1987-11-27

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau) moved:: That this House condemn the Government for its destructive influence on the Canadian transportation industry by its impractical and slavish adherence to the ideological myth of deregulation and its inept trade negotiations with the United States, in particular, through:
(1)	deregulation of the trucking industry, giving U.S. truckers open access to Canadian markets while 43 heavily regulated American states deny Canadian truckers the same advantage;
(2)	introduction in the railway industry of "Competitive Rail Line Rate" provisions allowing American railways free access to Canadian markets while denying reciprocal arrangements for Canadian railways;
(3)	failing to seek and obtain in the trade agreement equitable treatment in the United States for Canadian airlines; and
(4)	abandoning its legislation on the Canadian coasting trade and failing to obtain any benefits in the trade agreement for Canadian maritime industries.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was concluded at the beginning of October, not many people wondered about the impact it would have on Canada's transportation industry. It is clear, however, that as far as transportation is concerned, Canada loses across the board. In fact, we have given our trucking industry away to the Americans through our massive deregulation in this country. The competitive line rates mechanism in Bill C-18 on deregulation of the transportation industry in Canada gives U.S. railway companies broad access to the Canadian market.
Furthermore, the air transportation industry, where we could have negotiated certain cabotage rights, has been excluded outright from the Free Trade Agreement. And lastly, after making so many concessions in the other sectors, we were turned down flatly when it came to shipping.
In fact, our marine industries are getting strictly nothing out of the free trade talks. As far as we of the Liberal Party of Canada are concerned, the transportation sector is losing
across the board. That is why today, we tabled this motion condemning the Conservative Government.
First, I would like to talk about marine transportation. This is what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) had to say in an interview with the Canadian press a few days ago.

He said he's disappointed that the terms of the transportation annex
attached to the free-trade agreement don't go far enough in freeing
transportation services from protective controls.
Do I have to remind Hon. Members that the Conservative Government's stated motive for entering into this treaty was, after all, to buy exemptions from protectionist U.S. law, an objective that has not been achieved at all?

By reserving the right to review the provisions on marine shipping in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. Senate caught the Canadian Minister of Transport with his pants down. On September 23, the U.S. Senate Rules Committee approved a decision to amend the fast track formula that allowed the U.S. Senate to either accept or reject, but not amend, the Agreement. The U.S. Senate will now be allowed to amend the Agreement's provisions on marine shipping, but only those provisions. Now that fifty-six U.S. Senators and 253 members of Congress have signed resolutions asking that any provisions liable to harm U.S. merchant shipping be taken out of the Canada-U.S. Agreement, it seems their goal is to persuade the U.S. Administration to remove all provisions concerning coastal trade if it wants the rest of the Agreement to stand.
Judging by the second draft of the annex received last week, the Reagan Administration is taking this measure very seriously. It is therefore unfortunate that our Minister of Transport had to admit last Friday that he could do nothing. In fact, the latest document on the transportation industry has revealed that Canadian carriers will be excluded from any new marine shipping program, such as supplies for the U.S. Government and preferential commodities.
The Canadian marine industry had decided to challenge the Jones Act of 1920, the merchant marine legislation which regulates practically every aspect of the marine industry in the United States. The Canadian shipping companies were quite disappointed when they realized that the Free Trade Agreement would not result, as they had hoped, in the drawing-up of a "Jones Act" for the whole North American continent which, according to Mr. Fred Pitre, Vice President of the Canada Steamship Lines, would have combined the openness and

November 27, 1987
Supply
flexibility of the Canada Shipping Act with the national security guarantees of the Jones Act.
Speaking on behalf of the Dominion Marine Association, its president, Mr, Norman Hall, would want, in the absence of a global shipping free trade deal, the Canadian negotiators to at least consider the issue of discriminatory investment practices in the United States. An American marine company may now invest up to 100 per cent in a Canadian company and use a foreign built ship to transport goods from one Canadian port to another. On the other hand, a Canadian investor may purchase only 25 per cent of an American shipping firm and must use only ships built in the United States. The competition, therefore, is not fair and is totally disadvantageous to the Canadian economy. That is a blatant disparity which will be confirmed by the Reagan-Mulroney Agreement.
On the other hand, it would be to the advantage of Canadian shipyards and their employees that the Canadian coasting trade be protected just as the American merchant marine is under the Jones Act. Mr. Clarke, President of the Shipyards Association, for fear that a relaxation of the protective provisions would open Canada's door to ships built abroad, wishes to see the Canadian legislation provide the same protection as its American counterpart. Finally, the Seafarers International Union and the Merchant Service Guild, unions which represent some 5,000 Canadian sailors, share these views.
The two unions fear that the Canadian coasting trade will be taken by storm by ships bearing new names, and operated by American equipment and crews.
While the American marine industry was exerting considerable pressure to prevent our merchant marine from gaining access to the domestic market of the United States, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-52 providing that the coasting trade in Canadian waters would be reserved to Canadian ships.
On the one hand, when the Bill was before the House, we underlined the fact that allowing ships under foreign flags to take part in shipping activities in Canadian costal waters because of a lack of Canadian ships constituted a dangerous concession to foreign, and especially to American shippers.
On the other hand, it was perhaps even more appropriate to state as we did that the Conservative Government had picked a very bad time to propose amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and that it should have dealt with this issue much earlier during its mandate, in 1985 or 1986. A few weeks later, the Minister of Transport confirmed our views when he ordered that the hearings of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-52 be suspended until completion of the Free Trade Agreement.
The problem is now very serious. According to the allegations of the American shippers to the effect that any new legislation or amendment to existing statutes should provide national treatment for the other country, if Bill C-52 receives passage after ratification of the Free Trade Agreement,
Canada would have to grant national treatment to American shipping companies.
That is the problem. Thus, through its neglect, the Conservative Government has treatened the plausibility of a reform of Canadian shipping legislation based on national prerogatives and is now running the risk of letting the American companies take over our shipping industry because of its delay in providing adequate legislation for our own industry.
Last Friday, when replying to my questions, the Minister said that the United States had refused to budge on certain points. One of these points was the shipping industry. At the very worst, the status quo would be maintained. I say that the status quo is unacceptable. It represents a total failure on the part of the Minister of Transport, who is well known for his jokes, but it is clear today that the Canadian shipping industry is not laughing. It is horrified by the incompetence of this Minister.
The crux of the problem resides in the fact that the text of the first schedule and of the later version could provide easier access to Canada in the future for American coasting vessels while the Canadian shipping industry could not have access to the American market.
There is no need to remind the House that the Canadian shipping industry is entirely owned by Canadians, and it has been stupidly sacrificed to get a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. This is most unfortunate since, of all Canadian industries, it is the best suited to compete with the Americans. While our shipping industry costs absolutely nothing to Canadian taxpayers, the American industry is strongly subsidized, receiving some $270 million a year.
Following a Free Trade Agreement with the United States, there would be a serious imbalance: First, the Americans will be able to own Canadian companies while the reverse will be impossible. Second, the Americans will be able to sell duty free in Canada ships built for them, while it will be impossible under any conditions to sell Canadian built ships in the United States. Third, ships sailing under the Stars and Stripes will be able to request, and in some cases obtain, exemptions from the Canadian legislation to carry out their operations in Canada, and once more, the reverse will be impossible.
No wonder Mr. Norman Hall, President of the Dominion Marine Association, asked that negotiations on transportation issues in the Canada-U.S. free trade talks be suspended for 90 days because the current wording is too lopsided in favour of the Americans. Mr. Hall warned that elimination of the duty over a 10-year period as proposed in the free trade agreement would end up wiping out Canadian companies. It would mean Americans will set up shipping companies in Canada with duty free U.S. built 1,000 foot ships offering cheaper rates because of their size compared to the smaller 750-foot Canadian built vessels. Trade on the Great Lakes between Canada and the
November 27, 1987

U.S. is now 90 per cent controlled by Canadian shipping companies, but that will change rapidly in the future in favour of the Americans.
Mr. Hall also fears the free trade deal will negate the effects of the coastal trade Bill, an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which would extend the exclusive right of Canadian vessels' access to work offshore up to 200 miles from the current 12 miles. The free trade deal will ultimately give American supply vessels to the oil rigs in those waters too. It is now clear to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), our captain, has abandoned the ship.

Now I should like to comment briefly on rail transport. During the hearings on Bill C-18, both CN and CP expressed deep concern over the consequences which the implementation of competitive rail line rates might have on their financial viability in the coming years. Pursuant to Bill C-18, a captive shipper might ask a carrier to take goods to a junction point where he might benefit from a cheaper rate offered by another carrier who would transport such goods to their final delivery point.
The rail companies consider that competitive rail line rates are the most serious threat to their own financial viability. In their testimony before the Standing Committee on Transport the management of both companies raised objections to this open-door competitiveness and to the option Canadian shippers would thus have to deal directly with American rail companies. The way they saw it, such conditions would entail a sharp decline in revenue, and that in turn would make railroads increasingly dependent on the Americans and, more particularly, force them to slash capital expenditures just to stay in business.
Responding to such concerns, the Government went along with a suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Lachine-an amendment which, after review, would allow for partly or totally suspending competitive rail line rates. The amendment, a new clause, reads as follows in Bill C-18:
Where, as a result of a review conducted pursuant to section 266 or 267, it is found in a report submitted under either of those sections that the financial viability of Canadian railway companies has been seriously affected by the operation of sections 134 to 142, the Governor in Council may, by order, suspend the operation of those sections, either entirely or with respect to such kinds of traffic as are specified in the order, whereupon those sections cease to be in force, entirely or with respect to the specified kinds of traffic, during such period as is specified in the order or until the order is revoked.
At the time we commended the Government for its decision even though we did not feel it went far enough, for we looked at it as being a constructive measure on the part of a government which, throughout the whole debate on deregulation of transportation in Canada, had seldom abandoned its unflexible and ideological approach. The Reagan-Mulroney Agreement would seem to jeopardize the continued existence of this modest guarantee. Should a transportation annex along the
Supply
lines of the two other texts we have examined so far be implemented, it seems U.S. railway companies would be exempted from the provision on competitive line rates according to Section B of Article 11(2), which reads as follows:
In case of amendments to, or subsequent adoption of measures pursuant to existing measures, which would increase differences or discrimination against national enterprises of the parties, persons and companies of the other party must be given national treatment in the activity sectors suffering additional discrimination or different treatment.
If the final text contained such provisions, any study concluding that the viability of Canadian railway companies is in serious jeopardy because of competition from American railways as a result of competitive line rates, would in itself be an exercise in futility. In this kind of situation, suspending competitive line rates would actually mean applying a new measure in line with existing measures, which might increase differences or discrimination against the parties' nationals and require the application of national treatment to individuals and companies of the other party.
This is at complete variance with the official position taken in Ottawa, according to which all measures contained in Canadian statutes will remain unchanged. Once again, the Canadian Government has caved in to the Americans, and our conclusion must be that the Canadian railways will lose out under the Reagan-Mulroney Agreement.
In concluding, I would like to comment briefly on the trucking question, where again it is quite clear the Government has abdicated its responsibility, under pressure from the powerful American lobby. We know, since we asked the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina) whether Canadian truckers would be protected under the Free Trade Agreement. This week the Minister of State (Transport) was unable to give us a straight answer: "Yes, the truckers will be protected". She beat endlessly around the bush, without giving us any formal assurances in this respect.
I must say we are convinced, considering the eagerness of the American Trucking Association to see this Free Trade Agreement finalized, that the winners are going to be the U.S. trucking companies.
Interestingly, U.S. public opinion originally thought that the Agreement would give U.S. air carriers and truckers access to the Canadian market, and that in exchange, Canadian merchant shipping would have access to trade in U.S. coastal and inland waters. Now it seems the American shipping industry has thrown a wrench in the works, and that Canada is losing across the board as far as transportation is concerned. It loses in the trucking industry, it loses in the shipping industry, and it is losing in the railway sector. The only sector where it has not lost out, and only because that particular sector was completely excluded from the free trade talks, is in the air transportation industry. However, it can hardly be said to be making progress either. As we know, the present situation in the air transportation sector clearly favours the U.S. companies, at the expense of our Canadian companies.

November 27, 1987
Supply
I may say, in concluding, that the Conservative Government has failed to do its duty in the transportation industry. It is too bad that a Government that has two Ministers-one Minister of Transport and one Minister of State-to defend the interests of the transportation industry in Canada, has been unable to achieve better results. Here we have two Ministers I judge to be totally incompetent, and who should hand in their resignations as soon as possible.


Mr. McDermid:: As usual, I enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member speaking through his hat. He always gets his material and authoritative sources from the Americans. He spoke today of the latest version of the transport annex although it was an agreed upon annex. He knows full well that the annex from which he was quoting and which he is trying to convince the Canadian people is the final version was released by the Americans. It is their version of the annex but has not been agreed to yet. It is totally false to say that that is a factual document which indicates what will happen in the transportation annex.
We all know that the United States uses the tactic of releasing things to the public early. They enjoy watching the Liberal and New Democratic Parties grab on to these things. We saw it with some so-called secret briefing notes that were prepared two weeks before the agreement was signed. Of course, the Opposition read them with great fanfare in the House, but they did not bear any resemblance to the agreement that was signed.
The same is true in this case, with negotiations in public and using tactics like releasing the text of the annex. Our approach to negotiation is not to lay out our cards to the public, because it simply does not work. The Hon. Member knows that because he has been involved in negotiations. He did not negotiate in public when he had that responsibility.
He also knows that we have a sectoral advisory committee on transportation which is kept up to date and very much involved in what is happening with these negotiations.
The point I want to make is that the Liberals and New Democrats always take information from the United States as their authoritative source.


Mr. Boudria:: Who is kowtowing to them?


John Horton McDermid: No one is kowtowing to anyone at all. As Canadians come to understand the agreement, it is obvious that support is increasing.
We have not kowtowed to anyone. As a matter of fact, I believe that we had in Simon Reisman the top negotiator anywhere in negotiating this agreement with the United States. The Liberals and the NDP attack the man all the time, but he negotiated a pretty good agreement 22 years ago, which the Liberals will admit, and he will not see that agreement
jeopardized. The fact is that he has negotiated a very good agreement for Canada.
The opposition Parties continually quote the Americans and talk about the annex as if it had been approved and was in place. Why do they keep doing this? Why do they not listen to Canadians? Why do they not wait until they see the annex before they make these unfounded criticisms?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the only information we are able to obtain is the information that is made public by the American authorities. The Government has been secretive about this deal. It is absolutely unbelievable. What does the Conservative Government have to hide?


John Horton McDermid: Nothing.


André Ouellet: Why do you not release your documents like the Americans are doing?


John Horton McDermid: Because it has not been decided on.


André Ouellet: The Conservatives have made a bad deal and they are trying to keep it secret because they know the public will realize how bad it is if it comes out.


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


André Ouellet: The Government is the lowest in the polls. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) needed something because it was a question of life or death for him. He absolutely needs this deal. It was the only thing that could possibly salvage his political future, so he made the deal with the Americans.
It is a terrible deal. During the last 20 minutes I dealt specifically with the transportation field and how it is clearly a bad deal for that sector.
The Parliamentary Secretary totally avoided the discussion on transportation. He said it is a good deal and we should not rely on the American documentation because it is not yet finalized.


John Horton McDermid: Exactly.


André Ouellet: Are the negotiations continuing or not? We were told that the negotiations had been terminated.


Mrs. Sparrow:: That is not true.


André Ouellet: It is not true? So we do not have a deal, then. What are you bragging about? Do we or do we not have a deal?
On the one hand we have a deal, but the negotiations are not finished. What are the Conservatives talking about? They are trying to mislead the population. Either you have a deal or not. If you do not have a deal, you are misleading the Premiers by trying to make them believe that the deal has been concluded.
November 27, 1987

There is no doubt that this is a terrible deal in the field of transportation. Neither the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) nor the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina) have been able to articulate what is good for the Canadian transportation domain. On the contrary, the Minister of Transport said that he is disappointed because he has not been able to obtain what he has been trying to achieve.
We know that he already gave up a lot in the railway sector and trucking areas in order to obtain a breakthrough with the abolition of the Jones Act.
There is no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what he is talking about when he suggests that people support the deal. The Dominion Marine Association, the Canadian Trucking Association, and the Canadian Bus Association have all come out strongly against the free trade agreement as it has been presented to them so far, and they are asking the Government to suspend the drafting of the annex for 90 days in order for them to have an input in trying to change it.


John Horton McDermid: They have an input.


André Ouellet: If they want to change it, it is certainly because it is no good.
I want the Minister of State for Transport to try to answer the very specific questions I asked earlier and to show us if she knows something about transport.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, as we have just witnessed from this exchange, when it comes to talking through one's hat, the Parliamentary Secretary is a master and champion.
My question to the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) relates to statements made by R.J. Ritchie, VicePresident of CP Rail, who was quoted as saying that competitive line rates are tantamount to one-way free trade with the Americans. Mr. I.B. Scott, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CP Rail, was quoted as saying that his firm would lose $1.25 billion in revenue over the next five years. Finally, Norman Hall, President of the Dominion Marine Association, was quoted as saying a couple of days ago that the elimination of the 25 per cent duty on 1,000-foot ships would end up "wiping out Canadian companies". Would the Member for Papineau confirm and elaborate on these quotations?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that half a million Canadian workers are in danger-


John Horton McDermid: Here is the fear-mongering again.


André Ouellet: -from inappropriate gestures on the part of the Conservative Government to give away the Canadian trucking industry-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Tell the truth, Andre.
Supply


André Ouellet: -to give away the Canadian railway industry to the Americans in order to obtain an agreement with the Americans.


John Horton McDermid: He has no faith in Canadians. Typical Liberals.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want you to realize that despite the noise and reaction of Conservative Members, it is not me who is saying this. It is Canadian businessmen and the transport industry who are saying clearly that the action of the Conservative Government jeopardizes their industry. Clearly that is what it is. Therefore, I want to confirm what the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said, that, indeed, through the competitive line rates, the American railways are going to get an unjust advantage over the Canadian railways.
I see it is very painful for the Conservatives when we get to specific points. It is painful for them to have to talk specifically about the free trade deal. They would rather make those nice long speeches on the future of the country. But the future of the country is in relation to jobs and security of employment in some sectors. The responsible people in the transport industry are saying that because of this Government thousands of jobs will be lost to the Americans.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina).


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the opportunity the Opposition is giving the House today to consider the question of free trade and the transportation industry. At last the Opposition has decided to drop all pretences. In fact, I think genuine congratulations are in order here.
In the motion before the House today, the Opposition has decided to come clean.
During the past week, they have been trying to scare our partners in the transportation industry and the general public. However, the wording of today's motion is a clear indication they do not really want to talk about free trade. They want to challenge the whole deregulation process started by this Government. I would like to get back to that in a few moments. First of all, I would like to reiterate my congratulations, and I do so as I would to any other person taking part in a discussion on a committee, with a minimum of intellectual honesty.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the very ironic dimensions of what we have seen in this House during the past week. I must admit it is not very easy to understand the position the Liberal Party has taken on free trade. Its ideology on this very important issue is certainly not crystal clear. Once I finally managed to make some sense of their abstruse statements, I reached the conclusion that they were against the Agreement.

November 27, 1987
Supply
However, during the past week, the Opposition has been indignant about the fact that no substantial progress had been made in our free trade talks with United States with respect to the transportation sector. Mr. Speaker, I am looking for a modicum of logic in their position and I cannot find it. 1 keep telling myself there must be some consistency in their political thinking. But although I keep trying, I have not been able to find any. Unless, Mr. Speaker, this whole uproar is nothing but a lot of crocodile tears. In either case, Mr. Speaker, I find the situation opposite sad and depressing.
Mr. Speaker, in the past few days the Minister of Transport has said repeatedly in the House that we had not yet signed the agreement on transportation, that our negotiators were still working on it and that the transportation industry did not have to worry about its interests being sacrificed. It seems to me that is a as clear a statement as you can get from the Minister of Transport. There is certainly no room for ambiguity here.
However, Hon. Members opposite will not hear of it. They put their fingers in their ears and keep repeating all kinds of nonsense.
As I said earlier, today the Opposition has come clean. It is not challenging free trade but the whole deregulation of the transportation industry we started and which was put into effect by the National Transportation Act, 1986, and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, Bill C-18 and Bill C-19.
With his usual sense of style and proverbial courtesy, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) was suggesting last Tuesday that since I was so new to Transport, they should cut my pay.
Mr. Speaker, the most accurate statement made in the House during the past week was that I was indeed new to the Department of Transport and that I had brought with me some fresh ideas.
Fully absorbed in the activities of my other departments, I had not had much time to immerse myself in these issues. I should like to remind him, however, that as a representative of a distant riding, I have a gut knowledge of their importance. In my remarks, therefore, I want to bear witness to a situation.
I am amazed at the quality of the legislation which my Government has introduced in this most vital area of our economy.
Regulations were about to choke our transport industry under the previous Government,-the only one in the history of mankind which had managed to lose money with a lottery,-and we were about to sink. When we came into office 1984, we changed all that.
I refer Members opposite to our basic documents, including Freedom to Move, where we clearly defined the principles behind our action: First, less Government interference. This is a concept which the Liberals and to an ever greater degree the NDPs will never be able to understand. The type of Canada they foresee would be an enormous bureaucratic structure
where the Government would control everything in all areas of activities and where, year after year, it would do its utmost to increase the deficit.
The second principle involved in Freedom to Move: Greater reliance on competition and wider range of services to the public.
Again, two notions to which the Opposition is simply impervious. Why on earth should we be concerned about Canadian consumers? Why should we care about Canadian corporations which need efficient transportation services to remain competitive, to preserve existing jobs and create new ones?
Mr. Speaker, the callousness of our colleagues opposite to the needs of consumers is nothing new. I refer for instance to the urea-formaldehyde foam insulation problem. The previous Government spent over six years to try and solve the UFFI problem Canadian consumers were confronted with. At the time, the Liberal Government had done everything in its power to deny is responsibility in this regard. I am told that the UFFI case should be listed in the Guinness Book of Records because it is the one which required the most time to be settled and remained for the longest period before the courts. We, on the contrary, intend to pay very much attention to consumers. We take care of consumers and listen to their needs.
The third principle behind our action is our will to limit restrictive regulation and red tape. Again, this is a principle which is entirely foreign to the daily concerns of people opposite. But we are concerned, because the public expects this type of action.
The Government has incorporated these principles in Bills C-18 and C-19, and I am proud to be part of such a Government. The Opposition is going nowhere with its rearguard fights on legislation already adopted.
I should like now to deal with the various questions raised this week by the Opposition in the area of transport and free trade. Indeed, they are summarized quite well in this motion.
First, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be Einstein to realize that more trade between Canada and the United States will mean an increased movement of goods, and by extension, more transport. It is therefore obvious that one of the indirect effects of the Free Trade Agreement can only be very beneficial for the transport industry, as well as for all Canadians and all our industries.
Let us now look at each mode of transport seperately, starting with trucking. The Hon. Member for Papineau stated this week that the American transport companies would have unlimited access to the Canadian market while the boundaries of 43 American states would remain closed to our trucking companies. This is unaccurate, Mr. Speaker. Even after looking carefully through all the files of Transport Canada, we were unable to find a single case of a Canadian company which would have been denied the priviledge of operating a branch in one of those states.
November 27, 1987

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition conjures up ghosts and becomes convinced that they are real, then it begins to get scared and to scare the Canadian public. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous, intolerable and unacceptable.
The truth is that all Canadian transport companies have benefitted enormously from the deregulation of trucking in the United States. Over 1,000 Canadian companies now operate with enormous success in the United States. Coming back from Quebec City yesterday, I travelled with an owner who told me how effective our policy is and how he had enjoyed unrestricted access to the United States for several years.
Let us now look at railway transport. The Opposition makes a lot out of a statement by Mr. Ritchie, Vice President of the Canadian Pacific, to the effect that we have implemented a one way free trade system with the United States which benefits only the Americans. Of course, the comment of Mr. Ritchie has nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement, and everything to do with Section 134 of Bill C-18 on competitive line rates. Mr. Ritchie prefered the lack of competition and captive markets, which is easy to explain. The only problem is that the ones to suffer would be the Canadian workers. We have opened up this sector to the Canadian companies because it was in our best interests to do so. I am very sorry if that does not please everyone. As a Government, we were simply unwilling to sacrifice the interests of the many to please Mr. Ritchie.
Let us now talk about maritime transport. I have a double interest in that sector. First, my region, the lower Saint-Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula, has always been associated with the sea. Second, when I was with the Department of Supply and Services, I became quite familiar with the difficulties of the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
The maritime situation of our country raises many challenges, including the provision of efficient and economical shipping services to support Canadian trading activities. In 1985, over 325 million tons of goods were moved by ship in Canada, and this volume increased to just under 335 million tons in 1986. Of the $115 billion of goods exported last year, over 20 per cent were shipped by sea.
Protectionism is a threat to international maritime trade and to the position of Canada on world markets. Mr. Speaker, our Government is committed to promote free competition in international maritime transport, in spite of the problems caused by protectionism.
This is why, in the Free Trade Agreement negociations, we have tried to convince the Americans to amend their coasting trade regulations under the famous Jones Act. Under this Americam law any vessel plying American coastal waters must have been built in the U.S., be over 75 per cent owned by American interests, and bear the American flag.
As protectionist measures go, these are hard to beat, and I am sure all Ffon. Members would agree. As it stands now the American maritime sector is fully protected. Our situation in
Supply
Canada is different. Among other things, we do not force Canadian shippers to buy vessels built in Canadian shipyards. They are free to buy abroad, but then there is a 25 per cent levy.
Sad though it may be, the Americans were adamant and would not make any concession. I deplore this fact, but that is the way it is. They are sticking with the Jones Act, and that is their right. We too Canadians had non-negotiable sectors, and Members opposite are fully aware of them. One of the very legitimate concerns of the Canadian shipbuilding industry is of course the fact that under the free trade agreement all tariffs between Canada and the United States will disappear over the next ten years, and that includes the 25 per cent rate applicable to foreign-built vessels.
Because we share the industry's concern, we have announced that the Government will not sign an agreement which might prove to be unfavourable to the national interest. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and other Ministers have so assured the House on a number of occasions.
In addition, as the Minister of Transport explained last Tuesday, Bill C-52 on coasting trade and commercial marine activities makes it possible for us to offer even more protection to Canadian maritime interests and our own shipbuilding industry. We will not hesitate to use that mechanism should it ever become necessary to do so. Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the Bill was adopted last May 1, and it is aimed at rationalizing and updating the process of eligibility for coastal trade. Regulatory procedures will be streamlined so that owners of Canadian vessels will no longer have to secure a coastal trade permit.
The Bill also restricts coastal trade activities to vessels flying the Canadian flag and goes on to define the activities covered by these provisions as well as the extent of it application. More specifically, henceforth Canada's coastal trade regulations will apply 200 instead of 12 miles offshore as a result of Bill C-52. A system of exemptions is in place to ensure that adequate maritime services respond to the needs of Canadians.
The Bill has gone through second reading and been referred to committee, and we intend to complete its study and, indeed, have it adopted.
Mr. Speaker, to sum up the situation concerning the liberalization of trade with respect to maritime transport services, I would say there has been no progress. Given these circumstances-and since we cannot even dismiss the possibility of still more protectionism in years to come-the least we expect is to achieve a status quo so that we might resume discussions on free coastal trade at a later date. That is the very difficult question we will have to settle in the near future. Again I can assure the House that we will act in the best interests of Canada as well as those of the maritime transport and shipbuilding industries.

November 27, 1987
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, I have managed to convince my colleagues opposite that their fears are groundless. This week the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) commented on my being a young Minister of Transport. Truth to tell, Mr. Speaker, I hope that in months and years to come I will be able to maintain the challenging approach which has been the hallmark of our Government since September 1984. May God spare me from the opposition to change and the resignation of my colleagues on the other side!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: As I
indicated yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on the Quebec Charter of the French language, and so are a lot of Francophones both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, I can assure you. Quebec's French Language Bureau has provided examples within the European Common Market where France has been obliged to accept products with labelling in Italian only.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Conservative Government to make sure that the final text states ... If the Government has provided for environmental protection, it should see to it that the final text states that in Canada, the English and French languages have equal status and that Quebec has a right to legislate on language issues.

[DOT] (MOO)



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, leading scientists, scholars, and engineers are today taking part in a symposium with parliamentarians on Parliament Hill. The symposium is organized with the assistance and help of the Royal Society of Canada and the Committee of Parliamentarians, Scientists, and Engineers, at the request of an all-Party group of parliamentarians.
The symposium entitled "Towards an Effective Dialogue between Parliamentarians and Scientists", consists of nine workshops on Canada's changing population, new developments and opportunities in the science of materials, global change, human impact on the environment, the impact of
science on the North, space technology, resource management, the AIDS epidemic, the future of biotechnology, and environment and sustainable development.
The Speakers of both Houses of Parliament are supporting this event. In addition to invited speakers, and representatives of many national scientific and engineering organizations, the event is open to the media.
We congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and with you the Royal Society of Canada and COPSE for making this initiative possible. We hope it will take place every year to facilitate understanding between scientists and parliamentarians for the benefit of Canadians and the global community.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defense is about to award a contract for the construction of six frigates.
According to the main bidder there should be only one builder with expertise in frigate construction because of lower costs. That is not true! A monopoly situation is always more expensive.
Faced with such a huge order, the main bidder would no longer control its direct or fixed costs. The Government could be forced to give in. A mere 2 per cent budget over run for all the frigates already cancels out the so-called additional costs of $79 million per frigate non built in St-John. Only one frigate building shipyard would mean: a quite inadequate defense industrial base; a total lack of competition for the main marine construction works; an obvious deficiency in marine repair industrial capacity, especially in case of a conflict; an impossibility to maintain at least two alternative sources of shipbuilding, with one located in a protected area in time of conflict, along the St Lawrence River.
That is the reason why this expertise must be shared.



PETRO-CANADA ETHANOL FUEL DECISION-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago Petro-Canada announced that it would not be proceeding with the sale of fuel produced from a possible ethanol plant in Dawson Creek, British Columbia. This has discouraged farmers on both sides of the Alberta border in the Peace
November 27, 1987

country. I wish to make the statement that this is not the time to quit on this issue. In fact, it is the time to press ahead.
Both the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) and myself have been very concerned with this issue. The Government needs to look at it as a high priority. The Government needs to consider a number of things. First there is the value of the fuel itself, and the problems that come with it, but, more important, the advantages that I think exist.
Second, the Government needs to look at the impact it will have on agriculture, both in terms of the use of grain in the area, and also in terms of cash flow for our farmers.
Third, the Government must pay particular attention to research that has already been conducted in this area in countries such as Brazil, and by companies such as Ford, that I understand are experiencing considerable success.
Fourth, the Government must consider the fact that it is mandating removal of lead from fuels, and it has to consider the option of using methanol in that product.
Now is the time for action; it is not the time to sit back and rest.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian shipbuilding industry lingers in a state of crisis dating back to the early 1980s.
The former Liberal Government responded to industry demands in 1984 with a Task Force on Deep Sea Shipping. Appointed in April, 1984, the majority of this task force, chaired by Professor Gunnar Sletmo of Montreal, "recommended that the federal Government not take steps towards the establishment of a core deep sea fleet under Canadian flag". Two members, presidents of Canadian seafaring unions, dissented from this misguided recommendation.
Shipyard workers are now hearing talk about another task force on shipbuilding. A Conservative Government that has stated no policy on shipbuilding knows that it will soon be facing the voters, and it too wants to buy time with talk. It is particularly anxious to do so, because it knows that its vaunted trade deal with the United States contains nothing for the shipbuilding industry.
Canadian shipbuilders become more and more frustrated with the Liberals and the Conservatives. They speak fine words in opposition, but they refuse to develop policies when they form the Government.
Canadian shipbuilders look more and more strongly to the New Democratic Party to form the Government, and to act on our determination to make shipbuilding one of the ways to achieve full employment in a prosperous new Canada.



GREY CUP PROGNOSTICATION-PROPHECY OF ARGOS' VICTORY

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is an exciting day in Canadian history. Tomorrow is the day that the Argos will win the Grey Cup!
After the eastern final last week I wanted to discuss it in the House, but I fought with myself, not wanting to boast about this great team.
I have lived in the Toronto area all my life, but didn't realize that the Argos could put together such a great team.
I couldn't keep silent any longer. I've tried, but to no avail! I must rise in my place and announce to the Members of the House and to all Canadians that tomorrow is the day. Tomorrow is the day that the Toronto Argonauts will win the Grey Cup!


Some Hon. Members:: Tomorrow?



FREE TRADE


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, Section 6(2) of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Regulations provides that all information required to be shown on the label of a prepackaged product shall be shown in both official languages.
In order to ensure that those regulations will not be considered as a barrier to trade or a non-tariff barrier, if and when a free trade agreement is signed with the United States, it is imperative that this Government include in the agreement a provision recognizing those regulations as an integral part of our Canadian cultural identity.
A possible claim under the dispute settlement mechanism would jeopardize the efforts made by previous Governments to further the cause of bilinguism in Canada.

November 27, 1987



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM STORMONT-DUNDAS INDUSTRIES

Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Stormont-Dundas look forward to the new free trade agreement. The chemical producers in my riding are unanimous in their support for this agreement.
Courtaulds-BCL are anxious to continue to have access to the U.S. market which is so important for it, and also the elimination of more than $.5 million in tariffs which it is now spending. Domtar Fine Papers looks forward to continued access to its major market in the United States. Dominion Textile, the largest employer in my community, looks forward to opportunities to expand and renew its plant in Iroquois. That means more employment for the people of Stormont- Dundas.
Ridgewood Industries, a smaller industry in furniture manufacturing, looks forward to continued access to the United States, an expanded market, and expansion of its plant in Cornwall.
Support for free trade in our community is unanimous. We look forward to the opportunities for growth and employment improvement.



IMMIGRATION


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the 1981 Census statistics showed that almost 50 per cent more immigrant women than men had no knowledge of either official language. The main reason for this deplorable statistic is the federal Government's policy on subsidized language training for immigrants. This policy clearly disadvantages women. Immigrant women, who may not be working in the labour force, are certainly working in the home and they need to communicate in one of the official languages to function efficiently in their daily lives.
Immigrant women who are seeking to enter the workforce are also often denied access to language training, as it is judged that the few marketable job skills they possess will make them ineligible for employment that requires communication abilities.
The result is that immigrant women, especially those from developing countries, are ghettoized in low-paying menial jobs. We know that this only reinforces the sexist and the racist stratification of our society that keeps women of visible minority groups in poverty, and powerless in our society.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF ONTARIO PREMIER

John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about "Ode to an Ostrich". I made a recent trip to Africa, to Zimbabwe and Tanzania, and guess what I saw running by the roadside? I saw ostriches, male ostriches, female ostriches and lots of little ones.
The Premier of Ontario, the proverbial ostrich, has his head in the sand on the benefits of the free trade initiative for Ontario. He demonstrated this very clearly yesterday at the Premiers' conference in Toronto. He is concerned about the Auto Pact. It has not only been retained but it has been enhanced. He is concerned about procurement practices. For 20 years, Ontario has been trying to crack the American procurement market. We finally give it access to $4-billion worth of possible U.S. procurement. He thinks that the Conservative federal Government may be getting snookered by Americans by delaying the legal text. It is not being delayed, we want to get it right so that Ontario will continue to benefit from increased trade.
The Premier of Ontario and others have called this a leap of faith. Of course it is. What major world undertaking in the history of mankind has not been a leap of faith?
I have faith in our young people and in Ontario business people. They will make this a successful leap along with the continued leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Now that winter has set in, Mr. Peterson's ostrichlike undertaking is frozen in the sands of the past. The Prime Minister is looking to the future.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT FROM BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, for the past seven weeks Canada has been subjected to unsubstantiated attacks by opposition Members on the historic Canada-U.S. trade agreement. What do we hear from Canadians involved in all sectors of the economy?
From the Mining Association of Canada we hear reiteration of its strong support for free trade. The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada is very supportive of the free trade initiative. The Business Council on National Issues reacted by referring to the deal as an enormous step forward. The Information Technologies Association says that its industry is pleased with the pact.
November 27, 1987

The list is long and includes the western Canadian wheat growers who like the increased prospects for sales. It includes the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which says it has nothing but praise for the deal. It includes the Saskatchewan stock growers and pork producers who note the agreement's importance in maintaining access to the U.S. market. That is what Canadians are saying about free trade. Their confidence in their ability to compete and succeed is unshaken by Opposition scaremongering.
Also recognizing the Government's courage in striking this historic enhanced trade deal are the Institute of Research and Public Policy, the Council of Forest Industries of B.C., the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian steel producers' association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Export Association, the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canada West Foundation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member.
* *
*



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago this Conservative Government, through the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), announced substantial assistance to the construction of the Matane papermill. The Minister in charge expected the Matane project would result in 300 permanent new jobs being created at the plant proper. The Minister was ready to offer help through existing mechanisms.
Although there is indeed within DRIE a mechanism to help businesses that are ready to create jobs through new investments, I would like to be in a position to conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister in charge is ready to extend similar offers to other businesses willing to guarantee a significant number of jobs by means of new investments. If not, I wonder what is meant by "existing mechanism" within the DRIE, and I also wonder on what basis help was offered to the Matane papermill.
Would he be ready to extend the same offer to Consolidated Bathurst in Grand-Mere, which has just announced an important $250 million project for the building of new plant which will guarantee hundreds of jobs in the area?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, off the shores of Prince Edward County in the deep, dark, cold waters of Lake Ontario lies a treasure of untold value. Over 200 ships of every shape and type known in the late 1800s sank in these waters at a time when the lakes, bays and rivers were the main routes of commerce in Upper Canada.
Many ships went down during the barley days, that time in the history of Prince Edward County when every possible acre of land was covered with the golden crop, usually shipped out to make beer and ale.
Deep Quest II, a highly respected voluntary organization, has researched and photographed many of these ships. It now hopes to set up an underwater habitat in the area to further its scientific exploration.
Canada has already recognized the value of underwater marine parks and I have initiated talks along these lines with the Minister responsible for Parks Canada. Unless they are properly protected, these vignettes of Canadian history could be vandalized for souvenirs as happened to the Titanic this summer.
I ask for and indeed look forward to the co-operation of all my colleagues in establishing the necessary facilities to protect these old ships while at the same time making an exciting part of Canada's history available to all Canadians.
* *
*



TARIFFS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, corn growers are concerned about the Canadian Import Tribunal's recommendation to reduce the countervail on corn to 30 cents from its current level of $1.10. The duty was put in place to protect growers from subsidized U.S. product at a time when the world's largest corn producer was dumping its grain into our bins.
Canadian corn producers take issue with the Tribunal's recommendation since no evidence was presented to suggest that the current duty has injured any user group. After reviewing the document, I conclude that some of the reasons for lowering the countervail were very flimsy indeed.
Growers do not want to see the duty lowered, but they would be willing to accept a lowering of the level to perhaps 60 cents or 70 cents. Putting the duty at 30 cents, the countervail the Import Tribunal is proposing to levy, does not protect farmers at all. In fact the level of the import duty works out to be only

November 27, 1987
Oral Questions
about a quarter of what the nominal value is, and 30 cents this matter immediately and to make funds available to these provides virtually no protection at all.	people.
* *
*



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, the regions of Canada are often thought of in terms of their respective strengths-the Prairies as a great supplier of grain, for example, and Quebec for its electric power. Is not the special contribution of the Maritimes its mastery of the sea? Does it not make sense to allow maritime geography, not to mention special technical skills, to work on behalf of Canada?
The maritime provinces need the opportunity to show the country what they are capable of. Our Budget requires that we spend our defence dollars as wisely as possible. It makes sense, therefore, to save $80 million per ship by purchasing the next six frigates for the Royal Canadian Navy in Saint John, New Brunswick.
I call upon my colleagues in Cabinet to acknowledge the merit of the people of New Brunswick. A high-volume contract for frigates serves them, the navy, and the country best.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) told the House about his efforts to get more money for the Small Craft Harbours Program. We know the Minister is trying to make up for earlier cut-backs.
There are many harbours across Canada that are in dire need of these essential facilities. For example, the wharf at Sea Cow Path in Old Harry on the Magdalen Islands is in terrible condition and needs urgent repairs. The previous Liberal Government allocated $1 million which was used to purchase materials for the construction of a new wharf. Despite numerous requests from the fishermen and the Mayor of the Town of Grosse lie, the Minister has refused to allocate funds for its completion.
In fact, the Department even tried to haul the materials away from Old Harry. Imagine that! The people had to block the road to stop the Government! What utter hypocrisy on the part of the Government. Nearly 100 fishermen and plant workers depend upon this wharf. I urge the Minister to review



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. On October 5 the Prime Minister told the Canadian Export Association in Ottawa, in his words, that "the Government has undertaken with the provinces to ensure a massive program to assist those workers affected by the adjustment and dislocation" of the trade deal. That statement was in effect contradicted the following day, October 6, by the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, in responding to the Premiers in Toronto, the Prime Minister said that he would not even set up a private sector advisory committee on adjustment until after the trade deal is completed. What happened to that massive program the Prime Minister was talking about for adjustment for workers as a result of dislocation caused by the trade deal, or does such a program even exist?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have said several times in this House, both in presence of the Leader of the Opposition and in his absence, that employment adjustment is not a phenomenon that came about with the free trade agreement. Over a million and a half Canadians experience permanent job loss each year and yet, the number of unemployed has declined by 250,000 in the last three years, which means that employment adjustment is essentially an ongoing process and that we have several mechanisms that are very effective in this regard; there is the industry adjustment system that works in cooperation with the industry, the unions and the companies themselves, there is the job strategy, the skills improvement programs, and so on.
However, what the Prime Minister said yesterday is that we must seek the most practical means that could be applicable to industries that might be affected. An independent committee will be charged with this study, but I believe the Opposition Leader is honest and would not want to give the impression that nothing is being done presently in the area of employment adjustment. That is not a new phenomenon, it has been going on for a long time and we have all the means to address it and we will continue to do so. The problem of adjustment of workers will not be solved by throwing billions of dollars at the problem.
November 27, 1987



SITUATION OF WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will then turn to the Minister who has admitted that we will lose 500,000 jobs in Canada because of this trade agreement with the United States.
In order to try and see through the smoke screen surrounding his last answer, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Prime Minister's trade agreement will completely disrupt the work force in Canada. And the Prime Minister did not even take into account the situation of Canadian men and women who stand to lose their job as a result of the agreement. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister did not worry about the fate of our workers across the country before the agreement was signed instead of after?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the Government is working on employment adjustment according to the ongoing realities we are faced with. We did not wait for the free trade agreement to be signed, contrary to the usual stand of the Liberal Party who finds the answer before the question is put. One just has to consider the economic situation of the country to understand what you have done for ten years.
We are dealing daily with employment adjustment. The Prime Minister has said and repeated, as well as the Minister of Finance, that following the signature of the agreement, we will have to analyze the various sectors of the economy in order to determine which sectors might be more particularly affected, and my department is already at work on it. We will respond and we are already responding. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to tell me that we have not in the area of employment adjustment, in the last three years, responded in such a way that we have created one million jobs and that there is now 250,000 less unemployed than there was before. That is what I call employment adjustment!



GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me turn from an irresponsible statement on adjustment policy by the Prime Minister yesterday to an irresponsible statement last night on television by the Minister for International Trade.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us what the Minister for International Trade meant when she said last night on The Journal that: "The provinces have already been found guilty of violating the GATT, the international global system; so we
Oral Questions
have obligations under the GATT."? No one has been found guilty of anything. We have a preliminary ruling.
How could the Minister's colleague undermine Canada's continuing pursuit of these cases involving fish and wine before GATT when she declares the provinces are guilty because of a mere preliminary ruling? With a Minister for International Trade like that, no wonder this country has been taken to the cleaners by the U.S.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I watch the righteous indignation of the right hon. gentleman on the trade deal day in and day out. We know he has to grasp at straws to fight an agreement which is so good for Canada, and so important to all of its regions.
My right hon. friend knows how GATT operates. He knows that the panel brought down decisions against Canada dealing with wine pricing and processed fish. He knows full well that to negotiate out of those decisions there has to be agreement by all 95 of our GATT partners. He knows that process is going on now. However, the GATT panel has made a decision and obviously they found Canada at fault in this area.
We are working extremely hard to negotiate with those countries which brought these charges against Canada, and will continue to do so.

[ Translation]



PENSIONS


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health, I will direct my question to whoever can answer-it concerns homemakers.
We all remember that in 1983, the Advisory Council on the Canada Pension Plan supported the proposal of the then Government to find a solution, in co-operation with the provincial governments, for homemakers to come under the Canada Pension Plan and the Regie des rentes du Quebec, both as to contributions and pensions.
It will be remembered that during the last election that was part of the promises made to women by this Conservative Government.
Yesterday, the Advisory Council on the Canada Pension Plan which, may I add, has had new directors appointed to its board, in other words directors appointed by Conservatives- recommended that the Conservative Government forgo the promise made to homeworkers that they would contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and the Regie des rentes du Quebec.

November 27, 1987
Oral Questions
I would like to know from the responsible Minister whether this Conservative Government will reject that recommendation made by Conservatives members of the Advisory Council on the Canada Pension Plan, and whether it will allow homemakers in Canada to be covered by the Canada Pension Plan.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in Toronto at the First Ministers' Conference. Therefore, if I may, I will just briefly point out that, unlike the previous Liberal Government, this Government, when dealing with any matter, particularly one as important as homemakers' pensions, wants to consult with as broad a range of Canadians as possible. This consultation is ongoing in all parts of Canada.
Federal-provincial officials are currently looking at a broad range of options. The report tabled yesterday is just one of many options being considered by those officials. Once that broad range of options has been considered then an appropriate decision to the benefit of homeowners will be taken by this Government.



REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT

Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister once won medals for figure skating on the ice. But as far as this matter is concerned, there will be no Olympic medals for his answers to our questions.
The Minister recalls that his Conservative Government misled senior citizens. He knows that this Conservative Government is now misleading homemakers.
Can the Minister answer yes or no? Will this Government honour the commitment made to the 3 million Canadian homemakers that they could contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and the Regie des rentes du Quebec? Yes or no? No more figure skating here!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, first, I am very proud of having been able to win a gold medal for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: He won the gold medal for hamburger eating.


Otto John Jelinek: I am not even going to touch that.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member that this Government keeps its commitments and will keep its commitment to try to provide the best possible pension for homeowners. If my hon. friend wants to be positive in this regard, and he has not been in any other regard, he should suggest to his Liberal friends in Quebec and Ontario they be a little bit more cooperative and move in the direction this Government is moving.



FREE TRADE


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications who is shouldering the Prime Minister's responsibilities today.
In the past, according to the Prime Minister and other Ministers, we had a time limit with respect to the final text of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement because both governments are busy finalizing the legal wording of this historic accord. They indicated that neither government intends to change the substance of the agreement. Unfortunately, a report has it that today the two governments did make substantial changes, specifically in the automotive sector, and according to a report the governments have changed the level of North American content from 50 to 60 per cent.
My question to the Minister is simply this: True, there have been substantial changes, yes or no?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge that report came from a Toronto Star article of a few days ago which reported that the APMA said that it would like to see the content rule changed from 50 per cent to 60 per cent. As far as we are concerned, the 50 per cent North American content which was negotiated for the foreign automotive industry in North America is the fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the report was not in The Toronto Star. It was a news report this morning on the CBC.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I know the Conservative Party has trouble with the public broadcasting corporation which its Government established in the 1930s. We understand that.



STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO COMMITTEE OFFICIAL

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the news report was based on testimony given before the House committee in western Canada. It was a statement made by an official of the committee. Has the Minister checked this morning with the negotiating teams to find out whether there has been a change? If not, upon what is he basing the report which he is now making to the House?
November 27, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, a briefing was given to Peter Clark, a committee adviser, by the trade negotiation office. That briefing to Mr. Clark mentioned the 50 per cent rule of origin.
This suggestion was made last Friday in an article in The Toronto Star by the Auto Parts Manufacturing Association. To my knowledge the TNO gave this information to Mr. Clark as an adviser to the committee. He was told that the 50 per cent rule was negotiated.



REQUEST THAT SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BE DELAYED

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 will, of course, accept the Parliamentary Secretary's word that there has not been a change in substance. However, I refer to matters which we on this side of the House have raised previously.
The First Ministers are meeting in Toronto, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. They have not had a look at the final text yet. The parliamentary committee has not had a look at the final text, and neither have the people of Canada nor the Members of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary is speaking for the Government on this matter today. A number of the First Ministers in Toronto, the Opposition, and Canadians have said that they want an opportunity to study this accord in all its detail, including the final legal wording, before it is signed. Therefore, will the Government finally come to its senses on this matter and ask the United States for at least a two-month delay before it is finally signed?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has known for two years the timetable of this agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: We haven't seen the words yet.


John Horton McDermid: We know that he opposes the agreement and he is grasping at any straw he can to try to scuttle the deal. That is the name of the game with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and we understand that. However, it will not happen.
We are hopeful that the final text will be available shortly and that Canadians will have an opportunity to look at it. We have heard exaggeration about a 1,200 page document. The Hon. Member and others in the House know that about 800 pages of that are just tariff schedules which go with any agreement.
The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has now left his seat and is really not interested in listening to the answer.
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS



AIR CANADA STRIKE-SHUT-DOWN OF OPERATIONS

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to draw the attention of the Government to the grave inconveniences which airline travellers have to put up with. The only answer I got was that the Government is not getting involved, that the bargaining process has to follow its course, although we all know that that is not producing results.
Yesterday Air Canada said that it was doing everything it could to maintain service. This morning Pierre Jeanniot, President of Air Canada, said: "We will proceed with an orderly shut-down of operations".
What does the Government have to tell thousands of stranded travellers today?


An Hon. Member:: Fly Wardair.


Jacques Guilbault: They will tell them to fly Wardair. That is a preliminary answer. Let us see whether the Minister wants to confirm this. What will the Government tell them today, what will it tell them tomorrow, and what will it tell them Sunday?


An Hon. Member:: Take the train.


Jacques Guilbault: Is the Government going to tell them that they have to tough it out because the Government's approach is to let George do it?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I do not know to which George the Hon. Member is referring.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: George Henderson. He can't get home tonight.


Pierre H. Cadieux: But with respect, Mr. Speaker, to the inconvenience which the present dispute is causing Canadians, I can assure this House that we do not need the Hon. Member to underline that. We are fully aware of what is happening in labour disputes throughout Canada. As in other disputes, the Government will take appropriate action at the appropriate time. But we will surely not act prematurely just to please the Hon. Member.



REASON FOR DELAY IN APPOINTING MEDIATOR

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's response is just another example of the fact that the Government's school grades when it comes to preventing strikes are zero. In the case of the strike of mailmen and postal workers, the Government waited until there were violent incidents before reacting. In the case of the rail strike, nothing was done to prevent it. Eventually they had to resort to or-else legislation to force workers back to their jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is as though the Government drew inspiration from the Pontius

November 27, 1987
Oral Questions
Pilate approach of 2,000 years ago when it said: I wash my hands off the whole thing. I want to ask the Minister: What are you waiting for to appoint a mediator? What are you waiting for?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member put his question that way because it gives me an opportunity to remind the House and all Canadians that, in spite of certain instances where work stoppages did take place, last year more than 11,000 collective agreements were negotiated in Canada with the help of the Department of Labour without a single day of strike or lockout. That being so, Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the inconvenience and we deplore that. The Canada Labour Code makes provision for the collective bargaining process, and I think my colleague should read it now and then. In conclusion, I would remind him of a single incident between these two parties-it took place when the Party of my colleague was in office-and that strike went on for 30 days, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE HEARINGS BE HALTED

Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, this House has just been told that we were aware of the schedule of the free trade negotiations. The House was also told that we would get the final text in three weeks. We have now waited seven weeks. We are hearing over and over again that there are changes in the content and that there is now need for an advisory council for readjustment. We are hearing a variety of things.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary willing to say that the Government will stop all of the hearings and the process until we see the final text? Will the Government stop trying to make the Canadian people buy a pig in a poke?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is so unbecoming for the Hon. Member to deliver a question in that manner. We will continue to listen to Canadians from coast to coast. Our consultation program will continue and Canadians will have an opportunity to examine the agreement. They will have an opportunity to discuss the legislation that will come with the agreement.
The Hon. Member and her Party, and our friends in the other opposition Party, will be able to debate all the legislation that goes with the agreement. As a matter of fact, even her friends in the Senate will have an opportunity to look at that
legislation once it is brought into the House of Commons. There is ample time to study and pass judgment on the agreement. I can assure her that it will be well received in Canada.



REQUEST THAT DRAFTING OF AGREEMENT BE STOPPED

Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Government is not disclosing what is really contained in the Agreement. Will the Minister stop the process until we have a final draft?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same question. It was obviously prepared before I answered the first question.


Marion Dewar: You did not answer it.


John Horton McDermid: It is exactly the same answer. We will continue our consultation across Canada with the standing committee. When the text is ready, it will be released and there will be ample opportunity for people to study it. There will be a First Ministers' conference and ample time for Canadians to study this agreement because the legal text will put into legal terms what has been agreed to by both parties to the agreement. The agreement was signed on October 3, and was tabled in the House on October 5. I invite the Hon. Member to read it because I do not think she has done so.



GASOLINE TAX REBATE FOR FARMERS AND FISHERMEN

Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture refuses to endorse the Government's trade agreement because of certain evident deficiencies, such as problems being faced by poultry and grape growers, while there is no offsetting benefit for agriculture.
It is also apparent that fishermen and farmers will lose their gasoline subsidy as a result of the Government's trade agreement. Will the Minister assure fishermen and farmers that with the final agreement they will be able to keep their gasoline subsidies?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, there are no subsidies. There is a special provision for the fishery and farmers. That is government policy and this agreement does not change that in any way.
Let me deal with the Hon. Member's suggestion that there is nothing in this for agriculture. Has he talked to the Cattlemen's Association, to the pork producers or the grain growers in this country? He mentions the feather industry. The feather industry's marketing board is protected. The underpinnings are still in place.
November 27, 1987


Don Boudria: Not true.


John Horton McDermid: They are very happy with the deal. I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about.



ENERGY SECURITY FOR PROVINCES

Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is utter nonsense. There are subsidies because the farmers and fishermen have tax advantages. That will not be allowed in the trade agreement as stated in the synopsis.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there is now a second round of negotiations and changes are being made in all aspects of the agreement. What will be done to give the provinces energy security which they do not have now according to the synopsis? What will be done to give the energy security to the provinces that has been given to the United States?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a flip-flop, from agriculture to energy. I am not sure it was a supplementary question, but I will be happy to answer.
The headline today in The Guardian from Prince Edward Island states that producers in the fisheries industry say the trade deal looks better. They know that, and we understand why.
The Hon. Member asks about energy. Energy is owned by the provinces. Nothing is changed in this trade deal. The provinces control the management of their resources and the conservation aspects of it. They can dictate how many barrels of oil a day can be pumped and how many cubic feet of gas can be pumped. That has not changed, and the Hon. Member and Canadians know that.
If the Hon. Member wants to sing that song, I suggest he go to the energy producing provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia and sing it to them, to hear what they say.



CHILD CARE


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. After two years of delay the Government finally has a plan for a national child care program which, according to our information, is far worse than we feared and will make little impact on the child care crisis.
Since this is the first test of the Meech Lake Accord, does the Minister agree that the national objectives for a new child care program must be clearly defined, as indicated in the
Oral Questions
Meech Lake Accord? Does he also agree that these should require federal funds to be used by provinces to develop quality, affordable, and accessible non-profit child care services?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question because it gives me the opportunity to say that in terms of the child care program which is now being developed under the leadership of my colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister responsible for the status of women, there will be very significant meetings with provincial authorities who have substantial jurisdiction in this area.
As far as we are concerned, this is a priority item. Once the matter is discussed with provincial authorities, I believe the Hon. Member should be in a position to support fully an outstanding program on a national basis for the first time in the history of our country.



GOVERNMENT POLICY

Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if the information that is being leaked at this point is in any way based on fact, we will certainly be extremely disappointed, as will working parents who want their kids to be in safe, reliable day care.
Surely this must be a priority of the Government. Why have the Government and the Minister responsible consistently refused to define national objectives for quality child care? Why are they so penny-pinching that they cannot find enough money for child care while easily finding billions of dollars for nuclear submarines?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, those allegations by the Hon. Member are not only unfounded, they are totally unfair. The fact is that within the first three years of our mandate we undertook the most significant social program in this area, which is essentially within provincial jurisdiction.
I have been in opposition for a long time as well. It is easy to take cheap shots and put wrong propositions on the floor of the House. However, when the Hon. Member sees the package she will realize that it is one that she should be proud to support. It will be a comprehensive package that will allow the Government to take a leadership role.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Our Foreign Minister visiting Central
1 1264
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1987
Oral Questions
America seems to be making one gaffe after another. First, he upsets Canadian aid workers in Nicaragua, then, without consulting Governments in the region or even his own Cabinet, he suggests that we accept Contras as refugees and contribute troops to a phantom peacekeeping force. Yesterday he went shuffling through his papers because he could not answer important questions.
If the purpose of this trip to Central America was to increase Canada's diplomatic profile in the region and assist in the peace process, why did the Cabinet not provide specific policy guidelines to the Minister before he left? Why was he not better prepared?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is carrying out the first indepth assessment of problems in the Central American region, and Canada's reaction to it, by any Foreign Minister of this country. I want to say to the Hon. Member that those of us who have spent some time in that troubled region are indeed pleased with this positive initiative.
What the Secretary of State for External Affairs has undertaken to ask the Government to consider any move that will have a positive influence on bringing that region toward peace, eliminating conflict, and trying to resolve the difficulties and social problems that affect those countries.
I happen to think that is a very positive initiative for this Government to undertake. I must say to the Hon. Member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing something this country should have undertaken a long time ago.


Mr. Allmand:: I have also visited the region several times and I am not pleased at all. By the way, the Minister is wrong. In the last Government, two Ministers, the Foreign Affairs Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, visited the region, as did a committee of the House which did intensive work in the region.



CANADIAN AID DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, if the Government wanted to distinguish Canadian policy in Central America from American policy, why did it give only $1 million in aid to Nicaragua, a country unfairly ravaged by war and economic blockade, when it gave SI3.8 million to Honduras, a country which is receiving considerable aid from the United States and which has not yet complied with the Arias peace plan?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I remember very well that former Ministers went down to that region and they did not accept one recommendation the parliamentary committee, which had visited widely in the region, asked them to consider. Not one thing did they do on behalf of Canada for that region.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not go to Central America with the idea that he was suddenly going to say to the people in that region: "Here are all the answers to your problems". He went there to find out what Canada can positively do. He has made some initial assessments. He will come back to the Cabinet and ask for approval for Canada to expand its relations and to take further measures with regard to Central America. That will be the most positive thing we can do in helping to bring peace to that troubled part of the world.



POSSIBLE PEACEKEEPING INITIATIVE

Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister as well. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken with him experts in peacekeeping from the Armed Forces. In Central America he is actively promoting the peacekeeping initiative by the Government of Canada with Canadian troops. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell this House if Canada will send peacekeeping troops to Central America?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Central American countries is to find out what we can do to help ease the conflict in that area. I will not say that the Government will do such and such today, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to come back and report to Cabinet on his findings. Surely the Hon. Member understands that. Surely he expects a Foreign Minister to go abroad assess the situation and come back and make recommendations.



GOVERNMENT POSITION

Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, to follow the question a step further, the Secretary of State for External Affairs communicated that Canada would be taking Contras. He is communicating now that Canada will send troops. This country, and the people who are listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, must know if the Government is or is not going to send troops to Latin America.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said he will look at the situation in these countries and come back and ask the Cabinet whether or not, in the best interests of Central American countries, either peacekeeping troops should be sent or other measures should be taken. It may be that the Hon. Member is against any effort to send peacekeeping troops anywhere in the world, but Canada, I can assure him, has a very fine record in this regard.
We have shown what we can do in the Middle East and in other parts of the world. I would expect the Hon. Member to understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, having assessed the situation, will come back and ask the
November 27, 1987

Government whether or not this is the best way to proceed, and make his recommendations according to the findings he has been able to gather on site and not from second or third parties. He has gone there to find out for himself how Canada can best help this situation.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice, if he would like to answer. It concerns the report of the Parker Commission Inquiry into the conflict of interest allegations involving the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Hon. Sinclair Stevens. We know the Government has received the report, printed and probably translated. Will it give to the House and to Canadians a copy of the report now so we can all read it at the same time, and comment and assess the report? Or will it bury it until Christmas, maybe under some snow bank close to the House of Commons, so no one gets access to it before we adjourn?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Parker Commission was received by the Privy Council Office on Wednesday evening of this week. It has not yet been studied by the Government. It will come into the hands of Cabinet and there will be a government response very shortly. I can assure the Hon. Member of that.



REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the report to sit somewhere in some back office waiting to be assessed, responses vetted and all that nonsense. Since we know the Government has received the report-it is a public document and millions of dollars were spent by Canadians for it-will the Government make a commitment today that it will make that document public for all Canadians to read and comment upon, and not wait until Christmas to make it then some kind of unwanted Christmas gift to which we will never get access?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government will be releasing the document. May I say once again that this document was received on Wednesday evening in the Privy Council Office.
Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra: Publish it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I also expect the Hon. Member to recognize that on Wednesday evening the First Ministers' conference got under way in Toronto-


John Napier Turner: So what? Publish it.
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Leader of the Official Opposition says "So what". The First Ministers' conference may not mean very much to him, and certainly when he was in the position of First Minister he really did not do very much about it. It seems to me, with all due regard to the Opposition, this report should come to the Government, which it has not yet, so that the Government has an opportunity at least to receive it.


André Ouellet: You have received it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Prime Minister has been away. Members of the Cabinet have been away. We will look at the report very shortly-


John Napier Turner: You are not going to change it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and as I have said, it will be released in public.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. There are a number of reports in the papers this morning, all of which are consistent in reporting that the Ministry of Science and Technology has ridiculed the proposal by Ontario that the rate of spending for scientific research in this country be doubled to 2.5 per cent of the GNP. Does the Minister of State for Science and Technology agree with the assessment by the Ministry that a goal of 2.5 per cent of GNP as an appropriate rate for scientific research in Canada is unrealistic and silly?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, what I would prefer to identify as a goal is to do everything that is necessary to keep Canada in the forefront of nations which use science and technology as the instruments of growth, expansion and social progress.
I am not aware that anyone has ridiculed the Ontario position. In fact, I understand that the Prime Minister has presented the Premier of the province with the view that, perhaps, if the province feels that strongly about it, as we do, then it should increase its spending, which is presently 10 per cent of what is spent in Ontario.
When we talk about national performance an improvement in the performance of the private sector is required as well. But the provinces have a large role to play. I welcome the commitment of the Premier of Ontario to increase massively the spending that is going on in that province.

November 27, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Hicks GOVERNMENT POSITION


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the notion of a ten-year goal for an achievement of 2.5 per cent of GNP is described by the Minister as unrealistic. The answer we just received from the Minister of State for Science and Technology has not told us very much.
Was or was not the promise of the Prime Minister that we would achieve a 2.5 per cent rate of expenditure for science by next year an empty promise never to be met? Was he being some kind of nitwit by making a promise of that sort? Is the Government going to live up to its promises with respect to science and technology which are so fundamental to the economic growth of the country?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Hon. Member say that he himself is a scientist. If he is he should know that the cause of science and technology cannot be advanced by building buildings with bricks and mortar. In order to achieve what we all want to achieve, including what the Hon. Member seeks to achieve, there are a number of measures that have to be taken. We need the necessary highly qualified people to do the research. Throwing money at the problem was the technique used by the former Government. It has not advanced our cause. It has placed us in a position which could well have us fade away into insignificance if we keep on.
What we have done instead is we have identified with the provinces what the national goals and priorities are. We have committed ourselves to a national mission and a thrust that will stimulate research in the private sector. The provinces will be linked to the national thrust. All this is happening. I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about. He might even want to quit politics to get back into science when we are finished with all that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will end Question Period with two questions from the Hon. Member for Davenport.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. She will recall that the last time that we broached the question of plutonium overflights in Canadian airspace the Minister of Transport left the door open to the possibility of such overflights. Can the Minister of State today inform the House what the levels of risk are that the Minister of Transport is willing to accept before approving plutonium overflights in Canadian airspace? Can she give us an indication as to that?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice; of course I will confer with the Minister of Transport and we will report to the Hon. Member as soon as possible.



LEVEL OF SAFETY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised repeatedly by the Opposition, in August, in September, and the last time on November 5. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to ask the Minister of State to indicate today, after the Minister of Transport has told the House that he does not rule out the possibility of plutonium overflights, what the level of risk is or, if she prefers, the level of safety that she will consider before allowing these flights in Canadian airspace? That is not an unreasonable request.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I can confirm once again in this House, namely that this Government is deeply concerned about the security of Canadian men and women and we have demonstrated that all steps are being taken to guarantee that security. I repeat that I take note of your very specific question and that we will follow up as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have recieved notice of a point of order from the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks).



POINTS OF ORDER


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, life is full of embarrassing moments. In my enthusiasm to announce to Canadians that the Toronto Argonauts will win the Grey Cup, I announced that the game will be tomorrow. Of course, everyone in the world knows that the game will be on Sunday. May I make it clear, however, that it has been a long week and that today seemed like Saturday. Regardless of which day the game is played the outcome will still be the same.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on a point of Order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of Order. I would like to make a slight correction to the answer I gave to the supplementary question put by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). I got carried away by my enthusiasm in the matter of the settlement of work conflicts in Canada when I said that
November 27, 1987

last year, more than 11,000 collective agreements had been signed without a single day of work stoppage due to a strike or a lock-out.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I should have said that more than 90 per cent of the 11,000 collective agreements that were negotiated in Canada last year have been signed without a single day being lost because of a strike or a lock-out. Which means, Mr. Speaker, that the figure is some 10,000 rather than 11,000.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for correcting the statement he has made. However, I expected that after giving it much thought, he would stand up and tell us what the Government intends to do to help out the thousands of Canadians who are stuck in airports across Canada!


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to make a correction to a response given to a question asked by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) earlier in Question Period. When I was referring to homemakers I was using the word "homeowners". Obviously, I meant homemakers.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Act with technical notes pertaining thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.
Petitions
On behalf of the Government I commend the committee for its thorough investigation of Canada's space program. The Government is particularly encouraged by the fact that the committee supports the program as a priority among the science and technology issues facing the country. The Government has long recognized that development of the space program is vital to Canada's economic development and to long-term investment in Canada's future.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's comprehensive response to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it appropriate at this point to comment on the document tabled by the Minister with respect to the Government's response to the committee's report?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, it is not.


Bill Rompkey: If there were unanimous consent could a comment be made on the response tabled by the Minister?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to examine that issue but since this is an Opposition Day and, if my colleague opposite, a member of the same Party as my friend, wants to get on with the debate, I do not think that it would be appropriate today.


PETITIONS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit today in both official languages, pursuant to the rules of the House of Commons, two copies of the Government of Canada's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology entitled "Canada's Space Program-A Voyage to the Future".


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have 10 petitions from my riding and points elsewhere. I wish to present all the petitions, but will only read one because they are all on the same matter.
My constituents state that whereas since September, 1984 the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candies, and soft drinks; and whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposals is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services including foods; and whereas food constitutes a vital element in the day-to-day life and the

November 27, 1987
Order Paper Questions
imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, the unemployed, youth, and low income taxpayers; wherefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products, and as duty bound your petitioners ever pray.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have 10 petitions in all from across my riding, and indeed some visitors from Montreal and Quebec have signed these petitions, and 1 ask leave to present the same in their names.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 have petitions signed by residents of my constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, by residents of other communities in northwestern Ontario, and indeed by a few visitors to the region from other parts of Canada.
The petitioners note that the federal Government's White Paper calls for changes to the taxation structure of Canada, but those proposals do not change an already unfair tax structure for average Canadian families. They allow wealthy Canadians earning more than $100,000 a year to continue not paying their fair share and to actually receive a tax cut under the proposals. These proposals will also allow 60,000 profitable corporations to continue paying no income tax.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these tax changes, and particularly to reject the proposed tax on food. They call on Parliament to restore full indexation to the personal tax system.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on a question.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly give consent for the questions to remain on the Order Paper. However, I would like to point out to the Minister that he started out very well when he was Parliamentary Secretary in answering questions on a fairly frequent basis. Now that he is a Minister he seems to be slipping into the habits of the previous regime.
I see that even members in his own caucus are giving support to my notion that there should be more questions answered. Those questions on the Order Paper are very serious, and they are very important to Members of Parliament and to Canadians. I would encourage the Government to make a very strong and consistent effort to answer those questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet:
That this House condemn the Government for its destructive influence on the Canadian transportation industry by its impractical and slavish adherence to the ideological myth of deregulation and its inept trade negotiations with the United States, in particular, through:
(1)	deregulation of the trucking industry, giving U.S. truckers open access to Canadian markets while 43 heavily regulated American states deny Canadian truckers the same advantage;
(2)	introduction in the railway industry of "Competitive Rail Line Rate" provisions allowing American railways free access to Canadian markets while denying reciprocal arrangements for Canadian railways;
(3)	failing to seek and obain in the trade agreement equitable treatment in the United States for Canadian airlines; and
(4)	abandoning its legislation on the Canadian coasting trade and failing to obtain any benefits in the trade agreement for Canadian maritime industries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For questions and comments on the speech by the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina). The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina) of the remarks I directed to her earlier this week, on November 23, when 1 said, as reported at page 11067 of Hansard:
... I would like to put a question to the Minister of State (Transport) as she did not reply to the very simple questions asked earlier by my colleague for Westmorland-Kent.
I would like to give her an opportunity to prove that she is worthy of her pay and that she knows something about her new Department.
That is what I said, and when I listened to her earlier, she mentioned certain reproaches which I never made. If she would care to stick to the facts as printed in Hansard, the only reproach I made was that she did not reply to the questions put to her in the House. The Hon. Member for Westmorland- Kent (Mr. Robichaud) asked two questions last week which she failed to answer. I put two questions to the Minister myself, and she did not answer them. Today, we have had another example. The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) asked her a very simple question. Again, she failed to answer the question. She took the question as notice.
I maintain that in the circumstances, it would be normal for the Hon. Member, who has ministerial responsibilities, who has a duty to take part in Question Period and defend the
November 27, 1987

Government's point of view and answer the questions put to her by the Opposition, to do her job.
That was my reproach. I never commented on her age, courtesy or style, and I wish she would stick to what I said in the Elouse.
Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether she had time to consult with her departmental officials, and if so, whether she could give me a straight answer to the question 1 asked. The question was simple. I told her: All you have to say is yes or no. She has yet to do so. I want to know whether or not, after this free trade agreement is signed with the United States, whether or not the Canadian provinces will have the right to deny a licence to American truckers headquartered in a State which does not give fair treatment to our truckers. That is the question that I put to her. She has not answered it yet. For the third time, I ask whether the Canadian provinces will have the right to deny a licence to American truckers from States which do not grant the same access to Canadian truckers, yes or no? That is my question.
I will conclude by saying that in that part of the text prepared by officials from the Department of Transport that was read by the Minister of State (Transport), I recognize exactly the same criticism that we have been expressing, namely that the Government must admit that American railways have been granted advantages that are denied to Canadian railways. The Minister had to admit that fact earlier this morning.
Secondly, the Minister had to admit that Americans have resisted all attempts to ease the restrictions in the area of shipping and that the status quo will prevail. However, that status quo is not encouraging for the Canadian shipping industry. On the contrary, the status quo-together with the free trade agreement which will grant national treatment to American shipping companies- will favour American shippers companies to the detriment of Canadian shippers.
Finally, spokesmen for various trucking associations in Canada, including Mr. Raymond Cope, president of the Ontario Trucking Association, Mr. Ron Downey, president of the Manitoba Trucking Association, and Mr. Don Norquay, president of Manitoba's Motor Transport Board, have all said that changes should have been made to fiscal laws and immigration laws before we sign a trade agreement with the Americans, and that this proposed agreement will not allow Canada to take effective measures in order to prevent Americans from having total control of the trucking industry. These people are directly involved in the area of trucking and they ought to know what they are talking about.
For these reasons, 1 cannot understand how the Minister can rise in this House and say that in the area of transportation this Mulroney-Reagan agreement could be good for Canadians.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I concluded my speech earlier by wishing that, during
Supply
the many years I intend spending in this House, I will no longer see as much ambiguity, complexity and confusion as in the comments we have bean hearing, especially this week, about the transport industry.
While the truckers know what they are talking about, I must unfortunately say that the Members opposite do not quite know what they are talking about when they ask questions such as those we heard this week in this House.
When I was reviewing this week's activities, I saw quite clearly that the Opposition wanted mostly to speak about deregulation, which they refuse to accept. They ask questions under the pretext of speaking about free trade.
As for me, the question I would like to ask the Hon. Member opposite is this: When will he stop scaring people with his unfounded and unrealistic fears?
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) clearly told us this week that the part of the Agreement which relates to transport has not yet been signed. Our negotiators are working on it. Our transport industry should not be afraid that we might sacrifice its interests. As a responsible Government, we shall evaluate everything and refuse to sign any agreement which could sacrifice national interests.
Let Members opposite really speak about free trade and the transport industry in this House, and we shall reply to their questions. Moreover, when the time comes to speak about deregulation, we shall reply to their questions about that issue as well.
However, we fully realize that all the questions asked this week were aimed at provoking confusion in Canada.
We are clearly preserving the existing situation and unfortunately maintaining the status quo as far as the transport industry is concerned. Our Government had decided on behalf of Canadians that certain sectors were non-negotiable. The Americans had decided not to negotiate and not to accept our offers. They were fully entitled to act as they did. As I have said, we shall always try to protect the interests of Canadians.
I find it very hard to understand that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) cannot accept a very simple and clear principle: The more trade there is between Canada and the United States, the greater the movement of goods will be, which means more transport.
I have already pointed out that 1 made some research this week and found that, among the 1,000 companies which already operate in the United States, not a single one had been penalized by the existing mechanisms.
Let the Opposition deal with the free trade issue and we shall reply to their questions!

November 27, 1987
Supply


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker. 1 am delighted that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) has moved this motion. However, I find it somewhat amusing and ironic that he has done so since his Party is the one that started all this-Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would be good enough to go over there, sit down and talk with the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina) there rather than-well, I will just sit down and wait until they are finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.


André Ouellet: I can talk to my colleague.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go over there and do it. Quit yacking away while I am trying to make my speech. I did not interrupt yours.
Now you can begin counting my time, Mr. Speaker.
I started to say that I am happy that the hon. gentleman from Papineau has moved this motion, although I find it somewhat ironic and amusing that he has done so since the Party he represents is the one that started all this. It is the one that came out with deregulation. When he was Minister of Transport, the late unlamented Otto Lang started all this in 1975. Of course, there is a perfectly logical reason for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) not being the transport critic for the Liberal Party. He is the one who started deregulation by drafting such legislation for the House of Commons.
I am assuming that the Liberal Party has had a change of heart about deregulation, particularly as it pertains to the free trade agreement. I find that this motion is accurate and correct and I would like to deal with each part of the motion that has been put by the Hon. Member for Papineau.
The Government refused to listen to representatives of the trucking industry. The Canadian Trucking Association and all its provincial affiliates are not only angry about Bill C-18, the new National Transportation Act, but they are also outraged by the results of the melding of deregulation and the free trade deal.
I respect the Minister of State for Transport and think she is competent. I listened very carefully to her speech. I expected her to reply in detail to each of the points made in the motion, but she did not.
It is true, as indicated in paragraph 1 of the motion, that the Canadian trucking industry is faced, not only with the laws of the U.S. Government and the constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, Senate and House of Representatives, but it is faced with the regulations of 43 individual states of the United States. I know that the Minister of State for Transport is competent, but I wish she would inform herself on these
particular items and respond to them. If we are wrong, she should point out exactly where we are wrong.
I was amused today during Question Period when government Members asked why we had not read the information they had provided. I have yet to receive the transportation annex to the free trade deal from a government Member or from anyone eise in Canada. We did get it from the publication entitled Inside U.S. Trade, not an American government publication but a private publication that we were able to obtain in order to read the transportation annex to the free trade deal.
The Canadian trucking industry, railways, airlines and marine industry is faced with exactly what they have been faced with before, only the situation is worse now. They are faced with more than what they were faced with before. Here is a paragraph out of the transportation annex:
Neither party shall be under any obligation to change existing measures relating to the provision of transportation services that accord persons of the other party treatment that is less favourable than that accorded to its own persons.
I believe you, Sir, were at the committee hearings on a number of occasions when we were dealing with Freedom to Move and Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. That is exactly what we said in the committee then. It is exactly what the Canadian Truckers Association and the railroads said then and are saying now. I tried my best to persuade the Government to accept amendments to those two Bills which would allow Canada to take reciprocal measures or, as I put it in committee: We will do unto you what you do unto us. The Government refused to accept those amendments.
We are now faced with a situation where U.S. truckers can do things in Canada that Canadian truckers cannot do in the U.S. The U.S. truckers have advantages under tax laws, mean labour laws, and individual state regulations, that Canadian truckers have to compete with. When they talk about a level playing field, even if it is level, the problem is that the U.S. has the ball on the 10-yard line with three downs to go. However, it is our 10-yard line!
Dealing with the railroads' competitive line rates and Bill C-18, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National told the committee and the Government publicly that they supported deregulation. However, once they got the fine print and once they got the Bill, they changed their minds, for perfectly good reasons.
Paragraph two of this motion refers to Canadian law providing for competitive line rates. That is not only not provided for in the U.S. on their railroads, it is prohibited. When Canadian railroads say that billions of dollars in revenue are subject to what they call a licence to raid by American railroads and American trucking companies, they are perfectly right. They have good reason to be angry and fearful. We gave away the store in Bill C-18 and compounded
November 27, 1987

it by confirming it in the transportation annex of the free trade deal.
The issue of Canadian airlines failing to receive equitable treatment in the U.S. is long-standing. The free trade deal and the new transportation laws under so-called deregulation in Canada make no move whatsoever to correct that unfair treatment. It is perfectly logical that the U.S. is interested only in flying to five or six places in Canada. Since they have more than 10 times our population, obviously Canadian airlines would like to go to 20 or 30 places in the U.S. However, you can bet your bottom dollar, free trade deal or not, there is no way the U.S. is going to allow it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is suffering from sheer delusion.
The Marine Industry Association and all those connected with marine shipping and manufacturing in Canada initially supported free trade. They bought a pig in a poke just like so many others. They believed the U.S. would agree to apply the Jones Act and all its amendments to Canadian shipping. It has not. Canada is still excluded from fair treatment in the U.S., but the U.S. industry can do things in Canada that ours cannot do there. That is not a level playing field, never was and never will be, under this deal and the laws of Canada or the United States.
Regardless of what the free trade deal says, we need a clause in our legislation which permits the Government of Canada to take reciprocal action, whether it be in the trucking industry, marine industry, airline industry or railway industry. Anything the Americans do to us, we do exactly the same to them. To lay back and enjoy it while leaving ourselves wide open to the siphoning off of transportation revenues to American companies is surely a sell-out of some kind.
At one point the Minister of State for Transport said in her speech that over 1,000 trucking companies from Canada operate in the U.S. She is right. They have anywhere from one truck to a couple of hundred. Yet if it is working, why try to fix it? Since nothing has been achieved in the free trade deal to get rid of the unfair advantages that American truckers have over Canadian truckers, whether it is here or in the U.S., then it is not a fair deal. Why did the Minister not address that?
In response to the Hon. Member for Papineau, she said her Government will not sacrifice transport interests. I suggest to you that the Government has already done that in Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. It has done nothing in the free trade deal to correct the disadvantages that Canadian transporters have in the U.S.
The biggest problem is this outrageous delusion across the country, particularly among the proponents of free trade, but even those worried about it suffer from it as well, that somehow or other the U.S. is going to hold still for Canada, or any other country for that matter, getting a larger share of their market than we already have. We have had countless instances of the U.S. putting in place tariffs, countervailing duties, outright embargoes, or other severe restrictions on our trade and transportation dealings with that country. Now the
Supply
Government claims that if we get a free trade deal we do not have to worry about that any more. The transportation part of the deal throws that in a cocked hat. The annex says, and I will read it again:
Neither party shall be under any obligation to change existing measures
relating to the provision of transportation services that accord persons of the
other party treatment that is less favourable than that accorded to its own
persons.
That means that everything in place now in transportation remains in place under the free trade agreement. I do not want to hear the Minister or anyone else in the Government try to tell us that we are getting a good deal in transportation under the free trade agreement, because we are not. At best, the situation remains the same as it has always been, and it is highly likely to get worse.
People suffer from a delusion about the so-called free trade agreement with the United States. They forget that before the United States agreed to the fast-track it received from the President of the United States a complete and unequivocal assurance that any free trade agreement with Canada would in no way impinge upon the constitutional authority and rights of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, or the rights of the individual states of the United States.
When the transport committee was sitting in Vancouver hearing evidence on the deregulation of transportation I spoke to a trucker who told me that he had a licence to move goods to California, Arizona, Texas, and even Mexico. He said that he had fewer problems with the State of California than with the regulatory regimes and harassment he had to undergo in the states of Oregon and Washington in trying to get to California. That is why I find the first paragraph of this motion perfectly appropriate. There are at least 43 states which have separate regulations.
As officials of the Canadian Trucking Association have said, the implementation of Bill C-19 next January 1 will mean at least a year of chaos. The Government's own uniform national safety code, a uniform code of national regulations, is still not in place. It is still being negotiated with the provinces, and we all know what it is like trying to get the 10 provinces to agree on anything. They cannot even agree on the time of day. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland are examples of that. None of that is in place.
Let us take a look at the situation in western Canada. I heard a government Member talking today about the mining association being all for free trade. Tell that to the potash miners in Saskatchewan. Under the free trade deal the tariff of up to 85 per cent imposed by the United States on Canadian potash remains in place. The Province of Saskatchewan was left no choice other than to impose the tariff itself.
At least we salvaged something under the Western Grain Transportation Act which got rid of the Crow rate. The

November 27, 1987
Supply
national Government still pays a major portion of the cost of moving grain. The grain companies in Saskatchewan and Alberta which have been selling hundreds of thousands of tonnes of screenings, meal, and pellets into the United States will no longer get the benefit of the Western Grain Transportation Act under the free trade agreement.
I can understand that someone from Ontario, including the Parliamentary Secretary, would not know what that is all about. However, our grain producers will lose the benefit of the Western Grain Transportation Act on exports of screenings, meal, and pellets to the United States.


John Horton McDermid: When?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That takes effect immediately. When we lose the two-price grain system, western grain producers will lose $260 million. I can understand ignorance in people from downtown Toronto or Ottawa who would not know a bushel of wheat if it hit them in the face, but anyone in western Canada who supports a free trade deal which will cost western grain producers $260 million as a result of the loss of the two-price system is guilty of failing to fight for grain producers in western Canada.


John Horton McDermid: The grain producers love it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The grain producers do not love it. I wish my hon. friend had been with me at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool convention last week because he would have got an earful. That organization represents more grain producers than all the other grain organizations in the country put together. The hon. gentleman should go to the next annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. He will find himself welcome and he will find out that the western grain producers do not like the free trade deal with regard to the Western Grain Transportation Act and the two-price system.
We gave away the store on potash and grain under the Western Grain Transportation Act and western Canada will lose. The transportation industry in Canada will lose. Our railroads will lose on competitive line rates which American railroads can have in Canada but Canadian railroads cannot have in the United States. The Minister of State for Transport completely failed to respond to that little problem. She never even mentioned it. Our airlines will not get any better treatment from the United States under the free trade deal. The Minister failed to address that at all.
The Minister completely failed to address the clause in this motion about the treatment of the marine industry. We remain in exactly the same disadvantaged position in our marine sector with the United States as we always have. The free trade deal does absolutely nothing to alleviate that. In fact, it entrenches what the Americans have been doing for decades, and there is nothing we can do about it under the free trade deal. The Minister failed to address that specific problem as well.
In conclusion, I know that my hon. friends are just as patriotic as am I and that they love this country as much as anyone else. However, they must not sign this deal until they have taken it to the people of Canada. They must not sign a deal which decreases our sovereignty, independence, and ability to have a level playing field with the United States. I have cited half a dozen instances in which the playing field is not level. Even if it were, the United States has the ball on our 10-yard line with four downs to go. I predict they will continue to do what they have been doing to us repeatedly in so many ways for decades. With regard to transportation, the free trade deal will not only be meaningless to Canada but will be harmful.


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, first a comment and then a question. I urge the Hon. Member to listen very carefully.
Here is the comment: I realize that today is an opposition day where we are supposed to talk about free trade. The opposition has also chosen to talk about the deregulation started by our Government. This is why this debate is so ambiguous and vague, without real answers. We should be concentrating on the Free Trade Agreement.
I do not know in what language we should say it, whether it is French, English, Spanish, but I will repeat it. We would not sign an Agreement detrimental to the interests of Canadians, I should say Canadian carriers.
My question is this: I would like to know how one can be against free trade? How can one question an agreement which maintains the status quo? That question seems very clear to me. We are keeping the status quo and you are objecting. Should I understand that the New Democratic Party is reassessing its opposition to free trade?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, free trade is like motherhood. One opposes it at one's peril. Who would object to a free trade deal that is free and fair?
The Hon. Member failed to answer the specific points raised. The free trade deal as a result of deregulation in Canada does not address the disadvantages to Canadian transportation in the United States and the advantages for U.S. transporters in Canada. I hope that the content of the final text is different from what is in the transportation annex to the free trade agreement. The transportation annex states that articles 84, 85 and 87 of the agreement shall apply to the provision of transportation services and so on. We do not have the final text, so we do not know what is in articles 84, 85 and 87. That is why I did not mention that in my speech.
Subparagraph (1) of the transportation annex, which I read twice in my speech, means that the advantages U.S. truckers have over Canadian truckers remain in place. The Government refused to accept my amendments that would level the playing
November 27, 1987

field under Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. Therefore, we have no way of counteracting actions taken by the U.S. Administration, the Congress or individual states.
I suggest to the Minister that if the Government addresses these problems in transportation, my opposition to this so-called free trade deal may be somewhat lessened. If she can return to the House before December 18 and show how the Government has renegotiated the transportation annex to cover the four areas mentioned in the motion of the Hon. Member for Papineau, to cover the Western Grain Transportation Act and the two-price grain system, then there will be a fair deal. However, it does not exist now. I hope she can do so but I do not think she will.


Mr. Binns:: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious as the debate proceeds this afternoon that opposition Members, particularly the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), have a different vision of what free trade is all about.
We in the Government believe that the free trade agreement will provide advantages to Canadian producers, whether they are farmers, fishermen, tourist operators or truckers.
It is unfortunate, when we have this opportunity to make Canada stronger by virtue of those new markets to which we will have assured access, that the Opposition would suggest the opposite would occur. We want to ensure access to a market just next door which has so many opportunities.
It has been suggested in the debate today that deregulation in the transportation industry will not provide that kind of opportunity. I believe that approach is absolutely wrong. The fear expressed about the Canadian trucking industry simply does not hold water.
There are over 1,000 Canadian trucking firms now operating between Canada and the United States. Many of these have started since deregulation in the United States.
Canadian firms have increased their operations to the United States in recent years, and easier entry into the Canadian market could alter or stabilize the balance of market share. However, if barriers are retained for U.S. truckers in Canada, Canadian truckers then risk losing their access to that lucrative U.S. market.
I suggest that it is not likely that U.S. truckers would dominate the Canadian transporter markets because most of this traffic is short-haul. This is a market where the competitive performance of Canadian firms compares well to that of their American counterparts.
American domiciled employees are presently forbidden by our immigration laws from engaging in domestic trucking in Canada. Regulatory reform will not change this situation. Bill C-18 is designed to enhance the competitiveness of Canadian industry in both domestic and international markets, by controlling transportation costs through market forces. Canadian carriers must share in this endeavour by providing
Supply
efficient, least cost competitive and safe transportation services.
I return to my first comment. If this country is to succeed in the long run it must be competitive. We must have the kind of deregulation that is being proposed in this Bill in order that our industry can compete with any other. We have no fear about our industry being as good as the American industry. This legislation is important to Canada in order to have a bilateral trade deal which will open a market that is 10 times the size of ours.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is an example of more of the delusion from that side. The market has been open for all these years, in any event. Even the Government says that the United States is our biggest trading partner.
There has been free trade in cattle, hogs, and a host of items. As a result of that, the Americans have imposed countervails and duties.
I am amused by The Cattlemen's Association in Saskatchewan and Alberta, who suffer from what I call the Texas cowboy syndrome. They believe that the United States cattle producers and the packing industry will remain silent while Canada gets a larger share of the market than we already have.
There were some three occasions in the last 15 years when they shut down the border on some other restrictions. The free trade agreement allows them to continue to do the same thing. What kind of deal is that?
I never knew that Canada exported raspberries, but the same thing happened with raspberries twice in the last three years. Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia ship thousands of tonnes of raspberries to the United States. The Americans countervailed our raspberries. Nothing has changed with the free trade deal.
The same provisions will still apply, whether it is with respect to trucking, airlines, rail or marine shipping. I suggest to my hon. friend that he read the transportation annex. Read what it says. It says that neither party shall be under any obligation to change existing measures-existing measures- relating to the provision of transportation services that accord persons of the other party treatment that is less favourable-I repeat, less favourable-than that accorded to its own persons. So nothing has changed. The competitive line rates we have granted to the United States railroads are not available to Canadian railroads in the United States. No one can tell me that Bill C-18 and the free trade deal does anything about that because it does not. It is another instance where we gave away the store.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).

November 27, 1987
Supply
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate initiated this afternoon by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). He moved this motion:
That this House condemn the Government for its destructive influence on the Canadian transportation industry by its impractical and slavish adherence to the ideological myth of deregulation and its inept trade negotiations with the United States-
Mr. Speaker, this kind of preamble in the motion by the Hon. Member for Papineau depicts admirably the ineptitude of this Conservative Government. I see the Hon. Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina) sitting across the way. Mr. Speaker, I like the Minister very much. At one time I had the privilege to be her critic in the House. We got along fairly well. I think that she is damaging her own credibility by condoning her government even when it is wrong. She should be more excellent. It would enhance her credibility which is already very high. But she will loose it if she continues to approve the initiatives of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who lacks a great deal of judgement in transportation issues and nearly all other issues for that matter.
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians worry about the free trade deal concluded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. It has already been said today that the shipping industry is deeply worried. The Dominion Marine Association which represents 14 Canadian shipping companies, or 90 per cent of this industry, opposes the deal. The Government told us that this free trade deal was needed in order to find a way to settle trade disputes between our two countries and also to protect and increase our sales and our markets in the United States.
I ask the Minister opposite: what has been done to change the Jones Act, for instance, an American act which for all practical purposes prohibits any foreign investment or profit in the U.S. marine industry? The Minister knows-she said it earlier-that the Jones Act is untouched, that it is a protectionist measure that is almost airtight. It is impossible to amend. The Minister agreed to that. I suppose she will also agree that the Prime Minister's efforts to increase trade, at least in that area, were a complete failure. This is the only possible conclusion, Mr. Speaker. What access do Americans have to Canadian markets? Everyone knows that Canada allows foreign-built ships and up to 100 per cent foreign ownership of a Canadian marine company. Mr. Norman Hall, president of the Dominion Marine Association, said on November 25 that the elimination of the 25 per cent tariff on 1000-foot ships, that is presently in existence and that will stay until the Government eliminates it with its famous free-trade deal, would ruin Canadian companies.
I note that the Minister answered some other questions earlier, but that she ignored this very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, other Canadian industries in the transportation field will be negatively affected.

For instance, we could talk about the railroads. We know, of course, that our rail system was deregulated by Bill C-18, a Bill proposed in this House by the Government of Canada. We also know that it is the same Government which proposed another Bill last year, Bill C-97. Under Bill C-97, a Bill entitled an Act respecting rail passenger transportation, there would be a provision in there to permit the Minister to abandon passenger rail lines without even having a hearing process, under certain circumstances.
I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a very important issue for the constituency I represent. As you will know, because you are a very knowledgeable person, the CN train line between Ottawa and Montreal goes through the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. That rail line is commonly referred to, in railway language, as the Alexandria subdivision. One would think that the rail line linking the Cities of Ottawa and Montreal would be pretty safe from being shut down. That is not so. CN released-not intentionally, of course but made public-a document on September 25, 1986, outlining how it was going to proceed to shut down certain rail lines, one being the Alexandria subdivision between Ottawa and Montreal. That would effectively eliminate all passenger and freight between Ottawa and Montreal. I know you have travelled on that train yourself, Mr. Speaker, and so have many other people, but they will not be able to do that if CN gets its way.
The internal document in question was actually slipped under my door by someone. That is how it was released. That does happen every now and then and, incidentally, I may as well take this occasion now to say to anyone who has any such documents that they would like to slip under my door, I would be always ready to accept them as I have in the past.
This document dated September 25, 1986, signed by Mr. R. P. Langlois, states:
In the context of the rationalization of our rail infrastructure, some lines have been identified as being potential candidates for abandonment in the coming years. A preliminary plan has been prepared and attached you will find the sections affected.
It goes on to say that any effort to attract new traffic on these lines is to be abandoned immediately. In other words, this internal document is telling other functionaries of CN Rail to stop looking for customers, that it wants to shut down.
I have the attached list referred to in the letter which identifies each subdivision and the year CN plans to shut it down. The Alexandria subdivision, a distance of 57.7 miles-pardon me for not using metric-is scheduled to shut down, according to this list, in 1990.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the discovery of this document created quite a debate in the constituency I represent, and I know it did to a certain degree in the riding of Stormont- Dundas as well because that is a neighbouring riding to the one I represent in this House. We had meetings with community groups, all wanting to protest this potential closure. We
November 27, 1987

even had a company in my riding which was prepared to construct a brand new building, a company which has now put all of its plans in abeyance. I am speaking of Alexandria Moulding. The building plan has stopped until the issue of whether or not we keep our rail line is settled since the company is not going to spend money without knowing whether or not it can ship its goods.
Over time we managed to get a commitment from the Government that the rail line would be safe until at least 1992. That is small comfort. The only thing that that has told us is that we are being given an extra two years. It is hardly something that would constitute reassurance for an industry in deciding whether or not to establish in our area.
In any case, on April 10, 1987, Lawrence Hanigan, the defeated Tory candidate in the riding of Laval-des-Rapides, who was subsequently appointed to head VIA Rail, wrote a letter to the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner) in which he stated:
As I indicated to you on the telephone, VIA has every intention of maintaining service between Ottawa and Montreal. It is, for that matter, a core service, and would be protected in the service network listed in the schedule attached to the proposed National Rail Passenger Transportation Act.
This National Rail Passenger Transportation Act is Bill C-97. In the annex to the Bill the Alexandria subdivision is listed as a corridor service. Under Clause 14(a) of the Bill a corridor service must recover at least 100 per cent of specific costs. In other words, if it does not break even the Minister has the right to shut it down. That is exactly the problem, it does not break even. So in other words what Mr. Hanigan has told us is, "Don't worry because we will shut it down". That is in fact what Bill C-97 states. Luckily since then the Tories have abandoned Bill C-97 and will apparently bring forward a new Bill in a short period of time. We do not know what it will be like. However, we hope that at least that corridor will be protected, and really protected, not the way it was under the transportation legislation of last year.
I wish to speak briefly about the trucking industry in the riding I represent. The largest single employer in my riding is a company by the name of Glengarry Transport. Glengarry Transport has some 2,000 employees.

That industry owns more than 5000 vehicles and, contrary to what might be thought, it is not a big multinational, nor an American company, nor a company from a big city. In fact, the Glengarry Transport Company, or GTL as it is known in the area, belongs to the Lefebvre family from Alexandria. Thus, it is a family business, a big success which the people of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are very proud of.
Messrs Poirier and Vaillancourt, the managers of Glengarry Transport, told me in June that, if passed, Bill C-19 would cause their company to cut 20 to 30 per cent of its jobs.
Supply
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, 30 per cent of the 2000 employees would lose their jobs. And why did we pass Bill C-19? Of course, it was to please the Americans, so that they would be willing to sign the Free Trade Agreement. I see a Minister on the other side, and it is interesting to note that that Minister is with us. I hope the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) is not ill-disposed towards the people in the transport industry. For I know for sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Associate Minister of National Defence is very much ill-disposed towards the workers in the textile industry.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you an article by Robert Bousquet, journalist at the daily newspaper Le Droit, which has been published last Monday. Mr. Bousquet interviewed the Associate Minister of National Defence. In particular, he asked the Minister why he favors free trade and so on. He wanted to know whether the Minister was worried about the textile industries. Here is what the Minister replied to those industries: "They had between three and five opportunities of modernizing through governmental programs. Companies that did not seize these opportunities just deserve to close down. It is for democracy: you cannot please everybody. Some will be affected." The article goes on: "Mr. Dick does not see the need for a referendum on free trade. He says: Our mandate was to set the Canadian economy back on foot, and free trade is a means towards that end."
That is the statement made on Monday by the Associate Minister of National Defence. I tell the Minister that his remarks regarding the textile workers, the managers of that industry and the industry as a whole will haunt him from now on because he has no right whatsoever to pretend that his Government has the privilege to decide that some industries are outdated.
This Government, Mr. Speaker, was elected with an overwhelming majority. Yes, we recognize it. It is unfortunate that it was elected with such a majority. Indeed, it is unfortunate that it was elected, period! However, during the election campaign, the gentleman who is now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) said, and I quote:

"Don't talk to me about free trade. That issue was decided in 1911. Free trade is a danger to Canadian sovereignty. You will hear none of it from me at election time nor at any other time". Those were the words of the man who is now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as stated in 1983.
What are we to conclude? That, once again, the Prime Minister gave erroneous information to the Canadian people? And I am trying to be generous here. What are we to think of an Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) who makes comments about the textile workers such as the ones I have just read from the paper, pretending on the one hand that industries deserve to be shut down while on the other the Government has a mandate to negotiate free trade? One statement is wrong and the other is an outright insult to many constituents, not only those in my riding but in the riding of

November 27, 1987
Supply
Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton as well as in the ridings of Montreal and many other communities around the country. In my riding there are over 3,000 people who work in the textile field. I know that I am digressing slightly from transportation but I am still dealing with free trade. Those people do not appreciate those kinds of remarks that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying in the few minutes or even seconds I have left that 47 American states still have strong restrictions regarding access of Canadian truckers to their territory. For these Canadian transport firms, increased access to the United States will be difficult if not altogether impossible. Given the appendix introduced earlier by our colleague the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the transport appendix to the free trade agreement proposed by the Americans, it is evident that if the proposed annex is adopted as it now stands the Canadian transport industry has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the trucking industry was well advised to ask for this 90 day moratorium and I ask again why the Minister has refused the moratorium.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his Government owe excuses to the Canadian people for the mess they have just created.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment in view of the fact that the Hon. Member who has just spoken has consistently misrepresented the truth, but there is nothing unusual in the fact that he does not know what he is talking about.
The Hon. Member did not attend the Eastern Ontario Economic Conference at which I spoke on Monday of this week. But as a Member of Parliament from eastern Ontario, perhaps he should have gone there; he may have learned something. There was a lot of representation from people in the municipalities in his constituency, and many other Members of Parliament were there from eastern Ontario. It was a pity that the Hon. Member did not have the interest in his own constituents.
Not once did I make a reference to the workers of the textile industry. 1 made reference once to a textile industry, which was brought up as an example. This textile industry had not modernized over the years, and it was pointed out that it felt that it would not be able to compete. I pointed out that it had been given three five-year programs, the first undertaken by the former Liberal administration in which the textile industry was given special consideration in order that it would be able to put itself into a position to compete. If management had been so poor as not to do that, then I felt sorry for the workers in that industry, but I said that we would have to provide some
transfer of funds in order to ensure that we would be able to get new jobs for them.
It is a pity that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) always misrepresents the truth in the House. It is a pity for his constituents whom he does not serve well by not even going to the Eastern Ontario Economic Conference. I feel that he should spend more time being a good Member than picking holes and misrepresenting other people's thoughts.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that intervention.
First, I do not apologize for having been in the House of Commons on Monday. I was elected to be here. I was doing my job. I was on Parliament Hill at the time that this conference was going on.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The meeting was at lunch time.


Don Boudria: Second, the Minister makes this gratuitous comment that that industry in my riding had not modernized. We all heard that comment, and we can read it in Hansard of Monday. Now he cannot say that he did not make that statement. It was made right in this House.


Paul Wyatt Dick: 1 didn't say that industry, I said "an industry".


Don Boudria: He stated that the industry in question that he was asked about had not modernized. The industry in question in my riding, the Texturon Mill in Hawkesbury, was only built in the mid-seventies. It is not a question of it modernizing. Had the Minister bothered to find out the facts before making his statements on Monday and today, he would not have got himself into the foot and mouth disease problem that he is in now.
I wish to read the letter sent to me by the industry in question. It states:
This letter is written objecting to the planned agreement on free trade with the U.S.A. You are familiar with our operation on Cameron Street in Hawkesbury at which we produce textured polyester yarn in a modern plant with excellent high speed equipment. Should total free trade with the U.S.A. be placed in effect, we beyond doubt will have to close our plant in Hawkesbury. We could not possibly compete with firms in the U.S.A., one of which presently produces in excess of 5 million pounds weekly. Our production in Hawkesbury is approximately 200,000 pounds weekly.
It is not an issue of modernization. The fact is that some of those plants in the United States could produce more in their coffee break than this plant in my riding produces in one week. That is the reality. There is over capacity in that plant. It can add a shift, or as I stated moments ago, cancel one break and it would be able to totally ruin and destroy an industry which provides the livelihood of 72 of my constituents. One would think that that being the case, the least that the Government could provide to my constituents is compassion and assistance instead of laughing at them and pretending that those industries deserve to be shut down, and presumably meaning that my constituents also deserve to be put out of work.
November 27, 1987

That is not good enough for the people whom I represent. Let me remind Members that whatever few votes there were for the Conservative Party in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell have gone with the rest of the votes throughout the rest of the country-out the window for the Tories.


Norman Melvin Warner: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) covered various areas in his speech, and I wish to touch on a few of them, one being the Alexandria subdivision. The Hon. Member mentioned certain letters received from Mr. Hanigan of VTA Rail, and also indications from CN as to its intention of continuing to provide service on this rail line between Montreal and Ottawa.
You have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this is the rail line that you use, and a great many people share your concern. I also share the concern that this line continue to be in place in order that operations continue, as the management of VIA Rail and CN Rail intend. VIA Rail's indication was that almost indefinitely passenger service will continue to be provided between Montreal and Ottawa as it is a core service.
CN Rail has indicated that although the line is under review, as a great many lines are from time to time, to see that it is economically feasible to continue full operations, it does assure the people along that line who are using it for freight traffic that it will be continued for at least five years. That is all that it will guarantee any line of continued usage.
Most important is the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who ultimately has the control in saying that this line will stay in place and continue to be available for Canadians, has indicated that without doubt this line will continue forever and ever. Although he does not put "forever and ever" in his statement, he certainly indicates that as long as he is around, which will be a long time, that that line will stay in place and continue to serve the people who use it, and who continue to want the services in that area.
Another point on the textile industry, Mr. Speaker, I too share the Hon. Member's concern as there are 3,000 constituents in my riding employed by Dominion Textile, which is the largest employer in my riding. Dominion Textile has three plants in my riding, one of which recently received a bronze award from the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion for productivity. I am very proud to stand here in the House and congratulate the employees and management of that company for their extraordinary effort, and perhaps setting an example for other people in the textile industry that they can compete and they will compete, given an opportunity.
This is where opportunity in our riding can be very important. Guaranteed access to the U.S. market is giving an opportunity for another plant of Dominion Textile to modernize and possibly expand. We look forward to a new way of life, and a new, grand market much larger than it is now for the Caldwell Mill in Iroquois. There are 400 people working at this plant, and I am sure that it will admit that its present operation is not as competitive as its operation to the south in
Supply
the United States. But the opportunity for this expanded market, guaranteed access to a market 10 times larger than the Canadian market, provides an opportunity for it to modernize and sell into that market aggressively.
Dominion Textile is no loser. It is presently aggressively expanding into the United States through acquisition and through continuing to force its way into that market and expand its market, and it will not change. That company will not change. It will continue on with guaranteed access to that market and will be able to supply products from Iroquois and the Long Sault plant to wherever it is able to market. Thank goodness for the free trade agreement because it will have guaranteed access to that market.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly to those points. I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Unfortunately, as much as I respect my distinguished neighbour and colleague, I cannot agree with what he said.
First, he said that we have guaranteed access. I do not believe that that is so. A review done by Blake, Cassels & Graydon, a law firm which did a study for the Government of Ontario, refers to four criteria that were analysed in relation to the agreement. I read the operative paragraph of that report:
An application of these four criteria shows that the dispute settlement mechanisms contained in the Agreement are flawed in ways that are likely to result in a significant denial of Canadian access to the U.S. markets.
That is far from being guaranteed access in my opinion.
Second, in relation to the subdivision of CN Rail that both you and I, Mr. Speaker, think is very important, as does the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner), the Minister only gave his guarantee until 1992 and said that it would possibly be there longer than that. He said it would possibly be there much longer than that, to appropriately quote the Minister.
On April 20, 1987, the Save the Line Committee was totally dissatisfied with that answer and wrote a letter to the Editor of the Glengarry News under the heading: "Here we go again!" The first paragraph of the letter reads as follows:
First of all, I must take issue with your front page headline 'Alexandria rail line safe for five years, says Warner', which may give the uninformed reader the wrong impression. The line is anything but safe!
There is much more information in the letter which I do not have time to read now, but it was signed by Michael Cowley-Owen, the President of the Save the Line Committee of Alexandria. As Hon. Members can see, the information is not quite as it was reported a few moments ago.


Mr. Richard Grise (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to take part in today's debate because we have been listening for some time to Opposition Members who spoke about all kinds of other things

November 27, 1987
Supply
than the free trade Agreement and, in particular, transportation. A few minutes ago, we heard the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who claims to be an expert in almost all areas. He should stick to public works and especially underground. I think that is his area of expertise. I do not wish to say any more in this regard.


M. Boudria:: No, because you do not have the guts to say what you have in mind!


Richard Grisé: Once again, Mr. Speaker, he spoke for 20 minutes about almost anything but the matter of transportation and particularly the deregulation of transportation under the Canada-United States free trade Agreement. Instead of reading a few comments, a few letters which he finds here and there, he would do better to consult with the industry at times, not only the various transportation industries but related industries as well.
Obviously, a free trade Agreement with the United States in the area of transportation is a necessary step. Let me explain. If we deregulate transportation in Canada, as the United States did before us, how could there be any fairness on both sides of the border without some trade agreement?
For instance, how could the trucking industry, particularly in Quebec, in Canada, compete with American transportation firms which have just been deregulated, which can get supplies of equipment, material, all kinds of items used for the maintenance of their truck fleet and so on, and which can buy goods to which no taxes or tariffs apply whereas the Canadian industry must carry that burden, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, we must take these very important points in consideration in that free trade Agreement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we meet with some members of the industry, as I did myself a few weeks ago when I was in Los Angeles to meet with 200 transportation brokers of the Transportation Brokers Conference of America,

At the Transportation Brokers' Conference of America, 200 people directly involved in broking transportation in the trucking industry from Canada and the United States attended and asked very interesting questions. They are all very interested in getting an agreement on free trade between our two countries as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the trucking industry is not the only one interested in the free trade deal. There is also, of course, the passenger service industry. There too the products are different. There cannot be adequate competition where an American or a Canadian business is involved because their products, their production costs and their equipment are different, and there cannot be legitimate and fair competition without a free trade deal in the passenger service sector.
The free trade deal will also bring a fundamental change in the transport industry in general; it will have an increasing
impact in the service industry, in manufacturing or tourism. That is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. There will be such an influx of or increase in traffic on both sides of the border that Canadian industries will benefit from a much more interesting potential volume of business than before. Mr. Speaker, this way, they will be even more competitive because our service industries have never been afraid of competition, but they will also be able to gain more customers, increase their potential and improve their services to the population.
Mr. Speaker, there is also a quite related . . .


Gabriel Fontaine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have before us today an opposition motion against free trade with the United States, but there is nobody on the Opposition side to defend it.
Is it only to waste the time of the House that the Liberals who chose free trade as the subject of debate on an allotted day have all left the House? What is going on? Where is their sense of duty, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: It is an interesting point but unfortunately not a point of order.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I understand the intervention of my colleague but I wish to mention the presence in the House of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who has a lot of work to do within his party. There are not too many good Members left on the Liberal Party side, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that their Whip has a considerable amount of work to do. It is understandable that he may have to leave the House from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is, in fact, supporting the Government's position over the free trade deal with the United States.
I am also convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is, like us, considering the importance of the free trade deal, particularly in the transportation industry, for the development of our manufacturing industries. Before Bills C-18 and C-19 and other regulatory measures, our manufacturing industries, particularly in remote areas, often were penalized as they had only access to a single carrier which could freely set its rates as it was the only one to hold a licence. It also could set the scheduling or the frequency of its service to that industry, which could prejudice its development.
Then, how could an industry, particularly in a remote area, become competitive not only with another industry in the same province, located in a large centre, in the same country, but also on the international market? Now, Bills C-18 and C-19
November 27, 1987

allow a carrier to find customers and to apply for a permit to the Department of Transport which will have to prove that this new carrier would prejudice the economy of the area or, on the contrary, assist the local industry. Once again, this relates perfectly with what might be considered now as a quasi-official free trade deal with the United States. The deregulation of transport allows Canadian industries to compete thanks not only to their productivity, or to the quality of their products, or to their marketing aggressiveness but also to their ability to get a better price, to move their goods at a better cost, which will allow them to become more competitive.
Deregulation, therefore, helps a business to become more competitive, and the Free Trade Agreement with the United States provides for an increase in its productivity.
Mr. Speaker, it is this Conservative Government, thanks to its leader the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), which has initiated this trade policy between Canada and the United States to effectively ... It is not always to harm Canadian men and women, Mr. Speaker, it is to help them develop and for the first time in the history of Canada, the only country with fewer than 100 million consumers ... we will have direct access to a market with over 100 million consumers, in fact with almost three times as much, over 250 million.
But what will over 250 million consumers do for our manufacturing companies? They will make it possible for them . . . They will provide them with a huge market which they did not have before. They will motivate them into creating better products, finding cheaper raw materials, as a result of the elimination of tariffs. They will be able to import cheaper raw materials. With greater volumes, they will be able again to increase their productivity, because Canadian men and women working in the manufacturing or processing industry are very aggressive and are not afraid to tackle a competitive market. They will be able to get it. They have already started and will continue to do so over the next few years, thanks to the Free-Trade Agreement with our American friends.
What is most important, besides the increased productivity and renewed aggressiveness of our companies is the fact that there was a shortcoming with regard to the ability to providing services, obtaining those products and delivering the goods whereas they were not competitive in the area of transport.
Now, with deregulation in Canada, our Canadian transportation companies and the American companies also, at the end of the line, will have better rates, more traffic, but with better rates, and at the end of the line, Mr. Speaker, who benefits the most if not consumers generally, and everyone in Canada? This is what the Prime Minister addressed in 1984 when he promised Canadians that we would restore the Canadian economy to a healthy state. This is what it means in my view, Mr. Speaker, giving the people, Canadians and Quebecers, a healthy economy. What does that mean? More subsidies. More social programs. When we can afford it, yes, Mr. Supply
Speaker, but it also means lower consumer prices, a larger range of products available to Canadians. Is that not economic health?
Mr. Speaker, transportation deregulation is extremely important. And when they talk about a sell-out, a sell-out of the transportation industry in order to get a free-trade agreement with the United States, they show total ignorance of the industry, Mr. Speaker.
Go and ask the President of CIL, and CIL I assume is also a Canadian company, and not a Toronto-only Canadian company at that. CIL, Canadian Industries Limited, Mr. Speaker, has facilities across Canada for manufacturing various goods. Ask those companies, like SICO Paint for instance, ask them what negative impact transportation deregulation has, and you will see how they will stress the positive aspects. Of course this is not a perfect system, but where on this planet, Mr. Speaker, can perfect systems be found? There may be perfect systems in the NDP lofty policies, but here we do not claim we have developed a perfect system of government management, Mr. Speaker. But we are very much aware of the importance of the manufacturing industry, of transportation, of those service industries. And all this is directly implied in the historic agreement which we are discussing, which the Premiers have been discussing yesterday in Toronto and will be discussing over the coming weeks.
Without this Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, Canada would remain a small country for us alone, maintaining the status quo which Opposition Members find so precious. But try to move a train when it is stopped on the track. It will not budge. Try to imagine what happens when you are moving ahead and decide all of a sudden to stop to maintain the status quo? You will very quickly realize that others are moving ahead, and you are standing still if you will have a somewhat reverse visual impact. You get the impression of moving backward when you are stopped. This is really the very short term effect of maintaining the status quo for a while: getting the impression that you are moving backward when everybody else is moving forward.
People are concerned about Canada's sovereignty in the Free Trade Agreement. Has Belgium, Holland, or Sweden, which is not even a member of the European Economic Community and which has a free trade agreement with that community, lost its sovereignty? Have the Swedes lost their language, have they lost their culture? Are the products imported by Sweden labelled exclusively in Italian, in Spanish, in German or in French? Yet, this is only a very small country of 10 million people next to a big giant, the European Economic Community which has a population of 300 millions. Have they lost their sovereignty for all that? Did these men and women lose pride in their Swedish citizenship? Of course not, Mr. Speaker. In no way have they lost anything. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker .. .


Mr. Harris:: They did not give up anything either.

November 27, 1987
Supply


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I hear a new NDP Member say that they did not give up anything. Indeed, he should read what is being prepared and learn about the discussions that took place until now. Quite on the contrary, the Conservative Government does not give up anything but is helping development, increasing the production of Canadian men and women, contributing to the opening up of new markets. We are not afraid. We do not treat our adult population like " little boys" and "little girls" because . . . No, no, do not go anywherelse because the big bad wolf will gobble you up. Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in our population. Canadian men and women can face any kind of international market. That is why the free trade deal with the United States is so important. We are proud of our population, of our Canadian men and women; we are prepared to defend them and also to open up new potential markets for them, to give them their true place on the international market, and the Canadian population will show that it is in agreement with the Conservative Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in his comments the Hon. Member referred to my presence here and indicated I was in agreement with his suggestions. I would like to assure him that on the one hand I fail to share the views he has expressed, explained or developed. On the other hand, concerning the impact on the trucking industry in particular, I think he could have been modest enough to recognize that there is a problem in the Canadian and the American industries. The heart of the matter, in fact the heart of the dispute is that, according to the shipping industry, the wording indeed of the first annex and the later version may provide for easy access to Canada by American companies, at the expense of Canadian companies which were not given by this Government a firm commitment that we would have, loosely speaking, the kind of new, North American Jones Act that would allow Canadian companies, Canadian transportation workers to reach the American ports, to do on the American side what the current wording of the agreement allows Americans to do on our side here.
That is the heart of the problem, and the Hon. Member knows very well it is not accurate to state that the free trade agreement will have no impact on Canadian trucking. It will have an impact, a serious impact, and he knows it. I would ask him simply to be straight forward enough to admit it.
Let us look for a solution, let us try to amend the agreement. Indeed, this morning, there were reports through someone who knows about the issue, that the Mulroney-Reagan agreement, if there is to be one, may be amended one of the negotiators who stated today that yes, it is possible to bring in amendments. This is one amendment that will have to be made to the agreement, making sure it is fair and just for both sides.
The other question he raised in his conclusion, something I found quite interesting coming from him, is the so-called national pride.
I am asking him the question, because he knows that in Canada we have legislation or regulations providing that anything written on packaged or prepackaged products should
appear in both official languages, that is in French and English. Does he not agree with me that it would be advisable to include in the deal a safeguard for that Canadian legislation or those regulations which could be used by the Americans as a non-tariff barrier? Could they use that argument and say: "Listen now, in the United States we do not have two official languages. You are then setting an additional charge and it is unfair to impose Canadian bilingualism on the American manufacturing industry."
I say in all fairness that if it was possible to do it for security, as provided in the agreement, and for all kinds of things such as culture and marketing offices, then one of the most important legislation in the country, the one dealing with bilingualism, should be included.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (M. Gauthier). It is certain, first of all, that the trucking industry has an impact on free trade, and a very positive one at that, as I have said earlier.
Of course, I am no expert on transport, unlike the members opposite who all have so much to say on the subject. I have only been in the transport business for 20 years, in trucking as well as in passenger transport. So I do not at all consider myself an expert in the field, Mr. Speaker. However, the little I have learned, I do remember well.
I do not believe for a moment a problem exists between the United States and Canada. On the contrary. Deregulation and the free trade deal will be extremely beneficial to the transport industries, particularly those of Canada.
My time ran out before I could mention it earlier, but at the present time, in the passenger service sector, for instance, bus companies from Quebec or Canada, unless they have entirely defined routes, are not allowed on their way to Miami or Chicago or anywhere else to offer bus tours of New York or Washington when they go through those cities because they have no permit to do so and cannot get one either. It is the direct business, the one that is directly involved.
The same applies to Canada. Before deregulation, a group arriving in a smaller centre, in Quebec or in Canada, did not have anyone to handle its transportation needs and the carrier which had moved them from A to B could not do it either, because of the rules. Consequently, this is also, I believe, a significant improvement.
As to the national pride and the question of labelling, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is right to raise that point, but it has already been discussed. The province and the Premier of Quebec would never have agreed to a Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement had the matter of labelling been questioned. Look at the number of countries presently doing business with the United States. A lot of goods manufactured in the United States are imported into Canada. There is certainly a lot of products manufactured in the United States and sold in Canada, and in Japan too.
November 27, 1987

Some Japanese-made products are sold in Canada bearing French labels and there is nothing in the Agreement . . . They have to do it for sure . . . Nothing in the Free Trade Agreement compromises ... It is covered and the Prime Minister was very clear at the onset. The Prime Minister of Canada has stated that social programs, marketing offices and culture were not to be touched.
Mr. Speaker, I would conclude on this because I would like to allow another member to put a question to me.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent some time defending the Government against what I believe are legitimate charges in the motion, that the rules imposed in this agreement will not be equal for Canadian airlines, ships, trucks and rail. They will not have the same access to the U.S. market as has been granted to those American transportation modes into Canada.
He talked about fear and how we had to get away from the status quo. I could not help but think of what was said some 300 years ago when doctors used to bleed patients. It became a common practice to bleed people, as this was considered a good practice to remain healthy. At the same time, some religious orders and others engaged in self flagellation. I believe we began to hear the same thing recently with respect to the economic field, with the saying of short term pain for long term gain. It sounds alarmingly like the same kind of methods are being practised on our economy and body politic.
Perhaps it is time to update our economic understanding and theories in this country, rather than to attack the status quo. The ancient doctors were quite convinced that anyone who had not been recently bled was unhealthy. I am wondering whether some of that same attitude has not gone into the political mindset in Canada, particularly when we rush into a proposed deal like this which clearly gives more benefits to the other party than ours in the field of transportation. The rationale is that while it will hurt in the short term, it will be good for the industry.


Richard Grisé: Mr. Speaker, I am not as old as the Hon. Member to be able to comment on the ancient doctors. I have never been close to one and do not know their experience. Perhaps the Hon. Member does, but I am much too young.
As far as fear and the status quo is concerned, the Hon. Member has no trouble coping with the status quo of the Auto Pact. We know that the United Auto Workers are strong supporters of the NDP and they are quite content to be the only ones to have a free trade agreement with the United States.
When we talk about economic bodies, we are not only dealing with high level manufacturers. The first and most important economic body in Canada is consumers. It is Canadians, especially ordinary Canadians as the NDP like to
Supply
call them. We refer to them as strong and important Canadians.
In 1965, the NDP was opposed to the Auto Pact because it would wash out all jobs in Canada, especially in that industry. However, let us consider the job creation that has taken place and how it has strengthened the economy of southern Ontario.
We are seeking those results not only in Ontario but throughout Canada, for a stronger economy in all regions.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the debate on this motion this afternoon which concerns two interrelated matters of Government policy.
First, I want to comment on the observations just made by the Parliamentary Secretary in relation to the comments of my friend, the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who pointed out some of the dangers of free trade.
It may be useful to appreciate that the Auto Pact, which Government Members have often raised as an argument for the free trade deal which was negotiated this fall, is by no means a straightforward free trade agreement. It includes some very significant safeguards for Canadian content, continuing employment in Canada, and for a relationship between the number of cars sold in Canada and the production of automobiles in Canada. Those are the kinds of provisions that are very important to an agreement.
We had a free trade agreement in agricultural implements for many decades. That industry was forced to function in conditions under which prairie farmers and others were able to buy equipment made in the United States, without having to pay a duty. When we consider an industry such as that, the horrifying result is that there is precious little production by major producers in Canada.
We can use the example of the great company of Massey Harris as it was known years ago. The companies of Massey and Harris, were combined in the late nineteenth century in order to provide a stronger competitor for Canadian and export markets. This company, which later became Massey Ferguson, does very little production in Canada when we consider where the tractors and combines are made. The majority of its production for the Canadian market takes place in the United States.
While the farmer constituents in the riding of my friend for Humboldt-Lake Centre have benefited from free trade over the years, the results of free trade to the constituents of my friend, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), where combines were made in the past, have meant the disappearance of that industry entirely.
To think that free trade is going to be some great panacea for the Canadian economy deserves very careful consideration, industry by industry. In that spirit, I would like to take up the motion before us this afternoon, "that this House condemn the

November 27, 1987
Supply
Government for its destructive influence on the Canadian transportation industry by its impractical and slavish adherence to the ideological myth of deregulation and its inept trade negotiations with the United States", and there are four paragraphs, and I would like to focus on two of those.
Paragraph 2 states:
(2) introduction in the railway industry of "Competitive Rail Line Rate" provisions allowing American railways free access to Canadian markets while denying reciprocal arrangements for Canadian railways;
And paragraph (4) states:
(4) abandoning its legislation on the Canadian coasting trade and failing to obtain any benefits in the trade agreement for Canadian maritime industries.
The Canadian railways provide us with a very interesting instance, again to use a specific example of an industry to focus the concerns we in the Opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, feel about both the deregulation program and the agreement arrived at this fall. The railways, as 1 say, provide a fascinating case. Initially we find support for the program the Government was putting forward under its Freedom to Move rubric and in Bill C-18 and Bill C-19, in particular. There was very significant support from CP Rail and CNR for these provisions. When the railways looked more closely at what the Government was proposing to do, and when they focused on this competitive rail line rate provision, they suddenly did an about face.
Why did the railways, which have been so ideologically in line with the Government on its deregulation program, do that kind of about face? They discovered that what the Government was proposing on the Canadian side was a provision under which someone who had goods to ship could turn to the rail line and tell it that if it ships the goods to the border and ties in with an American line going to the vicinity of the market to which the individual wanted his goods shipped- using perhaps the Burlington Northern system across the West-and if the American railways quoted a significantly lower rate, the Canadian railway would be forced to use that particular system. The Canadian railway would not only be unable to quote the higher rate but would actually end up losing the income from carriage of those goods from the market, wherever it happened to be, perhaps in southern Ontario, to a western market.
When the Canadian railways realized that in the United States under its economies of scale, the massive amounts of freight the American railways carry, and under the much more favourable tax laws and the vicious labour laws which have operated there for the last years, this competitive rail line rate provision could threaten three-quarters of the trade the Canadian railways were doing, they did a most remarkable about face. I personally, as the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, experienced that. Officials from the CP Rail office in Winnipeg arrived in my riding to have a chat with me.
In decades past, the tradition of the CCF and NDP, when officials of the CP Rail came calling, if they ever did, was to
have a very, very intensive encounter, indeed. In the mythology of our Party there is that moment when David Lewis said to a CP Rail president at a Rhodes Scholarship Committee, that if he were given the opportunity as Prime Minister of Canada, the first thing he would do would be to nationalize the CPR. That moment in the history of our Party stands in the sharpest contrast to what happened when these gentlemen arrived in my office in Thunder Bay. What they wanted to do was to have a close exchange of views in which they supported the criticism of my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), of the Freedom to Move program and his criticism of what the Government is presuming to do with this deregulation program.
CP Rail became a supporter of our attack on deregulation. CP Rail, which is surely one of the remarkable fruits of enterprise in Canada-not necessarily competitive. There is a lot of monopoly about this business-recognized that what the Government was putting forward was a potential competition out of the United States which could well bring the railway to its knees, which could destroy the railway and employment in Canada, and make impossible the profitable state CP Rail has enjoyed, and which has made it such a producer of enterprise into other industries.
CP Rail enterprises have been the basis of much development in this country in the past, but the Government program of deregulation has every potential for destroying that for the future. There am I as a New Democrat making this odd speech in support of CP Rail at this point, but I am using it to demonstrate that the Government had the support of industry at one time, but after that industry considering the kind of concessions made to American interests on behalf of Canadian shippers, it no longer has that support. That has been mentioned by others.
Of course, Canadian shippers want to get the cheapest rate, but the Government thinks the only employment that counts in this country, the only prosperity that matters, is the production of minerals and chemicals. The Parliamentary Secretary alluded to CIL. Surely we want to ensure that the production of goods and their movement to markets in Canada and abroad are also productive of employment in transportation and communities.
In Thunder Bay, to focus on my own community again, where railway workers have been laid off in significant numbers by both CP Rail and the CNR, I see the proposals of the Government in its deregulation program as really destructive of employment and prosperity.
These proposals as they relate to the railways are reason enough for me to speak in support of the motion put forward this morning. What I would like to do now is to turn from the railways to the marine industries of this country, particularly to the shipbuilding industry. That is one with which I have been particularly concerned as critic in our caucus. I have had much reason to be concerned after conversations with shipyard workers and their managers, after visits to a variety of
November 27, 1987

shipyards from Vancouver to Halifax, and after meeting with shipyard workers here on the Hill. I can appreciate the plight of that industry.
This is another industry about which to put forward criticisms of the Government's actions, actions which underscore the critical attitude in general that has been taken. I might begin with a letter written by the president of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in the first days of this month. The letter was sent to a good number of cabinet Ministers and to all the Members of Parliament representing shipyards or related industries across the country. The letter states:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the preliminary views of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association with respect to the document entitled "Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement-Elements of the Agreement". I say preliminary because this Association's Position will not be formalized until we have had an opportunity to study the completed document and its annexes, particularly the Transportation Annex.
He goes on to say:
In the interim, however, we would like you to be aware of our extreme dissatisfaction with the Agreement, insofar as it affects ship construction. You will undoubtedly recall that on December 8, 1986 the CSSRA announced publicly its full endorsement of a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the U.S.
This strong support assumed that the application of the U.S. Jones Act, the Burns-Tollefson Amendment, and other restrictive legislation concerning shipbuilding, on both sides, would be extended to cover both Canada and the U.S.
In other words, where the United States has restrictive legislation, or Canada might have some, including shipping interests and shipbuilders in the neighbouring country, those provisions would be spread so that the Americans would be able to take advantage of industries in Canada and Canadians could take advantage of activity in the United States.
That was the expectation. He goes on to state:
In our dialogue with the SAGIT on Marine, Industrial and Rail Equipment, we received encouraging reaction to this position. We believed at that time, and still do, that such a provision within a free trade agreement would be of mutual benefit commercially and militarily. However, to the extent that we can determine at this stage, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. Jones Act (and its many amendments and revisions) are exempt from any provision of the Free Trade Agreement; the Agreement is silent with respect to the Burns-Tollefson Amendment; and no mention is made of the shipbuilding industrial sector on either side.
Thus we learned with some dismay that, apparently, our industrial sector was overlooked. Unfortunately, this does not surprise us, as the Government has been reluctant to consider the interests of Canadian shipyards with respect to national policy for many years.
When he says for many years he clearly recognizes that the failure of this Government to do anything for shipbuilding is a failure that characterized the preceding Liberal Government just as much.
The result of this is that the organization which has been renamed the Canadian Maritime Industries Association, formerly the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing
Supply
Association, put out a release with this letter declaring that the elements of the agreement that have been made public to date cause its members deep concern with respect to the construction of ships. The President in the covering release reiterates the hopes that they had of being able to benefit from American activity by having the restrictions of the Jones Act and other legislation removed. He said that instead the opposite appears to have occurred since the Jones Act governing ships engaged in U.S. domestic trade is specifically excluded from the free trade agreement. No mention is made of the shipbuilding industry.
That is reason enough for me as the critic for shipbuilding in our caucus to strongly support this particular motion. Here we have the failure of the Government to achieve anything in an agreement which members of the government party would declare is now the basic element in their strategy for Canada and their hopes for the prosperity of the country. Here is an industry that has been left out completely. What this reflects is the ongoing crisis of the shipbuilding industry to which I alluded earlier this afternoon in my statement under Standing Order 21.
We have the reality that the Party that now governs promised in August of 1984 to make shipbuilding a prosperous industry in Canada. That promise from members of the Atlantic caucus was surely a fairly considered decision since there were various items on which the Conservative Party promised action before it won election in September of 1984. In practice they have not done so. In practice there has been no action on these items. We have not had any statement of policy on shipbuilding at all.
Initially, people in the industry sought a statement. Eventually, they got to the desperate point of saying that if they had a policy statement saying that there is not going to be any policy even that would be something. What they have had to settle for is a policy which clearly accepts the decline of the industry, a policy that states, "We will assist you in rationalizing". In practice that means that the Government is saying, "Let's reduce the number of shipyards. Let's close them down".
This was most obvious when correspondence from Quebec came to the public eye early in 1985. That correspondence indicated that there was pressure being put on the yards on the St. Lawrence to have some of them put over completely to industrial work. The correspondence indicated that this was being accepted by the owner, by the Versatile interests, as justification for it to ask for more work and for more assistance from the Government for those yards that would continue in existence.
The ironic thing about this is that in the Province of Ontario yards have functioned over many years in St. Catharines, Collingwood and in my constituency at the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company. As the decline of traffic on the lakes hit these areas very severely in 1984, 1985 and 1986, and as the amount of repair work to be done declined, and as there was no building taking place at all, the bankruptcy of the

November 27, 1987
Supply
Government in the area of shipbuilding policy became a basis for companies to close their yards and to consolidate the remaining work.
Thus Collingwood, a yard at which fine commercial work had been done over many years, has disappeared. Never again will ships be built in that yard. What we have seen then and what we saw again this week with a demonstration yesterday of workers from Halifax who came to Ottawa to demonstrate against the Government to demand action on shipbuilding policy is a declaration that here is a government that may yield to political pressure. The next election draws near. We hear about a task force these days. The previous Government used the task force on deep sea shipping as a way to get past an election. This Government is thinking about a different kind of task force.
This Government has failed the shipbuilding industries completely. It is threatening shipping. It threatens the rail operations of the country. Here is a government that deserves the condemnation which this motion before us this afternoon states.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, when 1 hear my socialist colleague say that this Government has failed in the area of the shipping industry, of shipyards, etc., I suggest he is not aware of new developments. I think he should look around him and see what is going on across the country. Because Canadian Government orders in the area of defence are very significant in most Canadian shipyards, and if the Hon. Member had not been so subservient to the previous Government, today we would not have to make such an effort for capital expenditures in our defence system in order to buy boats, aircrafts, specialized trucks and so on.
I also have a little comment for my socialist colleague: if he had really wanted to inform this House properly concerning marine activities and the shipyard industry, he would have said that Bill C-52 respecting the coasting trade and marine commercial activities will have a very positive effect on our marine industries. I am anxious to see on what side of the issue the Hon. Member will stand when the final vote is taken on this Bill. But in any event, these people from the Socialist Party always manage to level specific criticism.
Today I had some difficulty understanding exactly what was the message given in this House other than a series of specific criticisms. However, Mr. Speaker, I read today in this week's issue of the Financial Post, a newspaper that they probably never read because Mr. Bob White must subscribe to the Pravda and not to the Financial Post. The Hon. Member should go to the library once in a while where he could read the Financial Post for free. I also recommend that paper to the Liberal Members who have been criticizing since this morning during the debate on the motion by the Hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who have been criticizing our deregulation policy and our free trade policy. So I was saying that in today's Financial Post one can read that the Canadian
Pacific, one of the biggest transport companies, has been taking measures in the past few months in order to be ready to tackle the enormous market that deregulation will open for development. And, Mr. Speaker, it says here and I agree, that by giving greater access to more carriers, by allowing negotiations between the carrier and users, this will result in a strong competition which in turn will lower the rates of transport. And when transportation costs are reduced . . . but Socialists are unaware of those things because they have never done any payroll work. They have always sponged on unions. When prices of goods are lowered in Canada as a result of reduced transportation costs, they become cheaper for all Canadians. This is what we do. We reduce consumer prices and thus extend our market abroad. However, you do not agree because you want to protect the free-trade situation that has prevailed in southern Ontario since 1965. Now it is impossible for Socialists to live with the requirements for competition and to have confidence in aggressive and glib Canadian industrialists who day after day are seeking new means of developing new and cheaper services for Canadians, because when everything is running smoothly in the system you sponge around and suck blood like leeches. You cannot understand anything else. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am suprised at their interventions, week after week, day after day. It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has give me an opportunity to reiterate some points, and add one or two. I am grateful for that opportunity. As another Member who represents a shipbuilding area, the tone that he takes strikes me as a bit odd. When I was talking about railways, 1 don't think that he was paying any attention; he was paying as little attention as the Parliamentary Secretary who was packing up his papers and leaving as I made those comments. It would have been useful for him to stay and receive the education of some specific information instead of serving up rhetoric.
What we have received from this Government in the way of activity in the shipyards is no novelty. As it approached an election, the last Government served up a number of contracts to specific yards in order to keep them working. We got this "scrap" program as it was articulated, the special capital recovery program which saw ships built in various yards on government contracts for the Coast Guard and so on. The last Government knew that perfectly well, and this Government has been doing the same thing. As the election draws near, if enough government contracts go into the yards, people will be working.
What we did not have from the last Government, and have not had from this Government, despite the bluster that we were just served, is a declaration that the Government recognizes that by putting enough of those contracts into yards and changing certain provisions, such as the exemption from
November 27, 1987

duty of the largest fishing vessels so that they will not be imported but rather built here, it might be possible to keep work going in most of the yards of this country. We have not had that declaration as a policy, which it could be. Those who work in the yards, and those who own and manage them, would be very pleased to have the Government declare that as a policy.
Construction for Maritime Command was dreadfully neglected by the previous Government. By scheduling production for other services such as the Coast Guard, and determining the bases upon which the work will be distributed, there will not be those unseemly struggles between regions, for example with the St. Lawrence yard and the yard in the Hon. Member's riding working against the argument of the Saint John shipyard people that if the next six patrol frigates were built there, we will save $17 million a vessel-or is it on the whole package? We will not have those particular arguments being made. Those of us representing other yards, and Canadians generally will not be tempted to look through this thing and determine why Saint John Shipbuilding, which was a rather sorry starter, had reached the state of efficiency that might allow it to do that.
The Government has refused to state a policy, although it practises elements of it. It continues to argue that competitive bidding is actually the basis but does not look behind the bids-for example, the one that took the Simcoe to Marys-town-without considering the possibility that provincial government assistance is allowing a yard to underbid other yards. People have not been getting into those questions, at least in public, whatever may happen in Transport Canada. There has been a failure to state a policy, and then the Hon. Member has the gall to rise and bluster at me.
Bill C-52 relates to the coasting trade of the country and it might offer something or other, but it is an odd situation. The Bill has been given second reading in the House. I understand the legislative committee is on hold. Is it on hold until after the trade deal is passed in order that we avoid disrupting anything, or why is it that this particular Bill not being acted upon?
If one looks carefully at Bill C-52 and the exemptions within it, one of the most harmful exemptions is for platforms used in the production of hydrocarbons. Those platforms out there are involved in drilling and production, particularly off the Atlantic coast, and they are ships of a sort. They could be built in Canadian yards. This Government has given us legislation that will allow import of them rather than construction in Canadian yards; not that they will be licensed, but they are simply exempted entirely from the Bill. What type of policy is that?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. The whole question of transportation is extremely important to the West, and that was the perspective I wished to bring to the debate. It is demonstrated by the fact that over 50 per cent of our exports to the United States are handled by trucking; 75 per cent of
Supply
the imports to Canada are handled by trucking. Already we are seeing Canadian companies competing quite effectively in the United States.
I wish to go into that issue in a lot more detail, but obviously the time is not available.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has western roots, and he was born in the West. As I grew up in the West, there were two things that were particularly aggravating to western Canadians. The first one has always been the high cost of shipping, and the second has been the high tariffs which we have seen as an intrusion to western Canadians rather than an assistance. We have always seen those items as a problem rather than a solution. What I see happening in this motion before us today is a combination of both free trade and transportation.
Will the Hon. Member address for a moment the impact that this has had on western Canada? Surely he would agree with me that through Bills C-18 and C-19 the western Canadian shipper, who has for years been at a disadvantage, as a result of Bills C-18 and C-19 is today moving into a position of advantage and opportunity, which we see as a big chance in the West. The free trade agreement will remove those tariffs which historically have been a real hindrance and burr in the saddle of western Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) could condense his answer to approximately 60 seconds.


Abram Ernest Epp: If I only have 60 seconds, I will not address the tariffs.
As someone who grew up on a mixed farm in Manitoba with a father who sold grain through Thunder Bay and used the Seaway, I have a very great interest in western shipping and in using rail lines out of the West. We ought to recognize the importance of those lines.
Any fancy economic argument about more efficient use of resources somewhere else should never allow us to forget one brute reality: those communities need rail lines at economic rates in order to continue. The Hon. Member recognizes that fact, and I am sure would not deny it in the least.
My predecessors in the last Parliament who fought for the Crow Rate wanted to maintain low rates. They did not want any deregulation-style arguments or competitive enterprise arguments to be used to reduce this particular rate. The railways have been able to manage. Some subsidies were provided to them. A subsidy that is now under attack had been provided in order to maintain that.
I am sure that you wish me to stop, Mr. Speaker, but let me put forward those items. The Hon. Member's comments seem to be quite consistent with my position, which is at variance with the people who put forward this motion, and the position taken in the last Parliament. I am not sure it is in keeping with

November 27, 1987
Supply
what the Hon. Member wants. I feel that he ought to reconsider his own position more firmly in terms of the Crow Rate in particular.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that another Member wishes to say a few words before the debate concludes, so I will try to be as brief as possible.
This particular motion talks about "inept trade negotiations" that the Government has with the United States. The mover of the motion used the word "inept". According to the Oxford Dictionary "inept" means "out of place", so we can say the out of place trade negotiations; "inept" also means "absurd", so we could say the absurd trade negotiations. It also means "silly", so we could say the silly trade negotiations. It also means unskillful.
Most of the speakers who have addressed the resolution today have mentioned in the areas of airlines, railways, and trucking and that the Government of Canada has been inept in dealing with the United States. According to what has been placed on the record today about that entire group of subjects, one could say that the principle of free trade as the Government sees it is inept.
When members of the public are asked what free trade means, they think that free trade means free trade, that countries can trade freely without having any obstacles like tariffs placed in their paths at the border and that products can move freely across two borders, three borders, five borders or 10 borders. That is the way some trade agreements operate. We say that this is an inept pact because there is no free trade deal. The free trade deal with the United States does not provide for free trade.
Today, the Premier of Newfoundland must have eaten something bad or he must not have got enough sleep last night. This afternoon he said that he was in agreement with the free trade deal with the United States. I do not know what came over him.
Under this free trade agreement, a producer in Puerto Rico could say that the Government of Newfoundland has put a subsidy on a product by bailing out a company in Newfoundland and therefore he wants a duty placed on that product when it enters the United States market. Under the so-called free trade agreement with the United States, one producer in the United States of America, even the owner of a corner store if he produces something, has the right to ask for such a duty to be placed against products from Canada.
Countervailing tariffs and anti-dumping legislation are all fancy terms which only mean that a charge, whether it be a tariff, a duty, a countervailing duty or an anti-dumping duty, must be put up when products cross the border. I do not care what it is called, it is all money. This happens when one
country believes that another country is bringing products across the border unfairly.
We are saying in this motion that Canada was inept because Canada agreed to abide by U.S. law. Some Hon. Members have said that this will remove tariffs at the border and therefore it is a great thing because now we can move our goods across the border without having that encumbrance of a tariff.
What does a producer in the United States do when computing a countervailing duty? The producer claims that he has been damaged by Canadian subsidies and the total damage is assessed. The American Department of Commerce sends representatives to Canada and, by mutual agreement, goes over the books of the company concerned and holds a hearing at which the company concerned can claim that there is no subsidy or the Government can claim that the American producer is wrong. The total value of the claimed subsidy is taken into account.
Under the free trade agreement, the United States can still say that because Canada is different from the United States, it will impose tariffs. In fact, Canada is vastly different from the United States. Our social programs are vastly different and many people would praise that difference.
There is a big difference between getting sick in Canada and getting sick in the United States. There is a big difference between ending up in hospital in Canada and ending up in hospital in the United States. The difference is absolutely incredible. In Canada, there is social legislation and legislation to help industry. In fact, there are special government Departments in the poorer provinces of Canada that give tax breaks and special DR1E assistance.
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, the north shore of Quebec and northern Ontario all have access to assistance programs for industry. The Government gives interest-free loans to companies to set up industries in those areas or its gives half loans and half grants to industries to expand tourist facilities and hotels. All of these things assist the poorer regions in Canada, and these are programs that do not exist in the United States.
The United States does not offer assistance to fishermen who own boats. There are no plant-modernization programs for the forest industry in the United States. However, we have such programs in Canada.
The free trade agreement will now become the primary target of this great protectionist attitude in the United States. Producers are blaming their problems on cheap imports. These producers know that the United States has told Canada to sign on the dotted line so that Canada will respect American trade laws, anti-dumping laws and countervailing duty laws. Canada has signed on the dotted line. Canada said: "Yes, for the first time in history, we will sign on the dotted line that says we respect your right to impose a countervailing duty on a product that comes from Canada that you believe has been subsidized
November 27, 1987

by the Government of Canada or by a provincial Government".
That is why I cannot understand the Premier of Newfoundland. In fact, understanding what is in the free trade agreement, I wonder why any premier from any Atlantic province would agree to such a stupid deal, a deal that means that we no longer believe in assisting the poorer regions with special government assistance or programs.
Recently, the Premier of Newfoundland and his Cabinet decided to give millions and millions of dollars in loans to a company from Alberta so that it would move to Mount Pearl outside St. John's, Newfoundland, to grow cucumbers. I do not know whether it was $11 million, $12 million or $13 million which was given to this company to grow cucumbers. That provides a good opportunity for a countervail. We will see what happens when that company tries to export those cucumbers to the United States if they can grow them. There is no government assistance in the United States comparable to that kind of assistance. That is what the Premier of Newfoundland did, but today he has said that he agrees with the free trade agreement into which this Government has entered. Why, 1 do not know. What other deal was made behind the scenes? Maybe there was another deal made, I do not know.
The Hon. Member who moved the motion is saying that the Government of Canada went to the United States and said that it would sign a free trade deal with the United States that would provide that Canada respects all the American laws and rights to impose duties. Canada has signed an agreement saying that it will respect American state trucking laws and the right of the United States to impose a charge on a product that comes into the United States if a producer in the United States so wishes. That is why we call it inept and all of those words to which I referred in the Oxford Dictionary, particularly the word "silly".
I have never heard anything more silly than calling this a free trade deal. Charges can still be made under GATT. Countervailing duties can be applied. Anti-dumping laws and duties can be imposed when any U.S. producer wishes. So why is it called a free trade deal? Because the Government says it will remove tariffs. Yet it does not go on and explain that countervailing duties could be double the old tariff. In other words, countervailing duties of 20 per cent were applied to saltfish, which has a normal tariff of 10 per cent. That countervailing duty would have been 30 per cent if the tariff was not in place because the damage being done to the U.S. producers was judged to be 35 per cent of the value of the product in Canada. That is basically why we disagree with the free trade deal.
The other points concerning railways, truckers and the marine industries have already been made very well and I
Supply
should conclude because I believe another hon. gentleman wishes to say a few words.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for giving me a few minutes to make some comments on this Opposition motion dealing with the deregulation of the transportation industry and the free-trade deal.
I think that by criticizing this historic free-trade deal, the Opposition lacks preparation and respect. The simple cooperation of the Liberal opposition with the socialists makes us wonder if the Liberals are opposed to free-trade because they are seeking electoral gains or if they are trying to protect the interests of some regions of the country to the detriment of the others.
In any event, I think that when the Opposition agrees with Bob White, who is the boss of the socialists in this Camber, it lacks respect for Canadians in general and particularly for Canadian businessmen, entrepreneurs and industrialists who export to the U.S. goods and services worth $95 billion, out of our total exports of $125 billion. These are the Canadians whose aggressiveness and capacities developed the U.S. market. These are the Canadians who are attacked by the Opposition today, in this Chamber. What the Opposition is saying is that we must prevent our Canadian exporters from getting access to the U.S. market. This is what they are telling us by attacking free-trade.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is absolutely false.


Gabriel Fontaine: They refuse to recognize that free-trade exists in Canada, in Southern Ontario, since 1965 in the auto industry. It was the same negotiator, Mr. Reisman, who negotiated the Auto Pact that proved to be very beneficial. These same socialists and their leader of the time, Mr. Douglas, were against free trade. But today, they would like to keep the benefits of free trade for the automobile industry only. They do not want to see similar benefits extended to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we should realize that that first free trade initiative in 1965 results today in sales of $33 billion a year for Canadian exporters and 840,000 jobs in the automobile industry. And we have here people who oppose a more national implementation of free trade. I wonder how serious they can be and where is their respect for all Canadians. I wonder where is their respect for the 12 million Canadians, out of a population of 20 million, who have a job and are productive.
Older people do not work, of course, and neither do the young and the sick and those unable to work. But the 12 million Canadians who do work have a production of $500 billion worth of goods and services in Canada. One quarter of that is exported. That means that there are 3 million Canadian men and women who have jobs today because of our exports. And people opposite have the gall to pick on details in the trade deal.

November 27, 1987
Supply
Mr, Speaker, it is important that Canadians understand that we initiated and concluded the deal first of all to secure our continued access to the American market. The fact is that the Americans also have problems and are increasingly being pressured by the business people because of their substantial trade deficit. Recently, they have had a yearly trade deficit of $170 billion. This has an impact on all American companies, whatever their size. This has brought about protectionism and congressional pressure. The congressmen are preparing bills to eliminate and reduce the import of certain products, and as far as we are concerned, the products most affected are those sold by our Canadian business people, whose hability has naturally been questioned by the socialists, and also by the Liberals to gain the favour of the voting public.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the opposition to stop making negative statements about this historic Free Trade Agreement. I even ask them to support us, because if the socialists and the Liberals opposite go on sleeping together in the big Bob White Hotel, it will mean the end of this country, as they are now concentrating in the central region of this country all the benefits of free trade and telling the rest of Canadians that free trade is bad. As for the Quebec Liberal Members in this House, they are not even able to understand the message of Quebecers as a whole, of the Quebec government and of premier Bourassa, who are all saying that free trade is good and even essential for Quebec. The Liberals prefer to bow down before those who defend the interests of Southern Ontario. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they should also think
about what is good for Quebecers and all Canadians. That is my message for them. Thank you.


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


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you for the brilliant and distinguished manner in which you are presiding over our proceedings this afternoon. But I want to point out to you, on a point of order, that the Hon. Member got carried away and is completely out of order when he says- And I want to make my point of order very clear. I think the Hon. Member is launching once again on his pet subject and tries to accuse everybody of being socialist, to accuse us . . . First, I find it most disagreeable that he could use such anti-parliamentary language as to say Liberals are "sleeping" with socialists. He does not even know what he is talking about. I would like to take part in the debate, but I see there is no time left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ellis):: It may be unpleasant, it may be difficult, but it is also three o'clock.
It being three o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12) the proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, November 30, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers