1987-12-17

Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages.


FISHERIES AND OCEANS-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in both official languages.
[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, as Co-chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, 1 have the honour to present the fifth report of the committee, in both official languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, the committee requests the Government to table a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask consent, which I believe I need, in order to have an
Act to provide the political rights of public employees introduced again into the House. The Clerk, 1 think, understands better than I exactly what is the procedure. We were in consultation with the Privy office yesterday and 1 understand that this procedure is necessary in order to allow a Bill which 1 had previously debated for one hour in this House back into the hopper for the private Members' draw taking place this afternoon.
I would appreciate all Members granting me the necessary consent to revert to introduction of Private Members' Bills and then to have this Bill introduced. I was trying to listen and do this at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. I should advise all Hon. Members that this can only be done with unanimous consent. I think the Hon. Member realizes that.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the normal pattern on a unanimous consent request at this time would be some prior consultation. At first blush, 1 do not think there is any problem, but I think we should go through the consultation process before we grant the unanimous consent.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to do that provided that perhaps there will be some disposition, assuming there is nothing irregular, to do this in the next few minutes because of the need to fit in under the deadline for the draw. 1 have to apologize, but was rather tied up with tax reform matters yesterday and we just managed to start to get in under the wire at 5.30 or 6 p.m. yesterday with respect to the draw.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as long as we know exactly what we are facing. We are always concerned about precedents. If it is missing a deadline, that is one set of circumstances. If it opens the door to Parliament's reconsideration of matters already dealt with, which is one of the fundamental principles in this place, then we are in a somewhat different ball park. I just do not know what the situation is because consultation did not occur. We would be pleased to have those consultations at the earliest moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can assist the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and Hon. Members. First, if the House decides to do something by consent, I should make it

December 17, 1987
Petitions
very clear that that is not viewed by the Chair as any type of precedent. I might share with Members my view of precedent. It is not the automatic following of something that has been done once. I want to assure the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that if something can be worked out here, the Chair will not feel that it is any type of precedent. 1 do understand and appreciate the support of the Parliamentary Secretary for maintenance, under those circumstances, to the ordered way of doing things. I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) feels the same way.
I am only suggesting to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre that perhaps they could have a quick consultation, and it might be the disposition of the House to come back in a few minutes and revert to this matter. If there is a general disposition to go along with something, I do not want to see it stopped for any narrow grounds. I am in the hands of the House. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I agree that that is the most constructive way to proceed. Therefore, I withdraw my request for consent at this time pending consultations with the Parliamentary Secretary. We will do that right away.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of concerned citizens of Sussex, New Brunswick, I wish to present a petition.
My constituents pray that the Parliament of Canada will act to establish necessary measures to ensure that the homeless and poorly lodged Canadians live in adequate and healthy housing, and have access to a variety of rehabilitation programs in order to reintegrate into Canadian society.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has indicated that 100,000 people were homeless sometime during 1986, that there are increasing numbers joining those ranks, and that soup kitchens are not an adequate response. I petition the House of Commons on behalf of the petitioners that something be done to alleviate the situation.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Portage- Marquette, my neighbouring riding, and particularly those who reside in the Riding Mountain area and neighbouring communities.
Understandably, the petitioners are concerned about reduction in postal service in their area, and petition Parliament on behalf of all who reside in that area, with the request that Canada Post should not reduce service to rural communities, and that rural Canadians should not in any way be treated inequitably by that Crown corporation.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of constituents of the federal constituency of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington who are asking for changes in our road safety regulations.
The petitioners believe that rear seatbelts in passenger cars are inadequate, and that the suffering of crash victims could be reduced or avoided through improved seatbelts. They also believe that medical care costs can be reduced or eliminated.
For those reasons, the petitioners urge the Government to make a commitment with respect to the mandatory installation of adjustable shoulder safety belts for all rear seat passenger cars, and the installation of airbags for front seat passengers.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by 40 residents of Thunder Bay who say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
The petitioners feel that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of the Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I have several petitions which deal with the question of free trade.
The first petition points out various inadequacies of the trade agreement, and it concludes that the petitioners humbly call upon this Government to allow Parliament to dissolve and permit the people of Canada to have their say during a national election. It is signed by residents of Thunder Bay.
The second petition is also signed by residents of Thunder Bay and it makes the same points. It indicates quite clearly the sense of concern of those people with this issue.
December 17, 1987


Mr. lain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise today under the provisions of the Standing Orders to present petitions on behalf of more than 200 individuals who live in and around the City of Thunder Bay, the rural community, Kaministiquia, Atikokan, Murillo, Sioux Lookout, and even one of our suburbs, Edmonton.
The petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The petitioners argue that the Government had no mandate to negotiate it, and that it threatens the fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty.
The petitioners call upon the House to dissolve Parliament in order that a general election can be called so that they can directly pass judgment on the trade agreement.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 106, I too have the honour, privilege, and responsibility to present a petition signed by people from the City of Hamilton.
This petition states that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. The trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of our Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the honour to present petitions on behalf of people who are indicating that the Conservative Government does not have a mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
They believe that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, or equalize opportunity between the regions of Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to be dissolved, and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too have petitions to present.
Order Paper Questions
The petitioners point out to Parliament that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: 
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We will certainly grant permission for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to stand all questions. However, we would like some assurance from him, being that tomorrow is the last day he could answer questions this year, that he would make some attempt to have a number of questions answered at that time.
We would hate for our constituents and other concerned people to have to wait until some time in January or February to get responses to questions requesting information, some of which were placed on the Order Paper as long ago as last spring.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the tone of the Hon. Member's remarks and his concerns. In keeping with the rather excellent record of the Government in the last 3.5 years, which is very different than that of our predecessors, we will be as obliging as we can. We attempt to get Ministers to make it a priority but there are, as the Hon. Member knows, more important things from time to time, like free trade agreements and so on, which compel attendance. We will do our best to get as many answers as we can.

December 17, 1987
Free Trade


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney:
That this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987.
Mr. Speaker:: Wednesday during our proceedings on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) in relation to the endorsement of the free trade agreement with the United States, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) moved the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by inserting immediately after the comma following the word "interest" the following: "as determined by the people of Canada in a general election".

It is at this point that I wish to thank all Hon. Members who took part in the procedural discussion on Wednesday afternoon for their assistance in helping the Chair arrive at a decision.
This amendment has given the Chair very real concern. The motion itself asks the House to endorse the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement as being in the national interest of the country. Some Hon. Members would argue that the amendment seeks to clarify the words "as being in the national interest" by adding the requirement that this should be decided by the Canadian population in a general election. Other Hon. Members argued that the amendment was attempting to introduce a new element to the main motion, an element not contemplated when it was moved and as such would enlarge upon the scope of the motion. Further, the argument was made that the amendment was vague and therefore, if passed, would leave the House wondering what it had decided because of the inherent imprecision in the amendment.
This kind of motion, as our precedents demonstrate, is not easy to amend, and it might be desirable for the Chair to be as liberal as possible. However, by their own admission, the Members who spoke for the Official Opposition stated that the intent of the amendment was to link the definition of the national interest to the outcome of the next general election. As such the amendment would clearly render a part of the main motion subject to the results of a future general election beyond the dissolution of this House and this Parliament.

I should point out at this time that on many occasions in the past Hon. Members have tried to introduce amendments to resolutions of this type and found it extremely difficult to draft one that would be acceptable to the Chair.
There is an excellent ruling in this regard delivered by Mr. Lamoureux on Thursday, June 4, 1964 and I should like to quote:
The difficulty, of course, is that if an amendment proposes nothing new it is a nullity and if it does introduce a new proposition not covered in the motion it becomes irrelevant.

Further on in the same ruling can be found this passage, and here again I am quoting:
Furthermore, the Chair agrees with the suggestion made in the course of argument this afternoon that one cannot propose an amendment which does not oppose or alter the main motion but attempts to approve of it on a conditional basis.

Assuming that the amendment and the motion were accepted, we would have the endorsement, by the House, of the trade agreement subject to a further endorsement by the population at the next general election and, in my humble opinion, this is foreign to the main question.

Let me quote a further ruling by Speaker Lamoureux of May 6, 1966 when the House was asked to approve the agreement between Canada and the United States concerning automotive products and an amendment was proposed requiring the future consent of Parliament for any amendments to or renewals of that agreement. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said:
I suggest that the proper procedure to achieve this aim is not by way of amendment to the resolution but rather by way of substantive motion, with due notice. I agree with the contention . .. that this amendment is in fact a new proposition.
Further, to quote Mr. Speaker Michener from June 11, 1958 commenting on a proposed amendment to a motion for approval of the NORAD agreement, he said the following:
If the amendment has the effect of denying the motion it is unnecessary and irrelevant because those Members who wish to disapprove the agreement have only to vote against the motion as it stands.
If the amendment adds something to the motion in a positive way it is a declaration of principle in these terms ... Assuming that the amendment and the motion were accepted you would have the agreement approved but you would have added to it a declaration of this independent principle which is not related to the motion nor is it necessary for the decision of the motion in question.	[DOT]
And further on, Mr. Speaker Michener comments:
-a motion clearly could be brought forward for the purposes of this amendment but it would have to be on notice and as an independent motion.
In summary, I feel that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is similar in many ways to those dealt with previously by
December 17, 1987

Speakers Lamoureux and Michener. The condition of requiring the national interest to be determined by means of a general election is a new proposition which would have to be put forward as an independent motion on notice.

Therefore, under the circumstances, and with regret, I have no alternative but to declare that the amendment cannot be proposed to the Elouse.

In closing I also want to say that, because of the very great importance of the motion itself and the issue, I wanted to hear very carefully from all Hon. Members in the Chamber. Hon. Members will remember that on Wednesday with their assistance we spent nearly an hour discussing the procedural aspects of the motion.
As I say, I regret very much that I cannot be more generous as I was urged to be, but I am bound by the procedural rules and the precedents. I hope Hon. Members, who I know feel very strongly about this matter, will accept the ruling in that spirit.
Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there has been a longer pause than usual between the last comments I made to the House and the comments with which I should like to begin this morning.
I remind Hon. Members of the House that within the speech I am giving as trade spokesman for my Party the emphasis has been very much on the necessity of having a correct, sort of modern framework which recognizes the importance of international firms and their key role in the trade of the country in order for us to assess what we have in front of us as a trade agreement.
From that perspective it becomes possible to ask some questions; first, about whether the objectives were achieved by this Government in the trade agreement. I think I demonstrated as clearly as one possibly could that the objectives not only were not achieved, but we have left ourselves in an extremely vulnerable position vis-a-vis the United States concerning future legislation on countervail and anti-dumping.
There are also a set of crucial concessions that we have given up which, as an independent country with a sense of selfdirection for the future, we should not have been prepared to give up. These are concessions in the area of investment, in the area of energy, in the area of job losses, and concern areas such as economic development and our capacity to act freely in economic development in the future.
These concessions, combined with the absence of success in obtaining the basic goals which the Government set out to achieve, leave one with no other choice but to conclude that
Free Trade
this agreement itself is bad news for Canadians. It is an unfair deal for average Canadians. It is an unacceptable deal for the country, as I am sure an election would prove. It is, therefore, something which we as a Party completely and flatly reject.
What was perhaps most unfortunate about the approach the Government had taken was that there were and there are alternatives which could have been selected. In my view, and that of my Party, they would have been much more effective and would have met the interests of the average people of Canada much more effectively and with much more concern for their interests than is true of this deal.
In the closing period of my speech on Tuesday 1 dealt with four areas which we felt were crucial in an alternative approach. I dealt with approaches to deal with U.S. protectionism itself directly, through item by item negotiations, through sectoral moves and through the establishment of a trade dispute agency. I had also suggested that agreed subsidies would give this country and its business people some sense of security and some sense of a guaranteed access. The Government keeps saying that the best method for proceeding is through the GATT. Though faced with an inequitable negotiation process, we have people supporting our view and we are able to put that view forward with much greater force and with much greater possibility of winning support from the United States for that view, a view which would restrict, control and dampen the use by the United States of subsidies which have been so damaging to parts of our economy.
It is crucial for us to start to move toward the establishment of various areas of technological expertise, areas of advantage within our economy in both the industrial and the service sectors. We cannot do this with a hope and a prayer. We have to do it with government leadership and with government playing an active role.
We have before us a variety of methods which can be used to help achieve that set of goals. We can put much more emphasis on training, on science and technology. But we could also use methods such as state purchasing policy, planning agreements with the corporate sector, Canadian content rules, tariffs themselves and public ownership. There are a variety of different methods which in a pragmatic way can be applied to establish for ourselves areas of advantage from which we can serve our home market, and which, for the future, enable us to expand our exports, not just to the United States but to the rest of the world.
I had just finished on Tuesday talking about the importance of recognizing the key role of multinational corporations in the trade area and, therefore, the necessity of seeing that there is some direct effort to regulate and review what those multinational firms do with respect to our country. For instance, I suggested it was crucial that we had legislation to make it possible for communities and for workers to review decisions taken by multinational companies to shut down their plants within Canada. They should not simply have the right, as has been the case throughout this country far too long, to shut

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
down, move out and leave Canadian workers to pick up the pieces of their lives and to pick up the pieces of their communities. That should not be done in future. It is an approach which we could take in concert with some other things which would be very important for the average person.
It is also important that we recognize that most subsidiaries which exist here have export restrictions. Subsidiaries cannot, for instance, export in competition against their American parent companies in the United States. I think we must have laws which prevent that.
In addition, the alternatives that we as a Party would set forth would include a fifth point, an emphasis on small businesses within Canada which at this stage do not in many cases have the capacity to reach into the export markets. Some manage to reach into the United States, but it is very rare for small companies to develop the expertise and the contacts to reach into other countries throughout the world. It is crucial that we provide much more help for these small businesses. They should get assistance through the Export Development Corporation which to this point has given most of its help to the large scale corporate sector in Canada. We could provide assistance through direct efforts on the part of the various Ministries of Government. The Ministry of External Affairs with its trade and commerce section would be able to help with marketing and the developing of marketing contacts throughout the world for those small firms. If we were to do that, there would be a tremendous potential for small-scale firms to produce thousands of jobs in the future for our young people.
Finally, I think it is crucial to talk about equitable regional development. I come from a part of the country which has suffered from the ups and downs of the auto industry. It is a part of the country which feels, as a result of these cycles, its sense of disadvantage within this country. However, that sense of disadvantage is much less than the sense of disadvantage I have heard expressed by people from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, parts of British Columbia, parts of northern Alberta and parts of northern Ontario. They have said that we must establish fairness on a regional basis as a crucial priority of our economic policy.
It is precisely that sense of regional fairness which we will not establish through the trade agreement. We only need look at the situation in places like northern Vermont, northern Maine, North Dakota and Montana. Rather than being part of an equitable pattern of development across the United States, those parts of that country have themselves become disadvantaged regions.
We face the certainty that there will be more disadvantaged regions and that their disadvantages will be greater than is presently the case if we go forward with this deal. Our hands will be so tied when it comes to the instruments we could use to build a fair and equitable situation for those parts of Canada.
There are ways to build that fairness. As our action group on jobs found when it went across the country in 1985, there is a whole set of ways in which communities can build on their own strengths. They can do so through community development efforts and through assistance to co-operatives. What is crucial is that they can do so under their own direction, not under the direction of Chicago, Washington or New York.
In addition to those ways in which communities can build on their own strengths, we must have as a responsibility the goal of seeing to it that the resource areas of Canada are given an equal share in this Canada of ours. We must see to it that the fish processors of Newfoundland have an equal chance at prosperity and benefits for their children. We must do the same for those in the logging industry and those who work in the sawmills in British Columbia. We must see that equality of possibility is established for people in northern Alberta just as we must do so for the people in the Eastern Townships of Quebec which have been so hard hit by the problems the textile industry has faced.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to have genuine equality in all sectors of this country. It is necessary to have a real Canada which offers all people in this country an opportunity to enjoy a good and prosperous life, the kind of prosperity with which people in Toronto and Montreal are familiar. That is necessary and it can be done. There is no need to say it is impossible. There was an option before, as we indicated during the election campaign. As we said, there was an option and we have to find that option. It is an option of planning. It is an option of leadership on the part of the Government. It is an option of regional equality, and for this country it is very important that it be found.

So this historic debate begins and will continue for the months ahead. There are those who are frightened of being on their own in the world, those who want to see themselves sheltered by the protective umbrella of the United States. Those are on one side of this debate. They are the ones who cannot hack it as Canadians. They feel that they must be part of a continental grand scheme which will give them some sort of protection from the American giant.
On the other side of the debate are those of us who believe in the people of Canada. We believe that we can work to establish a socially fair, democratic country which will give to every person the chance to enjoy the tremendous benefits which Canada has to offer.
Our Party has confidence in our people. Our Party has confidence in their ability to make Canada reach full employment, to make Canada achieve fairness throughout, to make Canada establish its place in the world on its own in cooperation with all countries of the world, not as the dependent junior partner of the United States. That is what we believe this country can do. That is the faith we have in this country.
December 17, 1987



Mr. Speaker, Canada can be more than a junior partner of the United States. Canada has the potential to build a prosperous economy for all Canadians and to do so independently.
The choice between those two visions of our future cannot be made by this House of Commons. It is a choice which must be made by the people of Canada as they assess the different paths on which we might proceed. Do they want to see us sell ourselves out to the United States and become a junior partner, sheltered by the American umbrella? Or, do they want to see us express our confidence in the ability of this country to take its own direction and manage its own affairs?
That is the choice which must be made, and it must be made by an election. It is not a choice which a discredited Government, in office far too long for the people of this country, can be permitted to make. It has to be made by Canadians. If the people across the aisle are frightened of that choice, if they are as frightened of that as they are of being independent in this world, all I can say-


Mr. McDermid:: What a joke.


Steven W. Langdon: -is that it is a sad day to see leading this country a Government with such fear deep in its heart, such a sense of dependency built into its psyche, such a sense of absolute paranoia about the rest of the world.


Mr. Edwards:: You wrote the book on that.


Steven W. Langdon: What we in the NDP have is a sense of confidence that this country can go forward. We believe absolutely that this country will make that choice in an election when it takes place and see to it that the government benches of this House are reduced to virtually nothing. We will see a new direction for this country which gives us an independent future and, as a result, a much better future for every Canadian.
That is why we have to fight, and ask Canadians right across this country to fight, as hard as we possibly can to stop this trade deal from taking place. We have to appeal to people right across this country to write petitions, send letters of protest, and make clear to government Members that they are a discredited bunch who do not deserve to govern this country one day longer, let alone take it into an agreement which will destroy our independence in the future.


John Horton McDermid: What a bunch of poppycock.


Steven W. Langdon: The Government must not be permitted to do that and I appeal to everyone in this country to fight the Government in its attempt to destroy our independence and our economic potential. It is completely unacceptable and we as proud Canadians are not prepared to let that discredited Government do this to us.
Free Trade
As a final statement in this debate, given this sense of how discredited the Government is, I want to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), the following amendment:
That the words "as being in the national interest," be deleted and the
following substituted therefore;
"as determined by the people of Canada to be in the national interest,"
I proudly move that amendment as a measure of our confidence in what this country can do independently without having to sell itself out as a junior partner to the U.S.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Back to the 19th century. What a reactionary speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds the amendment in order. Resuming debate.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have sat for I think an hour and a half over two days listening to the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon). All I can say is that the one blessing of having him here in the House is that he is not back at the University of Windsor warping young minds. I have never heard so much gobbledegook, so much distortion, so much inaccuracy, so much fear-mongering. He spends an hour and 15 minutes saying "Beware! Beware! It's a tough world out there. We are going to get gobbled up. The Americans are going to buy us. They are going to destroy us. We will lose our social programs. We will lose our independence. We will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs." Then at the end of the speech he says "We NDPers have confidence in Canada. We believe we can compete. We can take on the world and conquer the world." What an absurdity! On logic he flunks totally.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You would rather cosy up to the U.S.


Harvie Andre: Well, in one part of his speech I think he said "We are not going to allow a situation where people are taking orders from Chicago and Washington and New York." His colleagues applauded vigorously. He left one city out, that is Detroit, the city where the U.S. auto industry is headquartered. That is the industry in which we have had free trade for 22 years-free trade which has brought tremendous prosperity to that member's constituency and the constituency of the leader of his party.
Look at the absurdity of it. Oshawa is not on the StatsCan list for unemployment, they cannot measure any! Oshawa has more foreign investment per capita than any city in the country. Yet do we hear a word of condemnation? Apparently foreign investment in Oshawa is a wonderful thing. Foreign investment in Calgary is terrible! Apparently a job with a foreign multinational in Calgary is a horrible thing to behold, but a job with a foreign multinational in Oshawa is a wonderful thing that we must protect.

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
For months and months we heard the NDP saying "Don't touch the Auto Pact. You can't touch the Auto Pact, it's too vitally important". The Auto Pact is a free trade arrangement which has brought tremendous prosperity to Ontario. If we had free trade in other industries, petrochemicals for example; if the 18 per cent royalties on Canadian chemicals were removed and we had the opportunity to take advantage of the raw materials and expertise in the West with a huge market to the south, maybe we would not be able to measure the unemployment rates in Red Deer, Medicine Hat, and Fort Saskatchewan. However, the NDP says that that is an opportunity against which we must guard.
Why are jobs in Windsor and Oshawa created through the Auto Pact a wonderful thing while jobs in Medicine Hat, Red Deer, and Fort Saskatchewan created through free trade not a wonderful thing? I want the NDP to go to Alberta and tell the people why foreign investment in Oshawa is so wonderful yet would be so terrible in the West.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The difference is job guarantees.


Harvie Andre: The situation in Oshawa is good. It is terrific and we are all proud and happy about that. At present Canadians consume 9 per cent of the automobiles made in North America. We produce 14 per cent. Under the investment plans put in place by the auto producers, by 1991 Canada will produce 19 per cent of the cars made in North America and consume 9 per cent. How long does the NDP think that that kind of inequity between Canada and the United States would exist without the protection of a free trade agreement? How long do they think it would take the Congressmen and Senators from the auto-producing states to demand that the Auto Pact be renegotiated, which it can be at any time? It can be cancelled with a year's notice. How long do they think their sacred Auto Pact would exist without a free trade agreement? It would not last very long. They should be hailing the free trade agreement as the best possible mechanism to protect the prosperity which is now theirs.
On several occasions in his speech the Hon. Member said that the free trade agreement will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. He went to the absurd lengths of talking about unemployment rates in member countries of the EEC. He suggested that somehow this is evidence that free trade causes unemployment. There are 71 countries in the world involved in free trade arrangements. We have seen the gathering together under free trade arrangements and the lowering of free trade barriers between countries since the post-war period. Nowhere in the world have we seen a country withdraw because the free trade arrangement created the unemployment which the NDP says it will.
1 recall when the United Kingdom had its debate about joining the European Economic Community. I recall the Labour Party, soul mates of the NDP, saying that it was
outrageous for Britain to join the European Economic Community, that it would disappear.


Mr. Manly:: Tell us about unemployment in the north of England.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member shouts about unemployment in the north of England. The fact is that the Labour Party, which knows the situation a lot better than the Hon. Member, has changed its policy. It now recognizes that membership in the European Common Community is beneficial to Britain. Even the Labour Party recognizes that it would be stupid to withdraw.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: How did the farmers make out in Britain? They did very well, didn't they?


Harvie Andre: I can understand the NDP saying that Margaret Thatcher does not know what is right for Britain. I accept that as a partisan remark. However, they also have the audacity, the arrogance, the ignorance, to suggest that Neil Kinnock does not know what is good for them either. Of course, the Vice-President of Socialists International is their Party Leader. I guess that makes them experts on everything in the world. They say that Neil Kinnock is an idiot for convincing the Labour Party that membership in the EEC is appropriate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's ridiculous.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The EEC gives farm people a lot of protection.


Harvie Andre: What kind of test is given to people who join the NDP caucus? Are they found walking down the street or do they have to be educated? This is incredible.
Every economic think tank in the country has said that the free trade agreement will be a net generator of jobs for Canada. The numbers vary because they are trying to predict the future which is always difficult. However, everyone says there will be a net benefit in jobs except, of course, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. No one else in the whole country says that.
It is not as though the NDP has a great record of predictions to fall back on. On November 8, 1984, we introduced the economic statement on which we ran in the election and which was approved by the people of Canada. At that time the NDP fearlessly predicted that that economic policy would cost
150.000	jobs. In righteous indignation the Member for Essex-Windsor stood up and said, "Mr. Speaker, this is a disaster for Canada". Since then Canada has created 1,000 new jobs every single day. That is what the NDP knows about predictions. It is galling that they stand up and say that the Government has no credibility. They predicted a loss of
150.000	jobs yet say they have credibility.
The British Labour Party recognizes that membership in a trade union is a good idea, but the NDP says that the British Labour Party does not know what is good for them, that the
December 17, 1987

NDP knows it is bad to be a member of the EEC. That is absurd, to put it mildly. That is one of the reasons they are getting so desperate. None of the five elections in which I have run have been single-issue elections. Nevertheless, the NDP want an election on this issue-


James Douglas Manly: To throw you bums out.


Harvie Andre: -because they know that there is no basis for the arguments they are making. They know that in the end the truth will out. They know that in truth this is a great deal for Canada and they want an election before the bulk of Canadians find that out.


James Douglas Manly: You're signing it before the bulk of Canadians find out the truth. Why are you rushing to sign it if you say the truth isn't out yet?


Mr. Gauthier:: That's not very strong, Harvie.


Mr. Foster:: That's your convoluted logic, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: I look forward to an election on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to an election comparing our record with NDP predictions. I look forward to having the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) coming to Calgary from Oshawa where there is zero unemployment. They have all that foreign investment. They have a free trade agreement. I look forward to him coming to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party candidate in Calgary Centre to explain what a terrible thing we are doing. I want to hear him telling Calgarians that they are going to disappear and all become Americans, that the Stars and Stripes will be flying from the top of the Petro-Canada tower, and that they will stop being Canadians if they go along with this deal.
I was in Oshawa a couple of weeks ago and I was shocked, as 1 looked around, not to see any Stars and Stripes on any buildings. It looked like a Canadian city to me and the people to whom I talked were certainly proud Canadians. Many of them work for General Motors and have good paying jobs. They are proud of the fact that in Oshawa they can produce a car $1,200 cheaper than the Americans in Detroit. They have a right to be proud of that. It made them stronger Canadians.
The NDP argue that the way to become stronger Canadians is to put up the barriers and have no truck or trade with the Yankees. If that is how free trade will work, I would like to travel to Europe to see what is happening there. I have not had the opportunity to travel like the back-benchers because I have been too busy. I would like to go to Europe to see all those people in Frankfurt speaking French, people in Paris speaking German, or people in Rome speaking English. I imagine that the Union Jack must be flying from the Vatican since one's identity disappears with a free trade agreement.
Apparently, all the social programs in those countries will have to be identical as a result of that trading arrangement. I
Free Trade
will have to travel to Europe to see how the unemployment insurance schemes in Italy, Denmark and Luxembourg are identical. The old age pensions must be identical in all of those countries, if the pensions exist at all since trade apparently makes such things difficult. According to the NDP, such programs must be identical and pretty miniscule. The NDP are suggesting that our social programs will disappear and we will disappear as a country. What absurdity!
This agreement will generate hundreds of thousands of new jobs, according to all the experts. Those who say that this will not happen are the same experts whose predictions in the last three years have turned out to be totally wrong.
I could go on for hours ridiculing the NDP, considering the ammunition they provide. However, I want to spend a few minutes talking about one group for whom even some New Democrats admit the free trade agreement is nothing but a benefit. That group is the consumers. Howard Pawley acknowledged that the consumers will benefit. Indeed, they will benefit very substantially.


Mr. Frith:: Prove it.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member says prove it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Do not be as bad as the NDP. Give us some facts.


Harvie Andre: We have some facts.


Royce Herbert Frith: Bill C-22 will save consumers money.


Harvie Andre: I am glad he mentioned Bill C-22. Let me quote what the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) said. He is muttering about Bill C-22, but he remembers what he said in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Review about Bill C-22. He said it was a good Bill.


John Horton McDermid: That is why he is heckling. He is embarrassed.


Harvie Andre: If he keeps this up, I will tell Malepart.
There is no question that the consumer is a clear winner. First, there is the dropping of tariffs on imports from the United States. In 1986, the total tariffs paid on goods imported from the United States amounted to $2.1 billion. The removal of that by itself automatically means at least that benefit.
But there are more benefits. If U.S. goods come in to Canada tariff-free, they are therefore cheaper for Canadian consumers. Similar goods coming in from Japan, Germany and other countries will have to be cheaper in order to compete. While they will not have the tariff reduction, they will have to drop their prices or lose their market share. In either case, the consumer will get the benefit.
Third, Canadian consumers will have to compete and therefore the prices of those goods will drop. Therefore, a drop in tariffs on goods coming from the United States will cause a

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
price drop on goods produced in Canada and goods imported from other countries. The consumer will benefit in all those areas.
Some may express concern about the Canadian producer. The Canadian producer has the benefit of tariff-free raw materials and parts which go into their goods. More important, Canadian producers have the benefit of the entire North American market in which to compete. Even the NDP recognize the fundamental principle that the more one produces the lower the unit cost will be. The bigger the market, the bigger the opportunity for longer production runs and lower unit costs. From every standpoint the consumer is a very substantial beneficiary.
We have examined what a typical consumer might save on typical goods. For instance, the cost of the average new house in Canada would include $72,000 for building materials. The consumer would save $4,600 as a result of tariff reductions. The savings on floor coverings is $300 and some $500 for major appliances such as a fridge, stove, washer and dryer. Therefore, an average family buying the average new house will save $8,000, according to Statistics Canada figures.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is a ridiculous estimate and you know it.


Harvie Andre: It is here in the study and the Hon. Member, if he had the intellectual honesty, would admit it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where is the study? Table it.


Harvie Andre: Even Howard Pawley recognizes that the consumer benefits, but not this bunch over here.


David Orlikow: Table the study.


Harvie Andre: We will have more to say about consumer benefits as the weeks and months unfold, and as we go into an election. I am looking forward to debating with the NDP anywhere, at any time, about consumer benefits, jobs or any other aspect of this free trade agreement, because they know in their souls that it is a good deal for all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such a ridiculous and nonsensical speech in my life. I have not been listening to the Minister enough in this House, I can see.
I have two or three comments first and then a question. First, of course, to say the Auto Pact is free trade is absolute nonsense. It is something the Government has been trying to tell the west is the case, and it is not true. What exists are safeguards within a sectoral agreement, something of which we are entirely in favour, which protect the jobs of Canadian workers and Canadian communities.
With respect to the Minister's chemical sector, about which he talked and about which I also talked in my speech as
something which would make sense for us to move toward in terms of a sectoral agreement, it would make sense because that sectoral agreement would have safeguards that protect those jobs in Calgary and Edmonton and would see to it we have some kind of handle on the industry, which we do not have in this kind of across-the-board deal. The prediction of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, I remind the Minister, is not my prediction. That is the testimony which, unfortunately, the Minister, because he is so busy, did not happen to read or hear, as I did as a member of the committee which went across this country, because guess he was too busy to do that as well. It came from the individual industries which told us quite clearly that these were the thousands and thousands of jobs, industry by industry, which are going to be lost by this deal. The latest group, we were told yesterday, is the printing industry in Canada which said that 6,500 jobs would be lost as a consequence of this trade deal. If the Minister wants to challenge them, let him go ahead, but I think those people know a good deal more about their own industry than he does.
With respect to the European Community, the greatest piece of nonsense put forward is the suggestion that the Labour Party has somehow become a great convert to the European Community. They said, as we say, that the people of this country, just as the people of Britain, have to pass judgment first as to whether they should be part of the Common Market. The people of Britain voted and decided to go into the Common Market. Since that time Britain's unemployment rate has gone up from 1 million to 3 million. The Norwegians were given the same chance to make a choice. The people made their choice to stay out of the Common Market and their unemployment rate is significantly lower than that of Britain.
If the Minister is so convinced that free trade is wonderful for this country, why is there nothing in this trade agreement in front of us which offers any guarantee with respect to jobs that are going to be established? Why is there nothing in this trade agreement which offers any possibility of the Government negotiating with the companies which are in this country, foreign and local, in order to see to it that job guarantees are provided? If he is so convinced that jobs are going to be established, why has that so conspicuously been out of this agreement when it was part of the Auto Pact and should be part of any sectoral agreement we sign?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, first, just very quickly because of the Member's opening comments about the Auto Pact, the Hon. Member is trying to deceive Canadians that somehow the Auto Pact is inviolate and will last forever-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are many possibilities of attacking and counter attacking in this House, but to claim that one Hon. Member is attempting to deceive the House, as I have read the rule books, is out of order. It is also completely incorrect in this case and the Minister knows it.
December 17, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is not sure that the Hon. Minister meant that the Hon. Member was deceiving intentionally. That is why the Chair does not find it is a point of order.


Harvie Andre: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I would not suggest that the Hon. Member would intentionally deceive Canadians. To suggest that would be to imply he knows the difference between fact and fiction. I would not make such a statement.
The Auto Pact, as the Hon. Member knows, has a one-year cancellation provision. In one year it can be cancelled. Given the fact that by 1991 we will be producing twice as many cars in Canada as we consume, as a proportion of the North American market, that Auto Pact does not stand a chance without the protective umbrella of a free trade agreement. Second, the Hon. Member talks about safeguards. Before those safeguards would come into play, 50 per cent of the auto plants in Canada would have to be shut down. We would have to shut down 50 per cent of the plants in this country before those safeguards come into play. So I ask the Hon. Member not to invoke this absurdity of safeguards somehow coming into play.
The Hon. Member wants guarantees. The faith of the New Democratic Party in written guarantee is mind boggling at times. It thinks the only deal worth doing is a deal that says, "You are guaranteed 1,649,323 jobs by July 1, 1991". That is an absurdity. The Hon. Member knows it is an absurdity. Sure, we could get those guarantees, if the Hon. Member could guarantee that the weather is going to be perfect so that agricultural crops are abundant and that there will be lousy weather in the rest of the agriculture producing world so we can sell; if the Hon. Member is going to guarantee that other economies in the world are going to work in such a fashion, or that the Middle East is not going to blow up in a war and shut down the oil fields. If the Hon. Member could somehow, through the magic of legislation, force all of those uncontrollable events to be controlled, then I suppose someone could make a guarantee. But we have the best economists in the country, independent third parties-these are not Conservative groups, but for instance, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Economic Council of Canada, Infometrica, Data Resources-


David Orlikow: The Fraser Institute.


Harvie Andre: Yes, the Fraser Institute has a right wing philosophy but, for instance, Tommy Shoyama, who worked with Donald Macdonald, is no conservative. He cut his eye teeth with Tommy Douglas. He says it is a good deal. So the Hon. Member is absurd. He knows his party is sitting out there in isolation with Bob White and Shirley Carr and it is starting to get cold as the rest of the people drift off, and that is why the frantic nature of its Opposition.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this agreement, according to the Government, is that it will open the market for Canadians in the United States and for the Americans in Canada. In order to compete we have to bring down our costs.
Free Trade
Part of the costs in Canada for every company is helping to pay for the social programs which we have and which the Americans do not. We have a medicare system, a hospital system and an old age pension system, none of which the Americans have. These programs cost the Canadian people billions of dollars. When we have to compete, I say to the Minister, are not companies going to come to Governments and say, "We can't compete because our taxes are too high. We have to cut back on those social programs?" That will be the result of this free trade agreement, if it goes through.


Harvie Andre: Let me return to the Auto Pact. At the present time in Canada an automobile can be produced for an average of $1,200 less than in the United States. That is why the big three are making these investments in Canada at this point in time.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor know that they are doing that in Canada where we have old age pensions, unemployment insurance, medicare, and all of those social programs. With those social programs in place, it is still more economical to produce a car in Canada than in the United States.


David Orlikow: Because companies have to pay for it themselves in the United States.


Harvie Andre: Now the Hon. Member is doing the reverse of the argument. The Hon. Member is stating that because in the United States they do not have these social programs it is more costly for companies down there, and therefore that is why we can compete against them. He is on both sides of that fence. Isn't that a little painful?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) rose and sought the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Private Members' Bills during Routine Proceedings. There have been some discussions. However, I would ask as a generosity on the part of the Government and the Official Opposition, that with unanimous consent we be allowed to revert to Routine Proceedings to allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to introduce his Private Member's Bill, allowing him to have that Bill available for the draw at one o'clock today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: There have indeed been consultations. In the spirit with which the House quite frequently moves when people pass deadlines, from the procedural point of view of the Government there would be no objection in overcoming the deadline problem. However, at the same time it should be made clear that the consultations have brought forward

December 17, 1987
Introduction of Bills
another problem which will be of concern to the House in the long term.
We are dealing here with the situation where a Member is reintroducing a Bill in identical form that has been chosen once before in the draw and been considered by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business. It has had one hour of debate in the House. In those circumstances the growing practice for Members who still care about the content has been to change the Bill and participate in a second draw.
In this particular case we are dealing with identical wording. I do not think that the problem will be solved today. It should be a future topic of discussion for the committee. It is not difficult to see that if we followed this practice to its logical conclusion we would reach the point where possibly all 20 Bills chosen in the draw at any one point in time could be issues on which the House has already had some consideration. That would not be in the spirit of parliamentary reform or in the best interests of the House.
If the Member chose to participate in a later draw to give himself more time to change the content, that would certainly be in order. From our point of view procedurally, simply missing the deadline on occasion for good reason should not be a reason for withholding unanimous consent.
The other issue is perhaps the broader and more important. If the Member were to reconsider and request more time to redraft the Bill and place it in a future draw, the House would understand and appreciate that. But if the Hon. Member wishes the identical Bill to come forward into the draw, I can see that there might be some difficulty with that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We on this side concur with the proposal that we revert back to that item in Routine Proceedings allowing the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to table his Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a valid and good argument that, if the Bill is in the same wording as was once dealt with by the House, and the House having pronounced itself, whether or not the debate ended with a vote is irrelevant. Having pronounced ourselves on a particular item and with the appropriate wording at that time, I can hardly see how one could retable the same Bill word for word and comma for comma and ask the House to again pronounce itself on the same Bill. I think there is a good argument to be made for redundancy. The House cannot be asked to pronounce itself on the same question twice in the same session.
I take the point made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary about the committee looking into the possibility of amending our orders. At this time, I do not see that that would impact on the question at hand, which is to revert back to Routine Proceedings allowing the Member to table his Bill. Perhaps he will see the committee and eventually modify the Bill to meet with the requirements of good parliamentary procedure, which is not to present the same question twice in the same session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we revert to Routine Proceedings, I would like to point out to Hon. Members Standing Order 42(2) which states:
(2) The dropping of an item pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order shall not be considered a decision of the House.
Therefore, in the case of the Bill of the Hon. Member, there was not a decision of the House on the first occasion. I gather there is unanimous consent to revert back to Introduction of Bills?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Michael Morris Cassidy: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, an Act to provide for the political rights of public employees.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Hon. Members. Perhaps the points that have been raised can be looked at by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business for a clearer indication of what might take place in the future.
The issue in my Bill is one I have been pursuing since I came to Parliament in 1984. It is to ensure that on as broad a base as possible members of the Public Service of Canada and of related Crown corporations, et cetera, should have the ability to form, to be involved in political Parties, and to be involved in campaigns without the types of fears that they now undergo because of a very ambiguous situation.
In my constituency it is not even clear whether a public servant who works as a truck driver, or a secretary, or in some other job, can put up a sign for an election candidate. I believe that this creates difficulties for all of the Ottawa area Members, and also people in many other parts of the country.
I believe as a matter of basic principle that the rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be granted, and that is the purpose of this Bill, which I hope will be considered favourably by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business when it has the draw this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
December 17, 1987


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987, and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 11885).
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this resolution before the House concerning the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I had the opportunity to be with the standing committee during a number of the hearings in Ottawa and across western Canada. One theme that came through during the hearings across western Canada was that there was no text available, no one knew what was happening, and the general public did not have an opportunity to put forward its views. Although the committee put in a very onerous five days in five territories or provinces during that week, the general public did not have an opportunity.
Therefore, we find ourselves today dealing with the final text of this agreement here for the first time, which the committee did not have access to at its official hearings, and to which the public did not have access. We now have a three day debate in which to consider this matter, perhaps the most important trade agreement that Canada has ever proposed entering into.
It seems that we are on a fast track of three days in anticipation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signing the agreement on January 2, yet we are told that the United States Congress will not deal with the issue until June, 1988. It seems that ironically we have been put on a fast track, the United States is on a slow track, and the Canadian people generally are very upset and concerned about this.
I was interested to note that when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) spoke this morning he did not mention two things. He did not mention that the Consumers' Association of Canada, which has historically been in favour of a free trade deal with the United States, has gradually, as it saw the details of the deal, reduced its support to practically nil.
I think it is also important to look at the deal from the consumers' point of view. 1 live in a border city in the Sault Ste. Marie-Algoma district where many consumers have been dramatically misled by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to believe that they would be able to go to the United States and bring back unlimited amounts of goods with no duty or tax. In fact, that is not true. Last week
Free Trade
officials made clear that the same limit of $100 after a 48-hour visit would apply, that the same sales tax of 12 per cent would apply, and that there would be no reduction in the duties on goods brought into Canada from the United States which were manufactured in Japan, Malaysia, or some other country.
On average, 80 per cent of all goods going into the United States from Canada, and I assume vice versa, are duty-free. The amount of duty reduction is very low. The idea that Canadians will have unlimited access to the United States and that there will be no customs duties is incorrect. In fact, there will be even greater customs inspections because each item brought back from the U.S. would have to be identified to ensure that it was manufactured in the United States. It would be necessary to ensure that the goods on which duties will be reduced over a 10-year period are actually manufactured in the United States.
I want to talk for a moment about the agricultural side of the issue. When the external affairs committee was in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia, we heard long and very concerned presentations from agricultural groups. Some groups like hog producers, beef producers, and Canadian cattlemen who essentially have free trade now are pleased to see that there will be free trade in the future. I understand that over the course of a five-year period there will be a reduction of one cent per pound on the amount of duty they will pay. That applies to red meat going in either direction across the border.
However, groups like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have expressed concern. In its brief it said that the draft agreement did not fully meet the requirements set forth by the federation at the onset of the negotiations, and that Canada had not achieved the trade rules and dispute handling mechanisms which it sought. That comment was echoed and spelled out in graphic terms by B.C. wine producers, as well as tender fruit and fruit and vegetable associations in that province.
Similarly, the majority of members of the Saskatchewan pool voted against the trade deal. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has turned it down in a strong and decisive manner. Maritime groups have turned it down, as has the UPA in Quebec. I understand that it will be having a press conference this afternoon in which it will further elaborate upon its concerns.
Just to show how insensitive the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) has been, he volunteered that the UPA in Quebec did not read the deal and did not know what was in it. They know exactly what is in the deal. They are very concerned about the arrangement under Article 710 and how it will be subservient to Article 703 which provides for the removal of all tariff barriers and quotas in the long haul. They are extremely concerned.
At a recent conference which they had in Quebec, it was interesting that they characterized the Prime Minister's side of the deal by holding up a little white rabbit in a cage and by indicating that the President of the United States was leading

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
a full draughthorse around to show who won and who lost in the agreement. It was also interesting that the junior Minister of Agriculture was presented with the little white rabbit in the cage to dramatize the loss of so much in the deal.
There is very grave concern among agricultural producers that the dispute handling mechanism will not change the rules of access to the U.S. market. For instance, the countervail duty on hogs today of 4.3 cents per pound or S10 per hog going into the U.S. is still there. If we are to get rid of all these countervail problems, why did we not get rid of that one?
Clearly the same laws are in place, as is the long rigmarole. The omnibus trade Bill which has many provisions relating to agriculture will probably be put in place. The trade agreement will not change that.
It is clear from our hearings across the country that no group will be hurt worse than the grape and wine industry. Some 20,000 jobs will be totally sacrificed. They will be going out of business. There are tremendous areas of Canada in the Niagara Peninsula and in the Okanagan Valley which are suitable for such crops, but they will be sacrificed in the deal. I think it is one of the most shameful acts that has ever taken place. We know that it was a personal deal between the Prime Minister and the President. The President has his rich friends in California and he ensured that the deal was carried out. Perhaps he can tip his hat to them, but it will certainly carry a very angry odour with it throughout history in those areas of the country.
Similarly, seasonal tariffs which are absolutely essential to the fruit and vegetable industry will be wiped out by the agreement. The snap back provision introduced by the Government is ineffective and will require that the industry contract or stay small. It will not be able to expand. It is unbelievable that that was given away.
It is also clear that the powers and prerogatives of the Canadian Wheat Board will be reduced by the deal. The two-price system, which has provided some $280 million of benefit to western farmers and some $30 million to Ontario farmers, will be wiped out. We are not clear whether there will be a compensation package. That is a weakness in the deal which was identified by the standing committee. Also, there is no industrial adjustment or compensation package for any group of producers which will be adversely affected by the deal.
One of the greatest concerns of the Canadian agricultural industry, especially in the West, is the Crow benefit in that some $750 million has been removed for shipments of Canola oil and Canola meal to the Pacific northwest. The Government has indicated that it is an export subsidy. We know that the United States will be going to the GATT negotiations determined to remove all export subsidies, and now the Government has admitted that this is an export subsidy. Furthermore, the Government is committed in the agreement to supporting the United States. They will go hand in hand to the GATT. What chance does the Crow benefit have of surviving the next GATT round of negotiations?
Canola is one of the exciting crops developed in Canada. It has been gaining markets in the Pacific northwest. It is interesting that the Government gave away a transportation subsidy which will amount, in the private sector if it has to be paid by producers from January 1, 1989, to some $23 per tonne in Alberta and over $30 per tonne at shipping points in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That assistance stops January 1, 1989, but the tariff on Canola oil into the Pacific northwest which amounts to over $30 a tonne will be phased out over 10 years. It is a shameful act.
The chief negotiator for Canada said that the United States is like a Third World country in the way it negotiates and that they were snookered by Mr. Reisman. I ask on that Canola deal whether Mr. Reisman thinks that the Canadians really snookered the American negotiators. Clearly the Canadians did not. We lost tremendously.
If we destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, and the move in this deal is in that direction because there will be tremendous pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian producers with a free flow of grain across the border will only be able to deliver to their milling operation or for export to the limit of their quota books. United States producers will have unlimited access to deliver in Canada. That, in the long haul will put pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board and will reduce its authority.
The chief negotiator on the American side we are told is Dan Amstutz who was the former chief executive officer of the Cargill organization, the largest private corporation in the world. He was there at the same time as an official from Cargill in Canada, seconded to the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Wise) office. Did we have the large private grain companies negotiating on both sides of this issue on agriculture? If we did you can bet that the Canadian farmer did not come off best in this agreement.
I want to turn briefly to supply management, marketing boards and the feather industry. Clearly we have given away the tariffs and increased the quota for the feather industry so that there will be massive increases in the amount of chicken, turkey and poultry coming into Canada, some 20 per cent over the previous quotas allowed.
Concerning eggs, some six million more dozen will be allowed into the country under this agreement. What did we get in return, Mr. Speaker? As far as I know we got nothing. There is no new access to the U.S. market. There will be tremendous pressure on Canadian producers because of the loss of the tariff.
The dairy farmers of Canada have indicated that they will oppose the deal because the Government has refused to put dairy products, like ice-cream, yogourt and fluid milk, on the import controlled list. We are not clear why the Government has refused to do that. We suspect the Government has refused
December 17, 1987

because the farmers have to show injury. Is any dairy processing plant going to show injury in that regard?
It is interesting the the Quebec Government and the UPA demanded that Article XI of GATT, which provides for quotas on supply management commodities, be in the final draft. It was in the final draft as Item 710, but the only problem with that is that Item 710 is subject to any other section in the agreement. If we look at Item 703 it says that the agreement is to remove all tariff and all import barriers. Article 710 is in the agreement but it is subject to Article 703 which is to remove barriers to trade and to the free flow of farm goods coming across the border, and we cannot be very assured. I think that is one of things the UPA will be arguing in its presentation today at a press conference in Quebec.
The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada, one of the largest employers in Canada, appeared before the committee. It employs over 200,000 Canadians and is the largest manufacturing sector in the country, doing some $40 billion worth of business. That association said that the agreement is clearly unworkable and it will put pressure-the Americans are doing so as well-on the Government to remove marketing boards and border controls. Agriculture is clearly under the gun. That is why groups like UPA and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are strongly opposing this agreement. The grocery products manufactures say that they simply cannot operate in a situation where competition from the U.S. is not supply management.
It seems to me that that is one of the very great concerns of the whole supply management industry in Canada. The Government of Canada is going to GATT. The Government has put the marketing boards on the table for negotiation at GATT. The United States is opposing marketing boards. Practically all of the Cairns Group is opposing marketing boards. The Canadian Government has said we are going to the GATT hand in hand with the United States to remove subsidies. I think in the long run we will destroy our whole marketing board and supply management system in Canada because of the Government's position. Here the Government will start the ball rolling and in GATT the Government will, in my view, completely give away our marketing system which has served us well. It has cost less than subsidies and it has been especially effective. It not only applies to the dairy and the feather industry but also to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I think we are rushing into a trade deal where we are giving up a great deal and probably will give more in the GATT negotiations while getting very little in return. We have hitched our wagon to the United States saying this will be fortress North America. In fact, the United States is our competitor on most commodities around the world. We say we are going to support the Americans' position where often their position is not in our interest. There is a great deal of concern in the agricultural community. That is why so many farm groups across Canada are opposing this trade deal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will proceed with the question and comment period after Question Period if the Hon. Member is in the House.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have more than 150,000 signatures of people residing in Canada who object to the Government's decision to consider taxing food and food products as an option.
Last week in Toronto, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced he was withdrawing his proposal to tax food. Mr. Speaker, I don't think Canadians have any more reason to trust this Government than they did when it deindexed old age security pensions.
The Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. Blenkarn, is asking for $57,000 to go to New Zealand and look at how they tax food. Why didn't the Minister of Finance say fairly and squarely yesterday that the Government refused to tax food? Why did he say that certain essential products should not be taxed and will be exempt?
Mr. Speaker, I warn this Government that the Liberal Party will continue its opposition until it has the assurance that bread, milk, butter and other food products will not be taxed.



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITIONS OF NDP AND LIBERAL PARTIES

Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, sometimes we lose sight of the fundamental precepts upon which the Government bases its policy and upon which opposition Parties base their criticisms. The debate over free trade is a case in point.
At the heart of the NDP's political agenda and its position on free trade is the tired old precept of greater government

December 17, 1987
control over the day-to-day lives of Canadians: more regulation, more taxes, more state ownership, more interference and more control over the decisions Canadians must take in their homes and in their businesses.
At the heart of the Liberal position on free trade is a confused, contradictory hodge-podge of principles sometimes called pragmatic but more actually called opportunistic. It is no wonder members of the NDP and the Liberal Party are frightened of free trade. It goes against everything they stand for. The concept of free trade is as foreign to the NDP and the Liberals as individual initiative, private business, and freedom from the heavy hand of state.
The bold initiative of the Government is based on the principle that Canadians deserve every opportunity to free themselves from dependence on the state. Free trade is based on the principle that Canadians have a right to as large a market as possible from which to reap the rewards of their ingenuity and hard work. Free trade is based on the same principles that guide the Government daily, bold, courageous, daring principles that the Liberals and the NDP cannot stomach. Fortunately, Canadians-


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



TAX REFORM


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's typical Tory tax reform is one more example of the Government's dishonesty. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) refuses to provide real tax fairness for Canadian families.
Average and low-income families will still be worse off after this so-called reform than they were before the Government came to power. Under the guise of tax reform they will now pay a sweeping new tax on virtually all goods and services after the next election.
Middle-income families will lose 60 per cent of their child benefits by 1991 while households with incomes of over $100,000 will get income tax cuts five times greater than families making $30,000.
While the Minister continually claims that his purpose is to help those most in need, poor families who should not have been paying taxes in the first place will continue to be fleeced and more will start paying taxes each year. Others are not eligible for the non-refundable child tax credit.
The Minister has partially deindexed the child tax credit and the family allowance and the new tax credits will not be indexed to inflation, ensuring that family benefits will be steadily eroded. Why does the Government not be honest with
Canadians for once and admit that its vision is of a system which gives more to those who already have the most? Canadians have been handed an empty package of broken promises and political rhetoric for a merry Christmas and-


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



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, the plight of many thousand homeless men, women and entire families in Canada was highlighted during 1987, the International Year of the Homeless. Canadians were made more aware of this despair, and Governments were encouraged to address and resolve these inadequacies. In two weeks, the year designated to accentuate this issue and find satisfactory solutions will be over but the crisis will not.
Throughout urban and rural centres, soup kitchens and emergency facilities have been established to offer sustenance and shelter. While these measures address the problem in the short term, they do not provide a stable base from which these people can reintegrate into the community. The problems of the homeless are chronic and appear to be getting worse. These people are falling through the cracks of our society.
I join my constituents of Fundy-Royal in calling upon the Government to ensure that the homeless and poorly lodged live in adequate and healthy housing and that these citizens are able to participate fully in Canadian life. Let us not allow the commitment of 1987 to become yesterday's concern in 1988.



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT'S LEGAL POSITION

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: *
December 17, 1987

When pressed in the House to provide the legal opinions on which Canada based its position, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) offered only vague assurances about the trade and commerce power and the Constitution. Yet Ambassador Gotlieb points out in his book that the Canadian Constitution, unlike that of the U.S., does not allow Parliament, through implementation of a treaty, to change the distribution of legislative powers. If the Minister has any legal opinions to back up his position, he should produce them.
Apart from the legal arguments, the Conservative Government is making a power grab against well-established provincial powers which exceeds even the Conservative's own exaggerated allegations about the Trudeau Government.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Walter Van  De Waile@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to applaud the new agricultural initiatives announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on Wednesday. The Government's record in the agricultural sector is unparalleled. Never before have the needs of the nation's farmers been met with such innovative and timely programs. Since 1984 government spending in agriculture has increased nearly 400 per cent.
The grain and oilseed farmers of the Pembina riding, along with the producers of peas, beans, lentils, and processed alfalfa, were delighted to learn that the Special Canadian Grains Program has been extended to the 1987 crop year. This $1.1 billion program, coupled with the extension of the farm fuel tax rebate, will have a strong impact on their financial stability.
I commend the Government for its measures to instil new vitality into the Farm Credit Corporation. The deferred loan payment, together with the provision of $100 million to cover corporate losses, will enable the FCC to continue to reach out and help those farmers in financial difficulties.


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has a tradition of commitment to the security of Israel within established and recognized borders. At
the same time we have supported the right of the Palestinians to a recognized national homeland of their own.
We have also called on the Palestinians and the PLO to recognize unequivocally the right of Israel to exist, within secure and recognized borders. We have called for recognition of the PLO as an important voice of the Palestinian people, and for their participation in effective and meaningful negotiations.
We have criticized the fostering of state directed and financed Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an obvious obstacle to a solution of the problems in that area.
It is clear to us that the Israeli response to the current situation in the West Bank and Gaza is not helpful either. The use of liVe ammunition on crowds, and the increasingly routine resort to violence as a way of dealing with deep-rooted problems which require structural and political solutions, are disturbing and unacceptable. Neither terrorism nor military force is the answer. Years of bloodshed have hardened the hearts of too many in that area of the world.
The NDP supports the idea of a peace conference and calls on all who are involved to show new resolve in the search for peace-resolve for peace rather than resort to violence.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, by its attitude to free trade in the last few months, the Opposition has shown Canadians it is unworthy of aspiring to lead the Government of this country.
Only the Progressive Conservative Party, whose principles are based on respect for the freedom and growth of the individual and respect for law and order, has the qualifications to continue governing this country.
The Free Trade Agreement is based on these principles and urges Canadians to go the extra mile to be even more productive. It is an appeal for excellence, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I wish to pay special tribute to a large number of Quebecers who have decided to make the Free Trade Agreement their business.
I want to congratulate Laurent Beaudoin, Marcel Dutil, Gaetan Mathieu and so many others who are responsible for establishing a coalition for free trade in the Province of Quebec and are attracting thousands of people to their cause.
That is a vote of confidence for Canada and its Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

December 17, 1987



PESTICIDES


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, through her book Silent Spring, Rachel Carson alerted the public to the dangers of chemical pesticides, particularly DDT. Silent Spring raised public awareness of environmental and health hazards that chemicals pose.
The just released Law Reform Commission study Pesticides in Canada notes that over the last two decades pesticide sales increased more than tenfold in Canada. Over the same period evidence has emerged of past and current pesticide related damage; fish and wildlife killings, farm worker deaths and poisonings, human health concerns in the general population, contamination of ground water, et cetera.
It is now urgent that the Government follow up on this timely review of the ineffective aspect of our laws in protecting human and environmental health from the hazards of pesticides which, by definition, are toxic and deliberately poisonous. Again we urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to launch a full public review of the regulation of pesticides in Canada now.


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



AGRICULTURE


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced a second round of support for grain farmers. Yet for much of Ontario the farm announcement represents a kick in the teeth for soybean farmers. Comparing the support, 44 cents per bushel is given for wheat, 29 cents per bushel is given for corn, and one cent per bushel is given to soybean producers. This is a ludicrous and ridiculous reflection of the very difficult position in which soybean producers find themselves.
I have received calls from four farmers this week alone who told me that they face bankruptcy and repossession this week. We have to respond quickly to these farmers. There must be a neutral review of these ludicrous and ridiculous levels which have been established in order that soybean farmers get their fair share.



REMOVAL OF EXPORT TAX ON BRITISH COLUMBIA SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it must be getting to be Christmas because certainly a spirit of good will prevailed yesterday when the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) announced the successful negotiations with the U.S. and the termination of the 15 per cent export charge on British Columbia softwood lumber.
This tax, which had been put in place in response to a U.S. countervail action, was a continuing source of irritation to industry and government. It was to be an interim measure until such time as the provinces could put in place comparable replacement measures. This has now been accomplished in B.C. with the introduction of a new stumpage system, and the tax has been lifted.
The decision of the Government to seek a negotiated solution to the softwood lumber dispute has turned out to be the most appropriate course. The opposition Parties' course of action, to continue the fight, would have resulted in at least an additional year of uncertainty and the loss of over $300 million in revenues to the provinces.
Once again the Government has been decisive. We have acted on our decisions.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has decided to restore part of the tax advantages of flow-through shares. Personally however, I would have preferred to see him maintain the rate of 133 1/3 per cent for three years.
Nevertheless, this Government recognizes the importance of sustained resource development in certain regions, and it is worried that these activities will start to decline during downturns in the industry. The Finance Committee felt that tax incentives or Government grants might be necessary as temporary measures, during periods of falling prices or during an economic recession, to ensure the survival of exploration activity in Canada. Our Government agrees with this position and is prepared to consider the temporary assistance that might be necessary in this case.
The fact remains that flow-through shares will probably be one of the last tax shelters still in effect after 1987, so today I continue my fight for our Abitibi prospectors, and next Sunday, I will attend the big prospectors rally at Val-d'Or. Together, and with the help of the Government of Quebec, we must find new ways to maintain economic renewal in the mining industry.
December 17, 1987



TAX REFORM


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has just announced new changes in relation with its tax reform which are regressive and unfair for Canadian families. The Government pretends that it is helping Canadian families and women. However, nothing so far supports this claim, quite the opposite! Families need an affordable child care program with universal access. The Government wants to spend a large amount of money by increasing deductions for child care services with proof of payment. This will benefit well-off families who already have spaces in daycare centres and who can afford such costly services, while refundable tax credits would have helped low-income and single parent families who do not have spaces in daycares and who cannot afford such services.
The Government had also promised to do everything in its power to change the spouse tax exemption into a refundable tax credit for spouses who stay at home, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has done nothing about it. He continues to ignore the important work of women at home and the personal independence which should be given to them. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to pretend that it is solving the problems of families for the 90s when it is applying measures which are more appropriate to the needs of the 50s.



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT BY MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years the political economy of Canada had, by a combination of tariffs and freight rates, furthered central Canada manufacturers at the expense of agricultural and resource interests in the Maritimes and West and consumers across the nation.
Today our manufacturers are to be congratulated as, without exception, they support the free trade initiative. This confirms their maturity and their ability to compete internationally and to create new sales opportunities and new jobs without stifling government intervention.
The only voices of reaction still wanting to exploit the consumer, the farmer, the miner, the logger and the fisherman, are the Opposition Leaders and Premier Peterson. When history comes to be written, these will suffer the same fate as the mammoth, the sabre-toothed tiger, and the dodo.
Oral Questions TRADE



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WORKERS

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed trade pact between Canada and the United States is causing grave concerns for Canadian workers. Bilateral free trade is being seen as a direct threat to their livelihood and way of life. For example, workers in labour intensive industries such as textiles, clothing, electrical products, leather products and toys, to name but a few, fear for the loss of their jobs.
Service workers, mostly women, are increasingly concerned about the potential threat to their jobs. Predictions estimate that Canadian women will lost tens of thousands of jobs and suffer severe deterioration in working conditions under the Mulroney trade agreement. Women will be major losers because their jobs are heavily concentrated in Canadian manufacturing and service industries. Over-all, more than 60 per cent of working Canadian women have jobs in the manufacturing industries. Many of these women who will face the prospect of future unemployment are middle-aged or immigrant women with poor prospects for job retraining.
There will be major American takeovers under this deal, and these absentee foreign owners will not protect Canadian jobs.



ORAL QUESTION


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Minister of Finance had promised not to increase taxes, and we now have a broken promise of $22 billion! Since the Conservatives have been in power, the Minister of Finance has increased the sales tax three times for a total of $8 billion. He has increased the tax on gasoline by $2 billion. He has increased income taxes by over $5 billion. He has imposed a $1 billion tax on long distance telephone calls. I repeat that the Minister of Finance had promised that the Conservative Government would not increase taxes, but that he has imposed $22 billion of new taxes on Canadians. Now, he is promising to give them back a mere $2 billion.
My question to the Minister of Finance is this, Mr. Speaker: Who is he trying to fool? And when will he refund the other $20 billion?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to focus in on very narrow parts of the program. If the Hon. Member looks at the broad range of the government program as set out in the November,

December 17, 1987
Oral Questions
1984, statement, he will see from there that the combination of that has resulted in 1,042,000 jobs being created. The unemployment rate has gone from 11.7 per cent down to 8.4 per cent. Mortgage payments of individuals, going on the average mortgage of about $50,000 or $60,000, have dropped in excess of $1,200 a year. So it is that broad economic program which is important, not individual items of it that the Leader of the Official Opposition would wish to pick out.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am using the over-all figures from the Minister's own Department.


ELECTION PROMISE
John Napier Turner: The
campaign promise of the Conservative Party, as set forth by the Minister of Finance during the 1984 election, was that they would not raise taxes. The bottom line is that the average Canadian family with an income of, say, $32,000 a year, pays $1,100 more in personal taxes every year than it did when the Conservative Government came to power.


John Horton McDermid: Who ran up the debt, John?


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Finance says he is returning $300 to these families, but this is going to be wiped out in a few weeks by a new tax on wallpaper, paint, toys, handicrafts and long distance phone calls. My question is very simple. Why has the Minister of Finance so gouged Canadian families with new taxes since his arrival in power when he promised during the election campaign that he was not going to raise taxes by a single cent?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to remind the hon. gentleman that he has also said he felt it was important to get the deficit down. I would ask him how he was going to get the deficit down if he were on this side of the House?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 think he would have his mouth very tightly shut because he wouldn't have a word to say.
Let me talk about some of the benefits. A single wage earner earning under $25,000 is going to find he has a tax cut of $590 a year. A couple with one wage earner in the family with two children under 18 years will receive a tax cut of $710. A couple with one wage earner and four children under 18 years will find there is a $945 tax saving as a result of tax reform.
We are delivering on tax reform. It is very, very clearly here in the papers which have been accepted by many people.


Mr. Garneau:: How can you say that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I would say-

And I would say to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that it is very important, important enough to make the headlines in the Journal de Montreal "Winners: Families." It is true!


Raymond Garneau: You are true professional jugglers!


John Napier Turner: I did not make the promise. The Minister made the promise to Canadians during the 1984 election campaign that he would not raise taxes by a single cent. He has taken $22 billion from the pockets of Canadians and now he is saying he is going to return $2 billion. Big deal! He said during the election campaign he would not raise taxes, but he has taken $1,100 per family since he became Minister of Finance, year by year, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers, and he is now going to return $300, and all of that is going to be wiped out in two or three weeks by new taxes. Big deal!


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
John Napier Turner: Let
me turn to another area. We had a very interesting report from the House of Commons Finance Committee on tax reform. The Minister of Finance said he was going to listen to and follow that report. Yet he has rejected 85 per cent of the recommendations in the report of the committee which consisted of a majority of followers of the Government of which the Minister is a member. Why, in simple terms, has the Minister of Finance broken his word to Canadians both on taxes and on tax reform?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, if he had taken the time to read the report, plus the response to the committee's report, would see that we have listened very carefully to the very good work that has been produced by the Finance Committee. As a result of the announcement that I made yesterday, 31 promises have been accepted in full or in part; 21 recommendations we said we either agree to in principle and need further work, or we feel that they should be studied further; 29 recommendations are not accepted. Some of those recommendations are grouped. I believe there is one that we could not accept, and it followed that four individual recommendations would not be accepted.
We have followed very closely what we said we would do with this report. As I stated yesterday, we appreciate very much the fine work that has been done by the members of the committee, led by my neighbour, the Hon.-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Who is that guy?
December 17, 1987


ELECTION PROMISE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if 1 were the Minister of Finance I would not push my luck too far with the Member from Mississauga.
The Minister of Finance did not answer the question posed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Before the election the Minister of Finance promised, on behalf of his Party, that if elected the Conservative Party would not raise taxes. He made that very straightforward promise.
I wish to ask the Minister the same question, which he did not answer. Why has he broken this promise and increased taxes by billions of dollars, including the sales tax, the tax on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco, the deindexation of the personal income tax, the surtax on personal income tax, for a total of $22 billion? Why has he broken the solemn promise that he made in the House on March 6, 1984?


John Horton McDermid: You were not around here when the Liberals piled up the debt.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say very clearly to the Hon. Member-he was not here before and he probably cannot be held culpable for that-we did not anticipate the huge mess that we got into when we opened the books after we were elected in September, 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me also correct a misstatement by the Hon. Member, as well as by his Leader, when they state that we have increased taxes by $22 billion. I reject that comment. 1 wish to say this to the Hon. Member. Yes, revenues have gone up. But 85 per cent of the reason for those revenues is the very healthy economy that we have seen over the course of the last three years.
When 1,042,000 more people are working, they pay taxes and generate personal tax revenues. That is why we have more revenues to date. We have one of the healthiest economies in the world today. That is why sales tax revenue increases are brought about. Yes, we have increased some taxes, I do not deny that. But don't ignore the healthy economy and the effect that that has on the revenues.


Raymond Garneau: What the Minister of Finance is telling me is that he taxed the economy back to progress.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER JUSTIFY MEASURES HE HAS TAKEN
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it has been figured out. A while ago, I heard the comments made by the Minister responsible for Technology about families. We had a family with an annual income of $32,000
Oral Questions
and we figured out what would have happened if the Government had kept its promises, if it had not deindexed tax schedules, if it had not increased the surtax and the income tax rates, if it had not changed the deindexation of family allowances; we found out that such a family earning $32,000 would have paid $1,100 less income tax. With tax reform, an amount of $300 will be refunded. There remains an increase of $800. How can the Minister say that he has helped the average family whose taxes are up $800 per year?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, again I say the same thing to the Hon. Member. He is looking at one part of the broad economic program of the Government of Canada. Part of that is tax reform, part of that is getting the deficit down, and part of that is getting interest rates down.
I remind the Hon. Member, as I just did his Leader, that payments on the average mortgage are down in excess of $ 1,200 per year. Surely that will have a tremendous impact on the health of the economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I also remind the Hon. Member that if he looks carefully he will see that the net revenue for individuals, after taxes, is up.


SOCIAL JUSTICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Will the Minister admit to the House that under this so-called reform of our tax system, the average family will pay $1,000 more income tax than it did in 1984 when the Conservative Government was elected, while 60,000 profitable corporations will not be paying a cent? Is that Conservative justice?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think any objective observer-and I exclude the Hon. Member when I say that-


An Hon. Member:: Objective or intelligent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not saying that in a derogatory way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is not objective, but any objective observer would say that we have made major strides in tax reform to bring non-taxpaying but profitable companies into a taxpaying position. That is very, very clear, and any of the experts will tell him that.

December 17, 1987
Oral Questions
There are companies that are not paying taxes. These are companies which have had substantial real losses in previous periods, where there is a carry forward-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Members over there are saying: "Oh, oh". They are laughing. I will tell them who those companies are.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt wants to know who these companies are. Many of them are mining companies which have their offices in his riding, where they have lost money and they are carrying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, $3.20 a pound.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt does not like to hear it because he knows that he will feel the heat when he goes home to his riding in Sudbury. He is going to have to explain why he wants to have the mining companies in his area that have lost money in previous years taxed today. If we did that, there would be job losses in those companies.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister's stories are very touching. I would agree with him that any objective Bay Street lawyer would agree with him, that there is tax reform. Any fair-minded Canadian knows that the so-called reform is completely phoney.


U.S. MINIMUM CORPORATE TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 saw the Minister on television last night-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -saying that the Government had to be concerned, and I would agree with it, about the competitive position our tax system is in compared with that of other countries.
Would he be prepared to admit to his Bay Street colleagues that in the United States today there is a 20 per cent minimum tax on corporations if they make profits; even, I say to the Minister, in the United States? If we had that minimum 20 per cent corporate tax here on the 60,000 corporations which do not pay, we would have $2 billion in additional revenue and we could then reduce taxes, for example, on average and low-income Canadians. That would be real reform.


Mr. Shields:: Anti-American and anti-business.


Mr. Crosbie:: Pro Shirley Carr.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me reply to the Hon. Member in a serious way. We
recognize that there are-and 1 think the Hon. Member's number is right-60,000 companies that are not paying tax and will be making profits. However, I pointed out in my speech yesterday that those companies belong to two categories. First, they are companies in cyclical industries which have lost money in a substantial way in previous years and have a loss carried forward. If he is suggesting that we change tax policy to tax, in effect, companies that have made losses, I would welcome that because then I would point out which companies are hurt by that. The other category is basically companies in the Atlantic provinces and parts of Quebec which have very minimal levels of earnings but take advantage of things like regional investment tax credits. Is the Hon. Member saying that we should hit those companies?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These are the difficult decisions which must be made in tax reform. It is easy for the Hon. Member on the other side of the House to make these allegations but, if he has to live with the decisions, he is going to hurt a lot of Canadians by doing so.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that the average Canadian, and the average business person too, believes that if they are making profits they should pay taxes. Poor people pay taxes, and every company which makes money in this country should be paying taxes too. If he wants to campaign on this, we will go into every region of the country and take him on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINIMUM TAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister think the Republican Party in the United States is able to have a 20 per cent minimum tax and to get revenue there, and the Conservative Government up here can ignore $2 billion in revenue which could be used for the poor people of the country? Explain that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for the Royal Bank.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Now, Ed, watch your language. What I would have to acknowledge is that if we did have a minimum tax in this country it might pick up political contributions that are funnelled through NDP organizations and passed on to municipal candidates.


John Edward Broadbent: Join the rest of the sleaze over there, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am just telling you some of the things which might be picked up in a minimum tax.
December 17, 1987

The fundamental reason, as I said to his colleague from Nickel Belt, is that companies in Sudbury are not paying taxes today-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Like Royal Trust.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, just a year or two ago, was saying that times were tough in Sudbury, and we know that they were tough. Those companies have losses that they are carrying forward into this year, and some of them won't be paying tax this year. If he wants to put a minimum corporate tax on, that is the sort of-


John Edward Broadbent: We will do it and we will explain it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -company that he is going to hit. There will be lay-offs, and he is going to have to answer to his colleague from Nickel Belt why Ed is causing lay-offs in Sudbury with his minimum tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We will have an election on that.


AMOUNT OF TAX COLLECTED BY GOVERNMENT
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that since the Conservative Government came to power personal income taxes, sales taxes, and excise taxes have been increased by a total of $22 billion, will the Minister explain to the House if he really thinks it is honest to tell Canadians that they are getting a good deal now because he proposes to return $2 billion in 1988?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star, another objective observer of the scene, also said: "Nine out of ten households to get $490 break under tax reforms".


Raymond Garneau: You know it is a joke to say that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In the books here, as I have said, a $25,000 single earner under age 65 will get a tax reduction of $590 as a result of tax reform. A one-earner couple with two children under age 18 will get a savings of $710. Those are meaningful amounts.
The Hon. Member says: "What is the other half of the question?" The other half of the question is that the $22 billion figure is a fictitious figure. What I am saying, and what I have said before to other questioners from the Liberal Party, is that we have had the strongest economy of the seven largest industrialized countries in the last three years. The result of that is a substantial increase in personal income taxes because
1,042,000	more people are working today and they are paying taxes. They are not drawing down unemployment insurance. This is the positive approach that the Government is taking, and it is paying off.
Oral Questions


WHITE PAPER SALES TAX PROJECTION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think 22 to 2 is the Minister's own Catch-22 proposal-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: -in which the consumer is caught. The Minister said my figures were fictitious. My figures come from his own Department and are published.
I would like to quote another figure which the Minister may call fictitious which comes from the economic and fiscal outlook in his White Paper, page 47. According to that, the sales taxes paid by Canadian consumers, the people caught in this Catch-22, will be $17 billion by 1990 as opposed to $7 billion in 1984-85.
The Minister knows, despite what he said in response to a question put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that he will not get the corporate taxes that he is anticipating because he has left every loophole in place which is used to shelter income. Therefore, how much does the Minister really expect to get from sales taxes to balance his budget? Is the $17 billion figure also an underestimate and, if so, is the sky the limit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Trinity has a reputation for asking straight questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: She is alone in her caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Member has just said that we have left every loophole in place. I know she does not believe that. I know she knows that is not true. If she is going to get back on track with her questioning she should withdraw that statement because most, as I said previously, objective observers will say that we have done a major job, not just in tax reform but in a major way throughout our term of office, eliminating a number of the tax preferences, the scientific research tax credit of, the carve-outs and "the Little Egypt bump", all of which we inherited from the previous Government. We have systematically taken them out of the tax system to ensure that profitable corporations do pay their fair share of taxes. That will be the result of tax reform.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-MINIMUM TAX RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday he

December 17, 1987
Oral Questions
rejected outright a key recommendation of the Finance Committee to levy a minimum tax on the banks and other financial institutions. Instead, the Minister merely extended an existing capital tax and made it refundable on future taxes, a move his own Department confirmed to us this morning will, and I quote "not raise revenue over the long term".
Is the Minister prepared to stand in the House this afternoon and admit that his capital tax on banks and financial institutions is nothing but a sham?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I reject what the Hon. Member has said in a major way. A minimum tax, such as the one we have imposed on the banks, by its nature is designed to produce a minimum amount of money, as was the minimum margin proposed by the Finance Committee. But the purpose of tax reform is to get regular corporate tax in place so that that regular corporate tax will raise far more in corporate tax revenues than a minimum tax would. That would have been the effect of tax reform on the AMMT as proposed by the committee. That will be the effect of this.
We are trying to get more money out of the banks, the insurance companies and the trust companies, than a minimum tax would. That is what tax reform will do.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSIDER INTRODUCING MINIMUM TAX
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the reason that the finance committee recommended a minimum tax was, and I quote his Conservative colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough, who said: "Only by means of a minimum tax will the Government be in a position to demonstrate taxes will be paid with certainty".
The Finance Committee found that the only way of collecting taxes from the banks and financial institutions was through a minimum tax. Every time the Finance Department in the past has tried to collect taxes, the banks have ended up paying even less than before the attempt.
Again, will the Minister give serious consideration to introducing a genuine minimum tax on the banks and financial institutions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can say with certainty that taxes will be collected from the banks. That is the result, that is the effect of the capital tax, the form of minimum tax that we have imposed on the chartered banks.


Simon Leendert de Jong: And it is refundable.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member has been on the Finance Committee from time to time. I would remind him that the Finance Committee itself has made recommendations on how to ensure that we collect taxes from the banks. We have adopted a number of those proposals. The point I want to make to him is that we have analyzed carefully
each and every way by which the banks, the life insurance companies and the trust companies have been able to avoid paying taxes in the past. We have plugged each of those loopholes and we have made absolutely sure that that will result in them paying, as 1 said yesterday, up to $4 billion in taxes.
We have also said in response to the Finance Committee's report that we are not going to sit still there. We will monitor, and look at various mechanisms, including the AMMT, to see whether they are necessary to achieve the goal. If we are not successful with the way we have chosen now, we will follow the other route as well.


LABOUR RELATIONS
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, my question through you is for the Minister of Labour. It concerns the grain handlers' strike at Prince Rupert. The Minister will be aware that Canada's reputation internationally as a reliable supplier of high quality wheat may be at stake. Not only are farm communities inconvenienced by this labour-management dispute, the families of those who have been laid off, such as 70 CN rail employees, are facing a very bleak Christmas.
With this in mind, can the Minister advise the House and the western Canadian grain farmers if there has been any progress in the dispute as a result of the initiatives taken by his Department?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I instructed the mediator in that particular dispute on Tuesday to reconvene the parties in order to work toward a settlement.
I am informed the parties are meeting with the mediator tomorrow in Vancouver at two o'clock. I do hope that the parties, in view of the circumstances and in view of the effect of this particular work stoppage on the Canadian economy, and the effect on their own economy at this time of the year, will come to a settlement.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Two companies have been exporting clams to the United States from the north shore of the St. Lawrence River and these shellfish, clams in particular, have come from rivers that have been officially classified as contaminated by Ottawa.
December 17, 1987

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to this House why permits were issued to export these clams in violation of a 1948 inspection treaty signed by the two countries? Can he also explain why his Government is now contemplating reissuing the permits, from waters that have not been tested in the last 10 years?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the specifics of the issue that has been raised, we have an effective system of control on all products, clams, quahogs, oysters and mussels harvested in Atlantic Canada which does not allow the harvesting, processing or sale of these products until the completion of the work by the operations centre established to co-ordinate all government activities related to the alert on these products.
The operations centre is now working very diligently to restore consumer confidence in all of these products and to ensure that the interests of the industry are served in this way.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would now like an answer to the question. I specifically asked why the Government had agreed to issue export permits to two companies to export clams to the United States despite the fact that these clams were found in waters that were called contaminated by Ottawa.
Can the Minister explain to the House why the Government is now contemplating reissuing permits to those companies to export clams to the United States when in fact some of these waters have not been tested in 10 years, a violation of an international treaty signed in 1948? Please answer that question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question is entirely hypothetical. The Hon. Member speaks of contemplating. I do not know what he knows that I do not know.
The first part of the question is a specific question that could be addressed to me by way of a letter, but I am not prepared to comment on some hypothetical situation that the Hon. Member has thrown across the aisle of the House of Commons without notice.


TOXIC MUSSELS CONSUMED IN ONTARIO
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have in my hand a chronology of events prepared by the
Oral Questions
Government of Ontario which is actually a damning indictment of this Minister's handling of the whole question of toxic mussels.
For example, on December 2, after the Minister had issued a public warning, his own officials told the Government of Ontario that no action on recalls had to be taken within the Province of Ontario because, to the knowledge of the Department, no P.E.I. mussels had been sent to Ontario. In fact we know that in the city of Toronto one man passed away and several are ill. Obviously the information provided by his Department after he issued the public warning was patently absurd.
How can the Minister expect the Canadian public to have any confidence in his health warning process if his own Department is unable to track the toxic mussel link or to track the toxic mussels that are being sent out across the country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I also have in my hand the statement of the Hon. Elinor Caplan that she made yesterday in Queen's Park- excuse me, not yesterday, December 7. I also have here a chronology in respect of the manner in which the health alert was sent to Ontario and I will read from it, and I want to make sure which day we are talking about. We are talking about the health alert of December 1. What happened on December 1 was this:
The Minister's public alert was distributed by the wire services during the evening of December 1, 1987.
It is obvious from the above chronology-
-which I have here-
-of events that officers of the Toronto Public Health Unit were aware of the alert which stimulated their call of 8:10 a.m., December 2, 1987. They were further briefed that morning by an officer of the Health Protection Branch.
So, Mr. Speaker, not only can I-if you give me a little more time-what I can show as well to the House is that when a message is given by Health and Welfare Canada to the provincial Ministries of Health who have the responsibility for public health in their provinces, it is very interesting to note that chronology that in fact that message from Ontario did not go to certain health units even in Toronto until the Department of Health and Welfare in fact got it to them directly.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FEDERAL OFFICIAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of the fact that his own health alert was sent to an employee of the provincial Government who had retired two months before this incident? His mailing list was two months out of date.
The federal official, a Mr. Blackwood, the chief of food inspection, HPB Ontario Region, told the people of the Province of Ontario on December 2 that he was unaware of P.E.I. mussels being sent to Ontario and said that no further action was indicated at that time. Mr. Blackwood told the Province of Ontario not to take action, but we know now that

December 17, 1987
Oral Questions
toxic mussels were available in Ontario, were being consumed in Ontario, and in fact a man in Ontario died.
How can the Minister expect the public to have any confidence in him when his own officials give out erroneous information which continues to place the health of Canadians at risk even after he issued the public health alert?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on December 1, 1987, as I have already stated, respecting the mussel situation in Prince Edward Island-


Mr. Tobin:: Answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, I will answer the question. Just give me the time. I would love to answer the question.
I have given the details of how the message was sent to Ontario. It is interesting that at 8.10 a.m. on December 2, the following happened:
-that morning Messrs. Boehnke and Flaherty, two officials of the Toronto Public Health Unit had spoken with Mr. Saarkoppel, a supervisor at Scarborough H.P.B. who advised them that he would obtain details and call them back. Later that morning, Mr. Saarkoppel advised both Messrs. Boehnke and Flaherty of the Toronto Public Health Unit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had issued a release to the public to advise against the consumption of cultured P.E.I. mussels and that H.P.B. was in the process of receiving from Fisheries and Oceans Canada a list of retail and restaurants where the product could be found.
What is then interesting is the following:
Our current agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Health is that they are responsible for the distribution of hard copy to all Health Units in Ontario. When by 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 3, 1987 it became clear that hard copy from the Ontario Ministry of Health was to be sent by mail, H.P.B. decided immediately to deliver by hand, to all Public Health Units in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area,... a hard copy of the list of retailers, distributors and restaurants where mussels were likely to be found and this was done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 wonder if all Hon. Members would consider for a moment not only themselves but the public are watching this extremely difficult and very important issue. The Opposition has not only a right but a duty to ask questions. The Government has a right and a duty to answer them. Given all that has happened, it seems to me that it would fit the dignity of this place if questions were to be asked and answers given without a lot of interruption from other Hon. Members who are not recognized.


TOXIC MUSSELS AFFAIR-OPPORTUNITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO OFFER COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing and clapping, but this morning Mr. Donat Gagnon added his name to the lengthening list of persons who died after eating mussels.
Yesterday, despite the mistakes made by two Ministers, the Government was still refusing to offer compensation to the victims of the credible errors made by this Government. Six people are still in hospital in Montreal. Three are in intensive care and one person is in very serious condition.
I want to ask the Prime Minister why the Government keeps refusing to offer compensation to the victims' families and to the fisheries that have been affected.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first of all I do not think anyone in the House is laughing about this serious issue or about the illnesses that have occurred or the deaths that have occurred. I say to the Hon. Member that he should have in his hand and, if not, it should have been delivered to his office further to what I said in the House yesterday that we would give a further update today from the operations centre. It is an operations centre update dated today. There are details in it, relating to the present situation, under three titles, and that is all I have time for right now. One is intensive analysis to create the conditions enabling resumption of the fishery. The order of re-entry. And a joint Government-industry approach.
Keeping in mind that that plan is being worked on very carefully, there is one overriding consideration in the entire plan. That is the health conditions, the health priority and its rigorous application, will be applied.
I suggest to the Hon. Member, while he has raised this question a number of times, and I know what he is saying, that it is important to use this plan rather than get into some of the other questions because the health issue has to be paramount for all of us in this House and beyond.


WHY ARE TWO MINISTERS WAITING TO TENDER RESIGNATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, when he waited four days before alerting Canadians the Minister of National Health and Welfare gambled with the lives of Canadians, and he knows that. As to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, by including shellfish with other molluscs when he sounded the alarm on November 11 he too goofed, and he knows it. And now clam fishing permits are being issued in zones which Environment Canada has said to be contaminated, again endangering the lives of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, what are these two Ministers waiting for before they get out of their shell and hand in their resignation? That is the only move which will restore the confidence of Canadians!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member in his preamble made a statement or an allegation which is not true. There was not a
December 17, 1987

delay of the health alert and there was not knowledge by this Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let me finish. There was not a change of the dates. For the two weeks that I have been asked questions in this House and the media, those dates and that information, time after time, has been affirmed and confirmed. That is the first point that has to be made.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The second-I would think that Hon. Member should heed the warnings that were given.
Second, I say to the Hon. Member, with respect to the health alert, his own Leader said that health was a priority and the only priority. The Hon. Member is still questioning today after the events and the facts and I take it that he does not think the health alert should be sent. That is how I have to interpret his question. I say to him that the plan is in place, we are following the plan, and I am not going to change the plan because of his partisan priorities or partisan words.


FISHERIES
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and deals with the question posed earlier by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville.


Some Hon. Members:: Same question!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: In 1948 a treaty called the Clam Zone Inspection Treaty was signed with the United States. According to that treaty clams taken from polluted areas, that is areas found to contain evidence of human fecal pollution, should not be allowed for export to the U.S.
Why were licences issued to two companies to take clams from Riviere Blanche, in the riding of the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -from Sector N4.3 and Papinachois Sector N5.2.1, which are areas which have shown evidence of coliform contamination? Why were licences issued which would allow shipment of contaminated clams to the United States when this is prohibited under the treaty?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, again, as is so common with members of the Opposition these days, the Hon. Member is over-simplifying.
Business of the House
The general treaty provides for notice and closures as proclaimed by the Government of Canada to take precedence over any desire to export a product. Because of Red Tide, the closing of shellfish areas is a common practice, in place for decades, to ensure that at times of the year when particular areas are contaminated product is not harvested from those areas. Those procedures are followed with the opening and closing of various areas from time to time.
I can assure the Hon. Member that both the environmental protection service and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ensure that whenever a shellfish area is open for the harvesting of clams and other mollusks it is in accordance with all the health standards required by the Health Protection Branch and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.


REASON FOR ISSUING EXPORT LICENCES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I have to tell you that if that is the kind of ignorance motivating policies in fisheries, then we are in serious trouble. We are not talking about Red Tide. We are talking about the requirement that there be no evidence of human fecal pollution in clams shipped to the U.S.
I want to know why licences were issued for taking of clams in two known contaminated areas and why licences were issued to take clams from 30 areas that have not been tested in 10 years?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, now we are getting down to the heart of the situation. I am well aware of the situation that prevails in Baie de la Riviere Blanche and I can assure the Hon. Member that we do not open areas in which the levels of contamination exceed safe health standards. I can assure the Hon. Member that when this particular area of the Riviere Blanche was open in the winter of 1986, it was on the basis of water quality tests carried out on December 2, 1986, by the environmental protection service and those tests indicated there was no contamination and that the water quality standards were met.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, while Members of the House are completing private conversations, leaving the Chamber, arranging their papers and engaging in other parliamentary matters, I wonder



December 17, 1987
Message from the Senate


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has of course en passant noted that his intervention to question the Government this afternoon as to House business are being interrupted by conversations by Hon. Members. I ask Hon. Members standing in the Chamber carrying on conversations to please move beyond the curtain. I ask other Hon. Members to co-operate. I thank Hon. Members.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention although I would have had no objection to the conversations continuing. I would have been happy to use my weekly exchange with the Deputy Government House Leader as a period of time in which Members could settle down so the House can resume its normal placid but important atmosphere.


John Napier Turner: Don't go overboard.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In any event, I want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader to give a statement of government business. Perhaps under the circumstances, he can tell us whether the Government can outline its program for the forthcoming winter semester, including generally when the Budget might be expected, what priority will be given to the official languages Bill, and when the Government will bring forward its long promised but as yet unpresented ethics in government legislation?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with my hon. friend, I thought everyone hung on our every word every Thursday.
This afternoon we will complete Bill S-14 in all stages and then proceed to the free trade debate. If that debate is not completed this afternoon, we will continue it tomorrow. If it is not completed tomorrow, we will possibly continue the debate on January 18, 1988, if the House agrees with the Adjournment Motion on the Order Paper. Thanks to the co-operation of the Opposition, at times, and to the diligence of the Government, at all times, we completed quite a bit of legislation this past fall. We will have a full agenda when we return on January 18.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we know that today and tomorrow are the last days that Parliament will be sitting to debate the free trade issue prior to rising. We also know that the Government will be signing the free trade agreement on January 2. That means that these two days will be the last opportunity for debate prior to the signing. Does the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) plan to speak on this issue before the signing of the agreement on January 2, which means either later today or tomorrow?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take this up with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to learn whether his agenda permits him to enter the debate either this afternoon or tomorrow.
There have been discussions among the Parties, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank my colleagues in the Opposition in advance for their indulgence. I think you would find consent to call Bill S-14, a Bill from the other House, presently standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), which I would move on his behalf. I think you would find consent to deal with that Bill in all stages without debate.
You will also find that it has been agreed that at five o'clock the House shall proceed directly to the adjournment debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill S-14, an Act to authorize Cooperants, Mutual Life Insurance Society to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec, be now read the second time and with unanimous consent referred to a committee of the whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusively agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to
December 17, 1987

provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof; Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act; Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; Bill C-97, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code; Bill C-98, an Act to amend an Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited; and Bill C-101, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
Free Trade
I would like to read three brief quotes and ask the Member to comment on them. The first is from Jalynn Bennett of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association who says:
The free trade agreement is, on balance, a significant and positive achievement for the Canadian economy. The primary and highly important- benefit to the financial services sector is this: secure and improved access to each others markets over the long term. The Canadian industry-and its customers-will be well served by the agreement.
Sally Hall of the Consumers' Association of Canada says:
Barriers to trade are always paid for by consumers, while producers are the main beneficiary of them. Free trade produces choice and competition, and gives consumers real power in the marketplace. Signing the deal will provide positive economic gains for Canada, the deal deserves some support from consumers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
December 17, 1987 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 17th day of December, 1986, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Anthony P. Smyth Deputy Secretary,
Policy and Program Branch



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987, and of the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 11885).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 o'clock, there remained ten minutes for questions and comments following the speech of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech earlier today. I know that he is very interested in Canadian agriculture, is very concerned for the consumer, and is interested in the service sector as well because he was a doctor of some reknown in the practice of veterinary medicine.
There are some mining interests in the Hon. Member's constituency. George Miller of the Mining Association of Canada says:
The Canadian Mining Industry lives by trade. The free trade agreement will help secure access to our most important market by limiting protectionist harassment. We are convinced that the binational dispute settlement mechanism will introduce real discipline in the trade remedy area.
Those are three areas which constituents of the Hon. Member are very interested in and very concerned about. With that kind of endorsation and support how can the Hon. Member, in all sincerity, stand up and oppose this very excellent U.S.-Canada trade agreement which was reached between our two Governments?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) has posed these questions. I had the opportunity to travel with the External Affairs and International Trade Committee to Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories where The Consumers' Association certainly watered down and practically disowned this agreement between Canada and the United States. While they are in favour of freer trade with all countries because it will help consumers, when they looked at this deal and all of the publications since, they practically gave up all support for the deal.
I am also interested to know why it seems the whole approach to this deal is to avoid further processing of our own resources, such as the mineral resources of this country. According to this agreement, we have to give up the policy we established many years ago to further upgrade our uranium in Canada. The federal Government has spent about $180 million building refinery facilities in Blind River and Port Hope. Now, however, besides giving unlimited access to all our energy resources under this agreement, including natural gas and oil-


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Maurice Brydon Foster: -we have given up the right to upgrade our mineral resources like uranium.


John Horton McDermid: Start telling the truth.

December 17, 1987
Free Trade


Maurice Brydon Foster: I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, who perhaps sees the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) from time to time, to tell her to stop deceiving Canadians about how they will be able to bring consumer goods from the United States. She has been leaving the impression throughout the country that Canadians will be able to cross the border and import back into Canada unlimited amounts of consumer goods from the United States. That is very important to an area like Algoma which is immediately adjacent to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan.
The fact is that her own officials have corrected her and said that consumers will only be able to bring $100 worth of goods back to Canada after 48 hours. They will have to pay the sales tax of 12.5 per cent. If the product is manufactured in Japan, Malaysia, or some other country, they will pay full duty. If the product is manufactured in the United States, the duty will be gradually reduced, if there is a duty, because 85 per cent of our trade with the United States is duty-free.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will ask the Minister to stop misleading Canadians about the amount they can bring in from the United States. It is $100 after 48 hours, not the malarkey she has been spreading.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I must be careful about what words I use. The Hon. Member is not giving the full story. The Minister said very clearly that any goods produced in the United States would be duty-free after the 10-year period. There will be no duties on them. In the next breath she said that by the time that happens, the limits that are set by either government for products being brought back will apply.
The Member should finish the Minister's quote. If he is quoting from a newspaper story he should give the whole story because he is being very unfair. He is attributing something to the Minister that is not accurate. He did not finish the whole story.
The Hon. Member talks about goods from Taiwan and Singapore. This is a trade agreement regarding American made goods and Canadian made goods. It is all about creating jobs in Canada, not in Taiwan or China.
I suggest the Hon. Member is being intellectually dishonest with the House by telling us that malarkey.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from an article in the Ottawa Citizen on December 10, with the headline "Dutyfree limits unchanged in free-trade pact with U.S.". It states:
Canadian consumers who think a free-trade deal will mean they can head to the U.S. for unrestricted shopping sprees are in for an expensive shock at Canada Customs.
Federal officials say the final trade agreement, to be made public Friday, makes no changes to the current duty-free limits and other restrictions on what Canadian travellers can bring home with them from trips south of the border.
It goes on to say that the trade Minister:
... has been spreading the idea that free trade will allow Canadian shoppers to cash in on cheap American goods without having to face Canada Customs on the way home.


John Horton McDermid: Who said that? Is there a quote?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes, I will quote the Minister's speech. The article went on:
During a recent speech, Carney said she had been asked 'if free trade meant you could bring anything you wanted back from the U.S. without paying duty. The answer was, yes'.
That impression she has been leaving with the country is patently false and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that. I am simply asking him to have the Minister come clean and tell Canadians if the limit will still be $100 after a two-day visit.
For instance, the officials in the Parliamentary Secretary's own department gave the following example. One year after the trade agreement has been in effect, the reduction on a $600 stereo made in the United States is $5. The consumer who buys a stereo in the United States and thinks he will bring it back without paying any duty, sales tax and no limit on importation amounts, will be in for a rude awakening. He will only save $5 after the first year of this agreement with the duty reduction in effect.
I know the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary does not want to mislead Canadians. Perhaps he could tell the Minister to come clean with Canadians, especially those who live along the St. Lawrence River and in places like Sault Ste Marie which are near the border, and tell them that the limits are just the same and the duty will be gradually reduced over 10 years. The sales tax will be the same.


John Horton McDermid: Read the quote again. It says duty.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Customs agent will have to check them more carefully because the duty reduction applies if the goods are made in America but does not apply if they are made in Taiwan or some other country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) referred briefly to the effect of the deal on dairy producers and processors. Would he care to comment on some recent events which I noticed in the business pages. Peter Pocklington has just become the owner of Palm Dairies. I also know from reading the agreement that the import duties, the protection we had on dairy products of 15 per cent against American ice cream and yogurt and other mixed products from that side of the border, are going to drop, leaving the fear among some producers in this country that the value of raw milk will be forced down.
Mr. Pocklington was quoted in the article with respect to his acquisition of Palm Dairies as saying he made the acquisition thanks to the trade deal, which he understands will cause the price of raw products in this country to go down, and he feels these would be a great opportunity in the dairy business as a result. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) could comment and give us his assessment of how accurate the statement of Mr. Pocklington is?
December 17, 1987


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am extremely concerned about this statement because Mr. Pocklington was instrumental in seeing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) become the Leader of the Tory Party and is probably privy to exactly what is going to happen in that regard. Clearly, in the final text there is a contradiction because the Government has mentioned in Article 710 that Section 11 of the GATT applies, but it also states that Section 10 is subject to any other section. That is where the trouble starts. Article 703 provides for the removal of all barriers. That is the concern. Even though Section 11 of the GATT is mentioned in Article 710, it is subject to the overriding provision.
Today the UPA in Quebec has issued a press release and has expressed deep concern that the Government has introduced this new overriding section, which will seemingly move towards the removal of all barriers. That is what the Undersecretary for Agriculture of the United States said they were going to get during the negotiations, and that appears what they have gotten.
The UPA has expressed its deep concern with respect to that section and to the fact that the Government has refused to implement import controls and put ice cream, yogurt and fluid milk on that import control list. I think that Mr. Pocklington bought up Palm Dairies because he knows the whole supply-management system is going to be ruined by this agreement, plus the Government putting the whole supply-management system on the table at the GATT. He knows something that the rest of us do not. He knows when to get in and take advantage of a business opportunity. Obviously, that is the direction in which the Government is going.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Resuming debate. The Minister of State (Agriculture).


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak this afternoon in the free trade debate. I listened carefully, especially to what was said by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) just now and this morning with respect to free trade. What surprised me again-I would not call it ignorance-was the failure to understand the facts and circumstances of the historic Free Trade Agreement concluded by Canada and the United States. To hear the Hon. Member, the majority of Canadians and Canadian farm groups are opposed to the Free Trade Agreement, although the opposite is closer to the truth.
Only forty-eight hours ago, at a meeting on Canadian farm perspectives held across the street, I heard the President of the Canadian Pork Council when he spoke to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), right after the latter's announcement that our Government would inject about $3 billion into Canadian agriculture. The President of the Canadian Pork Council said how delighted he was with the Free Trade Agreement concluded by this Government and the United States.
Free Trade
A person would have to be blind not to realize the obvious benefits arising from this Agreement for Canadian agriculture. When we realize that the market for pork alone, which only a few years ago was worth $300 million, is now worth over $630 million, it is clear this market is important to Canadian farmers and to the Canadian economy. If we add the cattle sector, we find that as cattle breeders told us the other day, more than $1 billion in this particular sector crosses the border into the United States. It is an important and profitable market for Canadians. I noticed that when making his quotes, the Hon. Member overlooked a number of statements made by the president of the cattle breeders association. So it is not just pork but beef as well.
The Hon. Member had some concerns about marketing boards. Mr. Speaker, as of March 16 this year, we made a commitment here in the House to protect marketing boards for agricultural products. We made that commitment in the knowledge that over the years, Canadians have developed a structure that is uniquely adapted to their needs. In fact, to a certain extent it is also unique by world standards. By dint of hard work and discipline, Canadians over the years have developed for certain industries, and I am thinking of the dairy industry, a very special structure that monitors supply-there is no pressure-and exports to countries with which we do business, including the United States, the Common Market and other countries as well.
This special structure, as the Hon. Member is aware, is such that it is protected under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. One would have to be foolishly partisan or blind not to acknowledge that in recent years, this structure has proven its worth and we are thus committed to preserving it. Furthermore, in the realization that it might be necessary to include an additional caveat in the final text we tabled last week, we inserted Section 11 of GATT which closes the gap and specifically mentions the protection afforded by GATT, which already had an umbrella like function.
In negotiating this Agreement with the Americans, Canada has always been careful to observe the basic principles of international trade, especially in the agricultural sector. We have always been a dynamic participant in the GATT talks, and we will remain so, Mr. Speaker, because we believe this is important.
From the outset, the Prime Minister and his Government have notified other world economic powers and other countries that export agricultural products.
Over the years, we have seen a subsidy war develop which was altogether unacceptable. To that end, we have also presented these past few weeks during the GATT negotiations in Geneva a position which is quite consistent with this policy. These past few weeks, Mr. Speaker, members of the Opposition and some extremist farm groups have tried to convince Canadians that we had made a mess of the farm industry and that we did not want to make any particular effort to protect this industry. This is not true, Mr. Speaker! We have taken

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
concrete measures both under this free trade deal and the position which the Minister of International Trade (Mrs. Carney) has indicated to the House. We have not tabled the text of the negotiations, but our general position was quite consistent with Section 11 of the GATT and the fact that, until further notice, we still operate under a quota and supply management system which is to the liking of the Canadian people, which puts no pressure on foreign markets and which could be argued for before this international court in front of 94 other countries with which we will negotiate in good faith over the next few months.
This being said, Mr. Speaker, I think this was the main point on which we had made a commitment last March. However, we had also made a firm commitment, not out of the blue but as a result of this absolutely frustrating wave of American protectionism. I think that we had no choice, we could not just sit and wait while American protectionist measures blocked our exports, in every area: hogs, raspberries, cut flowers, and many more, Mr. Speaker.
We had to act. We simply had too, because we are aware that Canada is a country much smaller, population wise, than the United States. There are only twenty five million of us as opposed to a market of 235 million people south of the border. As a Canadian I do not like this sort of reaction which 1 would describe as somewhat abnormal emphasizing the fact that "We are a small country". We are small and to keep from being swallowed up, to prevent others from capturing our markets, we are to erect barriers all around us-as if the way, Mr. Speaker, to develop aggressive marketing structures was to sit down, to try and keep other countries from invading our markets by putting up barriers, while trying to step over the barriers put up by other countries. That is a childish and backward attitude, Mr. Speaker, that would take us back to the 19th century, if not to the 18th century, as shown by the Opposition. This does not represent Canadians as they are. This does not represent Canadians who have been building this country for the past 200 years, who built it specifically on a trading basis.
Canada has always been a country whose economy was largely based on trade, and I think it was legitimate and normal for Canadians and their Government to strike an attitude that would mean: I am not afraid. I can sit down. I am not small. I am big country and I am capable of negotiating with others on equal terms. This is what Canada is all about, Mr. Speaker. And all through the debate about the trade negotiations, that might be the problem. That might be the problem with those who are against free trade. Maybe they are small in their own minds. They cannot exercice vision, they cannot show Canadians everywhere what it is like to have vision, what it is like to look up to the future for ourselves and for our children.
Over these last few weeks I have been assessing the various reactions and spinoffs for this country.
Mr. Speaker, in the face of increasing protectionism we decided to sit down and conclude a historic agreement. It will not solve everything because we are not perfect, and neither are the Americans. It would seem that perfection can be found only in a small corner on the other side of the House.


An Hon. Member:: You are laying it on a bit thick!


Pierre Blais: As to the rest of us, Mr. Speaker, we have not quite reached perfection. We may not be perfect but we do work and come up with final texts which respond to the needs of Canadians. People do not expect us to be perfect, they simply want us to work in the best interests of all Canadians.
We negotiated a dispute settlement mechanism which, as may be recalled, was singled out by two independent firms barely a few weeks ago as being the first time such an avant-garde mechanism is available to settle disputes between two countries. That was not easy either. A lot has been said about sovereignty, about the danger that we might just lose our sovereignty in an agreement of this kind. I heard that many, many times. But it was not any easier for the Americans to relinquish part of their responsibilities to a tribunal having binational jurisdiction. It takes a fair amount of maturity for a country to feel strong enough, Mr. Speaker. One has to be strong enough to be able to say: I am not afraid to sit down at a table with my neighbour on an equal-to-equal basis to deal with our diverging views like adults and settle our problems.
Over a five-year period-we did give ourselves some time- this mechanism will enable us to weigh the various issues which might be a source of trouble in future. It stands to reason that other problems will crop up eventually, and we are all aware of that. There will be other problems in other sectors, not only in the agricultural sector. But are we going to wait until these problems land in our lap before trying to draft legislation, make speeches in the House, and try to do away with trade and tariff barriers? No, I do not think that was the secret. Rather the secret was in the approach, an open approach, a dispute-settling approach. Most Canadian leaders in all sectors are telling us that already we can see that the Americans have a new attitude with respect to trade discussions of whatever nature. I think we can do the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago during the conference of First Ministers we heard . . . and I thought it was rather strange to see the British Columbia premier talking to his Ontario colleague and telling him he did not understand why he was against it, he did not understand why a province which does practically 90 per cent of its business with a neighbour would be against free trade, particularly since he in British Columbia did no more than about 40 per cent yet was quite prepared to open his markets to the Americans. We will need answers and explanations with respect to the question which, as I see it, is of some importance.
Just before the Quebec premier got to speak, his Saskatchewan counterpart was saying just about the same thing to the Ontario premier. Will Canadians in the rest of Canada have to
December 17, 1987

spring to the defence of Ontario which is being threatened by the American monster? I should think that, after listening to so many arguments and expressions, one can appreciate why a number of Canadians find it difficult to understand why the Government of Ontario is against the agreement. And right after that the Quebec premier told his Ontario colleague: We have been trying to diversify our markets for 30 years and in spite of 30 years' work to diversify our markets world-wide we are still doing more than 75 per cent of our business with our American neighbours.
Why, then, leave that market for other uncertain markets with which we are not familiar and about which we have not been given any sure indications. We have not stopped looking for markets. We now trade with 30 or 40 countries in the agricultural sector alone. In the last four years, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture have made every effort to increase these markets. However, it still remains that, before thinking about any potential markets, we have a duty to think about the products which we now have to sell in spite of generally depressed prices on the market. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have delivered the goods in this regard, but we have not solved all the problems. The purpose of these negotiations was not to solve all problems for the next 50 years, but to find a new approach for a Canadian Government which is not afraid to stand up, which does not hide behind the curtains and which has confidence in the population and businesses of Canada.
As recently as two days ago, Mr. Speaker, and the same is happening throughout Canada, a group of business people in the industrial and agricultural sectors, including the president of the Farming Corporation of my region in Quebec, came here to support the free trade initiative and to show Canadians that, in small plants located throughout Canada, thanks to the entrepreneurship of Canadians and the positive effects of a regional development policy which we are now applying to all Canadian regions and which is consistent with national and regional policies in Canada . . . When we implement a regional development policy in the Maritimes, it has not been developed by people in office towers, here, in Ottawa, but by local people in the Maritimes, in co-operation with the Governments involved. The same happens in Western Canada, in Ontario and in Quebec. This is how, Mr. Speaker, we have developed in all our regions an economic and manufacturing infrastructure which is not afraid of facing the American market. In all Canadian regions, and this did not start last week, but many months and even two or three years ago, small companies which had 15, 20 or 30 employees now have 50, 80 or 100 employees, and every day, they produce quality products which they send to the American market.
What we see are people like the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) where workers are paid three times as much as others in some regions of Quebec, but they are rolling up their sleeves, and people in Oshawa are getting $2 billion in investments from companies which are in favour of free trade. Yet those people are against free trade. My little girl is 12
Free Trade
years old, she watches television, but she cannot understand the position of those people. It will be necessary that the kind of fraud we have been witnessing over the past year, the kind of philosophical opposition to a historic treaty, to a historic approach for Canadians ... the situation is getting clearer because Canadians everywhere are saying: "It is good for us, our markets are there, and so are our jobs." We must support the Government in this endeavour. They do not understand why people living in better-off regions should object, as if they were afraid to lose whatever advantage they may have.
Mr. Speaker, in agriculture as in any other sector, this agreement is a resounding success. It is a historic agreement. I think an ever increasing number of Canadians will agree with us in the coming weeks. They said they agree, and I am convinced that we will make the transition into the 21st century as only Canadians can do, standing up, not on our knees.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)- Unemployment Insurance-Rights of early retirees/Request for explanation; The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Public Service-Employment of visible minorities; The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)- Sovereignty-Northwest passage-Canadian jurisdiction.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987, and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 11885).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Algoma.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the "loud" applause of the half dozen Tories in the House this afternoon; it was because the Minister's arguments were weak.

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
The Hon. junior Minister might be able to help his own cause in Quebec if he could answer some of the questions posed today by the UPA. For instance, at its press conference this afternoon it wanted to know why nobody in the Department of Trade has been able to clarify the reason that Article 710, which mentions that Section 11 of the GATT agreement provides for import control lists, has been made subject to Article 703 in the agreement, which provides that barriers to trade between Canada and the United States will be reduced in whatever way possible, whether it be by the removal of tariffs or by the removal of quotas.
Also in its press conference this afternoon the UPA wanted to know why ice-cream, yogurt, and liquid milk were not on the import control list as was demanded by Mr. Page, the Minister of Agriculture in Quebec, and as was promised by the Minister when he spoke to the UPA a couple of weeks ago.
I will not get into the details of that speaking engagement, because it was incredibly embarrassing for the Hon. Minister.
Another concern of the UPA is why there are increased quotas for poultry and meat, an increase of some 31 million kilos to some 37 million kilos of meat per year, and an increase of 6 million dozen eggs.
At the conclusion of the press conference, the President of the UPA said that the free trade agreement raises many legal and technical problems and puts a number of problems before Quebec agricultural producers.
Could the Hon. Minister clarify these points, especially for dairy and poultry producers in the Province of Quebec?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the answer of a junior Minister to a senior back-bencher.
Everyone knows that we can include yogurt and ice-cream in the agreement. It is an internal question about addressing the national market. It is not really a question about free trade. Two or three weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that we had asked the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to try to put yogurt and ice-cream on the import quota list. We are working on it now. We have said that we will check all the details of that question to find out if it is appropriate to do it. We are working on it now.
Anyway, it will not be necessary a year and a half beforehand because yogurt and ice-cream imports have decreased from 250,000 kilos to 50,000 kilos over the last two or three years.

In fact, to be more specific, in the last two or three years these imports declined to one-fifth of what they were previously. We are working on this right now. We have had several meetings about supply management with national representatives, including the Canadian Dairy Farmers and provincial organizations, especially in Quebec. These people did not take the slightly hysterical attitude we saw among some leaders in Quebec. Their approach was far more pragmatic, in that
they asked for specific questions to be dealt with. There was the issue of imitations. This comes under provincial jurisdiction. We discussed this with our provincial counterparts, including the Quebec Minister of Agriculture.
You mentioned an increase in chicken quotas. There is no increase. We have maintained import quotas at the same level, which is the average level for the past five years. Total imports for last year were lower than in 1984. Furthermore, and the Hon. Member forgot to mention this, production in the poultry sector increased 8 per cent last year in Canada. It is expected to increase by 4 per cent next year. Is there any other economic sector, any other farm sector in Canada that can say it increased production by about 13 per cent over two years, Mr. Speaker? This particular sector is in very good shape. We have no problems here. There is a production increase.
I am sure that those people ... a few minutes ago, I saw a press release issued by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, which said they were glad to see GATT Section 11 had been recognized in the final agreement. They raised a number of other problems we will look into. I received this only a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker. This was a press conference held in Montreal, to which I was not invited, and I intend to continue our dialogue with agricultural groups in Canada, wherever they happen to be. I am sure that as soon as the Opposition Parties and the people who for philosophical reasons are opposed to free trade have changed their tune and told the Canadian people and farm producers exactly what the situation is, people will understand it is in their interests to support this Agreement and see it ratified.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. friend that the newspapers today as a result of extensive polling, tell us that six out of 10 Canadians are against the free trade deal which the Mulroney Government has signed with the United States.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) is on record as opposing the free trade deal with the United States because of loss of Canadian sovereignty, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is on record as opposing a free trade deal, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is on the record as opposing the free trade deal, and the former Secretary of State is on record as opposing the deal. Every single candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party is on record as opposing this free trade deal with the United States because of what it will do to Canada. There was one exception, Peter Pocklington. He was the only one in favour of free trade.
The Prime Minister himself and the leading Cabinet Ministers of Canada are on the record as opposing free trade prior to the election. They then were given a mandate by the people of Canada, but the issue of free trade was never raised during the entire eight week federal election campaign. The
December 17, 1987

Prime Minister is now going to sign the agreement into effect on January 2 without any mandate from the people of Canada. The Premiers themselves who are supporting the deal have no mandate from their electorate because they never campaigned on the issue of free trade. What right does the Government of Canada have to lock Canadians into a free trade deal with the United States that will have profound implications for generations to come-


John Horton McDermid: Positive implications.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -without having any mandate from the people of Canada? Could he explain why it is that the Government is signing this deal before the people of Canada have had a chance to look at the final agreement? We have had it for only three or four days, and I would guess that 99.99 per cent of Canadians have not seen the agreement, let alone studied it. Does he think this is the way a Government should do business in a democratic society?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think the mandate we got was to give Canadians economic prosperity. That was the mandate we received, and clearly this is what we have been delivering over these last three years. A government that can pride itself on creating more than a million jobs over the same period of time has no lessons in economy to learn from an Opposition that fought against the Auto Pact some 20 years ago and that is now fighting like a tiger because those people fear that the system we put in place during the 1960's might under a freer trade system be extended to the Canadian economy as a whole. I think we have no lessons to learn from that side, Mr. Speaker.
And if they feel like being honest, they will admit that the protectionist moves we have been facing up to very recently were not there in 1983 and 1984. Those moves came over the years, they came with the really stupendous increase in the American trade deficit, which was still at $17 billion last month. Clearly the Americans had a gut reaction when they found themselves being swamped with goods coming in from all over the world-the European Economic Community, Japan, Asia, Canada. They had a protectionist reaction. And as I explained earlier-whether the Ottawa Member listened to my speech or not-that reaction indeed was what came after 1984, the protectionist one. We had to react. Should we have adopted a wait and see attitude, and must we now have an election every three months, whenever a problem arises? We reacted, Mr. Speaker, the way a government should. We created jobs. We developed a regional development policy that is the pride of all Canadians, and when the time comes, Mr. Speaker, Canadians will pass judgement on us in the polls. I have no fear of that, Mr. Speaker.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I understand that we are expecting a messenger from the Senate, which means that my speech will probably be
Free Trade
interrupted, as it has been before in this House, by this ridiculous procedure that should have been abolished a long time ago, something which the McGrath commission recommended. Because the Government has not chosen to implement that particular recommendation of the McGrath report, I suppose we will have to suffer this absurdity at least one more time.
I am very happy to speak this afternoon. I hope that this agreement will not go through. We know that if there is an election between now and the time it is to be implemented, it will not be because we know the Government will be defeated. If, however, by some tragic turn of events it is implemented, I am glad that I will be counted for historical purposes as one of those who stood up to defend my country. I hope my grandchildren or my great-grandchildren, whoever has the misfortune of having to read through Hansard on the great free trade debate, will be able to say that their ancestors were on the side of Canada. When they are groping through the congressional library in Washington looking for records of the free trade debate that took place in that country called Canada back in 1987 they will see it there too.
I listened to the argument made by the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais). Instead of answering the question about process he said that this agreement will bring great prosperity to Canada. Even if that were true, and I do not believe it is true, the end does not justify the means. I thought that there might be some recognition of that ethical principle by Conservative Members, but apparently, in order to foist this agreement upon the country, they have cast away any ethical norms they ever held on parliamentary process and democratic principle. The end justifies the means, and so we are to be put in the ridiculous position of debating an agreement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proposes to sign on January 2 although the Parliament of Canada has only had an opportunity to look at the official text of it for a couple of weeks and the people of Canada themselves will not have had any opportunity to study it.
One of the enduring dishonesties of this debate has been the contention of the Government that this is just a commercial arrangement, an economic matter, nothing we should take too seriously. Canadians are asked to believe that this agreement is an ordinary agreement, that countries are in the habit of doing this sort of thing, and that opposition Members really ought not to make such a big deal of it.
Chapter One of the text of the agreement itself, the chapter entitled Objectives and Scope, says:
The objectives make clear the extent to which the Canada-United States Trade Agreement moves beyond other free-trade agreements negotiated under the GATT.
The next paragraph says:
The new Canada-United States Agreement is broader in scope as it provides for liberalization in all sectors of the economy, including agriculture. No other trade agreement includes binding commitments on trade in services, business

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
travel or investment. No other agreement provides a basis for developing new
rules-
And it goes on and on. The point is that this agreement is quite different from any other free trade agreement, but the Government wants us to believe that we are doing something quite ordinary here.
In fact, we are doing something with the united states that no other country has ever done before, no other country, regardless of its political make-up, has ever had so little selfrespect that it would even contemplate entering into an agreement like this with its neighbour or with any other country for that matter, when the minister for international trade (Miss Carney) tries to pass this agreement off as just another commercial arrangement, she is engaging in one of the most fundamentally misleading descriptions of what the government is asking Canadians to do that i can imagine.
The funny thing about this free trade agreement is that it is both more than free trade and less than free trade, where it is free trade, it is either about the kind of free trade that we have had all along, or it is about the kind of free trade that we would have achieved anyway through the continuing liberalization of trade or reduction of tariffs, on all three counts, it must be described quite differently from how the government describes it.
Why is the agreement less than free trade? We do not get the secure access to American markets that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said was the bottom line of the negotiations entered into with the United States. We will still be subject to American trade law, countervail and anti-dumping. Our exporters will still have to go through all the hassles involved in being charged under American law.
Yes, there will be a binational panel, but after the panel, there will be an appeal to a panel of judges, and if the panel of judges decides that the circumstances warrant it, it is referred back to a new binational panel. Throughout, the guidelines as to fairness will be American trade law, the very law the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade said they wanted to get out from under all along.
However, in my judgment, the more serious problem is where this agreement is about more than free trade. It includes concessions in the energy sector, the investment sector and the financial sector that cumulatively amount to a giving up of Canadian control over our own economy. The Parliamentary Secretary is making funny noises. That is not unusual. The fact is that we are giving up control over our energy, investment and financial services policies to the market-place.
Conservative Members say that that is a good thing. That fact is not lost on me. I do not think they are doing this unconsciously, although sometimes they look unconscious. They are doing this quite consciously, and that is what makes it even more reprehensible. They are quite consciously trying to lock their view of how the Canadian economy should run-


John Horton McDermid: And you are not?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -into this free trade agreement. The Parliamentary Secretary asks if I am not. No, I am not. If I were in government or elsewhere, I would not propose to enshrine the NDP view of Canada in a way that would it beyond the reach of democracy and beyond the reach of other Parliaments. We will save that for the Soviet Union or for the Conservative Government, which has so little respect for democracy and pluralism that it wants to entrench its ideas in a free trade agreement.


John Horton McDermid: What are you worried about? You can get out of it in six months.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Parliamentary Secretary says that we can get out of it in six months. I hope we will never even get into it. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that if by some tragic circumstance we do get into it, it will not be all that easy to get out of it. Things will have happened and we will be in a very difficult position if a future Government wanted to get out of this agreement. We hope that we can get out of it in 1988 through the election of a new Government that will not have anything to do with this agreement. For that matter, 1989 will do, any time within the constitutional limitation of this Government. In either 1988 or 1989, we will tear up the agreement, but tear it up we will. Should the worst possible thing happen and, by some quirk of ugly fate, this gang of bandits over here were re-elected, that is what I mean when I talk about the difficulty of getting out of the agreement in the future.
I said that the agreement is about less than free trade and more than free trade. Where it is about free trade, it is about the kind of thing that would have happened anyway the kind of thing we did not have to give up our sovereignty to get. Tariffs have been going down since 1945, and 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is tariff-free now. What is left would probably have been reduced over time in any event.
What was the big deal? The big deal was that these people over here were spooked, were made scared and by the protectionist mood in the U.S. Congress. Instead of trying to find long-term solutions and counteract U.S. protectionism in other ways, the Government, "Said we cannot do it. If we cannot beat them, let us join them". It did not even try to beat them. It gave up on the global process. It gave up on the multilateral process. It said, "Let us get in under those American skirts and hope we will be looked after. Let us see if we can get a sweetheart arrangement". That is what the Government did, and Members opposite have the nerve to get up and talk about confidence.


John Horton McDermid: You are not telling the truth again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They have absolutely no confidence in Canada. The only confidence the Tories have in Canada is the confidence that somehow we can become as much like the Americans as we have to in order to be competitive. That is not a
December 17, 1987

surprise. What we have among the Tory back-benchers is a lot of neo-Americans anyway.


John Horton McDermid: A lot of what?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Neo-Americans. Almost as bad as neoConservatives. People who spent their childhood singing for the American company president when he came to town every once in a while to check on his empire.


John Horton McDermid: Neo-communist and the NDP, same thing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Whatever happened to the Tory view of Canada? Sir John A. Macdonald and John George Diefen-baker must be spinning in their graves.


John Horton McDermid: Listen to who the socialists are quoting!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: 1 do not mind quoting real Tories because from time to time they were on to something about the nature of this country, especially historically.


John Horton McDermid: The best thing that happened to us was when you left the Tory Party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: John Diefenbaker had a northern vision of Canada. What have we got over there? Dallas! A southern vision of Canada, a Canada more like Alabama than the Canada we have come to know and which most Canadians, except for Tories, have come to value.
If you check the record, all the things jeopardized by this agreement are things the Conservatives never liked in the first place. Social programs. Who have New Democrats had to fight over the years to put in place the social programs threatened by this agreement?


John Horton McDermid: People do not believe that, Bill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Conservatives. Who have New Democrats had to fight over the years to get controls on foreign investment? Conservatives. Who have New Democrats had to fight in order to have a sane policy energy and not just sell off everything as fast as we can? Conservatives. It is no coincidence that when we look at what this agreement puts in jeopardy, it is being put in place by a Conservative Government.
I also have a word to say about what this agreement means in light of some of the things that have been said in the last few weeks about the federal Government's alleged ability to impose this agreement without provincial consent, or about cooperative federalism. I remember the Tories in 1981 and 1982. Oh, how they sung the praises of co-operative federalism. Oh, how they vilified any Government that would consider changing the Constitution of Canada without substantial, or even at that time unanimous, provincial consent. Yet what do they propose to do now? By President Reagan's own admission, they propose to change the economic constitution of this country. The Government proposes to change the economic constitution of Canada without seeking a mandate, without a consensus, and without the kind of unanimity we voted for not
Free Trade
too long ago on constitutional matters when we voted for the Meech Lake Accord.
Oh, was that not a day for federal-provincial reconciliation? Nothing would be done without unanimity. The rhetoric flowed about what a wonderful achievement that was for federalism and co-operation and harmony. Frankly, I feel as though I have been had. I tried as best I could to believe all that stuff when I voted for the Meech Lake Accord. I feel as though I have been had by the Prime Minister when he gets up and talks about what he will do and to hell with the provinces.
I feel as though I have been had by the Premier of Quebec, too, because I got up and voted for Quebec's right to a distinct society. I thought that was a great victory for Quebec and Canada. Frankly, I feel stabbed in the back by the Premier of Quebec who has now said to the rest of Canada, through his support for this free trade agreement, that our distinct non-Quebec Canadian society is not worth fighting for as far as he is concerned. That can be sacrificed to his convictions about the alleged economic benefits of this agreement.
I feel double-crossed with respect to the question of a distinct society. As a non-Quebec Canadian I feel that Canada as a whole is entitled to economic structures and relationships which enable us to preserve and enhance our distinct society. I hope the Premier of Quebec will reconsider his support for this agreement on that basis.
Now we come to the question of whether the Government has a mandate for this agreement. By now Canadians who are listening and Members of Parliament have heard time and time again about how the Conservatives ran in 1984 on the basis that they would not enter into a free trade agreement.


Mr. Belsher:: We ran on jobs.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member says they ran on jobs. Who did not run on jobs? Give me a break. We all ran on jobs and what we argue about is what will create jobs-


John Horton McDermid: And what has created jobs.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -and what jobs will be created and all that sort of thing. To run on jobs is not a mandate to enter into this kind of agreement. In fact, the free trade agreement the Prime Minister wants to sign on January 2 is much more threatening than the kind of free trade that he rejected when he said the issue had been settled in 1911. The free trade that was debated in 1911 was a question of tariffs. It was actually a trade agreement because it had only to do with tariffs.
If the Prime Minister thought in 1983 that the kind of trade agreement contemplated in 1911 threatened Canadian sovereignty, why in heaven's name would he propose to sign an agreement on January 2 that goes way beyond the concept he found so threatening in 1983? Why? You want to know what I think? It is because this kind of agreement with Canada was on the American agenda. This is something the Americans wanted Canada to enter into. It is no coincidence that before

December 17, 1987
Free Trade
American Ambassador Robinson left Canada he set this in motion. It just so happened that along came Brian, the perfect sucker for this kind of an agreement. Since Confederation Canada has become a significantly just and peaceful country. In a very short time, historically speaking, it is to be bargained away in the interests of entrenching neo-Conservative view of Canada.
It would be a tragedy beyond all proportion if this should ever pass. However, 1 have enough confidence in Canadians to know that, if given the chance in a general election, they will tell the Prime Minister that they want to keep Canada and trade him.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, with the committee 1 had an opportunity to travel in western Canada with the Hon. Member from Winnipeg. We heard from groups such as the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. Representatives of that organization expressed concern about increased quotas for eggs and poultry while not getting new access to American markets because of the differences between our systems. We have a supply management system with government controls, although that system will be sorely tested. Article 701.3 of the agreement reads:
Neither Party, including any public entity that it establishes or maintains, shall sell agricultural goods for export to the territory of the other Party at a price below the acquisition price of the goods plus any storage, handling or other costs incurred by it with respect to those goods.
That causes an incredible problem for supply management agencies such as CEMA which produces eggs on an administered price basis. When there are surpluses, they break the eggs and use them as processed egg products. Some of that is disposed of in the United States because there is not an adequate market for it here. That may seem like a relatively small item in the over-all context of an agency the size of CEMA, and perhaps it is, but it points out the danger of proceeding hell-bent for leather on this agreement. The committee reported last Thursday night and the final text came out on Friday. We are debating it for three short days this week and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will sign the deal on January 2.
According to the legal advice which this agency has received, they will have to sell this agricultural commodity at the same price for which they bought it in Canada plus handling costs, even though it is a surplus commodity which cannot possibly be disposed of at that price. That is the danger of such a rushed agreement which contains unworkable clauses.
I do not know what will happen to this agency. This issue may have to be negotiated if the agreement is ever implemented. However, it is certainly not a workable agreement. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or someone else will be able to respond to the concerns of agricultural groups like CEMA.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the point of the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is well made. He mentioned that we spent time together travelling with the committee listening to a balanced representation of Canadians making submissions on the free trade agreement.
Although over-all the committee was a farce, given that we did not have the agreement and were only able to report after the final negotiations were complete, certain witnesses who were supporters of the agreement were more honest about the agreement than the Government has ever been. We were, therefore, able to learn various things about the agreement from its supporters.
With respect to marketing boards, we learned from the Grocery Products Manufacturing Association-hardly a cell of the socialist conspiracy-that marketing boards would be at risk under this agreement. A lowering of tariffs and the continued existence of our supply management system as it is now constituted would be incompatible. We have been saying that all along, but when we said it it was NDP fear-mongering. Now the Grocery Products Manufacturing Association has said that.
We have said for some time that this agreement would infringe on the right of provinces to control energy prices. Every time we tried to get the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to say that in the House, we failed. She would say that it was another NDP tactic. Former Premier Peter Lougheed of Alberta came before the committee and said that that is what the agreement means. I suppose he is part of the socialist conspiracy too, distorting the meaning of this agreement. He said that the provinces would no longer have the power to set a domestic price for, in Alberta's case, natural gas and oil. That was okay with him. It is not okay with me, but at least he was honest about the agreement.
We have said that this agreement will eventually mean the end of the Crow benefit and the current economic structure of western Canada, and we were dismissed. However, the Western Wheat Growers came before us-again hardly an arm of the NDP-and said that over time this will mean the end of the Crow benefit, which may have to be replaced with payments to producers, which is something a lot of Tories are in favour of anyway. At least the Western Wheat Growers were honest with the committee, in a way the Government has not been, about the effect of this agreement.
We have said that our social programs are put in jeopardy by this agreement because they be taken into account when judging which country may have a competitive advantage over the other. They said we were being hysterical when we said that. However, representatives of the business community in Vancouver and National Sea in Halifax came before us and said that some companies invest in Canada because our social programs are a competitive advantage for them.
That may be good, but in the next five to seven years when we are negotiating what it means to have a level playing field,
December 17, 1987

social programs will be included in calculations for competitive advantage.
It could come through Canadians arguing that the tax burden they must bear in order to continue to fund our programs makes them uncompetitive, or the Americans could argue that our programs are an unfair advantage to companies which locate here in Canada. In either case, the unassailable point that I believe we are making is that social programs will become part and parcel of the negotiations when we talk about competitive advantage. That was admitted by people who supported the agreement.
Although the over-all committee process was a farce, it had bright moments. Those bright moments were not only when opponents of the agreement came before the committee and articulated why this agreement is a sell-out of Canada and its future, but when supporters of the agreement appeared before the committee and were more forthcoming about the true consequences of this agreement than the Government has ever had the parliamentary or moral decency to be with us or with the Canadian people.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I think we must emphasize over and over again that in this debate we are not discussing theoretical free trade. We are not discussing the pros and cons of textbook free trade, we are debating and discussing a very specific trade agreement between the United States and Canada which was concluded on October 4, 1987. It is that deal we are examining.
I say this because in listening to the discussion across the country and in this House one gets the impression that individuals are debating free trade as they learned it at university.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Royal Assent
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act-Chapter No. 43.
Bill C-90, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 - Chapter No. 44.
Bill C-100, an Act to amend the Pension Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act, to repeal the Compensation for Former Prisonners of War Act and to amend another Act in relation thereto-Chapter No. 45.
Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Chapter No. 46.
Bill C-88, an Act to amend the Judges Act-Chapter No. 47
Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada- Chapter No. 48.
Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof- Chapter No. 49.
Bill C-101, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act-Chapter No. 50.
Bill C-97, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code-Chapter No. 51.
Bill C-98, an Act to amend An Act respecting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co., Limited-Chapter No. 52
Bill C-254, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (period of residence)- Chapter No. 53.
Bill S-14, an Act to authorize Cooperants, Mutual Life Insurance Society to be continued as a corporation under the laws of the Province of Quebec.
Bill C-95, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1988- Chapter No. 54.
[DOT]	(1650)


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it might well be that certain Members of this House and the other place have left early for Christmas. However, it might be meet to point out for the public record that during the part of the ceremony that has just taken place in the Senate Chamber, with the attendance of Senator Willie Adams, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), and your humble servant, there was 100 per cent attendance from the Northwest Territories.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT]	0700)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we call it five o'clock? The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) was given the floor, and I presume that he will continue tomorrow.

December 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak first in the adjournment debate this evening. I was expecting to speak second.
I want to tell you a story, Mr. Speaker, about a friend of mine. This particular friend is a black Canadian woman. I have known her for a number of years. She was born in Canada, and understandably she becomes very upset when people ask her where she comes from. This friend of mine is a widow, but she was married to a black Canadian who was also born in this country. They have two children. My friend tells me this story that I wish to share with you tonight, Mr. Speaker, of the day when one of her daughters came home from school. Both of her daughters attend schools in my constituency. One day one of her daughters came home from school and told her mother that she was going to paint herself white. She said that because of the remarks that had been made to her by her friends and her schoolmates, remarks that obviously caused her a great deal of upset and concern. That story had a deep impact on me.
There is no way that myself, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Parliamentary Secretary, for that matter, could possibly understand the things that went through the mind of that young black Canadian girl, her father, and her mother on that particular occasion. To me it was a very touching story.
It made me think back to the days when I joined the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 1956. I did it because I believed at that time, and I truly believe today, that the Progressive Conservative Party stands for equality; equality of opportunity and equality of the person regardless of race, colour, or creed. That is what the Progressive Conservative Party is all about to me, and that is what Canada is all about to me. It is because of that I have been so happy and pleased that the current Government, the Government that I was elected to support and do support, was the very first Government in this country to introduce employment equity legislation for women, native people, the disabled, and visible minorities.
I was also pleased when the Government, for the very first time ever in this country, introduced an affirmative action program in the Public Service of Canada for visible minorities. I was especially pleased to hear the Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski) earlier this fall stand up in the House and indicate in answer to one of my questions that the Government and the Treasury Board had instituted targets for
visible minorities in the Public Service, targets that had never been in place before.
Against this background, Mr. Speaker, you can imagine how disappointed I was to start receiving calls from people in the Public Service indicating that the affirmative action program put in place was not working. I might not have been particularly concerned if it had come from only one or two sources, but I have had those concerns raised to me by people who work in the Department of Justice, people who work in the Department of Supply and Services, people who work in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, people who work in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, people who work in Treasury Board itself, people who work in the Department of Employment and Immigration, people who work in the Department of Labour, people who work in the Department of the Environment, and people who work for the Public Service Commission of Canada, which is supposed to be there to make sure that everybody receives equal treatment.
These people tell me that the programs which have been put in place are not working. In fact, they say that instead of actually increasing the number of visible minorities in the Public Service, they are actually decreasing because of retirements and lay-offs. They say that instead of getting promotions they are standing still. After years of the former Liberal Government doing nothing about seeing that visible minorities in the Public Service were promoted to management and senior management positions, they had hoped that with this Government there would be a change. However, they are not seeing that change, and those are the concerns which they are conveying to me.
This is why I want to raise this question with the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. I want him to consider it and answer it very carefully.
Personally, I want to be part of a Government which is colour blind, part of a Government which promotes people on merit, part of a Government where everyone is considered equal, and part of a Government where people do not have to think about going home and painting themselves white in order to be treated fairly.
With that in mind, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the Government will do about it. Will it follow through with an effective affirmative action program, one which has specific targets, not only globally for the whole Public Service but department by department and position by position? What will the Government do about it? I want to hear from him that he will ensure that the program is put into effect and that he is prepared to put his own position as a Parliamentary Secretary, and that of the Minister's, on the line if that does not occur.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising this very important issue. I recall that Mr. Diefenbaker used to speak about hyphenated
December 17, 1987

Canadians and how insulted he was at the concept of having to be registered as a hyphenated Canadian. I recall in 1945 when I had to register under the National Selective Service Act that I could not register as a Canadian in those days. I had to register as a German Mennonite. I am glad that those days have passed, yet it requires continual vigilance to ensure that all of us see each other as Canadians and not as foreign nationals.
I assure the Hon. Member that the Government is committed to addressing the employment concerns of visible minorities and has taken many positive steps to entrench employment equity principles and practices in the federal Public Service.
In 1985 visible minorities were designated as an employment equity target group, and a 14-member advisory committee to the President of the Treasury Board on the employment of visible minorities was established.
Since then the following initiatives have been undertaken: preparation of a report on the availability of qualified members of visible minority groups; creation of special training modules for Public Service managers on visible minorities and employment equity; design of a special orientation module for newly recruited visible minorities in the Public Service; revision of the application for employment form so that visible minorities can self-identify; initiation of a survey to obtain current figures on the numbers of public servants in each target group; and establishment of an automated system to track visible minority employees through the recruitment and staffing process.
In June, 1986 a special program was designed specifically to meet the needs of visible minorities. This program consists of $10.5 million and 300 person-years to be allocated over a three-year period between 1986 and 1989, an office of services for visible minority groups within the Public Service Commission to provide over-all program co-ordination and evaluation, and a network of regional visible minority co-ordinators across Canada.
As recently as August, 1987 we further demonstrated our commitment to this group by approving the establishment of numerical targets for visible minority groups, and I am sure that the Hon. Member is looking for that. This decision was made in response to the recommendations of the president's advisory committee, which is sensitive to the concerns of target group members. The numerical targets will be established by Departments for a three year period beginning April 1, 1988. Now visible minority groups are on an equal footing with the other target groups in the Public Service, women, disabled persons and aboriginal peoples, who have had numerical objectives since 1985-86.
To set these targets, Departments are being asked to compare the number of visible minority employees to the availability of members of these groups in the Canadian labour force. According to the 1981 census data, this figure is slightly
Adjournment Debate
more than 4 per cent. The visible minority population of the Public Service was identified as 1.7 per cent by a 1985 survey, which is the latest data available.
I am pleased to say that our Government is responding positively by addressing the employment concerns of visible minorities. We are determined to eliminate inequities in the workplace so that all Canadians are able to obtain their fair share of employment opportunities in the Public Service.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-RIGHTS OF EARLY RETIREES- REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to a an issue of utmost importance for Members of this House and the general public. This is the time of the year when we wish one another a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. It reminds me that in December of 1985, the Government chose to make a very special gift to older workers who were on UI benefits and where looking for a job.
On January 5, 1986, everybody suddenly realized that from then on, people who had lost their job and were entitled to benefits of an employer-sponsored pension plan would have their UI benefits reduced by the same amount. After 17 months of struggle by older workers, people from the Quebec City area, the Montreal area and from all parts of Canada, we succeeded. The Government backed down and 46,000 persons were reimbursed the equivalent of $10,000. Unfortunately, other people also took an early retirement or lost their job on December 31. Just imagine. It is December 31 and 1000 people at Quebec Hydro . . . There are 2000 people in this same predicament in Canada. The workers finished working on December 31 and that was it, the plant was closed. They are entitled to their severance pay and their unused sick leave. On January 1, the employment centers are closed. So, these people went to manpower centres on January 4 to ask for their unemployment insurance benefits. They were told by officials: You must first use up your benefits for your two weeks vacation and sick leave and then come back. These people went back at the end of that period, following the advice given by Members of Parliament, by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, by officials at the Department of Employment; these people went back to ask for their benefits on the date when they were to become eligible, around January 15. However, they suddenly discovered that the legislation . . . there are 2,000 people in Canada who find themselves in that situation today, they had to go in early retirement before January 5, 1986, as the Government requested, in order to be reimbursed, but because they made that request after, the request was rejected and the person is penalized. So, I submit that this measure is unfair. It is a fact that in the Laurentian region, for instance, when people appealed this decision, their appeal was upheld and they are getting a refund from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In the Montreal region, on the other hand, the decision was maintained. In the Quebec region, it was the other way around.

December 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important to see some justice here. I think it would be appropriate, just before the holiday season, for the Government to examine its conscience and pay for its sins with a little generosity. It should give refunds to those 2,000 people.
There is another side as well. An unfortunate one, and I hope the Government and the Minister of State (Senior Citizens) (Mr. Hees) will manage to rectify this. I am referring to the fact that from now on, every person, every older worker-and that is discrimination-who loses his job and has to withdraw his pension benefits-a number of businesses in Montreal are closing, including Coleco-while that person is looking for a new job, and after withdrawing the pension benefits he paid for, the contributions he is now entitled to put in his pocket, including the employer's contribution for which he opted in lieu of a pay increase-now these people can kiss their unemployment insurance cheque goodbye.
On the other hand, if that same person withdrew the same amount, say $500, from a registered retirement savings plan, he would be entitled to the full amount of his cheque. We cannot tolerate the Government maintaining this kind of discrimination and injustice in its treatment of older workers.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would provide more details on what the Government has decided to do.
First of all, will the Minister, since it is the season to be generous, say: Okay, we have 2,000 people in this gray area, and now all those who have a job termination certificate, who left their jobs but were looking for a new job before January 5, 1986, will receive a refund because it wasn't their fault they couldn't come and apply for unemployment insurance benefits? Those 2,000 people should get an immediate refund of the money the Government owes them.
Subsequently, in the next Speech from the Throne or the next Budget or by issuing instructions the way they did in 1985 when Cabinet decided to pick on older workers, perhaps he could change the system and rectify his mistake by removing any hint of discrimination and letting anyone, whatever their source of income-the way it was before-be entitled to the full amount of his unemployment insurance benefits, provided he can prove he is still looking for work.
When a young person is out of work, he goes to the unemployment insurance office, and they don't ask him: Do you have other income? If he is forty or fifty years old, they don't ask: Do you have rental income? Do you have investment income? Are you getting any income from an RRSP? They say: You have paid so many weeks worth of unemployment insurance benefits so you are eligible for that number of weeks. Here is the money. As soon as you start working again, as soon as you start receiving employment-related earnings, let us know and we will stop your benefits, and so forth.
Today, however, only a person who has a registered employee/employer pension plan has his unemployment insurance payments reduced or completely cut off.
I hope that in this holiday season, at a time when we should be generous to these older workers, the Parliamentary Secretary will stop to consider that these are people who worked for twenty, thirty or forty years by the sweat of their brow and were able to save a little money. We have to remember that these people paid every penny of their unemployment insurance contributions. They were never on unemployment insurance, and now if the plant closes down, they lose their jobs, and they file for unemployment insurance while they are looking for a job, they are penalized. That is injustice, pure and simple.
So in this holiday season, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say the Government is going to give a refund to those
2,000	people and that he will make the requisite changes for the coming year to amend the unemployment insurance system.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the Hon. Member that the issues of unemployment and unemployment insurance are very important and in no way would we minimize them. I hope he would agree with me, though, that the best gift we have given to the people of Montreal and Quebec is the creation in the last three years of over a million jobs. Jobs are ever so much better than unemployment or unemployment insurance. I think the thousands of people in Montreal who are now working as a result of the policies of this Government will recognize that.
I would like to answer the Hon. Member's question of March 20. He will recall that Bill C-50 became effective on April 5, 1987. While maintaining the principle that persons who have retired should not use UI as supplementary income, Bill C-50 ensured that workers who take other employment after their retirement and then work long enough to re-qualify for UI benefits will receive those benefits without any deduction of the previous pension income.
The Bill permitted the retroactive re qualification back to January 5, 1986. As well, the Government amended the pension regulations to permit re-qualification as of April 5, 1987. These changes to the pension legislation are consistent with the Government's belief that persons who have retired from the labour market should not look to unemployment insurance as a supplementary source of income.
As well, Bill C-50 draws a clear and simple line to ensure that there is fairness in the transition provisions. The rule is simply this. Those who applied for unemployment insurance prior to January 5, 1986, that is to say those who applied under the previous rules, have had their entitlement to benefits determined under the previous rules. Equally straightforward,
December 17, 1987

those who applied for benefits on or after January 5, 1986, are governed by the new rules.
In respect of the alleged discrimination between Registered Retirement Savings Plans and employment-generated pensions, it should be noted that RRSPs are a form of personal savings much like investments in long-term securities which eventually provide an annuity. Investment income derived from personal savings has long been regarded as having no relation to income arising from employment and therefore as non-earnings for unemployment insurance purposes. There is no intention of changing this position.
On the other hand, both UI and employment-generated pensions have as a general intention to compensate a person upon becoming unemployed. To avoid double indemnification it is therefore a sound principle to treat retirement pensions as earnings. Bill C-50 and related regulatory amendments provide adequate relief to older workers. For those who work long enough after the start of their pension income to establish a new claim for benefit, the pension income will cease to be regarded as earnings for UI purposes.
I hope the Hon. Member will agree that those individuals who have saved money and invested it in an RRSP should not be penalized for their foresight and planning. This Government is not embarrassed at all about the fact it rewards and encourages those people who save for the hard times that could lie ahead.


SOVEREIGNTY-NORTHWEST PASSAGE-CANADIAN JURISDICTION.
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it was on September 10, 1985, a bit over two years ago, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) gave his historic speech to this House on the subject of Arctic sovereignty, something that had been neglected for many, many years by the previous Government. At that time he announced a number of initiatives, many of which are now on the way. Those include additional sovereignty overflights in the Arctic, better defence systems, construction of a Polar 8 ice-breaker, and others.
There are two initiatives that I want to address this afternoon. One was his statement that there would be an immediate adoption of a Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act. Second, that there would immediately commence talks with the U.S. on co-operation in Arctic waters on the basis of full respect for Canadian sovereignty.
In the Minister's announcement there is no connection between the two. One was not dependent on the other. In fact, shortly after the statement, Bill C-104, the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, was introduced in the House. It never got very far and died on the Order Paper shortly thereafter.
Adjournment Debate
Those of who have a suspicious frame of mind might think there is some connection between the two and the Government is reluctant to introduce the Act until the talks with the U.S. have been brought to a conclusion. That is despite assurances to the contrary by government spokesmen. If that in fact is not the case, why has the Government not reintroduced that Act? That was my question to the Minister on October 6, 1987. That is not the first time I asked that question and it was not the first time I received the same answer, "Soon". That is a very popular answer with the Government.
This is an important issue at this time because there has just been released to the press-and I know not how because it was supposed to have been confidential-an initial draft of the Arctic co-operation agreement, which is taking a lot longer to negotiate than did the free trade agreement. We have had some inclinations from the press as to what it might contain. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that such an agreement will be signed in the future. What we know of it leaves a number of outstanding questions.
We still do not know whether the U.S. will recognize our claims to certain offshore areas or whether the agreement will only be an agreement to disagree, as is the present case. We know that permission will have to be granted, or at least sought, if the United States wants to send an ice-breaker through the Northwest Passage. Is this only if they want to go through the Prince of Wales Strait, which is less than 24 miles wide? If they intend to go through the M'Clure Strait, which is blocked with ice most of the time, would they still request Canadian permission?
Unanswered questions exist with respect to U.S. naval operations in the Arctic, which we understand is not to be included in this agreement. Canadians have a right to know whether there exists any agreement with the United States concerning their notification of us or request for permission from us if they want to engage in naval operations in the waters claimed by Canada.
When we ask those questions of the Government we get a rather equivocating answer. The Government will not tell us whether such an agreement exists or whether the U.S. tells the Government if they are there. Canadians really want to have these questions answered.
This afternoon I urge that the Canadian Laws OffShore Application Act be reintroduced as soon as possible and then be proceeded with through second and third readings. I would like to have the whole question completed. I look forward to the day when there will be navigation through the Northwest Passage, when it becomes a waterway open to vessels of all nations for commercial purposes, so long as they keep to the rules which Canada ought to and has every right to apply to vessels navigating in those waters.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to

December 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
commend the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for the work he has done in representing his constituency, especially on the question he has just raised, which impinges on his constituency probably more than on any other. He has shown his usual consistency in representing his constituents to Parliament and to the Government.
Following the 1985 voyage of the U.S. Coastguard icebreaker Polar Sea, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made a statement in the House concerning Canadian sovereignty, particularly in the Arctic. Among the measures that he announced on behalf of the Government was immediate talks with the United States on co-operation in Arctic waters on the basis of full respect for Canadian sovereignty.
Since then the two sides have exchanged draft texts and progress was achieved on practical arrangements that might govern shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic archipelago and off the coast of Alaska. The matter was also raised at ministerial level on several occasions and between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan at the Washington Summit in March, 1986, and the Ottawa Summit in April, 1987.
The Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed at the Ottawa Summit to inject new impetus to the discussions already under-way and pledged their determination to find a solution based on mutual respect for sovereignty and our security and other interests.
With respect to the details of the discussion, we are seeking a practical arrangement that would require Canada's prior consent each and every time the United States wishes to send a U.S. government-owned or government-operated ice-breaker, like the Polar Sea, through the Northwest Passage.
With respect to the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, the Government considers that this is an important Bill and is committed to bringing it before the House shortly. I know the Member for Western Arctic will be very closely involved in the passage of that legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, December 18, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers