. That way, fewer teenage girls will find themselves choosing between being a parent at a very young age, thus cutting off their education and personal development, or taking such a serious step as a therapeutic abortion.
I see that you are indicating that my time has run out, Madam Speaker. I would like to close by saying that this motion requires a great deal more study. There are various constitutional and policy questions that have been suggested by the Hon. Member in bringing forward this resolution.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on a motion proposed by a colleague of mine, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), on a matter which I consider to be extremely important in that it deals with the protection of the unborn child. Abortion has been debated in Canada with varying degrees of vigour since 1967 when then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced changes to the abortion law which did not legalize abortion but rather made it permissible, when a committee of three doctors at an accredited hospital ruled that the continuation of pregnancy would be likely to endanger a woman's life or health.
Since that time, the subject has been raised in this House on many occasions, often to a further polarization of views, eliminating even the possibility of constructive compromise
Right of Life
and efficient reform. That is why the motion raised by my hon. colleague is so significant. It allows us the opportunity of addressing this issue in an attempt to find some degree of common ground in order to protect and enhance human life.
After all, we are not suggesting a consensus for the sake of political expediency or partisan gain. Instead, we are engaging in productive dialogue that will enable us to improve the human condition. The former Hon. Member for Edmonton East, Mr. Yurko, stated while introducing two private Members' Bills on this subject in 1980:
This is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue of profound importance. It is an issue upon which each individual must reflect and make up his own mind.
When dealing with such a controversial subject matter, our first inclination is to pre-suppose a high degree of radicalism and extremism on both sides of the issue. I submit that while a certain amount of this is obviously in existence today, a great deal of the emotional and sometimes violent contentions are confined to select and limited interest groups. For the most part, Canadians are quite willing to strike a balance for the sake of more effective laws serving all of the public.
Contrary to most popular conceptions, it is the responsibility of democratic institutions to serve the people at large rather than follow the narrowly prescribed dictates of limited and specialized interest groups. Results obtained from surveys conducted in my riding reveal a substantial portion of individuals who take a moderate position between the more radical factions of pro-life and pro-choice supporters. I agree with figures suggesting that this group accounts for approximately 60 per cent on a national basis and I also support the contention that neither of the extremist positions can claim support from more than 25 per cent of the population. A review of Gallup polls on abortion taken in 1975, 1978 and 1983 indicated that only 16 to 23 per cent favoured abortion under any circumstances while an even smaller proportion, 14 per cent to 17 per cent, opposed it under any circumstances.
The motion on the floor today would amend the Constitution Act, 1982, by including unborn persons and would read as follows:
Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
In preparing and introducing this motion, the Hon. Member for Grey Simcoe is to be strongly commended for the strength of his conviction and the courage he has exhibited in dealing with this rather crucial topic. He has continually conducted passionate and at the same time logical discourse on a subject of an extremely sensitive nature. Therefore, in keeping with that tradition, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly review the question of abortion, which contains no easy answers for anyone who does not pretend to have a monopoly on morality or virtue.
Whether or not one supports or opposes liberation of the abortion law, there appears to exist a general agreement with

January 26, 1987
Right of Life
respect to the need in certain instances for terminating pregnancy. I seriously doubt that any well-intentioned individual could disagree with the destruction of a foetus if, in the opinion of qualified members of the medical profession, the pregnancy actually endangers the life of the mother and could even bring about her immediate death. This brings us to our current dilemma of attempting to frame legislation which adequately addresses the complex concerns involved while sympathetically considering the views of both the pro-life and the pro-choice advocates.
Both the content and application of the abortion reform law have been actively criticized since its inception. On the one hand those advocating the discrimination of therapeutic abortions believe that the rules are too awkward and confining. They feel that in the final analysis the present provisions restrict the rights and freedoms of women. Instead of a committee of three doctors deciding her fate, they contend that the decision should be left up to the individual concerned and her personal physician. Conversely, those who maintain the need to protect the foetus believe that the criterion of health as a justification for therapeutic abortion is too vague and does not adequately control against abortion on demand. They suggest that the condition of health should be eliminated or at least narrowly defined, restricting it to strictly physical health or by omitting socio-economic circumstances of the individual in assessing mental health or competence, for example.
The obvious difficulties involved in the various interpretations given the abortion law actually forced the Government in 1975 to establish a committee headed by Robin F. Badgley to investigate the legitimate concerns which had arisen as a result of the abortion reform law. The Badgley committee conducted exhaustive examinations in hospitals across Canada and determined that women did not have equal access to therapeutic abortion for various reasons, including a myriad of provincial rules and regulations governing the creation of therapeutic abortion clinics and hospitals, and the conflicting attitudes of members of the medical profession as well as hospital boards of directors. The most disturbing element of the Badgley committee's findings is that the problems identified in the report are just as prominent now as they have ever been.
The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe has given us a possible avenue to pursue in our desire to create an effective policy on abortion. When he last raised this issue during Private Members' hour in November, 1986, a number of legitimate concerns were raised. For instance, some warned he was being too rash considering the fact that polls revealed Canadians are evenly divided on the issue. Others suggested that the constitutional approach and the amending procedure is too complicated to be efficiently handled in Private Members' Business. All of the difficulties mentioned by Hon. Members are important, to be sure. However, they still do not bring us any closer to resolving the problems I outlined earlier.
In conclusion, I support the motion proposed by my hon. colleague to include unborn human persons in Section 7 of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is improper and indeed I consider it to be immoral to deny children the right to life and the right not to be deprived of life save in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. However, having said that, I would like to emphasize that we cannot give rights to children at the expense of women. To do so would be to replace one injustice with another. For that reason I would like to close my remarks with an amendment which needs to be made for clarification and at the request of the mover of the original motion. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil):
That the motion be amended in the paragraph numbered 7 in the English version by adding immediately after the word "unborn" the word "human".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On division? It is debatable.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Point of order. I seriously question whether the House should be asked to vote on this point right now. The amendment is debatable and during the course of that debate Members will be able to comment on the general resolution as well. Therefore I suggest that it not be voted on at this time but be left open for debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Your ruling is a very easy one. We are now debating the amendment. You need not put the question immediately and, eventually, if we get to that point, we can vote on the amendment and the motion. There is no problem.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you might consider whether or not such an amendment is in order. The resolution is presented to us in the projected order of business so that we can have an opportunity to read it before debating it in the House. I suggest that if we allow amendments to Private Members' motions like this during the debate we then lose the opportunity to be forewarned about the nature of the resolution. It could even lead to a situation in which the committee with the responsibility for choosing what kinds of resolutions will come before us would be undercut because we could have an amendment which could change the meaning of such resolutions in a significant way.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, with regard to this amendment, on the contrary I believe it is possible to introduce amendments. However, in this event, all Hon. Members- eight or nine, I believe-who have already spoken have the
January 26, 1987

right to speak again on the amendment to explain to what extent this could change


William Henry (Bill) Domm: By way of clarification, the amendment as read by myself, and duly moved and seconded, was brought into the Elouse at the request of the mover of the main motion, not to change the intent or the content of the motion, but by way of an explanation. It was to say in this motion the Member was referring to human beings. All we are asking for is that clarification by the insertion of an omission of the word "human" after "unborn". The amendment is only to explain in clear words what the intent was of the mover of the main motion. 1 did not expect to get into debate, but if we are into debate I hope that you would defer a negative ruling, if that is your intent, until it is opportune for the Member who is sponsoring this motion to be present in the House. All the Member wishes to do is refer to this person, this human foetus, as an unborn human being. It can still be voted down, if you so desire, at the time the main motion is placed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Table and the Chair have received this amendment and have considered it correct to be presented. I will put the question to the House. This amendment is debatable. Any Member who wishes to debate the amendment may rise and do so. Otherwise, I have to put the question. If Members do not wish to adopt the amendment at this time, it is debatable.
On debate the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I will speak on debate. I accept that you do have the right to make that ruling. I have put forward a point of order which suggested that I have some questions on your ruling, but I will talk specifically to the amendment.
The proposal in the amendment is to insert the word "human" after the word "unborn". It seems to me that a couple of things flow from that. One is parliamentary and one is in terms of the sense of the motion. The parliamentary question is this. There is a very real possibility that once debate begins on this amendment, which in my opinion has unfortunately been introduced by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), we will not return to debating the main subject of the motion of the Hon. Member for Grey- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), but we will concentrate on the one narrow point of the whole matter which is before the House. I find that regrettable.
I appeal to the Hon. Member to consider withdrawing this proposed amendment and allowing the matter to be considered on the basis of the original motion. It would certainly be open to him, as a supporter of his hon. friend, to suggest that he consider that as an amendment that might be introduced in the event that this matter were to go before a legislative committee. In order to respond after a day's debate to objections
Right of Life
which were raised in the House by saying that we will change this could lead us to a situation where we might get further suggestions for change proposed in six or seven weeks when the Bill comes back for the third round, and then further changes proposed when the Bill comes back for the fourth round, to the point where the House is being asked to do the work which, in my opinion, should properly be done in committee.
If it is the opinion or the desire of the Hon. Member who proposed this motion in the first place that he wished to distract the debate in the manner that is now taking place, then I regret that. I think that is improper and an unjustified use of the time of this House.
I have been struck by the tone of debate. I have taken the opportunity to read the debate of November 21 when this matter was first broached in the House of Commons. The tone of debate was that all Members, including the Member for Grey-Simcoe, did take a somewhat balanced approach to the situation. I happen to be in disagreement with the main motion but I note, for example, that the Hon. Member proposing the motion talked about the need for contraception and education and spoke of the fact that in an ideal world abortion would not be needed. Everyone is in agreement that it is not something that we desire. A number of other Hon. Members have also put both points of view even though, like the Hon. Member for Peterborough, they wind up declaring themselves to be for rather than against the motion that is before us.
My second point is this. The question of whether the foetus is a human being is obviously very much one of the questions which has been debated by people on the side of the Right to Life movement, by people who have been advocates of choice in matters of abortion, and is an extremely difficult question. It is so difficult that even in the Province of Quebec where the population is largely Roman Catholic, it has been felt as a matter of public policy that essentially federal law should be adapted and interpreted in a way which permits relatively free access to abortion services. That is a fact.
It is an issue which even theologians have not been able to adequately resolve at what point the attribute of humanity begins. Everybody agrees that it begins at the point of birth. But whether it begins at some point before then during the course of pregnancy, at the point of conception, or at the point of inception where a man and woman decide that they would like to conceive, who knows. It is a very difficult question. That is one of the reasons why this whole matter has been left to the opinion of the individuals involved, and many people have argued that it should be. That, of course, is the majority opinion of Canadians today.
What I am trying to say is that by inserting the word "human" into this resolution as originally proposed, effectively this is thwarting what might be a decision of the courts if this resolution in the end becomes a part of the Constitution. I am hoping that this matter will not be held to the Constitution. A number of Hon. Members have argued, as I would if I were speaking on the main motion, that it is wrong to put this matter into the constitutional forum when it has been admitted

January 26, 1987
Right of Life
by everybody that what we are really talking about is a question of whether we, as the Parliament of Canada, wish to see changes in the abortion law.
I suggest that a resolution that on the one hand would, if amended, refer to the right of the unborn human being to life, liberty and security, and then on the other hand say that you cannot take that away except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, would create enormous contradictions. What about the rights of the woman who bears the child, who is also a human being with 20, 25, 35 years of life on this planet, and who maybe has to consider her obligations to earn a living, or to other children already born, or to a deformed or crippled child whom she is devoting a great deal of energy to maintaining here on this planet?
I feel that the injection of this word would further complicate a resolution which in the first place I find complex and rather difficult to accept. Therefore, I conclude by asking in a very serious way the Hon. Member to stand up and withdraw his amendment. I am sure he would be allowed to do that on a point of order and with the consent of his seconder, and to indicate that he would perhaps like that to be proposed as an amendment in committee, and that it is the intention of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe to propose such an amendment, if this matter goes to committee, but not to confound and confuse the debate on this difficult and sensitive issue in the House of Commons by having further debate on this particular amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We are debating on the amendment. Is the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) ready to debate on the amendment?


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak today to the amendment to the motion that was put forth by my colleagues from Grey-Simcoe and Peterborough. I want to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that I understand the Bill would not go to committee.
I welcome this opportunity because it brings to the foreground an especially sad and complex issue. It is an issue that should stir and upset the conscience of every male or female who would ever think of taking away a life, with never a chance to live.
I want to backtrack a moment and speak briefly about the history of legalized abortion. In 1969 parliamentarians were dealing with the idea of competing rights, the rights of what were thought to be only a clump of cells versus the rights of a woman. Some parliamentarians at that time thought they were being asked to legalize what was already taking place in the hospitals, in other words, to make legal a few hundred abortions a year for serious medical reasons.
Are we prepared to recognize that our laws must accord intrinsic worth and equal value to the life of every human
being, regardless of its stage of development or condition? It is surely a specious argument to say that a foetus in any stage of development is not a person. What then is it? Science is slowly but inevitably providing the evidence to support the long held view of many people today that the separate identity and unique humanity of the foetus can only lead us to the conclusion that any foetus is a little human being who, given half a chance to grow and prosper, will some day be an adult dressed as you and I in this chamber today.
I have always believed that the humanness of the unborn child is the key issue in the abortion question. Instead of a few hundreds abortions to save the lives of women, we have the shame of our present day and age with 70,000 to 80,000 abortions a year, done for the sake of convenience in our local hospitals.
As a parliamentarian I am deeply disturbed, disappointed and distressed that compassionate people in just about every walk of life today turn a blind eye to the rights of the unborn. The Charter of Rights states that everyone has the right to life, to liberty, the right to security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
I mentioned in a speech a number of years ago in the House that if the development of the treatment of babies in the womb moved further into the earlier stages of pregnancy, the argument over the point at which the foetus becomes human would diminish in relevancy. I believe my thoughts have to be substantiated. With foetal treatment already taking place in the fourth month of gestation, we have moved back beyond the point at which even very recently the supporters of abortion had argued that the foetus could not be considered human. Except in situations which are clearly life threatening to the mother, the taking of the life of the unborn child will be increasingly difficult to justify, regardless of the stage of development.
Medical research has now revealed that despite the fact that most pregnancies are not detected until the sixth week, even by then the baby's heart has been beating for three weeks and brain waves can be read, the nervous system has been complete, and he or she is about to begin moving although the mother will not feel it for three and a half months more.
Recently, in the middle of October, I read of a procedure that allowed surgery to be performed on a foetus outside its mother's body. The baby, Michael, had a birth defect. He would have died without this operation. A team of surgeons successfully operated to correct a blocked urinary tract and then returned him to the uterus and sewed up the womb.
At the time of the operation, the foetus was only 23 weeks old, just under six months. Certainly it was a living being then and happily a living being now.
What further medical advances await us? I stated that the conscience of all must be alerted to those who disrespect and hold little value for life. I am particularly appalled at the
January 26, 1987

phenomenon of what I call a new evil: the development of chemical abortifacients. I quote:
It is speculated that with the use of an oral abortifacient, the woman undergoing the killing of a new person within her uterus will not experience the guilt attendent upon the majority of surgical abortions. This is true insofar as she "will not be sure" if she has conceived, at what gestation age the baby was, nor exactly when she aborts the baby.
Such an abortion inducing drug may be marketed in France within a year. Will it be as easy now for a mother to abort a child as it is to cure a headache with an aspirin?
If we, together, can build a reasonable case for the belief that a child is human from conception; if we can bolster it with scientific evidence; if we can, over time, secure the attention of the medical profession, the courts, and certainly the politicians, and the people, I believe our argument will then prevail.
We must argue that this child-this foetus-is not the same person as the mother, that it is not part of the mother. He or she is a genetically unique being, totally dependent on the mother for a while, but possessed of the potential to become as strong and healthy and prosperous as any of us here today.
Let me make one last important point. We who support this position have a duty to put an end to the unwholesome practices of a society which condemns the unwed mother. This is the attitude that I believe led to the proliferation of illegal abortion which caused our law to be changed in the first place. I believe that any pregnant woman who has the courage to take her child to term deserves our full support as politicians, whether she keeps it or gives it up to the thousands of adoptive parents whose homes are warm and waiting. The child merits the concern and protection of society, regardless of the circumstances of conception and birth.
When life is granted and when life is produced, it is then that pro lifers must be at their most active, to replace rhetoric with dollars and helping hands to ensure that this life can be lived in conditions of decency and love, with basic needs satisfied. Otherwise, we receive the label of being hypocrites and do-gooders.
I believe there is a tremendous role for the church to play today. What an opportunity to reach out to bewildered, hurting people. It is not enough for the church to condemn and criticize, we need to offer a positive alternative to aborting babies. The church family can reach out today in love and sympathy to unwed pregnant women, assisting in every way possible.
If we can provide homes and ensure profitable lives for the infants who today are being aborted, then we can assure Canadians that every child born in this country can indeed be a wanted child.


John Edmund Parry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on a point of order.
Right of Life


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the obvious discrepancy between the two bills, the one in English and the one in French as printed in the Projected Order of Business. I should like to know whether the amendment is in order when it is only presented in English. It is obvious, when referring to the French text, that the substance of the amendment is already included in the motion which means that there are two texts for the same motion under consideration, one in English and one in French which are different.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does realize that the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) has a very valid point, and I will reserve on it for the time being, the amendment having been presented in the way it has. I think all Hon. Members can at this point continue with the debate and the next time the Bill comes up for debate, the Chair, with the help which has been given by all Hon. Members, will be able to rule on the discrepancy between the French version and the English version of the main motion.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wonder if you could indicate to the House what your position will be with regard to the Speaker's list. You have indicated we are now speaking on the amendment. In the event it is determined that the amendment was not in fact a necessity, that it was simply a printing error, will those Hon. Members have an opportunity to speak to the main motion, if they have already spoken to the amendment-even though the amendment was improperly put?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does not see this as a printing error at all. Therefore, anyone who has spoken on the main motion can speak again. There is no problem. We will reserve on that point, but anyone who wants to speak again has the possibility to do so.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I want to address a few words on the amendment and on the motion by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), as well. I think it will come as no surprise to Hon. Members of the House that I agree in both principle and in practice with the motion which has been proposed. I extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for his courage and perseverance in moving the motion.
The particular amendment suggested is, in my opinion, strictly a technical amendment which will introduce the word "human" to clarify that the motion does indeed deal with "human beings", and in so doing comply with the French version.
It is more significant than simply an amendment that the word "human" is dealt with because of the general thrust of the motion that the Government should consider the advisability of protecting the human foetus along with the human being

January 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
in the Charter of Rights. Therefore, the role of humanness becomes very fundamental. If one reviews the Criminal Code thus far, the status of the "human being" is very ambiguous. Section 206 of the Criminal Code states that:
A child becomes a human being . .. when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother-
I think that this particular definition of humanness overlooks over a decade of medical research and development. We now have in utero surgery and more advanced research in genetics and foetal development, and it is clearly evident that a human being, distinctly and genetically different from its mother, does exist before the time in Section 206 when the human being simply emerges from the mother. Therefore, it is very important that we emphasize the humanness of this particular issue.
The motion, as it has been put, should be considered by all Hon. Members of the House within the framework that we are simply asking the Government to consider the advisability of amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When Hon. Members vote on this motion, if they vote in the affirmative, that is they vote to agree with the motion, that is not saying the Government will change the Charter of Rights immediately or even proceed to do so. I would like to address this to those Hon. Members who have expressed some reservations about the amending formula and the degree of consultation required between the provinces and Ottawa. Now is the time for consultation. Now is the time we should consider this question as a constitutional question. However, this motion reads that the Government should be asked "to consider the advisability", and I hope Hon. Members will keep that in mind.
Most important, this motion is a call to accountability of Members of Parliament. It has been a very reasoned debate thus far. However, I am a little disappointed in my colleagues on the Government side as well as from the two Opposition Parties when I hear the argument that we need more consultation, that we must give this issue more time, that this issue is so morally delicate that it should not be addressed by politicians. These are some of the points raised, and I know they have been raised in good faith by Hon. Members of all Parties. However, it is because of the moral delicacy of this issue and because of the fundamental importance of this issue in Canadian society that I submit this motion should be a rallying point for Members of Parliament and for the Canadian people. It is vitally important that Hon. Members stand up and be counted on this issue. I do not think it is acceptable that Hon. Members say we should give the issue more time or further consultation.
Often polls and different polling data is introduced into discussion on this issue. I know all of us, regardless of what particular view we take on the sensitive issue of abortion, acknowledge there have been many polls done. However, I think we should, with a balanced and reasonable view, look at the most important poll of all, and that is the lengthy list of the numbers of abortions performed every year in Canada. I agree with Hon. Members of all Parties that in a perfect world there
would be no abortion. I agree with the need for contraception and information. But this is not a perfect world. We have within a myriad of regulations in the Criminal Code an ambiguous collection of laws which allows over 70,000 abortions to be performed every year. That is some imperfection, Madam Speaker. It is an imperfection which is literally depriving Canada of a generation of citizens.
What do we do about that? We can no longer rely on the provinces through their administration of medical services plans or on hospitals under whose responsibility falls therapeutic abortion committees because to do so is to abdicate the fundamental responsibility of this issue. The fundamental question is life, humanness and the definition of where and when that life begins and how we, as Members of Parliament, should deal with the question of humanity. This is strictly a matter for at least the Criminal Code and quite probably, as this motion indicates, for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We cannot, and should not, say any longer that it is someone else's responsibility. It is the responsibility of all 282 Members of this Parliament to see this issue is addressed.
In closing, I want to state again my strong and unwavering support for this motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe. I would like to ask-in fact, to put it in stronger terms, I would like to plead with Hon. Members to view this particular motion in its context. This motion asks the Government of Canada to consider the advisability of amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think we should ask the Government to consider looking at this issue. Regardless of what point of view one brings into this House, I think it is not too much to ask that the advisability be considered of entrenching a right to life of the unborn. I know that time does restrain all of us. I have a number of other points to make, but I will close by thanking you, Madam Speaker, for giving me this time. I would like to extend my thanks to all Hon. Members, particularly to the Hon. Member for Grey- Simcoe, and I would encourage all Hon. Members of Parliament to be heard on this issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) this order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper. It can be expected to be scheduled for debate next on February 13, 1987.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
January 26, 1987

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, as I was sitting here this evening, I wondered if you happened to be now or whether you had ever been a member of a service club. I happen to be a member of the Lions International, and I wondered if perhaps you might have been a Lioness. It does not really matter whether Your Honour is a member or have been a member of a service club, I know that you are definitely aware of all of the good works that the service clubs do, whether it be the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis Club, the Kinsmen, Civitan, Zonta, the Lions or whatever.
I know that you are aware, Madam Speaker, as well, that the main purpose of service clubs is to try to raise money to help the unfortunate, the disabled and to help out in one's own community and in other communities around the world.
Different service clubs have a variety of ways of raising money. For instance, my own club raises money by selling fertilizer every spring. Actually, every spring since 1965 I have been out on the trail in our own community knocking on doors, selling fertilizer. We have found in our community and in our club that the most popular form of fertilizer is, of course, one which contains a weed killer. That is quite understandable because we all know what a problem broad-leaf weeds can be, whether they be dandelions, plantains or whatever. Every spring we have to get out in the yard and dig them out and by late spring they are sprouting again, as they are in the fall. So all of us are interested in having something in the way of a weed killer that gets rid of weeds in our lawns, if we happen to have one.
It came as quite a shock to me to hear that it may very well be that the main weed killer ingredient in those fertilizers, and for that matter the main weed killer for all broad-leaf weeds,
2.4-	D, may be banned in this country by the spring. Of course, spring is almost on us. March 21 of this year marks the beginning of spring. So it came as quite a shock to me to learn this information.
I investigated just what was going on. I found that 2,4-D apparently has been suspected of being a cancer-causing agent. That came as a real shock to me because I know that 2,4-D was developed some time after the end of the Second World War. It has been with us now for something in the order of 40 years. Not only is it used on our lawns as a weed killer, it is used by the forest industries to choke out the growth that may destroy young plants and young trees that are coming up. It is also used in our agricultural industries to control weeds among our grain crops, crops such as wheat, oats and barley, since apparently they are all forms of grass.
There will be quite an enormous impact on all of us individually in our everyday life at home and in our industries, including food, agriculture and forestry. There will be an enormous impact because I am told that last year there was some 4.5 million kilograms of 2,4-D sprayed on some seven million hectares of land in Canada and that around the world
2.4-	D is used in some 1,000 different products. Last year they
Adjournment Debate
had sales around the world amounting to $14 bilion. If the manufacture of 2,4-D is suddenly shut down in the country, it will have an enormous impact upon all our lives.
I understand that the Province of Ontario and the Province of New Brunswick have already imposed some form of restriction on the sale of 2,4-D. Ontario, for instance, says that it has placed a moratorium on any new products which contain
2.4-	D.
Three Departments of the federal Government are investigating the situation-the Department of the Environment, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of National Health and Welfare. They will determine, apparently by spring, whether or not we should be banning 2,4-D in the country. Of course some say that 2,4-D is a pesticide and that it is a health hazard. However, I have been told by others, particularly a good friend and horticulturalist, a broadcaster on the subject of horticulture in Metropolitan Toronto by the name of Art Drysdale, that it is really not a pesticide, that it is really a hormone, and that it does not deserve all the bad publicity which it has been getting.
One way or another, whether it is a health hazard or whether it is a hormone which is not harmful, the federal and provincial Governments are investigating it. I understand that the Americans are also investigating to see whether or not they will shut down and ban the use of 2,4-D.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will throw some more light on the subject tonight, because it is of vital importance to all Canadians. Whether we be urban dwellers, whether we work in the forest industry, or whether we work in agriculture, it has a vital impact on all our lives. I am looking forward to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary what is the latest word on the potential banning of 2,4-D this year.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond more fully to the question raised by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) on November 18, 1986.
As the Hon. Member indicated during his question, the herbicide 2,4-D has been registered for use in Canada for approximately 40 years. More recently, a consortium of companies which manufacture and sell 2,4-D formed a task force for the purpose of sponsoring a variety of studies on the chemical.
In June, 1986 the task force submitted to officials of the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare the results of its first long-term feeding study in rats designed to determine the potential of 2,4-D to cause cancer under experimental conditions.
Officials of the Health Protection Branch conducted a comprehensive review of the information made available in the particular study. They concluded that the administration of
2.4-	D in a lifetime feeding study to rodents produced a

January 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
statistically significant increase in the incidence of malignant brain tumors as compared with contemporary control animals.
In addition, Dr. Sheila Hoar and her co-workers at the United States National Cancer Institute have recently published the results of a study conducted in Kansas. The authors of this study have concluded that Kansas farmers using a variety of herbicides, in particular 2,4-D, were at an increased risk of developing a rare form of cancer. We believe that the evidence recently published by the doctor and her coworkers, when taken together with the experimental results demonstrated in rodents, suggests that 2,4-D may be a potential human carcinogen.
Officials of the Health Protection Branch have advised their colleagues in the Department of Agriculture that human exposure to 2,4-D should be kept to an absolute minimum and that alternate chemicals should be used wherever possible.
I see Madam Speaker signalling that I am running out of time. I should like to conclude by saying that consultations and the co-operation suggested in the studies are ongoing with the various Departments. Indeed some positions will be arrived at in the not too distant future.


TRADE-UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER. (B) MINISTER'S POSITION-CANADIAN PROPOSAL
Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, on December 5, I put a question to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) concerning the Government's plans with regard to the softwood lumber countervail duty which had already been imposed in a preliminary way on the industry. Since that time, the Government has totally capitulated to the United States and has not waited for the U.S. to impose or not impose a countervail duty. Instead the Government has imposed an export tax. There is a significant difference in the two arrangements. Clearly the Canadian softwood lumber industry is violently opposed to the Government imposing an export tax. People in the industry and many others believe that we could have defeated the U.S. softwood lumber coalition plan either in the trade tribunals in the United States, in the trade courts, or before the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel in Geneva, Switzerland.
In any event, the Government has moved ahead with the imposition of an export tax which is most unfair. It infringes on our sovereignty and does not take into account the traditional arrangements we have had for native people. It is a decision which will come back to haunt the Government and future governments for many years to come. Outstanding constitutional experts and international legal experts during the past two weeks have said the same thing.
We are most concerned in my section of the country of northern Ontario. During the months of November and December, while this countervail duty of 15 per cent was in place, three major softwood lumber producers shut down operations or reduced the number of shifts. This would be bad
enough if that were the end of the issue, but the softwood lumber industry does not make the estimated $550 million to $600 million a year which the 15 per cent export tax is expected to cost. The industry does not make that much profit now. How can companies absorb the tax and turn any profit at all? No industry can operate indefinitely without some profit margin.
It has been made clear in a letter from Trade Representative Yeutter and Secretary of Commerce Baldrige to the United States Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports that they intend to have control over where that money goes in Canada. It cannot be used for forestry related projects, for roads, or for supporting or encouraging the industry. Where will the money go, Madam Speaker? It will go to the provincial Governments but it cannot be used in support of the industry. The more distressing concern is that the United States Government is demanding the export tax of $550 million or $600 million be imposed at that same level as a stumpage charge by the provinces.
Stumpage charges are, of course, right across the board. When you impose that level of tax as stumpage, the total cost to the industry and to Canadian customers and other export customers will be closer to $870 million, as estimated by the United States. If the industry cannot afford a tax of $550 million or $600 million, how will it be able to afford a converted stumpage charge? Of course, the precedent will be set for the American pulp and paper industry to demand and receive a similar kind of tax to be imposed on the Canadian pulp and paper industry whose exports to the United States are two to three times as large as those of the softwood lumber industry.
Areas like my riding are faced with an incredible dilemma. Many plants had to shut down during the month of December. The industry does not know how it will pay this tax and still survive. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some answers and some hope. I hope she will appreciate the dilemma that is faced.
The tax is unfair. Producers in Ontario pay a stumpage charge of something like $17.50 per thousand board feet while in British Columbia, the equivalent stumpage charge on similar kinds of softwood lumber is about $4.50. Yet the export tax is identical: 15 per cent across the board. It is much easier for B.C. lumber mill operators to pay the tax and still survive. In Ontario, the producers have to pay the very high stumpage fee while still paying the flat tax.
I hope the Government will move decisively on this because the industry is facing a terrible dilemma. Hundreds and thousands of jobs in northern Ontario will be lost due to this export tax.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond to the question my colleague directed to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) on December
January 26, 1987

5. It will be recalled that following the United States Commerce Department's preliminary determination on softwood lumber on October 16, a number of options were identified and assessed in close co-operation with industry and the provinces. None of these options were without significant problems and there were widely divergent views on how best to proceed.
It soon became apparent, however, that notwithstanding our strong case, a reversal of this preliminary determination was most unlikely and that the final ruling as well would go against us. In the circumstances, it was decided to explore the possibility of a negotiated solution which would protect Canadian interests to the greatest possible degree.
There is no doubt that the understanding signed on December 30 fully meets these objectives. The Minister pointed out previously that it recognizes the sovereign right of the provinces to manage their own resources. It ensures that any additional revenues will remain in Canada. Finally, it avoids
Adjournment Debate
creating a precedent in the implementation of United States countervailing law that could have an extremely damaging effect not only on our trade in lumber but on a wide range of other resource-based products.
These negotiations were carried out in the face of pressures from the United States for a far more stringent settlement. The pressures were successfully resisted and the settlement we signed was on our own terms. It represents, I believe, the best possible solution to a long and troublesome dispute.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, January 27, 1987