1987-12-15

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-3314, 332-3321 to 332-3324 inclusive, 332-3328, 332-3335 and 332-3336.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
The report has a common introduction, a common background section, a very large section concerning the witnesses whom we heard and the broad spectrum of opinion, and a relatively short common ground section. Then there are three reports: A majority view, a minority view of the Liberal Party, and a minority view of the New Democratic Party. I believe it represents the spectrum of opinion that is in the country and perhaps in this House.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions
between the Parties. I think you will find there is unanimous agreement for the following motion to be put to the House immediately. I move:
That, on Wednesday, December 16, 1987, at 4.30 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then under way and the House shall revert to the routine proceeding of "Statements by Ministers" for a statement by the Minister of Finance;
And, that following replies to such statement and any related tabling by the Minister, the House shall resume consideration of the proceeding which had been interrupted by the Speaker;
And, that the Speaker shall adjourn the House at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, indeed, honour, to present a petition on behalf of a number of westerners who indicate that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States and are concerned that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and will undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They point out that the agreement denies Canadians the secure access to the United States market which was the key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, they are calling 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.
[DOT] (i HO)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of citizens of Thunder Bay and Schreiber, Ontario.

December 15, 1987
Petitions
The petitioners say that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States.
Whereas the proposed trade agreement denies Canadians secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, and threatens loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, the undersigned 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):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by residents of Canada stating their objection to the trade agreement negotiated by the Government. They believe it 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 and to equalize opportunities between the regions of Canada.
Therefore, the undersigned 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. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from a great many Canadians who wish to have their concern about the free trade agreement expressed in the House today as we begin the debate.
They believe it would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
They believe this agreement would deny Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective in these negotiations. They also believe that Parliament should be dissolved and that the people of Canada should be given the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour of presenting a petition to the House. Actually, there are six petitions.
The petitioners declare that the Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised and yet this agreement threatens the very fabric of Canadian society. It also removes the powers of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources and to equalize opportunities between regions. It denies Canadians the secure access to the United States market that was promised.
Therefore, these 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. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto who are very concerned with the trade deal that has been negotiated between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States.
The petitioners point out that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that the Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States.
Because the deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs Canadians need and would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, they ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is signed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from a number of people in northwestern Ontario who believe that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective in the negotiations but also threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the trade agreement during a national general election, and your petitioners in duty-bound will ever pray.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several hundred people in northern Alberta. In fact, they are all residents of the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the constituency of Vegreville.
I thought it would be an appropriate matter to bring to the attention of the House that those people in that constituency say that whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada, whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in key areas of energy, auto trade, financial services and whereas thousands of jobs are threatened, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
The petition is signed by a number of people in the Province of Alberta and the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and distinct honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of Nipigon, Red Rock, Armstrong and the City of Thunder Bay, all in my constituency of Thunder Bay- Nipigon.
December 15, 1987

The petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised during the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, but 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 and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Since the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States, 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 colleagues, I have a petition to present. It is signed by residents of Ontario and is with respect to the trade agreement with the United States.
The petitioners say that whereas the Conservative Government did not have a mandate to conclude such an agreement, whereas the agreement would deny Canada policy freedom in the future to shape its own economic course and whereas the agreement did not succeed in achieving the secure access to the U.S. market that was the key objective, and instead threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs, the petitioners call upon Parliament to give the people of Canada a chance to accept or reject this agreement in a national general election.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 157 and 223.


Mr. Parry: 1.	Since the initiation of the Native Economic Development Program to March 31, 1987, were any funds from its annual budgets expended as administration and/or "overhead" expenses and, if so, what was the (a) total amount (b) percentage of total disbursements under the program this represented?
2.	As of June 5, 1987, for the fiscal year 1987-88, what were the (a) budgeted (b) allocated figures for administration and/or "overhead" expenses (c) program disbursements?
Order Paper Questions
3.	Will (a) budget (/>) allocation reductions be made to the program in
1987-88 and, if so, when will the government confirm this to the board of
directors?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: 1. For the Native Economic Development Program, all operating costs such as administration and/or "overhead" expenses are a charge to the original $345 million allocation for the program.
(a)	The total amount of Native Economic Development Program funds expended from its annual budgets as administration and/or "overhead" expenses was $17.1 million from the initiation of the program to March 31, 1987.
(b)	This figure (17.1 million) represents 21.7 per cent of the total program disbursements to March 31, 1987.
2.	(a) Part III of the 1987-88 Estimates for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion provide projected requirements approved by Parliament of $1 million for grants and $75,224,000 for contributions to be made under the Native Economic Development Program. Funds required in 1987-88 for administration and/or "overhead" expenses have been determined at an additional $5.5 million. This figure represents the over-all requirement for non-salary operating costs and was reported to and approved by the Native Economic Development Board at its meeting on June 10-11, 1987.
(b)	Ordinarily, allocations relating to the management of personnel or the administration of government programs which have not been expended are not disclosed to the public. A full and public accounting is made at the end of each fiscal year.
(c)	As of June 5, 1987, for the fiscal year 1987-88, disbursements for operating expenditures were $264,000 and $556,000 for grants and contributions.
3.	(a) A Budget reductions are not planned for the Native Economic Development Program in 1987-88.
(b) A financial report indicating any budgetary adjustments that might occur is tabled at every Native Economic Development Board meeting.


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information is available, what proportion of the
employees of the Department of Agriculture were women?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: As of November 7, 1987, 28 per cent of the employees of the Department of Agriculture were women.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

December 15, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Foster


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I have just learned within the last hour that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) plans to make a speech this afternoon before the Canadian Agricultural Outlook Conference and doubtless will be doing a major publicity activity there. That is part of the territory. It could be argued in this House that such information should be made available to this House of Commons.
However, my question of privilege relates to the fact that the Government has established a lock-up and briefing for the press starting at about 40 minutes from now, which apparently will carry through until 1.45 p.m. when the Prime Minister speaks at the Outlook Conference.
This information and briefing is being provided to the press gallery. Notices and invitations have been posted in the Press Gallery and in the press briefing room at the conference centre. However, repeated calls to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister responsible for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) to make arrangements for Members of Parliament, especially Members of the Opposition, to attend that press lock-up and briefing have drawn no response or actions from the Ministers.
This is clearly a violation of the privileges of Members of the House. They are being denied access to government information while the press is being provided with the information. There are all kinds of precedents. The information provided at the lock-up last Friday morning for the media on the Canada-U.S. trade agreement was also provided to Members of Parliament. The lock-up and briefing on the Auditor General's report includes Members of Parliament.
We know that Canadian agriculture is in crisis. Members of the Opposition should have the same access to information as have members of the press gallery. I call on the Government to take action immediately. If it does not and you, Mr. Speaker, find that I have established a prima facie case to show that the privileges of Members are being trampled on, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: This may be a point of order but it is clearly not a question of privilege. It may well be a complaint. However, as I said yesterday and have been saying repeatedly,
especially in the interests of Canadians who are watching this, a question of privilege relates to something which has happened, something which was done, something which was said, or something which has not taken place, which impinges on the ability of a private Member to carry on his or her duties as a Member of Parliament in the interests of the people of Canada.
While the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) may very well raise a matter of complaint, it does not extend to privilege. However, I will take it as a point of order and it may be that the Government would wish to respond. However, that is completely up to the Government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, whether it is a question of privilege or a point of order, it is clearly an alleged anticipatory breach, in my opinion. I heard what my hon. colleague said. We will look into the matter and try to ensure that all Members of the House get the same information at the same time. I have no knowledge that they will not.
I am pleased that my hon. friend drew to the attention of the House, through Hansard, the efforts that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is making on behalf of Canadian farmers. I believe this is the first time he has ever attended this type of conference. We appreciate all the support we can get in getting the word out. I would like to thank my hon. friend.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion this morning to see one of the petitions that was tabled by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) after his protestation that it had several hundred signatures on it. There are 84 signatures on it. I also notice that it has never been certified by the Clerk of Petitions which is a requirement under our Standing Orders.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am sorry, it was.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to ensure that petitions tabled in this House are referred to more accurately as to numbers and, in all cases, certified by the Clerk of Petitions in accordance with our standards.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The certificate signed by Clairette Bourque, the Clerk of Petitions, duly certified this petition. Unfortunately, the staple came off and the sheet in question was not included with the petition. I would be happy to table that with the petition in the name of my hon. friend.

December 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) may be wondering whether, when the staple came off, some of the signatures came off as well.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to that point, but I am glad that the Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) found nothing wrong with any of the petitions presented by the New Democratic Party caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair appreciates interventions by all Hon. Members on this matter. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and all Hon. Members will be properly aided in their presentation of petitions by the knowledge that occasionally other Hon. Members do count the number of signatures on a petition. It is probably appropriate now to call for Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade) moved:: 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.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we begin this important debate, I wonder whether you would consider seeking the unanimous consent of the House to allow the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party to have ample time to speak as will the speakers for the Government and the Official Opposition.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Minister of State for immediately indicating agreement. I am looking to the Official Opposition; there is agreement there in accordance with the usual courtesies in this place. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to rise and speak to the motion:
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 1 1, 1987.
I am sure all Members of the House will agree that it was a truly historic moment when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) tabled, after two years of effort, the free trade agreement with the U.S.
The Opposition is spending a great deal of time outlining what the free trade agreement is not. That is seen in the petitions which were tabled today by Members of the Opposition. As an example, the petition tabled by the Member for
Free Trade
Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said that the free trade agreement struck at the very fabric of Canadian society.
This is a trade agreement, Mr. Speaker. It is a big trade agreement between two countries. It does not strike at the very fabric of our society. Our country was built on trade from the earliest days of settlement. We are among the world's top traders. The jobs of three million Canadians depend on trade. It is clear that the free trade agreement, which is aimed at liberalizing and increasing trade, is very much in the national interest.
The Member for Vancouver East also said erroneously that the free trade agreement will increase foreign ownership in energy. That is simply not true. The provisions with regard to energy in the agreement very clearly protect Canadian ownership. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that would in any way increase foreign ownership in energy.
Then we have the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in his petition talking again about what the free trade agreement is not. The Hon. Member in his petition talks about the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me remind the Hon. Member how wrong they have been in the past. Only one year ago we were in the House discussing the subject of softwood lumber. At that time we were negotiating a tax with the U.S. which we would impose in lieu of a countervail in order that we could collect the funds required here in Canada and leave the provinces free to manage their resources on their own timetable. This is something that we have accomplished and will be announcing shortly as B.C. moves to deal with the softwood lumber issue.
It is worth noting that at that time the provincial NDP and the IWA, the forestry union, supported us on softwood lumber. The Opposition stated that there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. I wish to point out the news contained in the softwood lumber industry study prepared by the IWA, the very union that supported us, the very union that the workers, which states, "The massive job losses which many Canadian observers believed would surely result from the imposition of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber . . . simply have not occurred". The report goes on to state, "Altogether 600 sawmill jobs were added in British Columbia during that period", because, of course, Canadian production during the first eight months of 1987 exceeded records, according to this report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The IWA union report further states, "A check on the few mill closures that have been announced throughout Canada during 1987 reveals that they were caused by a number of factors, including severe shortages of economically priced timber and outdated, inefficient sawmill facilities. In no instance that we know of can the export tax be directly blamed as the sole cause of closure. And in one or two cases closed mills have been slated for reopening with new options

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
for timber supplies". That is how accurate they are when they state that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost with the free trade agreement. That is wrong.
Then the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), like other NDP Members, states that the free trade agreement will somehow stop or limit our policy to set our own economic path in the future. Many of the NDP Members maintain that this will affect our sovereignty. I want to point out that this is wrong. I think that it is worth quoting Keith Spicer, a Citizen editor, who today came out in favor of this agreement. The Ottawa Citizen has been very cautious, waiting until the final text came out. Its editors actually read the agreement which is more than perhaps many of the opposition Members have done. The Ottawa Citizen points out that the people who talk about sovereignty probably have not read the deal and most never will. In the article Mr. Spicer states:
There lurks in the minds of many of these professional patriots (apart from some specific partisan biases) a veritable Disneyland of neuroses about Canada: fear over hope; protectionism over risk-taking; a preference for the small, safe homeland over the scary grand stage of North America; pessimism over optimism; a love of hiding over seeking; a taste for tribe over individual.
The Ottawa Citizen editor concludes by stating:
Isn't it time to stop being afraid? Isn't it time to grow up?
I think that puts it very clearly with respect to the sovereignty issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: It is time for Canada to grow up and join in a free trade agreement which will help to secure the future for ourselves and for our children.
Having spent some time talking about what the free trade agreement is not, which I will return to in the future, I would now like to talk about what it is.
It is a trade agreement in the language of trade agreements. It is actually the largest trade agreement ever negotiated between two countries. We have the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, something in the order of $200 billion a year.
Second, it is a trade agreement negotiated under the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Opposition is often in favour of the GATT, speaks highly of it, and wants us to continue our multilateral negotiations in the GATT. May I point out what I have stated earlier, that in the very beginning of the free trade agreement, Part One, Chapter One, Article 101: Establishment of the Free Trade Area, it states:
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, hereby establish a free trade area.
Therefore, it is consistent with the international global system. I can certainly tell the House that once it is signed, it will be studied by the GATT to ensure that it is consistent with GATT rules. It is a trade agreement that we are talking about.
What does this trade agreement state? Again, it is dealing with tariffs. We are dealing with the complete elimination in 10 years of all tariffs between the two countries.
For the record, we should note our gratitude and our thanks to all the members of our SAGITs, our advisory groups, the 300 people who helped us over the two year period to define what tariffs should be lowered in what time period. All the industries involved are very much a part of the evolving of the free trade agreement. They helped us decide which tariffs go in year one, which tariffs go in year five, and which tariffs go in year 10. It is a balanced arrangement.
It means that on January 1, 1999 the remaining tariff barriers on trade between the two countries will be phased out. Some tariffs will go in stages of one-tenth, others will go in stages of 20 per cent a year, but at the end of the period there will be no tariffs between the two countries. Some people say that if we already have no tariffs on approximately 75 per cent of our trade, why is it so important to remove the remaining ones? It is those remaining tariffs that keep us in the category of drawers of water and hewers of wood which the Opposition likes to paint as an alternative to free trade. It is those tariffs which keep us out of some of the most lucrative markets in North America.
For example, the one that is very close to home for western Canadians is the tariff on petrochemicals. The tariff on feedstock is only approximately 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent going to the United States, but the tariff on petrochemicals going to the United States is approximately 15 to 18 per cent. When that tariff is lowered-and if my memory serves me correctly I believe those tariffs go in five years, 20 per cent, 20 per cent, and out-that whole industry will have access to the richest market in the world. That will be very good news for Sarnia, it will be very good news for Alberta and other producers. The elimination of those last tariff barriers open up lucrative markets and good opportunities for Canadians. It gives us better terms than those available to our major competitors in the United States. Of course, the manner in which we have phased tariffs out helps to give maximum protection to our most sensitive industries.
I also wish to point out what the free trade agreement is. It confirms and will carry out the concept of national treatment. National treatment is at the heart and soul of trade negotiations around the world. National treatment simply means that you do not discriminate against other people's goods.
In looking at the free trade agreement, this chapter incorporates the fundamental national treatment obligation of the GATT into the free trade agreement. It means that once goods have been imported into either country they will not be the object of discrimination. We find that every time we go shopping. When a Canadian goes shopping there is not a different set of rules for a Volvo and a car made in the riding of the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid). If a Canadian buys a camera, there is no different treatment in the store between one made in Canada
December 15, 1987

and one made by our trading partner in Japan. We all take national treatment for granted. We have it every day in our lives. National treatment for American goods and Canadian goods in each other's market is confirmed under this free trade agreement.
Another subject covered by the free trade agreement is agriculture. This is very important to Canadians and it is worth noting again that this is the first time that agriculture has been included in a free trade agreement in a major way. I am told by our negotiators that it has eluded us in the GATT for 40 years. For 40 years we have been trying to get agriculture addressed in the international trading system. We are working very hard in the international trading system to do that. In the meantime we have in the free trade agreement more secure access to the U.S. for agriculture and food products. Some examples are meat and livestock, grains and oilseeds, and potatoes.
O)
One thing which is important in this area is that each country agrees to stop putting up barriers to red meat imports. That is a major strength of the free trade agreement for the agricultural community, not only for red meat producers but also for grain producers. They tell us that the beef industry is a big market for grain, so the elimination of the barriers to meat imports will be a major benefit to Canadians in the agricultural sector.
Another area covered in the free trade agreement is services, trade in services. 1 think it is worth noting that when the GATT was designed 40 years ago, people thought only in terms of trade in goods. That is why it is called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It speaks only of goods, but now the fastest growing component of trade in the world is services and we are attempting to deal with it in the multilateral round in the GATT.
In the meantime we have made very solid gains in our free trade agreement by coming to agreement on a code for services. It provides that in the future, and for a variety of service sectors, Canadian service companies operating in the U.S. will get the same treatment from the U.S. Government as U.S. firms get and, of course, vice versa. This will be important to Canadians in the future. It is backed up by temporary business permits which will allow Canadians and Americans to move freely across the border in order to ensure that they can service each other's markets. It is very important for Canadians.
Another subject covered by the free trade agreement is automobiles. Here there are no major changes from the October text. We have always said that the agreement is good for Canada and good for Ontario. We call it the Auto Pact plus, because we have kept in place the fundamental elements of the Auto Pact and we have added provisions which will create new opportunities for production, employment, and other opportunities. For example, one of them is the very high
Free Trade
standard of North American content which is being provided for.
I would like to add here something which people may forget, that the provisions in the agreement were negotiated by Simon Reisman who, of course, was the person who negotiated the main Auto Pact. No one is in a better position to strengthen the Auto Pact than Mr. Reisman. I am reminded of a comment made by a young man in Windsor when I went down to speak there. I was talking with him about the provisions in the free trade agreement for automobiles and finally I asked, "What do you think about it?" He said, "Well, I have never been worried about this, Minister, because as soon as I heard that Simon Reisman was for it I thought it was fine with me because he did a good job the first time around and I can trust him to do a good job the second time around".


Rodney Edward Murphy: Is that the highlight of your speech, Pat?


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member asks if that is the highlight of my speech. Clearly he has not been listening. The highlight of my speech is to say what is in the free trade agreement, not, as the Opposition concentrates on, what is not in the free trade agreement. If the Hon. Member directs his mind to what I am talking about, it may be possible for him in future to talk about what is in the free trade agreement.
Another provision in the free trade agreement is procurement. We have broadened the provision of the GATT governing the procurement code by lowering the threshold level at which Canadian companies can bid for U.S. Government contracts. This means an additional $4 billion market in the U.S. for government contracts which is now open to Canadians. That is what we call a tiny perfect package. It is a good start in the procurement area. Canada wanted more, as I have said in the House, but the U.S. was being cautious in this area. We still maintain our defence sharing procurement, but the $4 billion is a good start for a lot of small businesses in Canada.
In energy we have negotiated the freest possible bilateral trade giving us secure tariff-free access to the U.S. market. We have a commitment to consultation on energy regulatory changes if these are inconsistent with the principles of the agreement. It provides for energy security on both sides of the border and, most important, it represents great opportunities for Canadian exports of oil, natural gas, electricity, and uranium which in the past have been harassed and threatened with the loss of market.
By securing the market for energy resources we have created the condition where we can attract the new investment required to develop our energy resources for Canadians in the future. I think that our energy package is one of the highlights of this agreement. It is not a continental energy policy as the Opposition says. We maintain our ownership of the resource. We maintain our right to manage it, to conserve it, and to regulate it. We maintain all the powers that the provinces had before in this agreement. We maintain, as I said earlier, the

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
foreign ownership restrictions, but we have secured the market. I think that is a big plus in the over-all agreement.
Getting down to some of the other issues in the free trade agreement, of course we have the method of settling disputes. We have a method of which the world is extremely envious. We have an agreement to get a binational system for resolving trade disputes in a way which binds both parties. That is a major breakthrough. When the opposition Parties talk about the loss of sovereignty, it is odd that they never comment on the fact that by agreeing to a binational binding dispute settlement mechanism which replaces their own appeal process in the U.S. it is a tacit agreement by the U.S. to take a binational system in lieu of its own area of sovereignty. I believe that if we had this apparatus in place two years ago the softwood lumber case and some of the other cases, such as the potash one we currently have, would have been stopped in their tracks.
In future, when the law in either country has run its course, it will be Canadians as well as Americans who will decide on the final outcome of the case. Of course the key part of this dispute settlement element is that we will be creating in the interim a new body of law that will be binding on both parties. When people say to me "what is so important about that", I point out that if we have a market which is one large market and it replaces two markets, we need new laws. Let us think of it in terms of anti-dumping. The whole concept of antidumping is a concept of dumping into somebody else's market. If we have under free trade one market we need new laws, and both countries will be working to develop that in the future.


Mr. Cassidy:: You said that we would have the new laws by now.


Pat Carney: The Opposition says that we were to have the new laws by now. We tried to do that, we tried to do that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You failed and you still bought the deal.


Pat Carney: We tried very hard to do that, and we could not agree on a way of doing that in a way which met our objectives, so we-


Michael Morris Cassidy: So you threw away our bargaining power.


Pat Carney: -set ourselves the objective of giving us time to develop those new laws. In the meantime we have a way of settling disputes which is binding on both countries. It is an improvement over the situation we have now.
Turning again to what the free trade agreement is not, again it is not eroding our cultural sovereignty. I ask Hon. Members to examine the text of the free trade agreement and they will find an annex which says that cultural industries are particularly exempted from the agreement, from all provisions of the agreement. They are exempted from dispute settlement. The temporary business permit for immigration purposes will not apply to that industry. They will lose many of the benefits of
this agreement, but that is what the Prime Minister promised and that is what they asked for.
Social programs are not affected, nor is our capacity to put in place new ones such as child care. I think Hon. Members can see that in the child care program we have developed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Tell us about regional development.


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member asks us to tell him about regional development. I would love to tell him about regional development.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Tell us about countervail against regional development.


Pat Carney: Nothing in the free trade agreement affects our ability now or in the future to achieve our regional development goals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: We can do today and tomorrow the same things we did yesterday. The difference in the future-


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Americans can do the same things to us as they did yesterday.


Pat Carney: -will be that the final resolution of such disputes will be by a-


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally there is a temptation to intervene occasionally but this House has seen that before. I would point out to the Hon. Member that only a few moments ago the House very graciously granted to the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party a full 40 minute reply. In view of that courtesy, I hope Hon. Members will give the appropriate courtesy to the Minister by letting her continue her speech without interruption.


Pat Carney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can accommodate the Hon. Member's impatience by telling him-


Lloyd Axworthy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If I could interrupt the Hon. Minister for just a moment. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is rising on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order just to clarify your remarks. It is our understanding that in the opening round of debates there would be unlimited time. You have now restricted that time to 40 minutes. Could you clarify that, please?


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He is absolutely right. It is unlimited time.
December 15, 1987


Pat Carney: Mr, Speaker, I do not intend to take unlimited time, I just intend to deal with a few more things and then we can listen to the remarks of the Opposition.
We were talking about regional development and the Hon. Member yelled, "What about countervail?" May I remind him that our laws and the American laws in this area are entirely consistent with the GATT. This free trade agreement is negotiated within the provisions of the GATT. Our complaint with the Americans in the past in the case of potash, softwood and other issues was what we viewed as an unfair process in the application of these laws. That provision has been met with this binational dispute settlement mechanism. There will be an element of fairness involved when people know that trade remedy cases will be going before an impartial board of Canadians and Americans. Further we have made an improvement in this area. There is an appeal process on very narrow grounds if there is any suspicion of fraud or conflict of interest in these areas, and we have strengthened the dispute settlement mechanism in the final agreement.
I want to point out that for 10 years we have been net exporters of direct investment. Most of that has gone to the United States. This agreement now provides more secure access for investors in the U.S. and assurances of nondiscriminatory treatment. That is very important for us because it gives us security of our investment in the U.S.
Since it is a balanced agreement, it gives security in Canada to American investment. If you ask why that is so important, Mr. Speaker, it is because the previous Liberal administration under the National Energy Program expropriated other people's property and the Americans want to ensure that no future Government can adopt those Liberal policies again.
In terms of adjustment, the agreement does not limit us in any way from helping people to adjust to the new trading regime. On the contrary, it provides for a generous phasing-in period over 10 years. Our Government, as the Prime Minister says, is ready to assist Canadian workers who need retraining and ready to assist companies wanting to take greater advantage of the new market opportunities.
If you look at the free trade agreement and see the lower prices to consumers which will flow from the elimination of tariffs, something very important to seniors and to all Canadians; if you look at the new markets that will be created and the new jobs that will be created, you will see why this agreement is very much in the national interest.
I have tried to limit my remarks to what is in the free trade agreement to educate and enlighten members of the Opposition because many of them clearly have not read it. I would like the opposition Parties, because this is a historic debate, to tell the House what alternatives they propose.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Right on.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will.
Free Trade


Pat Carney: We know what the NDP proposes. The New Democrats are entirely against this agreement. They want to stop it and stay in the narrow little world of protectionism.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Absolutely false.


Pat Carney: They want to stay in the Dark Ages. They want to retreat into the 19th century.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Untruth.


Pat Carney: They refuse to grow up and realize that in the world we have today we have been liberalizing and freeing trade and reducing barriers, but that is not the kind of world the New Democrats want.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are incorrect, Pat.


Pat Carney: In the case of the Liberals we are rather confused about what they propose. First their leader has proposed walking away from the agreement. Then he proposed tearing up the agreement, all 2,000 pages of it. Lately he has been talking about how it is better for some regions than others. He has indicated that he may want to have a second look at the agreement. I think it is time the Liberals told us where they stand on the free trade agreement. Do they totally oppose it? What will they put in its place?


Mr. Frith:: We have it right here, in colour.


Pat Carney: I can hardly wait, Mr. Speaker.
This agreement will go into force January 1, 1989.


Lloyd Axworthy: There will be an election first. You will be defeated and it will be all over.


Pat Carney: What are they going to do on January 1, 1989 or, say, February 1, 1989? Will they put the tariffs back on all those items in 1989? Will they dismantle the dispute settlement mechanism? Will they dismantle the panels of experts and dismantle the whole appeal process?


Lloyd Axworthy: It doesn't matter anyway.


Pat Carney: Will they put the red meat barriers back, on all the other agricultural goods which will be so damaging to the agricultural community? Will they put up the barriers to energy which we have just negotiated away in our own energy policy and enshrined in the free trade agreement?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is nonsense, and you know it.


Pat Carney: In 1989 what do they propose to do? Do they propose to put back all the barriers that we so carefully have negotiated away? That is what Canadians want to know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) opened her remarks by saying that this was a historic moment

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
and a matter of undying concern for all Canadians. She then proceeded to give a speech that would be more reminiscent of a late night barroom brawl than the kind of elocution that might try to give Canadians a sense of purpose, direction and vision of where we are going. That is not surprising because I think the entire treatment of this matter from the time it was announced has been shrouded in secrecy, has been riddled with contradiction and has been tainted with this kind of low-life attitude that we are all right and we do not care what anybody else thinks.
If we describe the process that we have been through, it is more like a shotgun wedding. Consummation before you get to the altar, a hurry-up, gun-at-your-head-signing kind of arrangement and no willingness to deal with the consequences of your act.


Mr. McDermid:: That is nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: We talk about the national interest. I believe that one of the primary issues of the national interest is to ensure that we retain a respect for the democratic institutions of this country, that we retain a respect for the rights of Canadians to participate, to be informed, to have information and, particularly, to be heard.
There has been nothing since this initiative was launched to serve the national interest in strengthening peoples belief or credit in the parliamentary institutions. This institution has been treated with contempt and disdain. It has been ignored, short-circuited simply for the reasons of reaching a political public relations timetable. When the Minister says it is historic, it is historic in the way in which this Government has deliberately gone out of its way to bypass the fundamental institutions of Canada ensuring people have a right to participate.
Just take this morning as an example. Today a Commons committee was to table a report outlining its findings on what Canadians thought about the original document, but the Government has already decided on a final document so all those representations will have absolutely no relevance or impact whatsoever on what the Government will do. Is that not an attitude of cynicism about the way this institution works?
Let us take into account that, contrary to all promises and assurances, the final document contains within it major substantial changes to the agreement, changes affecting the rights of provinces, the right to establish Crown corporations, the control of the entire resource industry of Canada, transportation and agriculture. In other words, it is "Document II", it is not simply a legal redefinition. It was a fundamental alteration. Yet we are now entering into a debate of some few days' length in which the Conservatives will use their overwhelming majority to ram the agreement through so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will have a so-called mandate to sign the agreement on January 2 without allowing Canadians the opportunity to have had the final document put before
a parliamentary forum in which examination, review and debate could take place.
Is that in the national interest? Is it in the national interest for the Government to treat Parliament so blindly that it will create nothing but disrespect for how this institution works or how it should work? Of course, the Minister is so deeply interested in this historic debate she has not managed to stay for two seconds after her own presentation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member who has been here for many years knows that he should not reflect on the attendance of Hon. Members. There are television cameras in the lobbies for Members to watch. I believe the Hon. Minister will probably be back in the Chamber, but I do not think that that type of debate is necessary.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be nice if any Minister at all were in the House. I apologize if I trespassed, against the House's rules. I only made that remark to illustrate just how important it really is when we are not even able to have a presence on the front-bench. I withdraw that remark also, but I think it is important to recognize just how this matter is being treated by Members on the government side.
The process was begun in an atmosphere of distrust. A candidate for the role of leader of his Party said with no equivocation that he would never sign a free trade deal because it would destroy Canadian sovereignty. That was a statement made by Mr. Brian Mulroney, private citizen, before he became Leader of the Conservative Party. In that same leadership campaign I recall hearing the words of the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the now Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), all of whom declared without any qualification that they would never initiate a free trade deal with the United States. Why? Because it would destroy our sovereignty.
How times have changed. There they sit now, ball on nose, clapping their flippers wildly for the concept that free trade is the biggest bonanza to hit Canada and will not affect sovereignty at all. That is not honest. It is not honest for the Prime Minister to have said he was absolutely sure he would never sign such an agreement and now say that he thinks it is the greatest thing without giving us any reason whatsoever for changing his mind.
What happened? That is an interesting question. What happened on the road to Damascus that caused Saul to change to Paul so suddenly? Once we saw the Prime Minister in action in the beginning of 1984 we realized that he changed his mind on everything. Unfortunately, this issue has an awful lot more impact on Canadians than most of his other gymnastic flip-flops have had.
I am not here to describe the mental acrobatics of the Prime Minister. God knows we have seen enough of that. I am
December 15, 1987

saying, however, that on a matter as crucial as this, surely there was a responsibility and an obligation to explain.
I call to the attention of the House that at the beginning of this debate a cabinet document found its way into opposition hands. This document outlined the communications strategy for the launching of the trade debate. What was that communications strategy? It was basically to keep Canadians in the dark because it said that if Canadians find out what it is really all about, they will oppose it. That is what the document said. It is not something that was conjured up by-


John Horton McDermid: Produce it.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will. I will be glad to table the report. I would be glad to have it on the public record.
The fact of the matter is that the debate has been that way right from the start. Has the Government ever given Parliament any clear demonstration of evidence to support its claims? No. Before a Commons committee, the deputy negotiator, Mr. Ritchie, when asked where the studies are to justify his claims for jobs, said that he did not have them.


Mr. Horner:: Economic Council of Canada has them.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, let us stop here. I heard echoing from a mental chamber on the other side that the Economic Council report is their justification. If that is the justification being used by Hon. Members opposite, may I ask why it is that the Economic Council report did not include as a basic premise the service industries to justify its job claims? The service sector only accounts for 60 per cent or 70 per cent of all jobs, but it was not included in the council's report. Furthermore, the Economic Council report said that its assumptions are based upon the fact that Canada will have an exemption from U.S. trade law. Do we have an exemption from U.S. trade law? Of course we do not. So much for the Economic Council report.
If that is the slender reed upon which the Government is basing its case, then God help this country. In fact, the Director of the Economic Council of Canada himself said that they could not give a forecast based upon the present agreement. He said that it would take until at least February to get the numbers. Of course, in the meantime the Prime Minister will already have signed the deal. So much for the evidence of the Government.
Let us continue to discuss another part of the process. The Government brought in its October 4 document and said that it needed a couple of days to brush it up and put the lawyers to work and then we would have a couple of months to debate it. A committee was formed before there was a final document. The committee was instructed to hear from Canadians and, of course, the majority of the members of the committee were so democratically minded that they defeated proposals that invitations be issued to the public at large. They said no, they did not want the public at large corrupting their committee process.
Free Trade
We asked for additional hours of hearings when we were in each city. Of course we were not allowed that. We were allowed a one-night stand in each provincial capital in order to hear presentations. In the Province of Quebec, in which there are six million people, six briefs were heard. That is a grand cross-section of Quebec society, to say nothing of all the other provinces.
That may be the Tory Star Chamber interpretation of democracy; that may be the kind of inquisitorial interpretation that Tories apply to it which means not giving people a chance to participate, but it surely is not a proper examination or opportunity for Canadians to be heard.
Then we got to the point we are now at. We were to have the committee report, but the deal has already been signed, sealed, locked up and delivered with a statement that we cannot change anything in it. It is a shotgun wedding. That is the only way to describe it. It is a gun to the head of the Canadian public. The deal was already forged before it was even made public.
We know what the consequences will be. A very important statement was made by the Anglican Archbishop, the Primate of Canada, before the committee. He said that the Government has a moral obligation to explain the consequences of its acts. He said that the Government has not done that. We are still waiting for that moral obligation to be fulfilled.
The process speaks for itself. I contend that it is not in the national interest to totally ignore democratic rights in this country, especially because the Government is committing what one can only call the big lie of propaganda. The Minister repeated it this morning when she said that this is only a trade deal.
The agreement we are debating goes far beyond the conventional process of bringing down some tariff barriers or dealing with non-tariff barriers. How can a Minister of the Crown say that it is simply a trade deal when there are clear limitations on the rights of this Parliament to deal with questions of foreign investment in the future? How can the Government say that it is only a trade deal when there is a direct limitation on the right of federal and provincial Governments in the future to establish Crown corporations the way they see fit? How can it say it is only a trade deal when the way in which we manage our resources and set prices for energy and other resources is clearly prescribed, limited and handicapped by this deal?
Section 409 states that all goods can no longer have discriminatory pricing set on them. It is hardly just a trade deal when every jurisdiction in this country that wishes to trade a good or service with the United States will no longer be able to set different prices to Government action. That is not trade, it is a direct limitation on the sovereignty of every Parliament and assembly in this country.

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
How can it only be a trade deal when it extends its reach into every jurisdiction in this country, including energy, agriculture, services and banking?
We are being told that as legislators we can no longer make decisions in these areas. We can no longer have the right as a sovereign Parliament to make laws and rules according to our best judgment, after debating them with other Canadians and other provinces and coming to grips with the issues in the fine old Canadian tradition. No longer do we have rights in these areas.
Vast areas within public jurisdiction in Canada have disappeared and future generations of Canadians will never have the rights in these areas that were enjoyed by previous generations. That is not a trade agreement. It is a form of sovereignty association, economic union, economic integration. Whatever one wishes to call it, it goes far beyond the boundaries of trade.
If we were simply negotiating a reduction of tariffs, there might be less worry because we could debate that in terms of its direct impact on industries. This far-reaching agreement extends into unchartered waters for which Canadians have no map to understand it. How can the Minister say with any credibility that it is simply a little trade matter about which Canadians should not worry.
One must ask if the Minister ever wonders why Canadians from coast to coast, in every region, are exercised and anguished about this deal? That would not be the case if this was simply a matter of reducing some tariffs on vegetables or other items. We are seeing incredible division, anxiety and controversy in Canada because Canadians see their fundamental right to choose what kind of country they want in the area of public policy disappear in front of them.
It is fascinating that a Prime Minister who said he would seek election on a platform of national reconciliation is offering what will undoubtedly be the most disputatious and divisive initiative in the history of this country. It is dividing people all across Canada, and not only on regional grounds, because we discovered in committee that people in Alberta are as deeply divided on this issue as people in Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic Provinces. Yet we heard those scurrilous attempts by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Saskatchewan to suggest this is just a matter of the West versus Ontario. What a low-life approach.


John Horton McDermid: He never said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Prime Minister, who was going to be the author of national reconciliation, is in fact trying to set region against region in a way that is simply designed to sell his arrangement with Mr. Reagan. That is hardly in the national interest when one sees how deeply this proposal cuts into the very soul of this country.
Let us consider the arguments being advanced by the Government. It was fascinating to hear the somewhat qualified
remarks of the Minister for International Trade today. Unlike the bombast of the past, today we did not hear those kinds of grand, eloquent promises. When the Prime Minister announced this agreement, he said that it would be the solution for all that ails Canada.


John Horton McDermid: He never said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: He said that if there were problems with regional development, free trade with the U.S. will help that.


John Horton McDermid: He never said that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, he did.


John Horton McDermid: No, he did not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, he did. He said if there are problems with productivity, free trade will help it. If there are problems with growth, free trade will help it. It will also help grow hair and eliminate warts at the same time. That is all it will do, eliminate warts.


Mr. Marchi:: The Parliamentary Secretary is interested.


Lloyd Axworthy: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is interested in it because he thinks it will grow hair.
The Government, its business allies and other advocates of this deal have presented no hard, clear evidence to demonstrate to Canadians exactly what economic benefits there will be. During our committee hearings throughout the country, we heard from various economists, chambers of commerce spokesmen and BCNI officials. Not once were they able to provide us with what one would call substantial evidence that there will be jobs. They hoped there would be jobs, they believed there would be jobs, and felt that there would be jobs, but not once were they able to provide the evidence that there will be jobs. There is no evidence.
If one considers the historical facts, there is no guarantee that a free trade region will automatically bring about all the promised benefits. I suggest that Members ask people in northern England, Scotland or Wales how Great Britain joining the Common Market has helped the regional divisions in Great Britain. The fact is that it has exacerbated them. How has it helped the unemployment rate? The unemployment rate in Britain was 5 per cent before it joined the Common Market. It went up to 15 per cent after it joined.
The Government talks about productivity. It is interesting to note that in the last 10 years we have had a higher productivity rate than the United States, even with its access to that market of 250 million people. We hear the argument that access to that market will make us more productive. Why are we more productive now than the Americans? We are not only being asked to accept a leap in faith, we are being asked to accept a leap in logic.
If the Common Market is so great, why have we had a higher rate of job creation in the last 10 years than any
December 15, 1987

European country? The Common Market is supposed to be the magic answer for us, yet we were able to outperform it.
We are told about the great benefits of economic union with the United States. We have a $20 billion surplus in trade with the Americans while they have a $180 billion deficit. The economic facts simply do not exist.
However, we did learned in our committee hearings where there will be job losses. Witnesses appearing on behalf of data processing organizations, representing small high tech firms in Canada, said that we have already lost 100,000 jobs and will lose some 200,000 more because the present rules requiring data processing to be done in Canada will be wiped out. As one individual said, "It will not hurt me as a businessman. I will just go to St. Louis or Minneapolis". But the workers will be left behind unemployed.
What about the food processors? I was surprised that the Minister for International Trade ignored the largest industry in Canada. It employs more people than any other industry, close to 300,000. That industry appeared before the committee and said that the Government had a problem with the agreement. If it takes the tariffs down to zero on packaged processed frozen products, the Americans will have somewhat lower input goods because they can get their chickens out of Georgia and their vegetables out of California and they will undercut us totally, which will mean we will have to shut down, close up, go out of business, unless we get rid of supply management. Government was told it had a choice, either to get rid of supply management or destroy that industry.
It would seem to me that that is a fundamental dilemma a Government might want to face considering that the whole food industry is the largest employer in Canada. But has the Government faced it? No. Was there anything in the final text of the agreement to resolve that problem? No, because we cannot resolve it. What the Government has refused to recognize is that in order to maintain a stable, self-sufficient food industry, we must maintain certain rules. We must retain certain tariffs at times. We must retain a certain way of ensuring that the products of our farmers will be bought and their prices will be stable and the manufacturing processing plants will be doing the work for us.
We have now opened that up to double jeopardy. Here we have in a final agreement about to be signed on January 2 a great gaping hole, an unanswered question, with no answers being provided by the Government, and this will affect a fundamental industry of this country, the food industry. One would expect the Government to at least make some gesture to respond, but it has totally ignored that problem. It will not even talk about the problem. It says it does not exist. The Government is in that kind of fantasyland that if one does not think about something, it will not be there. The Government thinks it can wish it all away. It takes its political lessons from
Free Trade
the fantasyland Premier of British Columbia. It is a catching disease.
The fact is that the economic benefits the Government promised simply and completely cannot be demonstrated. What can be shown is that there will be severe and substantial disruption to many vital industries in this country. All the members of the committee said that at least the Government should talk about a massive adjustment program. That was a recommendation of the Macdonald Commission. Its report is the Bible the Government keeps pulling out as the instrument and basis for the free trade agreement. Yet the Macdonald Commission clearly said there would have to be a massive multibillion dollar expenditure on adjustment to make it work. The Macdonald Commission said it should be written into the agreement. Is it in the agreement? I did not see a word about it because the Government has no intention of doing it.
I do not know who to believe, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) or the Prime Minister. They all say different things. The Minister of Finance controls the purse and he says, no, we will take care of it under our existing programs. That is fine except that the existing programs are being cut back. The Department of Employment and Immigration cut back several hundred million dollars over the last two or three years. There is not even enough money to take care of the present issues but the Government will solve all the new problems with a receding Budget. That is again an example of Tory arithmetic.
Let us go to the other huge benefit the Government talked about. What was it that the Prime Minister said in that speech in New York, the get tough speech to the American business community? He said that the whole reason for negotiating this agreement is to get an exemption from U.S. trade law, to stop the harassment, to ensure that Canadians will have a special elimination of those problems. The Macdonald Commission, the Bible, said the same thing, that the fundamental issue is that U.S. trade law is unfair and we have to do something about it.
So now we come to the centre point of the agreement, the binding binational dispute settlement mechanism that-and, of course, the Prime Minister did not say this in his remarks-is simply an appeal procedure. The entire continuation of U.S. trade law is in force and U.S. industry will still have the right to initiate actions, to go to the trade commission, to go to the Department of Commerce, to get the rulings. Canadian industry will still be forced to hire expensive Washington lawyers. They will still have to go through the process of fighting those claims. There will still be all the harassment that was there before. The only thing that was changed in the initial agreement is that we were told the International Court of Trade in New York would be replaced with a binational panel. In other words, we would be able to appeal based upon that law.
When I asked the deputy negotiator, Mr. Ritchie, why was it changed; was the International Court of Trade biased, was it

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
unfair? He said, no, that was the one thing about which we had no complaint. It was totally impartial. So that was the genius of that great negotiating team which should be heralded as the biggest bag of wind in the history of Canada. The chief negotiator has more gas exploding from him than the Hinden-burg dirigible, and is about as reliable. The fact is that what was negotiated was an appeal procedure, not an exemption from the law, and in doing so, they have closed off other avenues that the Canadian industry could use.
Clearly, if the binational panel is chosen we cannot go to GATT. At least in the GATT we could challenge the law, we could challenge the premise of the law, but these geniuses have now closed that option. Furthermore, they have substantially altered the process of judicial review and the rights of using courts. To add insult to injury, to take that Mickey Mouse mechanism and put a Donald Duck character to it, after we got the final agreement, what did they do to the appeal procedure? They put another appeal procedure on top of it. We now have an appeal procedure to the appeal procedure.
If one looks at the criteria set out in this final agreement, one can see that any smart Washington lawyer worth his thousand dollar a day fee is going to find enough room to run a truck through. So we will end up with a process that takes longer than the one we have now. It will be more expensive and more time consuming, and that is the so-called benefit of the deal. The great accomplishment of this Government is to end up with an appeal procedure to an appeal procedure, lengthier time, costing more money to Canadian industry and no protection, no security of access. That is the bottom line of this agreement. So much for the benefits of this deal that the Minister promised.
Before I forget, let us talk about the so-called consumer benefits. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), a few days after, rushed out to the TV cameras with press releases saying that consumers will benefit extraordinarily. There was the Minister for International Trade promising people that they could run down to Fargo, North Dakota, or Spokane, Washington, and come back with their arms full of VCRs, cameras and television sets. There was this image in the minds of people of this long train of people in front of a cornucopia of goods being hauled out of various K-Marts on the border stations across Canada.
But the Consumers' Association says it is not such a hot deal. If we really look at the 10-year phase-in, it may mean we get a $50 or $60 saving a year, if we are lucky. Furthermore, most of the goods people are being promised are excluded because they have foreign components and under the rules of origin, if the VCR is made in Japan, Taiwan or Korea it is going to have the same tariff applied to it. We now have the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) saying that, of course, we are going to keep our currency control, so the rule that says we can only bring in $50 worth of goods in the first 24 hours and $100 worth after will still be there. So much for the cornucopia.
Once again, we have this bloated, blown-up, bombastic propaganda being put forward by the Government, but when we look at the reality, what do we see? The problem is that the Government's propaganda machine has been characterized in the image of the Government itself. We have already had the shotgun wedding. That is what happens when you have a shotgun wedding, you get a false pregnancy. There are too many deals in which promises were made which never materialized. All of the so-called benefits have serious doubts cast upon them.
It is also interesting that the benefits which do result, such as the lowering of tariffs in some areas, could have been achieved as they have been in the past through negotiations internationally or under the U.S. trade law in accordance with which they are prepared to negotiate tariffs alone. We could have negotiated some tariff reduction. It would cause no dramatic upheaval for Canadians to do that. Previous Liberal Governments have negotiated far more tariff reductions than are contained in this agreement, which demonstrates that we are not against that. However, we never did that at the price of surrendering the control and management of our own economy as does this deal.
That brings us to the question of the costs. The Minister for International Trade went out of her way to suggest that this was a cost-free agreement. She suggested that this would be a simple matter of easy, open, peaceful transition. In fact, things are quite different. It is impossible for any government to claim that things will remain the same in the energy sector. When you lose the right to set price and supply you have lost control of the resource. That is what is in this agreement.
Even more damning, the so-called guaranteed access for Canadian energy to the United States market is not in the agreement. I read the agreement very carefully and do not see the words "guaranteed access" anywhere in the text. What does remain, however, is the right of the U.S. regulatory agency in Washington to set all the rules.
I want to remind Members of the House of the statement made by the Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada, one of the three major oil and gas associations in Canada. It said that it is against this deal because it is not reciprocal, it does not give equal treatment. It says that we have given up our controls through the National Energy Board but the Americans have retained theirs. Prices in energy will be set in Washington or by cartels of OPEC or multinationals. The Government has lost its right to provide any leverage against such a cartel. This is the Government that says there is no limitation on sovereignty.
1 have talked to a number of lawyers to get an explanation of this agreement. Sections 408 and 409 were not in the original agreement. The agreement disallows anyone from setting an export tax, not only on energy, but on any good exported to the United States. Section 408 goes on to say that
December 15, 1987

you can no longer set prices through government action on any good or deal with supply matters. That clause gives the potential for the United States to insist upon rights of control management over every resource that we have in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: What a crock.


Lloyd Axworthy: I ask the Member to read sections 408 and 409.


John Horton McDermid: Get serious. You are living in Disneyland.


Lloyd Axworthy: Unfortunately Tory Members cannot read. After watching the Prime Minister in Question Period yesterday, I suggest that he might be well advised to read the agreement. He clearly has not. It might be helpful to read those clauses before he signs the agreement so that he will realize what he is doing to this country.
We are also told that there will be no limitation on the sovereignty of our provinces, that they will not be affected in any way. On page 300 of this final agreement it talks about establishment of monopolies, including Crown corporations at any level. It says that we can set up Crown corporations but must first consult with the United States and then comply with a whole series of conditions as to what they cannot do. They cannot cross-subsidize and cannot have discriminatory provisions on monopoly goods or services.
If this clause had existed in 1867 we would not have Air Canada, the CNR, the CBC, or provincial telephone corporations. We would not have the very institutions and instruments which helped to build this country. We would not have the Canadian Wheat Board. We would not have the institutions which various generations of Canadians have creatively forged to shape and define this country. Under this clause we will no longer have the power to use public instruments and public agencies to serve Canadian interests.
With regard to sovereignty, surely it is a primary right of any Parliament or provincial assembly to say what kind of Crown corporation it is going to establish and what the corporation will do without having to consult with the Americans or meeting a set of conditions.
The Minister said that cultural programs are being supported. Clearly she has not looked at the evidence which was brought forward by groups like ACTRA and various other cultural organizations and artists which say that the agreement retains a pregnant clause called a "notwithstanding" clause which gives the United States the right to retaliate on any future cultural initiative if they think it is not in their cultural interest. How can they say that culture will not be affected? We may have grandfathered what we did in the past, but we have mortgaged what we can do in the future. That is another limitation on sovereignty.
Let us deal with social programs. We have heard denial after denial. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. McDougall) has given several speeches saying that
Free Trade
social programs will not be touched in the agreement. That is not the way it works. The Government should listen to the anti-poverty organizations, the women's associations, and others who say that they will clearly be touched. If the Government is not prepared to listen to that constituency, it may listen to the business community. The Business Council of British Columbia says that of course they will be affected because it is clear that the pressure for harmonization will begin to apply. The pressure which will affect them will not come from the Americans but from our own community.
Our businesses are now faced with so-called competition by a southern state which has no minimum wage, is a right-to-work state, has no health care program, and has no environmental standards. It therefore has much lower input costs. We are trying to compete with them in the making of blue jeans, furniture, or high tech goods. As a result, the first demands will be for lower taxes and to get rid of rules and regulations. In that way we will substantially affect the social and environmental fabric of Canada.
That is to say nothing of the still unanswered problem which was brought to the attention of the committee of the Maquiladora corridor. The Americans now send components into Mexico where they are assembled by cheap Mexican labour then brought back into the United States as made-in-America goods. The Government says that we should not worry about that, that we will have customs inspectors roaming through American factories testing these things.
Does the Government believe that a motor which could go into a 100 different varieties of refrigerators can be tagged and observed if it comes into the Canadian market a year later? If the Government tries to do that it will create a bureaucratic nightmare. However, that will not happen. That is a placebo, an attempt to deal with the problem without any intention of implementation. We will be faced, as American industries are now being faced, with this undercutting of the basic wage standards and social standards of their country.
This week there was a major article in the New York Sunday Times in the business page. It was a debate about the impact of the Maquiladora process. The basic outcome was that hundreds of thousands of American jobs are being lost as a result, because quite frankly the large corporations could not give a damn whether they have a factory in Michigan, Ontario, or British Columbia; if they think that they can make a higher profit by having it on the Mexican border, they will do that.
When we talk about the immunization of our social programs, we are living in a fool's paradise. The Government is not telling it straight, it is not being honest or giving Canadians the full and honest set of consequences that they will have to face.
We also have this incredible limitation on areas of investment. We have heard from Conservative spokespersons on the

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
great advantages of foreign investment. Let me advise the House of what those advantages were in the last three years. Of the $22 billion that have come into this country, 95 per cent has been in takeovers and acquisitions. It has not been in new enterprises, but in takeovers and acquisitions. The documents based on Statistics Canada figures that were presented to the committee demonstrate that those do not create jobs. In fact, in looking at the performance of the multinationals in Canada, it has been job loss and not job gain. A billion dollars of profit creates something like an average of 4,000 jobs when in fact a Canadian company would create something like 800,000 jobs in the same period of time.
Yet what we have here is an open door system in which the threshold is now $ 150 million and where there will be absolutely no possibility of Canadians setting any performance requirements for those takeovers and acquisitions. We will not have the right either now or in the future to say to anyone who wants to take over a Canadian company that they have to keep the research facilities here, keep the jobs here, keep the enterprise going here. If they want, they will simply have the right to strip it totally, move the science and technology to some other place, do the real work at head office, and turn it into an assembly plant or a warehouse.
Once again we are relocating the economic decision-making of Canada outside of our own borders. Once again we are taking any ability to manage an economic process beyond the authority and scope of Canadian Governments. The investment itself will not result in a great bonanza. What it could result in is a very different nature for the Canadian economy, a substantially different way of doing business in this country which is primarily geared to a north-south access not east-west.
The historic continuity of Canada, as difficult as it has been over the past 130, 140, or 150 years, or even going back 300 years when the French first arrived on our borders and tried to deal with the aboriginal peoples, has been to try to take this northern part of North America and forge a series of linkages east and west. It has been done in the private market and in the public market, and it has not been easy, but it has been done. As a result, we have been able to create our distinctive way of doing things; the St. Lawrence Seaway, the transportation system, the co-op movements, and our development programs. It has not been easy, but it has been important to Canada.
Now the Government is going to break that historical continuity. It is going to shift the access north and south. It is going to say that it much prefers a company selling into the California market than into the B.C. market, or into the Ontario market, or into the Atlantic market. We are going to switch horizons. That carries with it a psychology and a set of attitudes and an outlook that cannot be quantified or have numbers put on it. But it will surely and fundamentally alter this country beyond recognition, and break faith with past generations. As surely as I stand here, it will alter the way in which Canadians think about themselves, if they think about
themselves any more, because no longer will those linkages that we have so carefully forged and nurtured be around to continue. They will be altered, mangled, and reoriented.
When we talk about sovereignty, God knows it is not only sovereignty in the strict legal and political sense, it is also talking about it in the cultural, political, social, and psychological sense of how we begin to think about ourselves.
That is the reason why we oppose this agreement. That is the reason why we feel that the costs far outweigh any benefits, that the agreement goes far beyond simple prescriptions of trade and reaches into the very inner soul and continuity of this country. But we reproach it for something even more than that because it forfeits our future. I suppose most of us in the House, being mostly middle-aged or older, will survive the trade deal. We will not see the real impact in our generation or lifetime. But future generations will slowly see the erosion of what has happened in this country, and have their rights and their capacity to make decisions taken away from them. That is the saddest most tragic part of this agreement.
That is why it is important for Canadians to understand that there is an alternative. There is another way of doing it. In all our statements we have been very careful to ensure that it is simply not a matter of saying that this is a bad, rotten deal. We have also said that we believe there is another way, a better way of achieving some of the same goals of liberalizing trade, but not with the damage and destruction of this country.
Quite clearly, we have stated that we can reduce tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers more effectively, at less cost to international negotiation than we can through bilateral negotiation of a comprehensive deal. History proves us correct. We are not talking about theory and speculation, as the Government does, we are talking based upon historical fact.
Through international negotiation the tariffs which averaged approximately 40 or 50 per cent in 1948 have been brought down by successive Liberal Governments to an average of the 5 per cent that stands today. Through international negotiation we have reduced the trade barriers with the United States to the point where 80 per cent of the goods now travel tariff free. It has been successful because we have been able to use the bargaining power and leverage of other countries to help pay the cost of trade-offs, and to help put the type of pressure on the United States and the other big trading partners in order that they will also make concessions. We have been able to piggy back on many of those concessions and utilize them. But most important, because we established clearly our defence and support for a form of international economic rule of law, to say that big, medium, and small all get treated in the same way in a non-discriminatory fashion.
When the Minister for International Trade rises today and states that this is simply a way of improving upon the international system and GATT, I challenge her and defy her because she is wrong. She is running against the historical fact of this country and of the international system.
December 15, 1987

Paul Volcker said it best when he stated that the greatest threat to the international trade system today is the emergence of regional trading blocks. Why? Because they will set walls around regions not only countries; in North America, in the Pacific Rim, in Europe, in Latin America, and there will be a reproduction of the type of trade wars between countries that we saw in the 1930s now happening between regions. They will be hammering one another.
This trade deal starts that right now because we have set up discriminatory trade rules. In the Auto Pact system we say that there is one rule for North American automobiles and another rule for offshore. In the areas of manufactured goods we say that there is one rule for Canada-U.S., and another rule for those offshore. Therefore, by saying that there are different rules we have already substantially contributed to the emergence of a discriminatory trade wall around North America.
Plow can anyone in their right mind argue that that is helping the international system? Plow can anyone suggest that by establishing a discriminatory trade block in North America we are somehow providing sweetness and light in the international system? That works against our own interests, because a large part of our commodities are not traded with the Americans. They are traded in the Pacific Rim, in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Latin America. Can you tell me, Mr. Speaker, why a customer who is going to buy our wheat or barley offshore will not suddenly ask why he should buy Canadian wheat when there is lots of surplus in Argentinian, Australian, and other wheat, and when we have just signed a deal which says that he cannot get the same treatment as people in Buffalo? In other words, they are setting in motion a diversion of our trade patterns which will have an enormous impact upon our trading partners down the road.
In the field of agriculture and commodities they are also doing something very dangerous. They are beginning to play with the fundamental infrastructure of our commodity system. They have admitted in two places in the agreement that the transportation system or the freight rate system that we use to move our commodities from Atlantic Canada and our grain from western Canada is a subsidy which is objectionable under trade rules. It is the first time any Government of Canada has ever admitted that. It is the first time a precedent has been established that the western grain freight system is an unfair trade practice. Similarly the same thing would be true in the Atlantic system.
They are doing some very funny things with international trade rules otherwise. Let us talk about fish processing for a moment before my time comes to an end. We are told in the agreement that the eastern fish processing industry is protected but that the western B.C. one is not. However, when we go to the agreement we find that the eastern processes will still be vulnerable to the GATT rules which were applied to West Coast fishermen and processors. They have also eliminated the remedy which Canada allows, that is, the use of an export tax
Free Trade
remedy. They have put in double jeopardy our fish processing and have taken away remedies normally available to us under the GATT to deal with those problems in both the East and West.
When we talk about using the international system, the Government is abusing the system. For a country which once took leadership in helping to formulate an international commercial economic system, we are now pulling away or retreating. All other countries are getting the signal that Canadians are in full retreat from the international system and they are asking, "why shouldn't we be too?" The end result will be a regional trade war around the world.
I would suggest that what we should have done, and what we have recommended, is tried to achieve a better trade deal for Canadians. We had the opportunity at the Uruguay Round to begin dealing with dispute settlement mechanisms at that level and to start dealing with the question of how we would deal with tariff reductions and non-tariff reductions in the next round.
However, we would do it in company with other countries with similar interests to our own. In the vast and important area of services, countries like Brazil, India, Third World countries, and European countries with which I met in Punta del Este over a year ago indicated that the reason they were nervous was that they knew that service industries were essential to the maintenance of the integrity of their countries. For example, if we give up control of our banking system, our data processing system, and our information system, we would not have a country left. Therefore, when we have rules applying to trade in services we must also have rules applying to the investment in those services and rules applying to the right of establishment in those services to ensure that when multinational companies like IBM or American Express come tromping into the country and say that they will take over our system we have rules which say how they must behave when they are in our country.
What has the Government done in this agreement? It has gone the opposite way. Wrong way Carney has once again scored a touchdown in her own end zone.


Mr. Tobin:: For the other team.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, the other team will get the points. They have opened up trade in services but at the same time they have taken off all controls on investment and all controls on right of establishment. They have said that they can come in and do what they want in our country and we will not say boo.
When they ask why the Liberals want an alternative, that is why we want an alternative. It is to ensure that rules apply to the big economic giants of the country. We recognize that they do not recognize national interest or Canadian interest. They recognize one interest only and that is the interest of their stockholders, if that at all. They are a private government unto themselves. The history of the country has been to try to find rules to apply to them. Surely, after the example of the oil

December 15, 1987
crisis and the behaviour of the Seven Sisters, we should know just how demonic and destructive economic and multinational giants can be.
That is the basic start of the Liberal alternative. We think we can go much further. Why is it that in the three years since the Tories have been in government trade with the rest of the world has declined? There has been a 30 per cent drop in trade with the Pacific Rim. There has been a drop in trade with Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. The Government is not interested in becoming a world trader or in opening up new markets. It has cut back on embassies, trade offices, international development programs, and trade assistance for small business. Is it any wonder our trade has dropped by 30 per cent with the Pacific Rim? It is because the Government has a mad obsession with the North American market and is taking the easy way out.
As Liberals we say that we have an alternative. We are the Party which speaks for Canadians. We have real confidence in Canadians becoming world traders and international salesmen of our goods and products around the world. It is the Tories who are afraid and are retreating into a North American hiding place. They are trying to find some protection in that shadow. They are the ones who do not have the guts and courage to say that we must define and develop a trading relationship on a world-wide basis. They have shown in the last three years what a bunch of 'fraidy cats they are. With this agreement there will be no hope for the establishment of ourselves as effective international traders.


Mr. Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: What nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will see what kind of nonsense it is when we come to the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We also say as part of our alternative that any Government really interested in forging an effective international competitive position must be prepared to invest in this country-in the brains of the country, in research and development, and in the infrastructure-so that we in Canada have a capacity to do it.
What has the Government done? It has cut back on universities and training schools. It has cut back on infrastructure. It has cut back on research and development. In other words, the very sinews by which a country is able to develop and enhance its international competitiveness are being reduced. The Government is pulling back and withdrawing.
How can we believe that they want us to be great world traders? Of course they do not. They want to be basket cases. They want to find that big, warm bathtub south of us in which they can wallow because they are not prepared to take on the kinds of initiatives required to ensure that the country is competitive. That has been their history in the last three years.
In combination with forging a new kind of international outlook, we must have a new domestic outlook geared to refining our industry and investing in infrastructure and research in our universities. Let us invest in the people of this country so they will go out and take on a leading trade role for Canada around the world, rather than cut back, reduce, and subtract. That is the Liberal alternative for which we will fight in the next election. That is the alternative we will put forward for the consideration of Canadians.
We believe without question that there is a very clear requirement for this decision to be decided by Canadians. Let Canadians decide what is in the national interest. The Tories have a vision of a North American continental fortress and hiding in the shadows of their big brother. We require an international world trading opportunity which will serve the national interest without surrendering our fundamental institutions and without surrendering our right to make public decisions in the interest of Canadians. Canadians will decide what is in the national interest.
In keeping to that, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia):
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"
That is where the national interest will be determined.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Naturally I will look at the motion and reserve my decision.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Anglican Church of Canada says that a free trade agreement "must provide demonstrable benefits for the people of all regions and at all economic levels."
The Church is very concerned that certain principles will be violated by a free trade agreement with the United States. In particular, the possibility exists that the most vulnerable
December 15, 1987

members in Canadian society will be harmed by the agreement. The agreement should not be undertaken if it limits society's members from making future decisions for the common good. As well, this agreement must not be undertaken if it reduces our ability as a society to protect the environment and our heritage in the natural resource sector. Finally, ordinary citizens should be allowed "to understand what is at stake in the free trade deal" and participate effectively in the decisions of major importance.
Every Canadian must enjoy a quality of life that is personally fulfilling. The free market does not look after the disadvantaged in Canada. We must address the widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country, a gap which is being worsened by the misguided and unfair tax policies of the Mulroney Government and its embracing of free trade. You do not build a strong country by abandoning the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, and the disadvantaged.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, how would you feel if you went to the hospital for an operation only to discover that, although your doctor has been to medical school, he or she has never been given any courses in surgery, just some on-the-job training? The same way, no doubt, that Canadians feel when they go to court only to discover that, although the judge has been to law school, he or she has not been given any form of judicial education, just on-the-job training.
You know that your surgeon will have received a formal education in his or her profession, Mr. Speaker. Our judges have not. Perhaps that is one reason why, according to public opinion polls, Canadians have lost confidence in our criminal justice system. That is why the announcement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) of the creation of a Canadian Judicial Centre for judicial education is so important. Hopefully the Centre will soon provide courses on the principles of uniform criminal sentencing. That would go a long way to restoring public confidence in the system.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-VISIBLE MINORITIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal we began debating today
represents a terrible threat to thousands of visible minority Canadians.
It is clear that the deal will lead to the loss of jobs in the clothing industries of Canada. The Government has recognized that adjustment programs will be required for employees in these and other industries to assist them in finding new work. Unfortunately, however, the visible minority women working in these industries have had little preparation for better jobs. The Government has done nothing to prepare them for a meaningful role in the high-tech future they dream of for Canada.
This trade agreement with the U.S. will force thousands of visible minority Canadians on to unemployment insurance and social assistance rolls. The people at the bottom of Canada's vertical mosaic will end up ground into the dirt by the free trade ambitions of the Conservative Government.
It is cruel to speak of seeking strength for Canada when the weakest in our society will end up on the refuse heap of Canadian industries.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for forwarding to the constituents in my riding material which will increase interest in the trade agreement in the Niagara Falls riding. As a result, I have had a number of calls from people who want to obtain the truth on this important matter in an area that exports 30 per cent of everything it makes to the United States. But the Member for Oshawa has his facts wrong. The Auto Pact safeguards and the Canadian value added commitment remain in place. As well, the Free Trade Agreement encourages newcomers to the North American industry to use more Canadian or American parts and labour. Canadian workers and companies have shown that they can compete for this business. Canadians can be confident that auto and parts manufacturing are here to stay.
The Member for Oshawa would not understand this point, but that is why, in my riding of Niagara Falls, the auto parts industry is so supportive. B. F. Goodrich, Brunner Manufacturing, Hayes Dana, Thompson Products and Ford Motor Corporation are all in favour of this agreement. They know what the people of Oshawa know, that this agreement is good for the auto industry. It is good for Ontario, it is good for Canada because it is good for the Niagara Peninsula.
11B04

December 15, 1987


S'. O. 21   TAX REFORM CHANGES EFFECTED DUE TO PRESSURES FROM LIBERALS AND GENERAL PUBLIC
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will announce changes in the White Paper on Tax Reform. Tomorrow we will know whether the Government intends to remedy the injustice done to Canadian families as a result of the deindexation of family allowance and lowering the eligibility ceiling for child tax credit. Tomorrow, we will find out whether senior citizens have been heard and a tax credit has been reinstated. Mr. Speaker, there is one reason to rejoice, although that reason has hardly been mentioned recently because of various Government scandals. I am referring to the fact that the Government, as a result of pressure from the Liberals and Canadians in general, has decided to backtrack on its option to tax food.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should thank Canadians for the work they have done in this respect. It is the fourth time the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, has made the Conservative Government change its mind. First it was on the deindexation of old age security pensions, then the cuts in unemployment insurance benefits, the 10 per cent tax on drugs for cardio-vascular diseases and now the tax on food.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since 1984, the people of Abitibi have been aware of some very specific problems in connection with the economic development of their vast territory. The Government of Canada has taken the lead in working together with municipalities and private enterprise to rejuvenate the Abitibi economy.
With the advent of tax reform, we will have to further stimulate our economic growth by creating a fund for the economic diversification of Northern Quebec, which will reflect the importance of giving young people the option of staying in Abitibi, and by establishing a program that will stimulate the development and use of new technology in a region that is still too dependent on its resource industries.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the particular needs of the Abitibi area, and we will need a support fund of $100 million to achieve the objectives I just mentioned.


RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this week will be a week to remember as one of the saddest weeks in Canadian history. The railways have been given permission to get rid of the caboose, against the claims of public safety and the well-being of railroaders.
As we contemplate waving goodbye to the caboose, it is important to remember that this week we could also be waving goodbye, as a result of the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement, to a great many other things that Canadians value but which their Government is determined to take away from them in the name of being more competitive with the United States, which is the main argument the railways used for cabooseless trains.
The departure of the caboose is all about what is called harmonization through deregulation and free trade, the handmaidens of a new era in the exploitation of working people.
Perhaps if the Government is not prepared to respect the wishes of railroaders with respect to the caboose, or anything else for that matter, it will at least show some respect for retired railroaders and finally say what it intends to do about the CN pension plan and the demands that CN pensioners have been making for years.


FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians realize that the public must be alerted and kept informed of the problems found in certain shellfish products in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Yesterday opposition Members were naming other shellfish products not part of the general alert. By association these Members were suggesting that other shellfish may also have similar problems. These kinds of comments are not at all helpful. Members of the Opposition should know better and, if they do not, it is up to the Atlantic Coast opposition Members to explain to their colleagues the harm that is being done.
On behalf of Atlantic Canadians I am calling on these politicians to forget partisan politics. You have made your points. Don't kill the industry.
December 15, 1987


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the Public Works Canada document entitled Report on the Special Review of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. I would like to read page 4 of the report which is entitled Over-all Assessment. I invite the Tories to pay attention because we will be asking questions later. It says:
More precisely, our review of selected documentation supplied to us by the Corporation, and transactions indicated deficiencies in the following areas:
-Contract administration.
-Poor documentation supporting the existence, purpose and validity of some
expenses.
-Production of information required by Central Agencies.
-Composition of the Board of Directors.
It goes on to say:
We also recommend that the Director, Finance and Administration review the observations concerning administrative matters and ensure that acceptable documented controls are in place until the closing of the activities of the Corporation.
One of the highlights of the report was its mention of the fact that the local bar was hired to be in charge of the security of vacant lots at Mirabel. Yes, that is a sobering thought for the Government to contemplate.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NORTHERN ONTARIO-POSITION OF PREMIER
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in northern Ontario with its great resource based mining and forestry sectors and its attractive tourism industry, trade with the U.S. is extremely important. Seven out of 10 jobs depend directly on trade. It is for this significant reason that I am so frustrated with the Premier of Ontario's stand on our Government's trade pact with the U.S.
When he speaks, the Premier is not considering the needs of our region. He is not listening to what is being said by northern Ontarians and by Canadians. He is too busy with his red-tie rhetoric.
The trade agreement holds out great hope for the development of the northern Ontario region. Through securing access to the U.S. market, the Government in the trade pact ensures future growth, opportunities, and prosperity throughout the country.
A recent poll of businesses done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that 16 per cent in Ontario, and only 13 per cent across the country, oppose this trade deal.
In fact, in Ontario, over two-thirds of small businessmen feel that this pact will be positive or will have no impact on Canadian business. In northern Ontario only 13 per cent are against the deal while 67 per cent see it as being the vehicle into the future.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is for this deal. So is the Canadian Mining Association, the Ontario Mining Association, Noranda Mines, the Canadian Export Association, and the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters' Association. I say to the Premier, wake up, start listening to Canadians and stop playing your red-tie brand of politics.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), in announcing the Special Grains Program, documented the real disaster that is developing in agriculture in Canada. The Special Grains Program got SI billion last year as an absolute minimum to cover the losses of grain producers. This was after an 18 per cent decrease in grain prices.
This year, after a further 20 per cent drop in grain prices and after farm organizations have asked for $2.6 billion, the Prime Minister and his Government are offering an increase of only $100 million. This is a great disappointment to the grain producers who had hoped to stay even with the cost of production this year. Instead, the steady stream of farmers off the farm is likely to grow. The disaster that is documented shows that the Government knows what is happening but chooses not to act.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a letter I got yesterday from a Beauce agricultural producer who belongs to the Union des producteurs agricoles. Here it is:
It is difficult today to predict with any accuracy the impact of the free trade agreement on our operations. Common sense indicates that the agreement would widen our horizons and act as an incentive to improve ourselves and lower our production costs by using the latest technological facilities without always falling back upon such social services as grants and stabilization insurance coverage. And yet, so many people have been telling me that we cannot tackle a giant! My response to that is that it is not the Americans who

December 15, 1987
Oral Questions
are strong and powerful, it is just we who think we are weak and unable to face a stronger opponent. Remember the story of giant Goliath and small David. The smaller came out the winner. I have been a pork producer for fifteen years and 1 look forward to facing that challenge with the tools 1 have been using all along. 1 would urge you to conctinue to enlighten people about this very topical issue.
It is signed by Lance et Compte, Gervais Vachon Farm, Saint-Severin, Beauce. That, Mr. Speaker is the kind of spirit which prevails among Beauce residents. They go for calculated risks, they have an acute sense of entrepreneurship, and they have confidence in the future of this country. Mr. Speaker, I could go on quoting from a great many such letters.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Felix Hoitmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, for months and months we have heard gloom and doom from opposition Parties which have thought that this Party does not look after farmers. Today the Government announced hundreds of millions of additional dollars to help farmers in western Canada and clear across Canada.
There will be another $1.1 billion for the Canada Grains Program. That money was never there before.
There will be an additional $400 million in fuel tax rebates for farmers, the farmers the Government will continue to defend. There has been an additional $40 million to help the Farm Debt Review Board, an area in which we know there is concern.
There is an additional $100 million for the Farm Credit Corporation.
Canada's rural transition program is there for those who need it and will provide hundreds of millions of dollars.
Do not listen to the Opposition. We have hundreds of millions of dollars for the farmers under Western Grain Stabilization. For the first time there will be a potato stabilization payment. I point out to my friends from northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta that even honey producers will be helped.
I do not have time to read it all. It is amazing. Never listen to the Opposition any longer. There are funds for farm management-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the most brutal mass murder ever in Canadian history, the Air-India disaster of June, 1985. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Government received advance warnings of a potential threat to Air-India. He knows that the criminal investigation was bungled from the start. He knows that his Government did not provide the necessary security in order to ensure the safety of the passengers on board Air-India Flight 182. He knows that a false affidavit was sworn by the Security Intelligence Service. He knows that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Federal Court.
We now know that important wiretap tapes have been erased, either by gross and inexcusable negligence or as part of an illegal, deliberate attempt to cover up evidence.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has called on at least 10 separate occasions for a Royal Commission Inquiry into all the facts surrounding the Air-India disaster, including the conduct of the Government of Canada. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain why the Government has consistently refused a complete investigation? Can he explain to the people of Canada what the Government is trying to cover up?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very, very clear and very, very plain that there is no coverup and that the Government has nothing to cover up. I have explained to the House on many, many occasions, and the Hon. Member well knows, that there is an ongoing, extremely active criminal investigation. I will not say anything that would jeopardize the successful outcome of that investigation. I know that the Hon. Member, being a lawyer himself, would not want me to say anything that might jeopardize the success of this investigation.


ERASING OF WIRETAP TAPES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister and the Government know that that is complete and utter nonsense. We are talking about the murder of 329 people, most of whom were Canadians, two and a half years ago. The Minister knows that that investigation has been bungled. He knows that the Government must assume some responsibility for what happened on June 23, 1985.
I would like to ask the Solicitor General specifically about these tapes that were erased. When did the Solicitor General first become aware that these tapes had been erased? Who ordered the destruction of these tapes? Can he explain when they were erased and why they were erased?
December 15, 1987


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in no way has the investigation been bungled. I want to make that extremely clear. I suggest that perhaps the Hon. Member is being somewhat irresponsible by trying to get me to say something that might jeopardize the successful investigation and conclusion to this most heinous crime in Canadian history.
I can tell the Hon. Member and the House that this is the most extensive investigation the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have undertaken. Shortly after the incident, there were more than 200 officers working full-time on the case. At all times since then there have never been less than 50 officers working on the case. That is the situation today.


John V. Nunziata: I suggest to the Solicitor General of Canada that if it was a British Airways flight or an American airlines flight, the Government would be a little more sensitive to what happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What a racist.


Some Hon. Members:: Racist.


Mr. Speaker:: First, let me advise Hon. Members who may be reacting to what was said that their comments are no better than what they complain about.
I would ask that the Hon. Member be very careful not to imply, even by innuendo, or leave open the interpretation that there is some sort of racist connotation in the entire issue. I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


ALLEGED DESTRUCTION OF TAPES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he explain whether a criminal investigation has been launched into the destruction of those tapes?
Will he also explain to the people of Canada why the Government has not offered a reward for anyone to provide evidence leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for the Air-India disaster? Will his Government consider offering a substantial reward for that type of evidence in order to bring to justice those responsible, in view of the fact that the criminal investigation has been bungled?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I again deny that the investigation has been bungled. There is an intensive, ongoing investigation at this time.
I would also like the Hon. Member to be aware that we have looked into the matter of posting rewards. We have discussed
Oral Questions
this with other countries. It has been found not to be productive.
If the Hon. Member has some suggestions and new proposals for me in that regard, I would be more than prepared to listen.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, with whom lies the ultimate responsibility for the wrongdoings of the Tory Government.
Every day new elements are added to the already scandalous situation which exists with the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel.
In a report prepared by Louise St-Laurent, Director General, Audit and Evaluation Branch, on the Mirabel situation, she talks about deficiencies in contract administration, poor documentation, lack of information required by central agencies, composition of the Board of Directors, and need I mention two RCMP investigations going on right now.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give the Canadian people one good reason why he keeps refusing Canadians a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the disposition, management, and the over-all operations of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel? Why does he refuse?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to offer a reason. The special audit of the audit division, which I have given to my learned friend, indicates that there has been no misappropriation of funds or wrongdoing.
Let me put this whole operation into particular perspective and quote from the report.
Within about three years from the political commitment the new administration has nearly accomplished its mandate, i.e. social peace and respect of the federal government has returned to the region of Mirabel, a great majority of the claims against the federal government (estimated at $100 million-
-and 95 per cent of these have now been settled-
-have been dropped, the lands declared as surplus to needs for the airport have been sold, the social agricultural environment in the region have been preserved and/or improved and the Corporation is expected to terminate operations related to its present mandate and need for funding by September 1988 at the latest.


QUERY WHY GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ESTABLISH PUBLIC INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of

December 15, 1987
Oral Questions
Public Works. The report signed by Louise Saint-Laurent, Director of Audit and Evaluation, mentions a number of items. The Minister maintains everything is perfectly normal, but is it normal for a friend of a former Minister to do a feasibility study and then get the contract? Is it normal to divide contracts three ways to get around Treasury Board regulations? Is it normal to hire a brewery at a cost of $42,000 to guard vacant lots? Is that what a consultant was hired to do? Take care of security? If that isn't normal, and I don't see how it could be, I would ask the Minister of Public Works why the Government is still refusing to order a public inquiry into a scandal that is probably the worst the Government has faced so far.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may quote another comment published Saturday in La Presse; under the heading: "A Public Works report says the Canada Lands Corporation (Mirabel) is clean".

That indeed is a correct reflection of the findings of the special audit team, commissioned by myself to investigate. Their report is that this Government and that corporation got value for money.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It also concerns the ongoing history of incompetence and negligence by CSIS in the Air-India investigation.
Will the Minister confirm that within days after the bombing of the Air-India flight, at a meeting between senior officials of the RCMP and CSIS, CSIS made a commitment that absolutely no evidence whatsoever would be destroyed during this investigation into the murder of 329 people?
Why was this commitment that was made by CSIS broken, and why was there absolutely no consultation with either the prosecutor in this case or the RCMP before these tapes that were so incredibly important were destroyed by CSIS?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already addressed that particular question from another Hon. Member. However, I will again address it and give the same answer. As the Hon. Member well knows-I said this to the Hon. Member on a number of occasions-there is a very active, ongoing criminal investigation. I am not in a position to say anything for fear of jeopardizing the successful outcome of the investigation.
This was a truly tragic accident. We are trying to do everything we can to catch those responsible. I know that the Hon. Member shares that concern with me.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister talks about jeopardizing the successful investigation. The biggest jeopardy to the successful investigation of this murder is the incompetence of CSIS itself.


REPORTED INVESTIGATION BY RCMP INTO DESTRUCTION OF WIRETAP TAPES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that at this point the RCMP have launched a police investigation into the destruction of these tapes? Will he indicate what is exactly the scope of that investigation and when we can expect to receive a report on the outcome of that investigation? The families of 329 victims of murder are waiting for the Government finally to take its responsibility seriously.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member, and, indeed, every Member of the House, that the Government is taking its responsibilities very seriously. We have an active, ongoing criminal investigation. I have told the Hon. Member that it is the most extensive investigation in the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It involved up to and more than 200 officers at one time, and on a continuing daily basis not less than 50.


FISHERIES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Throughout the toxic mussels affair, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated he did not learn of toxic mussels until Monday, November 30. In a radio interview on December 7 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said he was informed at the same time as the Minister of National Health and Welfare. However, today in a television interview, an assistant to the Minister, a Mr. David Janes, said he learned of the toxic mussels while at the First Ministers' Conference in Toronto on Friday, November 27, a conference he attended with his Minister, with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and also with the Prime Minister. Who is telling the truth about when the Government first learned of this affair, the Minister or his assistant?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member and Members of this House that I first learned of the serious toxic mussels situation on the afternoon of December 1 at the hour of 1.30 p.m.
December 15, 1987


ASSISTANT'S REPORTED KNOWLEDGE OF ISSUE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess what the Minister is saying then is that he did not tell the truth when he gave an interview-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East means that perhaps the Minister was mixed up.


An Hon. Member:: No, she doesn't.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be confused because on December 7 he said in a radio interview: "I and the Minister of Health were made aware of the symptoms when some people became ill about a week ago". The Minister of National Health and Welfare has already told this House that he personally became aware when he was briefed at eleven o'clock on November 30.
I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans again whether he is denouncing the statement made by his own assistant that he first learned of the case of the toxic mussels on November 27 when he was in Toronto attending the First Ministers' meeting with the Minister, where he was in full consultation with the Minister? And does he really expect the public to believe that he only learned of it on the afternoon of December 1?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot comment on a particular interview which I think the Hon. Member has taken out of context, but I certainly know something about the truth. I said this afternoon in this House that I first learned and was advised of the serious shellfish, mussel toxin problem at 1.30 p.m. on the afternoon of December 1. Whatever a member of my staff or officials of the Department might have known at a prior time is completely appropriate in accordance with standard procedures. I learned of this issue at 1.30 in the afternoon on December 1.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-DEADLINE FOR SIGNATURE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister will know that the Prime Minister has said that there is nothing special about the January 2 date for submitting the trade proposals for agreement between Canada and the United States. I assume the Minister also knows that there are literally thousands of Canadians who want an adequate opportunity to study the implications of this deal.
Oral Questions
Is the Minister aware that there is precedent in the United States for extending the date in the fast-track process? In conjunction with that, is she aware of, and could she confirm to the House of Commons, that the Canadian Government made no request to extend the January 2 deadline?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, these dates were explored by our officials on both sides of the border. I have been advised by my officials that the January 2 date at midnight is the operative date for the operation of the fast track. I have no information to the contrary.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON DATE FOR SIGNATURE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question. We all know that January 2 is the date. The Canadian Government has tried to leave the impression with the people of Canada that this was an American imposed date. The reality is that it is this Government which is fast tracking this project because it does not want the Canadian people to have time to understand all the details.
Will the Minister now deal with the question? Considering there is precedent in U.S. experience for extending the deadline, considering that the Prime Minister himself said there is nothing special about it, and that thousands of Canadians would like to have time to understand it, why in Heaven's name has the Government of Canada not requested the U.S. Congress to extend that deadline?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion by the Hon. Member that the January 2 date is a Canadian imposed date, designed to withhold information from the Canadian people, is just the kind of misinformation that that Party is spreading to obscure the very real benefits to the country of the free trade agreement.
Again I am telling the House that my advisers, and our negotiators, including our embassy, tell us that under the 1974 trade legislation in the United States, and other relative legislative bodies, the U.S. fast track authority, under the U.S. trade legislation, runs out at midnight on January 2.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unless you ask for an extension.


Pat Carney: If the Hon. Member has other pertinent information, I will be glad to receive it from him.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I naively assumed that the Minister herself knew the responsibilities she was given to act upon in the interests of the people of Canada. The reality is that we could have requested an extension of the deadline but this Government was not interested in extending the deadline and it is trying to blame the Americans for it. That is the reality and the people of Canada will understand that.

December 15, 1987
Oral Questions


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE'S REPORT-UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: My final supplementary question is in reference to the committee's report that came out today. The committee in its report expresses its concern that the U.S. omnibus trade legislation will be passed and will be applicable to Canada. It suggests that, unless this legislation does not apply to Canada, we should not agree to the trade agreement. Does the Minister agree with that recommendation coming from the committee? If she agrees with it, why was it not written into the proposal in the first place?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should congratulate the Winegard committee and all Members for the work they have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: I have just received the report. I look forward to reading both the majority report and the minority reports submitted by members of the opposition Parties.
To answer the Hon. Member's question, the U.S. Trade Bill is still being formalized. We do not yet know what is in it. The administration has pointed out to us-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: They laugh.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, we laugh. You are laughable.


Pat Carney: That shows how little they know.


John Edward Broadbent: We are laughing at you.


Pat Carney: The fact is that we do not know what will be in the U.S. Trade Bill. It is in the process of going through the U.S. system. Those Members know nothing about the process. They know nothing about the process and they do not want to hear any answers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Stephen Rogers, Minister of Transportation and Highways, of the Province of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A large number of Canadians are concerned about the continuing violence which has engulfed the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip. The indiscriminate use of live ammunition by Israeli military authorities to quell civilian demonstrations has resulted in numerous deaths and left countless wounded. The deaths of children as young as 11 and 14 years leave one perplexed about the intensity of repression.
In view of the fact that Canada has played an admirable peace-keeping role in the Middle East, and in view of our continued interest in bringing lasting peace to the region, what measures is the Government contemplating taking? And are we going to protest these latest and most grave and serious violations of human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question which expresses a concern shared by many Members of the House about developments in the West Bank.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Unacceptable.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have expressed our concern to the Government of Israel and will continue to do that. These events, as all events in that region, are of course complex.


George Albert Proud: They are not complex.


Charles Joseph Clark: They point to the urgent need for progress to be made.
I hear interventions being made on behalf of the Liberal Party. I am not sure whether they represent the policy of that Party or not.


George Albert Proud: Don't be cheap on this question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am trying to indicate the position which the Government of Canada is taking-


George Albert Proud: Don't mix the Liberal Party with my view, will you? Don't play politics with this?


Charles Joseph Clark: -with regard to a very serious situation in the Middle East which points to the urgency of both sides coming to some understanding on the possibility of a resolution by way of a peace conference which would allow direct negotiations.


George Albert Proud: Cheap, cheap.
December 15, 1987


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to get back to the case of the Air India disaster, where an explosion on board claimed 329 victims.
The Minister keeps repeating the same answer over and over again, like a broken record: The RCMP is investigating. We know the RCMP is investigating. The investigation has been going on for two and a half years now, and there have been some very strange developments during that time.
First of all, information available prior to the disaster was ignored instead of being used to prevent what happened. Today, tapes containing information that might have helped the RCMP in its investigation have been erased.
I would ask the Minister to be more specific, and instead of repeating that an investigation is going on, could he inform the House how many tapes were erased in this way? Could he tell us when the data were erased from these audio tapes? And could the Minister, and this is particular important, inform the House why a Government agency decided to erase information that might have been useful to the RCMP in its investigation? That is what Canadians want to know. Put your cards on the table!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question several times today. For the benefit of the Hon. Member I will answer it again and I will give the same answer.
As the Hon. Member and all other Members of this House well know, there is an active criminal investigation ongoing, the greatest in the history of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The hon. gentleman would be the first to criticize the Government and the Solicitor General if I said something which would jeopardize the successful completion of that investigation.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, by remaining silent, the Minister is making it very difficult for Canadians to understand why the RCMP has been hindered in its investigation since the very beginning.
It is unlikely that taped information that was important to the investigation could have been erased.
Since the RCMP's investigation has produced no results after two and a half years, why is the Government refusing to take the obvious next step and appoint a royal commission of inquiry to clear up this case so that we will finally know the
Oral Questions
role the Government played, either in trying to prevent the explosion or in solving this crime?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I suggest that the Hon. Member is being irresponsible in suggesting that the Government is doing nothing and that the investigation is going nowhere. That is not correct. If that were the case we would have terminated the investigation.
I have advised the Hon. Member that that is not so. The investigation is very active. It is ongoing. It is the most extensive in the history of the force. I hope that we will be able to announce some results in the very near future.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Representatives of the B.C. fishing industry from UFAWU, PRASCU, the Fisheries Council, and the PTA, appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for four hours this morning. The Government failed to produce even two members to allow the committee to conduct its business in relation to this $750 million industry.
My question flows from the Minister's statement as reported at page 10922 of Hansard of November 18 of this year when he said:
-we will be opposing that recommendation when it reaches the GATT
council.
Is that the position of the Government of Canada? When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said "we" did he mean the Government of Canada?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the context in which that statement was made but I do clearly recall stating that the Government of Canada will meet its obligations to fishermen in this matter and its obligations under the GATT.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. According to evidence given today to the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, if the panel ruling is not opposed by the Government of Canada one-half of the B.C. fishing industry will be wiped out. I now have the confidential panel ruling from Geneva and have some understanding of why the Government did not want it released to the fishing industry or to the public.

December 15, 1987
Oral Questions
When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said "we will be opposing that recommendation when it reaches the GATT council", was he speaking for the Government of Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think I should correct the Hon. Member. The reason we did not want it released to the public was to enable us, in the normal course of our work before GATT rulings, to work out a situation which would protect the rights of all in the fishing industry. That is why we did not want it public. If the Hon. Member wants to wave it around in public and jeopardize the fishing industry, that is his concern, not ours.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND MINISTER OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members, and I apologize for not knowing of this sooner, the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Leonce Bernard, Minister of Regional Development for the Province of Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to the Prime Minister's over-all responsibility for the conduct of Ministers. We have been raising questions relating to the scandalous events involving the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel and they are not contradicted.
Earlier in Question Period my colleague, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, raised a list of concerns. The Minister for Public Works indicated that he had a report of the Auditor General which, in his opinion, indicated approval of the way in which that corporation has been operating.
The Deputy Prime Minister heard all that. Does he approve of the way in which the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel has been operated as revealed in recent stories and by the audit of the Auditor General?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Auditor General makes only one adverse comment about the operation of the corporation, that
is concerning the composition of the board of directors. We have taken steps to fix that.
Indeed, I thought that management practices were inadequate and that appropriate controls were not in place. For that reason we commissioned an audit by the audit team of Public Works. The response has been that there is indeed a need to tighten up management practices. However, with regard to wrongdoing, the audit division found that there was absolutely none.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that the Minister of Public Works is defending and approving in general the way in which this corporation is operated. However, does the Deputy Prime Minister approve of this method of doing business?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, who has had the opportunity to review the books, makes no adverse comment except with respect to the composition of the board of directors, and surely that gives us an insight as to whether or not the practices are appropriate.


TAX REFORM
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance.
In the discussion paper on tax reform brought in by the Minister of Finance earlier this year, municipalities and school boards had a great deal of concern about the business transfer tax that could increase their costs up to 10 per cent.
Will the Minister tell the House and the municipalities and school boards across the country whether or not this tax is going forward?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we know that considerable progress is being made to bring about a national federal-provincial sales tax. Good progress is being accomplished.
I am very pleased to tell the Hon. Member that last week the Minister of Finance made it very clear that municipalities, universities, school boards, and hospitals will pay no more federal sales tax after the reform than they do now.

December 15, 1987


PUBLIC WORKS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Public Works. Considering there are indications of patronage and questionable practices involving the Canada Lands Corporation at Mirabel, why is the Minister refusing to order a public inquiry into the Corporation's dealings? Does the Minister really believe there is no reason to order such an inquiry or have the Goverment's influential friends persuaded him not to order a public inquiry?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, after reviewing the reports of the Auditor General, and the special audit of our own Department, they indicate that there has been no misappropriation of funds, and that there has been nothing done that is untoward or impeaches the integrity of any of the officials. 1 think that we have responded well in ensuring that, from now on, new management practices will be imposed and accepted, and that indeed is the case. That is an appropriate discipline to follow in these circumstances.
[ Translation]


REASON FOR MINISTER'S REFUSAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the answer does not reflect favourably on the Minister of Public Works. Contracts were awarded without tender. There was a management committee that acted unlawfully. They made all kinds of expenditures without having the authority to do so. Why is the Minister refusing to conduct a public inquiry into the affairs of the Canada Lands Corporation?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the suggestion that things have been done without approval. It is true that because of a misunderstanding of the authority of the corporation they did let contracts. But subsequently they applied to Treasury Board and did receive approval. That is why I am suggesting that nothing has been done wrong.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it has to do with human rights concerns in India.
Oral Questions
In Canada there is continuing concern that the Government of India tends to be quite cavalier with respect to human rights violations and civil rights violations.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure this House that Canadians who are travelling in the Punjab will have the full protection of our High Commission in New Delhi, and that officers from New Delhi will be visiting the Punjab to ensure that Canadians there are being afforded full protection under the law?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can offer the House and Canadians who might be travelling to India the assurance that the consular and other facilities of our High Commission in Delhi will be available to them in the Punjab and elsewhere.
There have been particular cases that have been previously discussed in the House, which I have also discussed or had discussed with the Indian High Commissioner to Canada. There are areas of continuing concern, and we intend to continue to follow them vigilantly.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and it concerns the broadcast on CBC Radio Noon of an interview given on December 7.
The Minister is reported to have stated, "I and the Minister of Health, Mr. Epp, were made aware of the symptoms where some people became ill about a week ago and we took immediate action to send a notice to the producers of Prince Edward Island-"
We know that "immediate action" that the Minister is talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a "stop order" that was issued on November 29 to the shippers in Prince Edward Island.
That is backed up by the Minister of Health and Welfare's own chronology for November 29 when he stated that, as a routine precautionary measure the shippers of mussels from P.E.I. were requested to hold further shipments pending further investigation.
That is clearly on November 29, Mr. Speaker, and this statement clearly refers to November 29. Will the Minister come clean and tell us exactly the date that he knew when the mussels were toxic?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, first the reference to "about a week ago" is not very precise.

December 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Jacques Guilbault: That's the reason for the question.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The facts on this issue as have been stated here, that I learned on the afternoon of Tuesday, December 1, are indeed the facts as stated.
The reference to "immediate action" refers to the Departments of Fisheries and Health in initiating certain actions on the Sunday which had not been brought to my attention, nor which were proved.
In fact, established procedures were followed at all times, as has been carefully underlined in the House by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare. Those procedures have been outlined in a chronology that was released last Thursday, and those are the facts. Standard procedures were followed.


STOP SHIPMENT ORDER-TIME MINISTER WAS INFORMED
George Roland Henderson: There is something wrong with this story, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister is clearly saying, "I and the Minister of Health, Mr. Epp", not his officials-put the stop order on the shipment of mussels on Sunday.


An Hon. Member:: No, he did not say that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, he did. Read the interview.


George Roland Henderson: He sent a notice to the producers of Prince Edward Island that all shipments should stop of mussels produced in Prince Edward Island. That is a "stop shipment".
I ask the Minister once again not to blame it on the officials. If he is going to make statements about himself and the Minister of Health, then he must accept the responsibility for making those statements, and he must accept that he is the one who is in charge. If he didn't know with all this evidence, I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, he should have known.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is dwelling on an unfortunate confluence of two thoughts expressed in two sentences, and confusing them.
At lunch-time on Tuesday, December 1, scientific information had been analysed by officials in the Departments of Fisheries and Oceans and Health and Welfare.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Your assistant knew on the November 27.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That led to information being conveyed by my Deputy Minister to my Chief of Staff, as a result of which I was informed of this situation on the afternoon of December 1. As a result, an alert was issued later that day. That indeed summarizes the facts of the situation.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO COMPENSATE PRODUCERS FOR LOSSES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has taken action for health reasons against the consumption and distribution of mussels, oysters, clams, and Gulf of St. Lawrence scallops.
All producers, even those whose product has not been shown to be affected by toxins, are suffering severe economic hardship, and some are facing financial ruin because of this situation.
Will the Minister assure those producers in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and New Brunswick that he will act quickly to put a compensation program in place to prevent the disastrous financial consequence to these producers?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member I just want to make sure the record is very clear. Did the Hon. Member mention scallops? They are not included.


Jack Harris: Gulf of St. Lawrence scallops.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They are not included, Mr. Speaker I want to make sure the record is very clear on that.
I wish to say to all Members that advertisements have been placed in major newspapers today, French and English, regarding the plan of action, the manner in which Atlantic clams, mussels, oysters, and quahogs have been removed from the Canadian regional market. A new supply of products will re-enter the marketplace as inspection services are able to ensure that they fully meet health and safety requirements.
I want to say to the Hon. Member, as I said to the House yesterday, it is the health considerations that are of primary concern, and we will handle those first and look at other details later.


EFFECT ON SHELLFISH INDUSTRY
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the story in The Globe and Mail quotes the Minister and indicates that Gulf scallops do not include shrimp, crab, or Atlantic scallops. If he is correcting that, I thank him for it.
However, my question was for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am referring to comments made by officials in Nova Scotia, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries in Nova Scotia, regarding a very serious financial problem in Nova Scotia. The provincial director of aquaculture in Nova Scotia talked about a major impact and there are the financial effects on the shellfish industry in Prince Edward Island where producers are about to go bankrupt. These are very serious considerations
December 15, 1987

aside from the health considerations that the Minister's Department of Health is responsible for looking after.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell the House that he will look after the people in the industry who are affected by this?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member says that it is a serious issue he is right, and I have accepted that. I think it is important to restore the confidence of Canadians in health issues, consumer issues, and the industry. I think in all three areas the consideration is the same, that is, to assure that health considerations are absolutely of primary concern. The restoration of the industry and sales for the industry can best be reassured by taking the plan of action just as I have described it. We intend to continue just that way.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Haitian military regime has been guilty of flagrant human rights violations. Not long ago, dozens of citizens who were quietly waiting their turn to vote were savagely beaten. The government cancelled this democratic election and is now planning to hold an illegal election on January 17.
In view of these events, what concrete action does her Government intend to take to support the Haitian people's quest for justice and democracy?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question which comes at a very appropriate time. Since the tragic events on November 29, our Government has reacted in no incertain terms to the acts of violence that ended in the election being cancelled. Since that time, we have also taken some concrete measures. We recalled our ambassador, and last week after meeting with the Prime Minister and Cabinet, our ambassador returned to Haiti with a special message which, and I cannot of course reveal the exact contents of the letter, reflects our indignation in very clear terms.
Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians our Government was appalled at what happened, and we hope the Haitian people will be able to achieve democracy safely and without constraints?


Roland de Corneille: The Canadian Government has hesitated too long.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT CANADA OFFER PROTECTION TO OPPOSITION LEADERS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, in view of the horrors which transpired during the attempted elections in Haiti, will the Government at least offer some form of Canadian protection to opposition leaders and to officials of the election committee? These individuals are in grave danger, as Hon. Members of Parliament know, and their lives are at stake.
Perhaps the Minister would be willing to have our Embassy in Haiti register these individuals and let it be known to Colonel Namphy's Government, so that it understands Canada's strict concern about the survival and well-being of those opposition leaders and those members of the election committee.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, we have expressed our concern to the authorities that an election should be held in a climate of democracy and freedom, and we will continue to do so between now and the next election. The Haitian people must be allowed to achieve democracy, and the responsibility is theirs and theirs alone.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two more questions. The Hon. Member for Willowdale, followed by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Earlier this year Statistics Canada decided once again to publish abortion statistics. The figures will include abortions performed outside Canadian hospitals, as well as those performed in the clinics of Ontario and Quebec which operate in contravention of Canadian law.
Can the Minister tell the House if the published abortion statistics will contain a clear distinction between illegal abortions and legal abortions under Section 251 of the Criminal Code?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that Statistics Canada will indeed publish separate data pertaining to abortions performed in hospitals and in clinics as they will be recorded by the provinces.

December 15, 1987
Points of Order


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Will he confirm The Journal report last night which indicated that one of the tapes that was erased contained wiretap evidence indicating that there was in fact a threat against Air-India made a number of weeks, if not months, prior to the actual bombing? Will he confirm that that was on one of the tapes which was erased?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I stated on a number of occasions today in the House, there is an active, ongoing criminal investigation and I am not going to say anything that would jeopardize the successful completion of that investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: On one question, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.

[ Translation]


SHIPBUILDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. In today's Le Devoir one can read: "In a letter from Michel Cote to Daniel Johnson, Ottawa had promised huge contracts for Quebec shipyards". My question is very simple: The three Quebec shipyards are now facing bankruptcy. Is the Minister of Supply and Services prepared to honour his commitment to award huge contracts to Quebec shipyards? If so, what contracts will Quebec be awarded?


Michel Côté: Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, this question originates from a Party which was in office when three Quebec refineries shut down, which never did support the petrochemical industry, which took its own sweet time to endorse the drugs bill, but which today seeks to tell us that we ought to defend the interests of Quebecers. Mr. Speaker, the shipyards issue was one of our first priorities in 1984. We awarded contracts, we made sure the shipyardss would survive, and we will continue to look after the interests of Quebecers. We will award contracts and make sure that due consideration has been given to fair competition, quality, and regional disparities.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, earlier the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs made some comments which were certainly directed to me. However, in all fairness to him and to you, Sir, I should like to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege at the first opportunity after I have read the exact text of what he meant when he tried to imply something. That really should not have been done in the House, especially coming from an ex-Prime Minister of Canada who is now the Minister responsible for foreign affairs.
I should like to reserve my right to do that tomorrow after 1 have seen the exact text in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I took notice of his question of privilege.


POINTS OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans sat from nine o'clock until one o'clock and heard four sets of witnesses from British Columbia.
I would like some direction from you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I would like to raise. The Government side never turned up enough Members at any time for the committee to conduct its business or to order an extended run of the minutes because of the importance of the issue to British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
My second point is that we were not able to move or pass any motions in relation to the tabling of documents or evidence. I am just wondering, under a point of order, whether or not Your Honour could advise Members of the House how it is possible to conduct business when the Government will not turn out its own Members.


Mr. Speaker:: the Hon. Member for Skeena has raised on a point of order certain concerns that he has relating to activities in a committee this morning. First, I should commend the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for not having raised it under a question of privilege.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: However, I think the point has been made. It is not a matter with which the Chair can interfere and I suggest that now that the point is within the knowledge of both
December 15, 1987

the Government and the Opposition perhaps some discussions might correct the matter.


INTERJECTION BY MEMBER
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Hansard at page 11760 contains factual errors on the part of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) as to my interjection. The statement by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on that same page sets out exactly what I said, and I stand behind that comment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (for Minister of State for Finance) moved: that a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Monday, December 14, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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:: I wish to draw to the attention of the House that I have received an amendment to the main motion on the free trade motion moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) seconded by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
I think it has been indicated to the appropriate Members in the New Democratic Party and in the Official Opposition that I have some difficulty procedurally with the proposed amendment. I will read it to the House:
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".
Free Trade
I think it has also been indicated that I would want to hear some argument on this matter before making my decision. I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention and asking for guidance.
I think the amendment was drafted certainly in recognition of the various precedents that have been established in the House in which we are not to set out any conditions of approval for the endorsation called for in the amendment but rather to clearly define the concept of "national interest". I think Your Honour would recognize that that is a definition that probably has as many interpretations as there are citizens in the country. The Government used the phrase, not us. The Government said, "in the national interest".
Over the years we have defined that there is only one way of ultimately deciding the national interest and that is through the democratic process, by way of an election. Other than that it becomes an academic debate, a matter of bias or interpretation as to what is in the national interest.
As you will read the Government's motion, it says endorsing the trade agreement because it is in Canada's national interest. We are saying by way of our amendment that the most appropriate way of defining that is through an election itself. It is not a matter of the condition of endorsement, it is a way of demonstrating how this House would have to provide a further clarification or interpretation of the words "national interest" and we would not presume that the Liberal Party's interpretation would necessarily be omniscient or all prevailing. We would want to have recourse to the election to decide that.
You will find during the course of the debate on this motion various interpretations of the national interest being put forward. Even in the sovereign rights of this Parliament to decide that, the Government does not make any effort to decide it, so we are simply saying that the amendment is a way of taking the Government's prescription, namely, that the trade agreement must be in the national interest, and providing a way in which that interest in honourable traditions of the parliamentary system can most effectively and adequately be described and defined.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, having studied the amendment put forward by the Official Opposition to the motion before us, it seems to me that upon examination of the general conditions which apply to amendments to make them admissible, three different criteria are involved. First, obviously an amendment must be relevant to the question in the motion. In this case that certainly is the case, particularly recognizing the words of my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Second, that if not proposing an alternative, an amendment must modify a question in order to increase its acceptability. I

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
refer here to Citation 425 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the questions.
Third, the amendment must stay within the scope of the motion and not raise a matter which is foreign to the proposition raised in the main motion. I refer here to Citation 437 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is far unto the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
In my judgment, the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry meets all of these requirements for the following reasons. The motion specifically states that the House "endorse, as being in the national interest". The amendment does not seek to introduce a new concept, Mr. Speaker, but simply seeks to define the term. Seeking greater definition and clarity is an acceptable objective of any amendment and the motion makes no reference about how the national interest is defined. The amendment clarifies this question by stating that the people of Canada will define whether or not the trade agreement is in the national interest. That seems to me to be perfectly in line with the traditions of Parliament in terms of the amendment and the practices of a democratic society. Furthermore, the amendment does not impose in a strict sense a condition to be met before the motion can be accepted but rather simply offers a means of defining national interest.
Who determines what is in the national interest, Mr. Speaker? Surely the people of Canada are the ultimate arbitrators when it comes to this critical question. How can they express their decision on this question? A general election is the normal way of meeting this objective. There are others, I suppose; the theory of a national referendum et cetera, but we reject those and recognize that a general election is the normal way.
The amendment simply states the obvious. It was the Government which introduced the concept of national interest into this motion in the first place and the amendment simply seeks a definition of how to determine what is in the national interest.
I want to add as a general suggestion for you to consider, namely, that on this very critical matter, you be generous in your interpretation. I ask you to be generous because I note in previous comments you have indicated a concern when a similar motion keeps reappearing in this House.
Regarding the whole matter of motions, Erskine May says that a motion or an amendment which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current Session may not be brought forward again during that Session.
We all recognize that we in this House have actually discussed, debated and voted on issues very similar to the one before us today which has been introduced by the Government. If we were to follow the letter of the law according to Erskine May, we might suggest that the motion itself is not in order. However, I do not want to argue that because I think we all agree that this is an important issue. I think all Canadians recognize that it is an important issue and I believe we want to be generous in our interpretation of the motion under past practices of the House, recognizing the importance of it and, equally so, recognizing the importance of the amendment put forward by my friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make in support of the motion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The intent of the amendment which I have here before me is to qualify the word "interest" as being determined by the exercise of our democratic rights, and to amend the motion after the word "interest" to read as follows: "That this House endorse, as being in the national interest, as determined by the people of Canada in a general election, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement". Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do with this motion is to ensure that the words "national interest" are clearly understood as being an expression of the democratic will of the Canadian people, as expressed in a general election. To say that the amendment imposes a condition on the main motion is nonsense. We say it does not impose a condition, it clarifies, and I think the motion meets the requirements of the Standing Orders, or at least of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 203, which says, in referring to amendments, and I quote:
(1) It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The term "national interest" is the subject of an amendment, and to continue Citation 203;
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed
amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the House the question or
amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I think it is "intelligible and consistent" to say that the Canadian people must decide whether the national interest is at stake. According to the Government's proposal-the motion before the House today-it is in the national interest to agree to endorse this Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is to specify clearly and intelligibly that the national interest must be determined in a general election, which will deal with this question in a democratic manner.
Mr. Speaker, I will not lay claim much longer to the time of the House, because I realize other Members want to speak as well, but I would ask the Chair to consider only that we are trying to clarify, to provide the House with a clear and specific proposal to amend the main motion, an amendment I know Canadians will see as a conditio sine qua non for determining the "national interest". Mr. Speaker, only the Canadian
December 15, 1987

people, exercising their democratic rights, can determine what the national interest is. We have had some long debates in this House, and I remember the debate we had on the National Capital. I remember this one particularly because an important point was made there. At the time it was said that the National Capital should be developed, in the national interest, by a commission appointed to that end. I spoke at some length about the definition of the words "national interest", and Hansard is there to prove it, Mr. Speaker. What exactly do those words mean? Well, we finally consulted the provincial Premiers, and who, when they met here in Ottawa for a federal-provincial conference, decided that the national interest should be clear and precise and that it had to be determined, and they did so. They also decided that the National Capital went beyond the City of Ottawa to encompass the entire National Capital Region. That is the location of the seat of government, and it is that experience I draw on to define the term "national interest".
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you refer to the proceedings in Hansard and read the important debate that took place on the definition of the term "national interest", and I submit, with respect, that today, all the Official Opposition is trying to do is to clarify intelligibly the terms "national interest", in a way that 1 believe is to the advantage of Canadians and of our democratic process.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this debate. Unfortunately, I will not be on the same side of the question as my colleagues who just spoke.
1 think it is very important that the House understand very clearly the question which is before it so that when the House decides on it everyone will know exactly what the House has decided. I suggest that the words that are used and the placement of the words in the amendment make it vague as to its intent.
If members of the Opposition wanted to put an election reference in the resolution it would be possible to do so, but I would have worded it differently and I would have inserted it in a different position. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to help my colleague. That he will have to do for himself.
The amendment as worded could seem to suggest that the election of September 4, 1984 was in the national interest. We happen to think so, so that if that was the intent we might agree with the amendment since that election definitely was in the national interest. The amendment could also mean, and I think this is what my friend is driving at, that this should only happen after a general election which would be in the national interest.
I submit that the problem with the amendment is that it is vague. Beauchesne says that vagueness alone cannot rule out an amendment, but I think we could also look at the lack of specificity in the proposed amendment.
Free Trade
The amendment also violates the principles of relevance and scope. For example, the amendment adds new material and/or a new question to the question that is before the House, and that is the question of determination by the people of Canada. The words do not make it clear to the reader whether, if the entire motion as amended were to pass, the referendum would have happened, may have happened or would happen in the future. I suppose I am saying that it is vague in its placement and it is vague in its wording. I suggest it could be worded more precisely.
The Hon. Member could have taken some direction from Beauchesne's Citation 426 which states that an amendment must make the whole main question intelligible. I suggest that as worded, and as placed, the amendment is vague as to what election the Hon. Member means, the election just passed or an election the Hon. Member looks forward to in the future.
As well, the amendment presses a little too hard against the limits of relevance and scope, and of course that is for the Chair to decide. Based on that, I submit that the amendment should be ruled out of order because it is vague as to which general election it refers to and I think it is improperly placed in the question which is before the House.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), having available to him all the precedents set forth in Beauchesne's and other precedents that have not been set forth, can only come up with the criticism that the amendment is vague.
I think it is a matter for argument or debate once the amendment is accepted as to the value of its content. However, I respectfully submit that there is nothing in the amendment, taken by itself or reading it in connection with the resolution, that would support the argument that the amendment is so vague as to contravene Citation 426, which is based on Erskine May. It states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the
question on which the amendment is proposed.
My hon. friend, the Deputy Government House Leader has not attacked the amendment on the grounds of relevance. He concedes that it is relevant. The citation goes on to say:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed
amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the House, the question
or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The Deputy Government House Leader has not argued that the motion as amended, if the amendment were to be accepted, would be inconsistent or unintelligible. Instead, he relies on the argument that there is something vague about the amendment. He argues that it is not clear to which general election the amendment refers.
With regard to that argument, let me say first that this should be more a matter of debate than anything else, but even if one tries to meet his argument head on, I submit that my

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
hon. friend is wrong. If he is attempting to say that maybe this amendment refers to the general election which has already taken place, surely then we would have offered an amendment which would have read: "As having been determined by the people of Canada in a general election". We have not used the past tense, so it is obvious that the Government could not argue that this amendment refers to the general election of 1984.
Surely the amendment is sufficiently precise, if precision is needed, to rule out that possibility on the basis of which the Deputy Government House Leader argues that the amendment is vague.
The precedent in Beauchesne, based on Erskine May, nowhere uses the word vague or vagueness. It only speaks of whether or not the amendment or the question as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself. The use of the word vagueness is not found anywhere there.
1 repeat that my hon. friend has not argued that there is anything unintelligible or inconsistent in the motion offered by the Government, if the amendment offered by the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) were to be deemed acceptable.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, in the amendment on behalf of the Official Opposition, was simply trying to assist the House with respect to a means of defining national interest. Rather than creating vagueness, the purpose of the amendment is to eliminate the possibility of vagueness and to meet head-on the requirement of the citation in Beauchesne based on Erskine May that the amendment would make the question or amendment intelligible and consistent with itself. I submit that we have met this requirement in our amendment.
With respect, i remind you that of all the possible citations in Beauchesne that he could have used, and other citations that he did not mention, the Deputy Government House Leader relies simply on the general criticism on the grounds of vagueness, which, I submit, is not supported either by the precedent, the question itself, by a plain and simple reading of either the motion or the amendment, or the motion and the amendment taken together. Therefore, I respectfully submit that you should receive the amendment as being in order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the defence of the Deputy Government House Leader. 1 think his comments were not particularly well founded, but he had a certain point in terms of his arguments regarding vagueness. I do not think he is arguing at all about relevancy and has made it quite clear, but he went on at some length about vagueness and attempted to make a case for vagueness. I think he may have been poking fun at us because he knows that in Beauchesne's' Fifth Edition Citation 429 states:
An amendment cannot be ruled out because of its vagueness.
In spite of the Deputy Government House Leader's arguments, he will understand as well that vagueness is not a criterion for ruling an amendment in or out of order.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I want to contribute briefly to this point of order on this ingenuous attempt being made by the Opposition. I tend to agree with some of the remarks of the Opposition in terms of their reasons why the argument of vagueness should be ruled out. Quite frankly, I think that question is almost irrelevant compared to what is being done in a most ingenuous way by the Opposition.
I refer to the third point raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). This amendment introduces a brand new element to the resolution, namely, an election. It should be ruled out of order on that ground alone.
The resolution simply states that the House endorse the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, and adds the qualifier: "As being in the national interest". The substance of the resolution is that the House endorse the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The motion includes the qualifier that this is in the national interest.
If the argument of the Opposition is correct, then one must infer that the House is going to work against the national interest. One can go on to debate the classic definition of the national interest in the classrooms and forums of the nation, but surely we in this Chamber practice the national interest every day in this Chamber.
Beauchesne states that an amendment cannot introduce an entirely new concept. The Opposition is ingenuously attempting to introduce the concept of an election, which is entirely different from the House working in the national interest to endorse the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. If the Opposition's amendment is valid, I suppose it is suggesting that this House works against the national interest.
The substance of the resolution is to endorse the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. While there may be some amendments to that resolution, attempting to change the substance of the resolution by adding the concept of elections means that we might as well close down forever and a day. If this amendment were allowed so that the work of Parliament could always be defined by an election, I suggest most humbly that we could always have amendments from the floor saying in effect: "The House, pursuant to an election" or, "The House, after an election" take certain action.
With respect, I do not think you need to listen to too many submissions because while the amendment is most ingenuous and interesting, it does not concern the issue. The issue is procedure, and that is why Beauchesne and others made sure that one cannot introduce a new fundamental concept that thwarts the resolution.
The resolution is for this House, working in the national interest, to endorse the free trade agreement.

Jr

December 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps I could ask a question which the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) or others might want to answer briefly. As I understand it, the argument is that, in the interests of clarity, this amendment would be appropriate because after the next election-and I think it is clear that is what it is referring to-we will have an expression by the Canadian people of what is in the public interest.
What about a minority Government? Can someone address that matter?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if I may say, before the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) responds, no one can predict the outcome of an election. As Your Honour suggests, one of the possible outcomes could be a minority Government. However, as we have seen in the past, that coalition of forces elected to the House will be based upon the very clear lines that have been taken thus far in the election process. There are three Parties. They are offering themselves for election. Two of them are opposed and one is for the agreement. Out of those three Parties-and let me just speculate for a moment-let us say that the Liberal Party receives the largest number of seats but without a clear majority, the Conservatives may receive the second largest number of seats, but the third Party, known for its judgment and goodwill at times, will be in a position to support a new Government. Therefore, we could have, as we now have in public opinion polls, close to 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the Canadian people being represented against a national interest as defined as being for or in favour of the free trade agreement.
So I would think that a minority Parliament, while it may be more complicating in the life of the Speaker, would also be able to speak with the same clarity on the national interest as one with an elected majority Government.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make a small contribution to this debate. There has been some conversation about intelligibility. It is an interesting word. It is there and it is in our precedents to help us all remain aware of the reality that when we take an action as a House in relationship to a motion, the action we decide to take should be clear to the Canadian people. Ultimately, we are accountable to them for the actions we take.
There has been some discussion about whether or not the amendment as proposed refers to a previous election, any general election in our history, provincial or federal, I would assume, or whether it refers to an election in the future. I think there is a tendency in the discussions to this point to say that it probably refers to an election in the future. That makes a great deal of sense but it is not clear in the wording. But that comes to mind because it is an action the Government has taken on December 11, and we are probably referring to an election in the future without specifying. If that is true, I think we would
Free Trade
end up with a logically inconsistent motion, even if reworded, because the main motion calls for this House-this House, not a future House, and we must all remember that this House disappears on election day-to endorse, and so on. If they wanted to move an amendment that added a new concept, they could have added a concept that there be a referendum, and then we could argue about whether or not it was acceptable. But the suggested amendment provides no mechanism for the resolution of an issue.
We do not have proportional representation in this country where we could run one Party against another on the basis of a public policy. We have an electoral system with 282 ridings, and perhaps after redistribution a few more, where people select the best representative for their community to come to this House. It is not a referendum on a single policy issue. It never has been. I suggest it is unlikely it ever will be in the future.
Therefore, there would be no resolution unless there had been an added kind of concept like a referendum being held, or something of that sort. If we accept the motion, we have, first, the lack of intelligibility about which election is meant, historical or future, and we are left without a mechanism to resolve the issue of whether this initiative itself, as a discreet and distinct piece of public policy, is or is not in the public interest. If Members opposite wanted to move, as determined by the people of Canada, in the 1984 general election, then this House, which was elected in 1984, would be expressing an opinion on whether this is in the national interest. But we leave it vague and unintelligible. We are not making a statement to the Canadian people about the will of the House.
I think that on that basis it should be ruled out of order, and they can come back with some other wording that might indeed be intelligible.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to prolong this because I am going to give it very careful thought. I think I can indicate to all Hon. Members who have intervened, and it has been helpful to me, that certainly the Chair takes it that this is a reference to the next general election. I do not think anyone need to argue that point.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), who spoke a few moments ago, said, as I understood him, that the motion before the House is simply that this House endorse the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. But I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the point that this motion is not so narrowly worded or limited as the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants suggests. Instead, the motion itself brings in the concept of the national interest. It brings it in as an additional concept or factor with respect to approving the agreement.
The Government itself, having inserted in the motion a phrase "the national interest", I submit, cannot argue to you, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment intended to give meaning to

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
the phrase "the national interest" or to clarify its meaning, is somehow out of order. We are offering an amendment to define the national interest, or to suggest a way of defining the national interest. If the Government had wanted to avoid an amendment in the terms offered by the Official Opposition, then the Government should not have presented a motion with the phrase "the national interest" in it.
Having presented a motion containing the words "the national interest" as an additional concept to approving the agreement, then 1 respectfully submit that the Government itself has opened the door to the acceptability of amendments which might not otherwise have been acceptable in so far as they refer to the phrase or concept "the national interest".
I respectfully submit that the situation may well have been different if the phrase "the national interest" had not been placed in the motion by the Government. Having done so, it cannot now argue that the amendment, intended to define or clarify the concept of "the national interest", is somehow inadmissible. Again, I respectfully urge you, Mr. Speaker, to accept the amendment as being admissible, related as it is to the phrase "the national interest" which the Government itself has placed in the motion which, therefore, makes it not simply a motion to approve the free trade agreement but makes it something more and, therefore, more subject to amendment than would otherwise be the case.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add some points of view to the points raised by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. The Government, of course, we all recognize, did not have to put the term "national interest" into the text of the motion. The Government choosing to do that simply raises the question, what is the national interest? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) in his amendment has attempted to define one way of determining that.
The reason this becomes a rather critical issue is the assumption in the motion that the agreement reached by the Canadian-United States negotiators is in fact an agreement that is in the national interest. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, in our deliberations on this, that the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), in the leadership race running up to the last federal election, opposed on the record the notion of a free trade deal with the United States.


Harvie Andre: What does that have to do with this point of order?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The relationship to the point of order is that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) is on record as opposing the idea and concept of a free trade deal with the United States. The issue before us was never even debated in the last federal election campaign. No Canadian who cast his or her ballot for the Conservative Party of Canada did so with the notion that the Government may enter into a free trade deal with the United States.
The question is on what basis the Government makes the assumption that this is in the national interest. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is attempting to indicate that the way we determine national interest in a democratic parliamentary society is through a national election.
This is very critical. If we assume that this trade deal is automatically in the national interest when there has been no election on free trade, one could make the case to the contrary that the assumption of the electorate of Canada was that the Prime Minister and his senior cabinet Ministers were opposed to the notion because that point was made on the public record.
I submit that this amendment is not only in order but is moved in the spirit of attempting to clarify an issue which, we would all agree, is very important. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to be flexible in your ruling, particularly when you consider that we could offer points of view on the admissibility of the motion which is before us. However, I will put that aside with the assumption that it is not needed. We all recognize how important this issue is and that we need a full and complete debate on it. We certainly need to know precisely what we are debating. This amendment is at least a step toward clarifying the whole issue.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated in this debate that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in 1983 that they were opposed to free trade. The whole situation has changed since 1983. In 1982 the Liberal Government appointed a royal commission to examine the economy and make recommendations. This study, cost Canadian taxpayers $24 million. The report tabled in 1985 recommended that Canada enter into negotiations for free trade with the United States. After reading a $24 million study the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister started thinking again. Many people were opposed to free trade and many people did not have a position on it because they knew nothing about it. However, if you reads the Macdonald report you will support free trade.
The Prime Minister commissioned the Flynn-Hockin committee to hold committee meetings across the country. In 1986 it recommended that Canada can only lose by introducing retaliatory protectionist measures but cannot stand by and do nothing with a modest and dispersed population. It said that Canada must have access to the markets of the world and be able to sell in these markets if it is to prosper. For this reason the committee recommended that we get into free trade discussions. That is why everyone changed their minds.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie) has given some views as to why the motion ought to be supported. However, that is getting us a little bit away from the procedural point.


Don Boudria: You're being kind.
December 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) says that 1 am being kind. He has been the beneficiary of much kindness and will be again, provided that he sums up in a succinct manner, as I know he can.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate on whether it is a good idea or a bad idea to have the agreement. I intend to address that later in debate rather than on this point of order.
With regard to the admissibility of the amendment as proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), it is clear that my colleague has offered an amendment to the motion that is very much in keeping with the spirit of the main motion. In other words, my colleague has not offered an amendment that is contrary to the views expressed in the main motion, notwithstanding the fact that we will address that issue in debate later.
We have moved an amendment to add words after "the national interest". We know that Governments have signed such agreements in the past without qualifying them as being in the national interest in a motion in this House.
The amendment offered by my colleague is not to disagree that it is in the national interest; it is merely to define something which the Government has injected into the debate. We could make an argument right now as to whether the words "national interest" should be in the motion. If one were to listen attentively to what our colleagues on the government side have said, one could conclude that they have actually argued that the words "national interest" should not even appear in the Government's motion.
However, we are not debating whether that should be the case. We are debating whether, having recognized that the words "national interest" can be in the main motion, an amendment offered to further define what that national interest is is indeed in order. The Government could argue that it disagrees on whether or not this would further the national interest. That is a point of debate, not necessarily a point of order.
On page 397 of Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, it reads:
The Speaker has ruled that an amendment to add another subject for
inquiry to a question declaring the expediency of establishing a tribunal for the
purpose of inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, under
the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, would not be relevant-
I agree that if that were the case today, it should be judged in a similar manner. However, today we have not asked for an amendment to add another subject for inquiry. We are not moving that the motion should read that, as opposed to having free trade, we should have multilateral trade, or something which would add another level of debate. We are keeping it at the same level. We are merely offering a motion which would further define the Government's motion.
As I have said, if one were to read the representations made by the Deputy Government House Leader, and, in particular, the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), one
Free Trade
would likely conclude that they were speaking against having the words "national interest" in the main motion.
That is a debate which we could perhaps have had but have not chosen to address at this time. Because we are not now disagreeing with that being part of the motion-we will disagree with that in debate-I do not believe that the Government is justified in using that as a reason to disqualify the amendment which we have moved to the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston for (Nunziata) for a very brief remark.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am so persuaded by the submissions made by my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), that I wish to add a few remarks to the point which is being argued.
I look at the motion before us today and ask for the reason which the Government is presenting the motion. The motion reads:
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.
Canadians are asking why it is necessary to present this motion and to have this motion voted upon in the House of Commons. I have consulted with some resident experts and they advise me that there is no legal or constitutional requirement to have this motion carried. It seems to me that, if there is no legal requirement to have this motion presented and voted upon in the House, why is the Government presenting this motion?
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is mere puffery. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would like to visit President Ronald Reagan on January 2, 1988, and say to him, "Here we have the endorsation of the Parliament of Canada".
I notice you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Speaker, which might suggest to me that you are about to cut short my submission.
I would like to conclude my submission by pointing out that because this motion is not in any legal form, by accepting the amendment in no way are you, Mr. Speaker, affecting any legal requirement. I should also point out that the Government has chosen to use the word "endorse" rather than "ratify". I suggest that there is some significance to the fact that the Government has chosen the word "endorse" over the word "ratify".


Mr. Speaker:: I know that Hon. Members would not want the debate to go on beyond its very useful part. I would ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to respect the wishes of the Chair to close off debate at this time.
I have heard the arguments, which have been succinctly and well put, and also made with authority. I will take them into

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
account and return to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity and decide on the matter.
I have listened carefully for nearly an hour, because it is an important matter. It is an important motion in front of the Chamber and the amendment is important to both the opposition Parties and has been strongly argued for. I will take all of that into account.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, as each of the speakers for the three Parties has suggested, this is certainly an historic debate. Therefore, we have to put it very much in a broad perspective. It is important to forget some of the name calling that has taken place and the shortterm bickering that has occurred and to think about the future of our country in a world where a period of post-war prosperity is no longer assured to us. That is the fact that dominates this debate. The prosperity which we were used to as a country in the period since 1945 has ceased to become something upon which we can count.
In that sense, it is a period much like the 1840s when prosperity in Canada was hit by changing trade relations as the United Kingdom itself moved to free trade, and in turn the business elite of that time in panic issued the Annexation Manifesto of 1849. The manifesto is described by the preeminent historian of that period, J.M.S. Careless, as being signed by "a list which read chiefly like a roster of Montreal's business elite". Of course, that Annexation Manifesto, which I have here, called for Canada to join the United States.
It is fascinating to look through the arguments put forward in that Annexation Manifesto. For example, it states "-the Canadian market is too limited to tempt the foreign capitalist". Where, Mr. Speaker, have we heard that argument in the debate in front of us in 1987? Another quote is, "The proposed union would render Canada a field for American capital into which it would enter as freely for the prosecution of public works and private enterprise as into any of the present States". Where have we heard that argument, if not from the government benches? This annexation "-would increase our commerce, both with the United States and foreign countries, and would not necessarily diminish to any great extent our intercourse with Great Britain, into which our products would, for the most part, enter on the same times as at the present".
The Annexation Manifesto further states, "At the same time there is every reason to believe that our shipbuilders, as well at Quebec as on the Great Lakes, would find an unlimited market in all the ports of the American continent".
One could continue, Mr. Speaker, but I think perhaps the point is made that the Annexation Manifesto of 1849 made similar arguments for continental union, for joining the United States, as have been made by this Government in trying to
support what in effect is the annexation manifesto of 1987: this free trade agreement which is in front of us.
Perhaps this deal has only one difference, and that difference is a history which perhaps finds itself in a comment which is often made of history, "History repeats itself the second time as farce". It seems to me that the Government, and the way that it has gone forth in trying to seek this trade agreement with the United States, has given us the greatest long-running farce which this country has ever seen, a farce which has included hearings across the country at which the public could not even testify. Those hearings were not even advertised in the city in which they were held. Those hearings across the country, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, took place even before a final text of the free trade agreement had been prepared.
If that was not farce enough, we had to add to the craziness and the bizarre quality of this whole mad escapade the fact that the studies which exist with reference to this deal's impact on our economy are still kept secret. We still cannot have access under the Access to Information Act. For instance, we cannot have access to studies on auto parts and how they will be hit by this deal. That is of extreme importance to my constituency and to many constituencies across the country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell us about IODE.


Steven W. Langdon: I suspect that it may even be of extreme importance to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) if he sat and thought about it.
Also it is important to see, for the farce that it is, the timing which has been established to look at the agreement. Absolutely no time has been given to Members of Parliament, to interest groups throughout the country, to corporations, to trade unions, to churches, or to farm groups, all of whom expressed strong views when they talked with us as we went across the country as part of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. Absolutely no time has been given to these groups to look at this incredibly complex deal. It is possible that Ministers receive precis of these deals which are not given to opposition critics. We spend our weekends trying to pore through every word. Let me tell the House that it is a complex, complicated, difficult deal, and we are leaving ourselves one week for possible debate on a deal which can fundamentally change the country in virtually all its aspects. That is farce, that is farce.
Just to add to the farce, we have as well a tremendous, in fact stupendous, amount of money being spent by the Government. Over $12 million will be spent, not to circulate neutral information around the country so that people can analyse the deal and come to conclusions, but to produce pamphlets, videos, hand-outs, and synopses which do not represent faithfully in any sense what is actually within the deal. To me that seems to be history as farce.
December 15, 1987

Frankly, I say to the Conservative Government that if it wants to sell us out, it should at least do so in a straightforward, open, and honest way rather than try sneakily to hide and cover up what is taking place. However, perhaps that is too much to ask from the Government.
How should we start to analyse a deal which bears such close resemblance in its rationalization to the Annexation Manifesto of 1849, a deal which has been brought before Canadians with such ridiculous high-handedness and such lack of candour and straightforwardness?
First we must recognize that free trade is an ancient theory. Free trade is something that goes back to David Ricardo. Perhaps it shows us how wise John Maynard Keynes was when he said that politicians were slaves not to existing economists but slaves to now defunct economists whose perspectives do not represent current reality. Much modern thinking in respect of trade in fact starts from very different bases than those David Ricardo started from over 120 years ago.
For instance there is, if the Government had chosen to want to look at it, general equilibrium theories, which are exceedingly complex and use computers to come up with answers that say quite clearly that free trade does not make sense for a country in all circumstances. In some circumstances, yes; in other circumstances, no. it would be much more sensible for a country like Canada, which is so dominated by foreign firms and large multinational corporations, to start from analyses which recognize that fact, we should start from theories of how multinational corporations actually operate, how they put their stress on technology, and how that technology establishes the basis upon which trade is built, not through some kind of open market, but through the multinational corporation itself.
To take just one example, close to 60 per cent of the foreign trade of the united states goes through multinational corporations, not through the open market. That is the basis from which we start. That kind of modern thinking can help to explain the statistics which we see in front of us when we look at reality in 1987, reality which for instance says, as the Government likes to say, "Let's look at the common market and let's look at the European community". The European community is an example of a free trade area which has even gone beyond free trade, as indeed this deal goes beyond free trade.
Let us look at the latest available figures in the quarterly economic review of the Department of Finance. It indicates that France, which enjoys a tremendous access to other markets, has an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent. Let us take Italy, which also enjoys great access. Its unemployment rate is 10.9 per cent. Let us take the United Kingdom, which also enjoys great access. Its unemployment rate is 11.8 per cent. Then let us compare that with Japan, which has no access. Poor, beleaguered Japan must face the world without having access to any market, and Japan has an unemployment rate for that same period of 2.8 per cent.
Free Trade
That suggests to me that some ridiculous myths have been perpetrated by the Government in respect of trade. It is, therefore, from a different basis that we start from the basis of looking at the realities of the Canadian economy and the fact that we are a small, open economy dominated by international firms, which themselves shape much of our trade and much of our economic development. It is from that perspective that I and our Party start. It is because of that that we think this deal, this sell-out, is such a disaster for the people of Canada, for the ordinary person across the nation, not just because it will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs-


Charles Joseph Clark: False.


Steven W. Langdon: -but because it slices-


John Horton McDermid: What study does that come from?


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said, and I heard it on tape, that this agreement could cost us 500,000 jobs. He said it, and he has not been prepared to back off.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a false attribution.


Steven W. Langdon: That happens to be reality. Anybody who wants to test it can simply listen to the tapes.


John Horton McDermid: Be honest.


Steven W. Langdon: It is not just because of those hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost, but because this deal slices away our ability as a country to influence the decisions of these multinational companies. It also takes away our ability to shape technological advantages for us in the future that will give us trade, not in two years, not in Five years, but trade advantages in 10 and in 15 years for our children for the future of this country.


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly what it is all about.


Steven W. Langdon: We have to look very carefully at this deal because it has been built very much on the wrong basis and the wrong approach. When we look at the deal, the first thing that we see-and I say this with sadness and with a real sense of regret-is that the Government did not succeed at all in achieving its basic goal. It set out as its goal exemption from the U.S. trade laws which have hit Canada so hard. It did not succeed in achieving that. I quote, for instance, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking on October 1, when he said:
There has been agreement more or less in principle to the idea of a tribunal.
But there has been no agreement on rules that would guide such a tribunal. In
our judgment a tribunal without rules would not provide Canada with the kind
of guarantees and security that we require.
That is what the Government brought back from Washington. It brought back a deal which does not have within it rules that protect and provide access for Canada on any sort of

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
guarantee basis to the U.S. market. If the Government is straightforward and open, its members will admit that in their speeches as they talk about the motion.
I can go through the details and point out two key problems concerning the deal. First, on countervail and anti-dumping issues, the so-called trade remedy laws within the United States, a panel system is established for appeals, but that panel system "wants to review what happens in order to see to it if U.S. law has been followed" in the case of our companies in the United States. In short, and I quote directly from page 273:
-to determine whether such determinationthat is by the United States:
"-was in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the importing Party".


John Horton McDermid: Canadian law is still in effect too.


Steven W. Langdon: In other words, does a company in my constituency go to United States and face the same kind of neutral assessment, some sort of just view of what is fair? No, Mr. Speaker. It faces instead the rules which are established within U.S. legislation, and it has to deal with those rules. It can only appeal on the basis of those rules. There is no kind of neutral basis, no agreed basis, of what is a subsidy for both countries.
That matters tremendously because the basic problem with the United States system is that the U.S. in its countervail system establishes a very curious way of looking at issues. It says that if Canada, for instance-and there have been 13 cases against Canada in recent years-


John Horton McDermid: How many have we had against the U.S.?


Steven W. Langdon: Five. Thirteen to five.


John Horton McDermid: How many?


Steven W. Langdon: Thirteen to five.


John Horton McDermid: How many anti-dumping?


Steven W. Langdon: I am talking about countervail. If the Member does not want to listen, he does not have to, but he could keep his ears open and he might learn something. There have been 13 countervail actions by the United States against Canada. In each of those cases it was examined quite clearly what Canada did with respect to subsidies, not whether the United States itself provided subsidies and, therefore, Canada had some sort of valid fair right to do the same thing.
There is absolutely nothing in U.S. law which requires the United States to look at the subsidies which its firms receive which complain about subsidies that Canadian firms receive. That is just not fair to our workers or to our business people. That is what should have been changed if the Government had got the objective it said it was seeking. Instead, the Government failed to get that objective. Now it is trying to tell
Canadians that somehow the Government has achieved those goals despite the fact that the record is very clear, but it has not in any sense achieved those goals whatever.
Moreover, we have to look at something that is even worse. The United States, so long as it names Canada, can change its countervail and anti-dumping laws at any point in the future if it wishes. That applies to Canada as well.


John Horton McDermid: No.


Steven W. Langdon: So long as it is within the context of GATT, it applies to Canada.


John Horton McDermid: No.


Steven W. Langdon: I am sorry, it does. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has not read the agreement. Unfortunately, he is not listening. Perhaps if he did listen, he would hear what I am saying.
If these laws are changed in the United States, and if Canada is named in the change, then it applies to Canada and we have to accept that change. It is true, we can take it to a panel, but that panel cannot make any sort of decision. The panel can only say to the United States: "Tut, tut, you have not done things the way you should have and Canada therefore has the right to retaliate". Is that not wonderful? We have the right in the future to do what we now have the right to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member is having a question and answer session, I would appreciate if he directed it through the Chair.


Steven W. Langdon: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might follow that instruction as well.
This Government sought certain goals and, I must say, sought them with some energy. It sought those goals actively and it talked about those goals, but it did not succeed in any way in achieving those goals. Because of that, the deal that has been brought back is fatally flawed. It is simply not acceptable in the light of what business people across Canada told the committee as it travelled the country.
The people told us that they had sought secure and guaranteed access to the U.S. market. The Government failed to achieve that. The Government should recognize that and express its shame in that failure.


An Hon. Member:: Sheer nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: It is absolutely true.
That is what the Government failed to achieve. What did it give away in the process of these negotiations? It gave away a tremendous amount.
The Government gave away a tremendous number of things that were of special concern to average people. First, it gave away jobs. It is quite clear that there will be thousands of jobs
December 15, 1987

lost. Why else would the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have talked, in the very period after the trade deal was originally announced, about massive adjustment help for workers who would be hurt by this deal? Of course, it is possible that the Prime Minister was just talking through his hat, but I prefer to think that he was expressing some concern about the thousands of people whose jobs would in fact be lost because of this deal.
Why has the Minister of Employment talked of up to 500,000 jobs being lost if that is not the case?


John Horton McDermid: Why don't you quote him accurately?


Steven W. Langdon: That is precisely what he said, and that is precisely what the people of Canada heard him say on television.
If these thousands of jobs are not to be lost, why is it that groups came before the committee talking about such job losses? B.C. fish processors reported to us that they expected to lose 6,000 to 8,000 jobs because of the way GATT was put into the free trade agreement. Prior to that, GATT was something with which one could negotiate and, in the end, if one actually felt that the position put forward was unreasonable, one could reject it. Under this deal, that is no longer possible.
B.C. fruit and vegetable growers told the committee that they would be wiped out. Grape growers from across the country told us that 20,000 jobs would be lost in that industry alone. The Council for Yukon Indians testified that they would lose out because they felt that the end of local hiring would follow upon the deal and they expected environmental damage. It is possible that the Minister may not be interested in what the Council for Yukon Indians said, but that is what the council said.
The Canadian Independent Computer Services Association, which is based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, testified that as a result of this deal, it is likely that 360,000 jobs would be shifted out of Canada in the next 10 years. The Government may not like these figures, but that is what the committee heard when it crossed the country.
The auto parts producers have now rejected this deal and expect that some 20,000 to 40,000 jobs will be lost. The printers' association testified before the committee in Fredericton, New Brunswick, that it expected to lose 6,000 jobs.
These are not, as the Government likes to pretend, trade unions coming to talk to the New Democratic Party. These are business and farm groups coming before a committee of the House of Commons giving very clear testimony with respect to the thousands and thousands of jobs which, from their expertise, they foresee as necessarily being lost because of this agreement.
It is not just job losses. As shifts from this country of enterprise to the anti-union southern states, the low-wage states of the South or the Maquiladora Corridor of Mexico
Free Trade
take place, we will see that wages and working conditions for workers in Canada will be affected. The competition will be used by business people here to try to force down wages and reduce working conditions.
Beyond jobs, we also saw investment being thrown out of the window. The controls which had existed to this point over takeovers of Canadians companies of over $5 million in assets were thrown out of the window. We saw controls over indirect takeovers thrown out of the window. Again, there will be tremendous consequences as a result of that.
Let me refer to a United States report which attempted to outline what was happening in this deal. They said quite clearly: "The real achievement of this agreement is that henceforth the vast majority of new U.S. investments will occur with no interference from the Canadian Government."
What does it mean in practice? For instance, as happened in my constituency recently, an American company will be able to take over a Canadian-owned company and simply shut it down for competitive reasons. There will be absolutely no recourse on the part of the Canadian Government, unless that firm has over $150 million in assets, which accounts for about 300 out of the thousands of companies in this country.
We can go on to deal with energy and resources. It seems that the Government does not want to hear what we say, so let me quote people who testified to us as we went across the country. Joseph Mercier, the owner of an oil exploration company in Alberta, said: "Instead of going into battle with Ontario for Alberta's rights, are we going to try to allocate the authority to some administrator in Washington?" He went on to say: "The National Energy Board will no longer be able to say anything about our natural gas, but there will be people in the Federal Energy Resources Commission in the United States, there will be people in Washington, who will tell us what we can do with our natural gas". That is what we heard from oil people in Alberta.
We heard the same thing from the small-scale explorers' association in Alberta, who would not endorse this deal because they also saw it as a completely unbalanced, one-way exercise which gave far more to the United States than to us.
We can discuss cultural control. We heard magnificent testimony from a person in Prince Edward Island who had taken the plunge and moved from central Canada to try to establish a small scale enterprise in Prince Edward Island. He found considerable difficulty in establishing that enterprise, but nevertheless has persisted and succeeded in making it economically viable. Let me quote Jack McAndrew, from our hearings in Charlottetown. He said: "I, like every other Canadian producer, have spent most of my adult life fighting for a stall in the market of my own country".

December 15, 1987
Free Trade
That is what cultural industries have had to face in this country in the past. Unfortunately, that is what they will have to face in the future.
This agreement still contains the incredibly ambiguous and detrimental clause which states that the United States, notwithstanding anything that is in the agreement otherwise, will have the right to take action against us as a result of any cultural action that we take under the terms of the agreement.
There were major surrenders in the context of economic development. The Atlantic Chamber of Commerce told us quite clearly that it was very concerned about what would happen to regional development programs in this country, and therefore could not endorse the deal. It states in its brief: "The Atlantic Chamber of Commerce is concerned, therefore, that the terms of a free trade deal could preclude the federal Government from implementing policies which address this serious problem of regional underdevelopment". It went on to state that the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce believes that the Canadian Government cannot negotiate away its right to provide assistance to business and industry in economically depressed parts of the country.
As well, there are serious losses to the Auto Pact and losses which have seriously hurt agriculture. For instance, the President of the British Columbia Fruit Growers said: "Is the family farm no longer significant?" The head of the National Farmers Union said: "The bottom line for producers will be lower prices for farm products. This will come at a time when economic ills in the farm community can be linked to the destructive and predatory practices of the U.S. and the economic community countries. These practices will not end with the signing of this agreement".
All in all, it is a bad deal for ordinary people. It is an inequitable deal between our two countries, and it is an unfair deal for average families across Canada. I believe it is an unacceptable deal for the people of Canada, as the next election will prove conclusively to everyone in this Chamber.
It is perhaps most sad that there was an alternative, just as the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) during that memorable debate. He was absolutely right at that time when he said: "Yes, you did have an option". In this case, the Government had and still has an option that it will not follow because of its own ideological blinders.
Let me outline what I believe are some of the key elements of such an alternative. First, it is possible and necessary to deal with the U.S. protectionist pressures directly, on a case by case basis. If we had taken that action with respect to softwood lumber and concentrated our resources on that issue, we would have been much more successful than we were with the terribly unfair deal we ultimately saw.
I believe it is possible to set up sectoral arrangements between ourselves and the United States. With respect to the chemical industry, for instance, we have heard from Canadian
chemical firms that they would be very interested in some kind of sectoral arrangement with the United States. That is the kind of thing we see as important to try to explore. The same is true with computer parts. There was a sectoral arrangement with respect to computer parts which the Government did away with because of its attempt to retaliate against the United States on shakes and shingles. That kind of sectoral arrangement also makes sense.
One can go through a whole host of different sectors of our economy within which it would be possible for us to work out arrangements like the Auto Pact, with safeguards, with protection for our people and communities, which would give us the possibility of benefiting from the U.S. market, but not at the expense of these tremendous giveaways which we have made part of this trade agreement.
I think that the GATT process, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, is an important part of what this Party has always been committed to in terms of negotiation in order to reach freer trade arrangements throughout the world. It is a process which establishes equality among all the countries taking part. That equality is itself very, very important. It is also a process, I would point out, having been at the start of the last GATT round, within which we have considerable influence. It is a process within which Canada is listened to quite seriously. Within that process of negotiation it would be possible for us to work to reduce the subsidies the United States looks at through its trade legislation, to get an agreed set of rules among all countries, an agreed set of rules in which we would have partners on our side in attempting to achieve the kind of equal relationship in trade about which we are talking.
That kind of approach makes so much more sense than the direct one-on-one relationship we have tried to carry forward with a country so much bigger, so much more powerful economically than our own. That country has successfully won from us all sorts of concessions, and that I am certain would not have happened in the context of a GATT negotiation within which we had Japan, Germany, Britain and Italy on our side as part of an attempt to discipline protectionism within the United States.
Most important, however, is that we as a country develop through government leadership and technological expertise in some of our key industrial and service areas. We have to develop a set of effective and efficient sectors within our economy through training, through emphasis on science and technology, and through a great many other measures which a Government, which had not sold itself out through this trade deal, would be able to make use of. I am referring to mechanisms such as state purchasing policies, planning agreements with the various companies, which play such a key role in the trade both between ourselves and the United States and in trade internationally. We would be able to establish Canadian content rules. We would be able to set conditions on investors
December 15, 1987

that if they were going to take over Canadian plants, they would have to export certain amounts in the future. They would have to achieve certain levels of job increase in the future.
Those kinds of things could be done by a government seeking to establish technological expertise in key areas, if we had that kind of power still left to us.
We could also use tariffs. We could use tariffs selectively under GATT agreements, as we have in the past, to be able to assist certain parts of our economy to grow and to establish jobs for the people of this country. We could use other instruments such as public ownership. Public ownership is not something which, for ideological reasons, we would back away from as a Party. In addition to that thrust, we simply have to see to it that regulations are established for the multinational corporations which are so important in the international economy. That is what dominates trade, and the regulation of those multinationals is crucial in trying to shape that trade for the future.
When shut-downs take place, we must have full community review to see to it that communities and workers have a chance to see why it is that a company is being shut down and to challenge it, if it so wishes. We also have to see to it that there are no more export restrictions on the subsidiaries of multinational corporations in Canada when they are owned by other countries. That has to be part of our ruling as well.
We have to do a number of other things. I see you looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker. It is five o'clock and I would propose to continue tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I assumed so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar)- Status of women-Court challenge to language training policy-Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Shipyards-Delay in restructuring industry in Quebec-Request for explanation-Request for clarification concerning frigates; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Canadian Pacific Railway- Carriage of dangerous goods-Metro Toronto speed limit.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Statue of Monarch


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PARLIAMENT HILL PROPOSED ERECTION OF STATUE OF QUEEN ELIZABETH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Tupper:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of commissioning the structure of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirtyfifth anniversary of Her ascension to the Throne.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the resolution of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I rise to speak on the resolution to erect a statue on Parliament Hill in honour of Queen Elizabeth II.
Her contribution to this country as our queen is considerable. The Queen's influence cannot be denied. She participates in all kinds of Canadian events as well as provides that level of government which no elected Member can.
By definition, the sovereign, the person on whom the Crown is conferred, symbolizes our country as a constitutional monarchy. The Crown, the Senate, and the House of Commons, in that order, make up our Parliament. The Governor General, appointed by the Queen in consultation with the Prime Minister, carries out the Queen's functions in this country.
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the Canadian state, the Government, and all our judicial functions. She is the Sovereign of the Order of Canada as well as the Order of Military Merit. She is, of course, as everyone knows, the patron of numerous associations and organizations throughout the country. The Queen is honorary Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as Colonel in Chief of numerous Canadian military regiments.
I would like to point out that Canadian money pays only for the Canadian aspect of the Crown and her Majesty's expenses when she is in Canada. When members of the Crown are in Canada, the provincial and federal Governments cover the costs properly apportioned. As representatives of the Crown, the salaries of the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors are paid by the federal Government.
In June, 1973, the Queen stated that the Crown is an idea more than a person and that it should represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal. I ask you, if there could be only one reason, would it be possible to find a better one for the erection of a statue of Her Majesty on Parliament Hill? The Queen is also our link to all the countries in the Commonwealth, which amounts to just about every ancestry and national origin.

December 15, 1987
Statue of Monarch
When you ask visitors to Canada about the Canadian identity the answer you get most often is related to the fact that we have a queen. The Queen symbolizes international prestige which, in turn, adds to Canada's standing in the world. One need only remember a few years ago when the Queen visited the United States. Even today her popularity with Americans is tremendous. Her presence at the 1976 Olympic Games brought enormous respect and prestige for Canada.
The role of Queen Elizabeth II in the Commonwealth is crucial. In turn, our country's external policy is influenced greatly by our union in the Commonwealth. The reception of the Queen in all Commonwealth countries is warm and respectful. Everyone in those countries knows of her relationship with this country.
In honouring Queen Elizabeth II with a statue on Parliament Hill we will be telling the world of our unique historical make-up. Canada has two founding nations, French and English. However, because of historical facts, Canada adopted British traditions. Let us honour that fact by erecting a statue in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of her ascension to the Throne. Thirty five years of devotion to our land is a very wonderful thing.
In her role as Queen of Canada one need only look at a 20-year period during her reign to realize that she has been a leading force in Canada's entry on the world stage as a leading country.
In 1959 she opened the St. Lawrence Seaway with President Eisenhower of the United States. She made a royal visit from coast to coast and back. In her July 1 speech she said: "If I have helped you to feel proud of being Canadian, if I have reminded you of the strength which comes from unity, and I have helped to draw your attention to the bright vision of the years ahead, I should feel well satisfied because I believe with all conviction that this country can look to a glorious future". She has indeed done her part to ensure that our land has become prosperous and great.
In 1962 she helped Canada mention to the world the launching of Telstar, the satellite developed in Canada in cooperation with other Commonwealth countries. In 1970 the Queen visited the North, demonstrating our sovereignty in that part of the land. The list goes on and on. During that time her duties as head of the Commonwealth also took her to many of the countries that link us to that great family of nations.
I am delighted to speak in support of this motion. I hope that the House will consider passing it. As we are all aware, Her Majesty visited Canada this year. She officiated at the opening of the Commonwealth Summit, which was an outstanding success. She also visited other parts of the country including the great Province of Quebec. I know that we will all be looking forward to hearing Her Majesty's very wonderful Christmas message on Christmas Day.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on motion M-135 proposed by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I want first to congratulate the Member for his initiative in bringing forward such a. motion. I wish to make remarks in favour of the motion. I am of the opinion that this would be a good initiative for this Parliament to undertake.
You will probably recall, Mr. Speaker, that I brought forward a similar motion to erect a statue for a different individual, of course, a former Prime Minister of our country. I brought that motion before the House in February of 1987. Nearly a year has passed and the working group on the erection of the statue in question has not yet been completely formed. However, I understand that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) is going to appoint such a working group very soon.
I hope that sometime in 1988 we will all be joining together on Parliament Hill to participate in the unveiling of a statue in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's thirteenth Prime Minister who was, in my view, one of the most distinguished citizens this country has ever had. That is to sidetrack somewhat from the topic at hand today, but I believe it bears repeating.
This Parliament, through the Standing Committee on Government Operations, has adopted a report prepared by the Minister of Public Works on erecting statues in the future. The report describes those individuals whom we have commemorated with statues on Parliament Hill. It also suggests a policy for dealing with statues in the future. In general, it suggests that we should erect statues for very prominent and outstanding people. In general, to be eligible a person should be one who is no longer living. In the case of Prime Ministers, through that report we agreed that generally we would recognize those Prime Ministers who were elected to that office rather than those who were appointed. Of course, that policy does not apply in quite the same way when we are dealing with a sovereign. There is one outstanding difference, and that is the fact that it is generally accepted that when dealing with a statue in honour of anyone, that person would be deceased. The one exception that is usually accepted everywhere, including the report that we prepared for this House, is that in the case of a sovereign that requirement would not be enforced. In other words, a statue of a sovereign can be erected even if the sovereign is still living. Generally, that is the only exception.
What we have to decide is not whether the individual in question qualifies because, under the criteria that we have set for ourselves, quite clearly she does. First, we have to decide whether we wish to so honour the Queen. Second, we have to decide whether the thirty-fifth anniversary of Her Majesty's reign is the proper anniversary in which to do it. It could have been done on the twenty-fifth anniversary or the thirtieth. For
December 15, 1987

that matter, it could be done at the fortieth anniversary. In my opinion, thirty-five years of reign certainly is an historic occasion and something that should be noted. To that end, this is a year in which we could very well choose to erect such a statue.
My only small concern, and I wish to raise it now, is that I hope our previous efforts toward erecting and recognizing Prime Ministers will not be cast aside while we undertake this particular task. I know that is not the intention of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and he would want this initiative to be taken in addition to those endeavours we are looking at at the present time.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting this initiative of erecting a statue in honour of Her Majesty.

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) pay tribute to Her Majesty. It is obvious that in recent weeks and months this debate on the need or even the desire to erect a statue in honour of Her Majesty has opened up discussions in this House about the whole matter of monarchy in Canada. I for one feel comfortable with the present system, but if some Canadians are not and if other Canadians advocate putting an end to the present system, that is ending monarchy , that debate ought to be held indeed but at some other time. 1 would suggest that as long as we want to maintain the present system, we as Canadians are duty-bound to show respect for existing institutions for as long as we have them.
In the past, for example, controversy arose in this country v when a Canadian public servant refused to swear allegiance to the Queen to keep his job. I am sorry, but I did not feel much sympathy for this man, and here is why. First of all, this was one of the conditions of his being hired by the Public Service Commission, so he knew what to expect. Second, one can always say that if this public servant was not overly enthused about this condition he could have looked for a job somewhere else.
So it was a basic requirement that was there to start with, and if a person is uncomfortable with the requirements of a job, he or she should look for employment elsewhere before even considering the job.
Obviously, some day the public servant in question, in fact, any Canadian could and should take part in a debate on whether we should keep the monarchy. I have already indicated my own position, Mr. Speaker, but just the same, it won't do any harm to have a debate.
In 1982, we patriated our Canadian Constitution, and we made the collective decision at the time to keep the Queen or rather the Sovereign as the Head of State of our country. I think it was a wise decision, but some day we may decide otherwise. We should not make it an issue here and now, however, when we are discussing whether we should offer some token of recognition to the Sovereign. The decision to offer
Statue of Monarch
that recognition should be based first of all, as I said earlier, on whether the person "qualifies". Of course the answer is yes, because we have a report that says that in the present context, the Sovereign would "qualify" for a statue in her honour. Furthermore, as I said earlier, we must agree on which anniversary it is to be. The other issues will probably be raised in the House at some time or other, but in another context.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I again wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) on his initiative. I hope the House will adopt the motion, if not unanimously at least with a majority, and that we will soon see the unveiling of a statue of Her Majesty. But before then, I hope we will have another unveiling to which I referred earlier, a statue in honour of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's thirteenth Prime Minister.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, when the future Queen, Princess Elizabeth visited Canada in 1951 she said, "I know of Maritimers that their hearts are filled with the love of the sea, for this is their heritage-and it is in the heritage of my family". Indeed, we know it is in the heritage not only of her own family but also of that of Her consort, Prince Philip, who had a distinguished career in the Royal Navy.
As a Maritimer, I am pleased to speak in favour and in support of Motion No. M-135, a motion that in a very real, visible, valid manner would seek to remind all Canadians from coast to coast that our nation is a constitutional monarchy, and that since 1952, Elizabeth II, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other realms and territories Queen, defender of the faith, became Queen of Canada, that latter title being introduced by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Louis St. Laurent.
While I was not conscious of the Princess' remarks of Maritimers and their love of the sea, it was only some three years later in 1954 that I joined the Royal Canadian Navy and tied my career to the sea. I do not pretend to have a seafaring tradition or background. Indeed, during the war years my father and uncle served in the Canadian Army. But I did have an uncle who served in the Merchant Navy, and indeed lost his life in that service.
It could be said that Maritimers are traditionalists with a sense of patriotism, which perhaps goes beyond what their background and ethnic heritages may be. I think of my own area of the Maritimes and New Brunswick, an area called Miramichi, which is made up of the Irish, the Scots, the English, and the French. One has to reflect only on November 11 when the names are called at the cenotaphs in over half a dozen communities throughout the area. The names of the people who fought for freedom, for the Queen and country, in the Great War and in the Second World War depict their background.

December 15, 1987
Statue of Monarch
1 think as well of the Union Jacks, which tend to fly in backyards throughout the area, people paying recognition to what they knew of the past. I remember during the great flag debate hearing people refer to the new flag as Pearson's pennant. It is not that they had anything against the new flag, but they did not want to give up a link with the past which they cherished-the Union Jack which was part and parcel of the Red Ensign.
I was guilty in the sense that I was most reluctant to see the White Ensign being given up by the Royal Canadian Navy, a flag for which I had such respect. Having said that, I must say that now no one is prouder of our Canadian flag, the Maple Leaf, than myself as I see it flying on public buildings and as I see young people travelling throughout the world with the Maple Leaf patch on their knapsacks, jackets, or whatever.
Parliamentarians are very much aware of the role of the monarch in our system of Government. The Parliament of Canada consists of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the sovereign, represented in Canada of course by the Governor General. We are one of 17 countries which acknowledge the Queen as sovereign, the Crown Commonwealth, as well as Queen of the Commonwealth in general. She is head of the Canadian state. While her powers may be exercised by her representatives, the Governor General and each provincial Lieutenant-Governor, she has the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn.
It is sometimes too difficult to think of our monarch as a public servant, given what we tend to think of certain public servants from time to time. A public servant, yes, but a bureaucrat, no. She is a servant who has earned the respect and esteem of not only the leaders and subjects of the Crown Commonwealth and the leaders and people of the Commonwealth but of other nations great and small throughout the world. Indeed that makes Her Majesty more than just a symbol, more than just a figurehead in the family of nations.
Given what constitutes the Parliament of Canada-the Senate, the House of Commons, and the sovereign-at this juncture I would like to present my views on the Upper House. In so doing I believe that I can tie in the fears of many Canadians in respect of loss of identity and loss of culture to the very motion before us respecting the commissioning of a statue of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
I should like to say forthwith that I am in favour of an appointed Senate, recognizing all the faults inherent therein and recognizing that changes must be introduced to make this body more meaningful and perhaps more effective. The problem lies not with what the Fathers of Confederation in their thoughtful manner intended for this institution, the body of sober second thought, but with what in too many cases has been permitted to become a retirement home for too many ineffectuals, a retirement home for too many former politicians, a club where partisan politics is played, planned, and connived not for the betterment of Canada or Canadians at large but solely for party purposes.
One study which I read indicated that something close to 99 per cent of all Canadians indicated that they would not run for nor seek public office at any level of government-federal, provincial, or municipal. If that is true, surely we must ask ourselves if the country is being best served by men and women who make up that 1 per cent. I suggest not, and I would think that most Canadians would agree.
This brings me to the appointed Senate. That body would give those Canadians making up 99 per cent of the population who have great qualifications, knowledge, experience, and ability, an opportunity to be selected not for political affiliation but to serve Canada and Canadians in a thoughtful manner. Of course other changes would be absolutely necessary, but I will not go into them at this time.
I would suggest that we never have an elected Senate. To be elected is to have a constituency. To have a constituency could in great measure negate their ability to carry out their duties in a non-partisan manner, which brings me full circle to why I mentioned the Senate in the context of this motion. To my mind, to introduce two elected bodies to our system of government is to lead us down the road to becoming a republic and to being more like the American system of government, each vying for additional power, certainly one attempting to usurp the power and the authority of the other. We could very gradually slip away from our government roots-the British parliamentary system, the mother of all Parliaments.
We want to be proud of our system of government, of our historical link, and of our bond with the monarch. We do so by cherishing our traditions of 120 years as a country and by building that same sense of pride in our children. Who epitomizes in a single personage more greatness in our form of government that Her Majesty the Queen of Canada?
I endorse and support the motion of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). I encourage Hon. Members on all sides of the House to do likewise.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak to the motion before us today. It is a proposal to erect a statue of Queen Elizabeth II on Parliament Hill.
Probably many of us share the same kind of feelings which I recall very vividly when I first arrived on Parliament Hill in 1979. I stood at the foot of the sidewalk beside the Centennial Flame and then walked past the flame looking up at the Peace Tower and at our Parliament Buildings. I was surrounded by beauty and by many symbols of our national traditions.
I think most Canadians feel very emotional when they see pictures of the Parliament Buildings and the hill on which they stand. We fondly call it "The Hill" because the Parliament Buildings are indeed loved by Canadians. They are steeped in our history. Canadians on vacation bring their children here to celebrate being Canadians. They come from all parts of Canada-East, West, North, and along our borders. This is a place which ties us all together. Therefore, Parliament Hill
December 15, 1987

reinforces our identity. It is our showcase for the world. Many thousands of visitors flock here every summer. Although Canada is a young country, we are quite unique and our Parliament Buildings and surrounding grounds are consistent with that uniqueness.
I think the symbolism is an important consideration that goes into our living shrine that reflects the life of Canada every day. We should thank our forefathers and mothers for their foresight in developing such a wonderful headquarters for Canadian Government, the heart of Canada, if you like. We must take very seriously the responsibility of preserving the beauty and appropriateness of Parliament Hill and all the monuments and memorials that surround and are inside it.
Today we have a motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) which suggests that the Government should consider the commissioning of a statue of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to be placed on Parliament Hill in commemoration of the thirty-fifth anniversary of her ascension to the throne.
First, I would like to say unequivocally that, like the statue of Queen Victoria which graces our Hill and who was in office when Canada first gained its independence, certainly Queen Elizabeth II deserves a special place. She is indisputably a part of our Canadian heritage. As the British monarch who was reigning at the time when Canada acquired its own Constitution and severed the last remaining legal link with Great Britain, she has a particular place in our history. She is a person whom we respect and honour as a very hard working public servant who binds our Commonwealth together. She is well respected even by those who may not be traditional monarchists.
We could debate, and perhaps this is a trivial point, whether such a statue should be placed in commemoration of her thirty-fifth year inasmuch as this does not explain that we are doing it for a living monarch, which I believe would be a precedent.
While I honour Queen Elizabeth and agree to honour her with a statue on Parliament Hill, I cannot help but think of all the other many Canadians that it would be so nice to honour in some way. I am sure Canadians across the land would like to see many statues. Let me give two or three examples. The Metis perhaps would like to see a statue of Louis Riel. Many feminists perhaps would like to see one of Nellie McClung. For doctors, it could be Dr. Keon, who used the Jarvik heart and has pioneered heart transplants in Canada. There is no question that we respect and honour our monarch, but there are also many Canadian women parliamentarians whom I would like to mention and whom I would like to find a way of honouring because of the unique tradition and contribution which they have made as Members of Parliament.
I think first of Agnes McPhail, who was elected in 1921 and was the first and only woman Member of Parliament who
Statue of Monarch
gained her seat in the first election after women had the right to vote in Canada. In 1943 she was the first woman on the Canadian delegation to the League of Nations.
Second, we have a bust of the Hon. Ellen Fairclough. You walk by it every day, Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's Hall. This is appropriate. She achieved distinction as the first woman Cabinet Minister in 1957. She introduced a Bill calling for equal pay for equal work, a very progressive legislator. She created a womens' bureau in the Department of Labour. Also I am sure my hon. friend on my right will agree that the Hon. Judy LaMarsh deserves special honour and recognition. She was the only woman in Lester Pearson's Liberal Cabinet. She was an innovative legislator under whose guidance we achieved the Canada Pension Plan and medicare. She established the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which the women of Canada look upon as a milestone in development.
I think those who have been Members in this House for some time will also agree that Grace Mclnnis from my part of Canada should be honoured. She was not a Cabinet Minister because her Party was not in Government but she was a pioneer woman Member of Parliament. I believe she was at one time the sole woman Member of this House. I can recall talking to her because she was a mentor and is today my mentor. I was amused to learn that this very dignified daughter of J. S. Woodsworth once had to remind Members of this House that perhaps their behaviour deserved the initials M.S.P., which I am sure you may recall, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, we should mention Jeanne Sauve, the first woman Speaker of this House and now our first woman Governor General. I am sure other Members of the House can think of many others.
It is great to have symbolism and to recognize people who make a unique contribution. It is obvious this list could go on and on, but if we were to erect statues for all of them our lawns would be very crowded. We have a duty to think carefully and to protect the dignity and integrity of Parliament Hill.
I would like to mention a suggestion made by my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) when he spoke to this motion. He suggested that perhaps a good way of determining the kinds of statues that should be on Parliament would be to set up a Parliament Hill commission. He proposes that only one of two statues should be erected on Parliament Hill every decade. I feel confident that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth would be a first choice. This does not stop us from honouring outstanding Canadians in other places within our communities, within our Parliament Buildings, in our parks, squares and other appropriate places across Canada. Statues as we see them in Europe enliven and provide valuable additions in harmony with our outdoor living space as well as bringing an historic contribution to us.
We concur with this motion, but 1 hope the Member might consider the suggestion that there be a special Parliament Hill commission to deal with such matters in the future.

December 15, 1987
Statue of Monarch


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in contributing to this debate, the subject of which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), that a statue be erected in honour of Queen Elizabeth II.
I am glad the New Democratic Party has given its enthusiastic support. I think somewhere in that 10 minutes speech I did hear a few sentences referring to the Queen. It was nice to hear a rousing endorsement of the motion. I would agree with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) that there ought to be a statue erected in honour of Lester Pearson, former Prime Minister of Canada. I think that is overdue and I look forward to the day when that mission is accomplished.
I am pleased the Hon. Member from Nepean-Carleton has presented this motion to the House. I think the monarchy is a very important institution for Canada. I would like to mention three reasons that I think this is a timely and important motion to bring before us. First, the monarchy is important to us because it provides continuity in a world of constant change and increasingly accelerated change. The monarchy gives continuity. If we reflect on what the Royal Family has done to provide stability through its continuity in times of flux and crisis, we have to be very grateful to this great institution and those who have been kings and queens of the United Kingdom and of Canada throughout the centuries.
Let us think for a moment of what King George VI experienced in his relatively short reign of about 18 years. When he came to the throne, it was partly to his surprise. Then came a time of upheaval when fascist armies were forming in Europe and there was a great deal of concern throughout the world about the future of the world. The King was faced with the coming of World War II, and those of my generation at least remember the words of comfort he spoke to the entire Commonwealth and indeed to the entire world when he gave his New Year's message, "I said to the man who stood at the gate of the year". That provided much solace to the world at the time.
There were changes in government going on in the United Kingdom at that time. The government went from the coalition Government of Winston Churchill to the Labour Government of Clement Attlee and then back to the Government of Winston Churchill. Throughout those years, even though King George VI was not in good health, he provided not only the United Kingdom but the Commonwealth and indeed the world with a sense of stability. While there was change, indeed there was the stability that the Royal Family and monarchy provided to the world.
The same thing has been true of our monarch today, Elizabeth II. When she came to the throne in 1952, the world seemed to be fairly stable, but it was not many years after that
that there was the Suez crisis, the Hungarian Uprising and the Korean conflict. All of those tensions were before us, and again there were changes in government in the United Kingdom. Yet Elizabeth II provided the continuity which gave comfort to the people of the United Kingdom as well as the people of the Commonwealth.
The monarchy is important because it provides continuity in a world of change. One must reflect only on the events that overtook those colonial countries that grew out of the anticolonial movement of the 1960s. In the freshness of their sense of democracy and in their zeal for total independence, they thought it would be fashionable to become republics. One cannot help but wonder whether they were not impoverished by their too severe ties to a monarchy and would have been enriched and had found greater stability had they not maintained closer ties with the monarchy and become parliamentary democracies rather than republican democracies.
The first reason we honour the monarchy in Canada is that it provides continuity. Second, it provides us with a sense of family. It is easy enough in our world of legislation and Constitution to think that all differences are settled by law and by litigation. We are becoming an increasingly litigious society, but the monarchy reminds us of the fact that many of our tensions are best resolved not by litigation, not by confrontation, but through relationships. The monarchy has become a unifying symbol within the Commonwealth. It brings people of different views, of different socio-economic groupings, and of different heritages together. It allows us to solve problems through relations.
Let us think of the Lancaster House agreement regarding Zimbabwe. That could have been accomplished by fiat, but it was accomplished because of a relationship that existed between the United Kingdom through the monarchy and Zimbabwe. Let us think of the latest Commonwealth Conference we hosted in Vancouver and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) conducted so ably. Troubles were occurring in Fiji at that time, but the conference sensed the ties of its relationship.
Forty countries with different forms of government and different heritages came together. Because the monarchy was represented at the conference, a familial relationship existed there, a relationship which brought the countries together in a way that they could not have been brought together had it been simply a constitutional or legal conference.
The monarchy is important to us because it represents a sense of family, togetherness and belonging among those people who have the heritage of a relationship with the United Kingdom.
Finally, the monarchy is important to us at this time because of the contribution our present monarch, Elizabeth II, has made not only to the entire Commonwealth but particularly to Canada. She has visited our country at least 12 times and probably more. I count 12 times and I may have missed several. She has visited Canada more often than any other
December 15, 1987

monarch. She is intimately acquainted with the feelings and aspirations, not only of the Canadian people as a whole, but of groups of Canadian people. She understands the feelings of the people of the West, of the North, of Quebec and of the Maritimes. She has a sense not only of the whole but of the parts of the whole. Because she has spent time in Canada, she has become Queen of Canada not only because Prime Minister St. Laurent declared so in 1953, even though that was a very important declaration, but because she has experienced a sense of being Queen of Canada by participating in Canadian life.
I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton for the work he has done in bringing this motion forward. I look forward to the day when this statue will be erected to celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Queen's reign. I hope all Hon. Members will participate in the celebration of that day when we will see that statue erected here on Parliament Hill.


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this debate this evening. I thank the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) for bringing this issue forward.
As Hon. Members know, the Queen has reigned over this country for 35 years. Next week on Christmas Day, many Canadians will turn on their television sets and tune in to the Queen's Christmas message. It is a tradition for many families, many of whom do not have any British blood at all but may have emigrated here from other countries in the Commonwealth or from elsewhere. As Elizabeth II has visited Canada so often in her long reign, her message often mentions her visits to Canada and makes special note of those she has met with here.
The other time of the year when national attention is regularly focused on the monarchy is Victoria Day in May. On a superficial level, we all appreciate the holiday, but at the same time, we can appreciate the historic importance of the monarchy in our evolution as a nation. The day has significance as the day of celebration of Queen Victoria's birthday, but it is also a day to celebrate Queen Elizabeth II.
The Queen of Canada is in many ways a symbol for Canadians. Some people might say that she is just a symbol, she does not live here nor does she have daily input into the governing of this country. Young people and some new immigrants to this country do not always relate in a personal way to her role as the head of Government. Nonetheless, that which she symbolizes is very vital to understanding ourselves and the nature of Canada.
Canada has had a relatively short history, and some areas have had a shorter history than others. We are still busy writing our history rather than identifying very strongly with our nation's past achievements. But a sense of community and connectedness is vital to everyone.
Statue of Monarch
We, of course, cannot deny our historical links to Britain and the monarchy. While the majority of Canadians do not have ancestors from the United Kingdom, as Canadians we have undeniable historical links with Britain as a one-time colony and one that chose a similar type of government. When Parliament passed legislation in 1953 making Queen Elizabeth the Queen of Canada, a strong link was forged between this country and the monarch. Historically, then, Queen Elizabeth II holds a unique and important place.
As head of the Commonwealth, Elizabeth II unites a great many different cultures and histories to work together toward a better future. That symbolic role on a global scale has a good deal of relevance to Canadians. In a real sense, that is what this country has done. It has united people from around the world to work together for the future of Canada.
In my riding of Welland in the Niagara Peninsula, we are culturally very rich. We have a strong French-Canadian community in Welland and a strong Italian community in Thorold. The St. Catharines Folk Arts Council is made up of some 35 ethnic organizations, all of whom are active and vital in the peninsula. Insofar as we, as Canadians, take pride in our diversity and ability to work together toward a common future, the symbolic presence of the Queen has a great deal of meaning for us.
It has meaning not merely in the historical context but in a living, forward-looking context. Queen Elizabeth II is the longest serving monarch we have had. She has always taken an active, personal interest in this country. Whenever she has visited, she has left a strong and personal impression.
In preparing to speak to the House today on this motion, I spoke with people in my riding who remember clearly the visit to Niagara made by Elizabeth II some 30 years ago. I remember meeting her myself in my capacity as the mayor of the City of Welland in more recent years. Her grace and accessibility are qualities which leave a lifelong impression on everyone she meets.
For the Welland riding, her visit to Canada in 1959, held special significance. She came to Canada to preside over the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, of which the Welland Canal is a very important part. All of her visits to Canada over the past 35 years have touched us, as ordinary Canadians, right where we live.
Her enduring interest in this country has been noted by all. Her command of the French language and appreciation of the special character of the Province of Quebec has provided an example of her sensitivity to this unique country of ours. She has shown a genuine interest in native peoples and their concerns. She has made a point of meeting with multicultural organizations across Canada. Her wide travels here have made her more familiar with this huge country than most of us will ever be.

December 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
She has provided an example to all Canadians through her commitment to duty and service. Many countries have people to point to as national symbols. They are not necessarily heads of state and they are not necessarily people one would be proud to know. Elizabeth II, through the virtues and values she brings to her life and work, is someone we are proud to be associated with and proud to have as our head of state.
Some Hon. Members might feel that commissioning a statue of a monarch still living is not particularly appropriate. In the case of our Prime Ministers, statues have been erected long after their deaths. It often takes a few years before hindsight allows for impartial appreciation of someone's contribution to our national development. In the case of the Queen, there is no need to wait. The Queen has served this country longer than any other monarch. She has meant more to Canadians than any other and has more than earned the honour we have the authority to bestow in creating a statue here on Parliament Hill.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in support of Motion M-135, that the Government consider the advisability of commissioning a statue for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II here on Parliament Hill.
In so doing, I recognize that Canada has been a constitutional monarchy from the time of its inception. Kings and queens have been part of our history for as long as that history has been written. However, what sets this monarch apart is that in 1953 she was declared by Parliament and the Government as the first Queen of Canada.
The Fathers of Confederation deliberately chose our form of constitutional monarchy, having the American example before it. Those were difficult times, but also a time of new beginnings. They could have chosen to reject the monarchy if they had preferred to do so, but in the words of Sir John A. Macdonald: "Our first act is to recognize the sovereignty of Her Majesty".
From that time, and even more significantly from 1953, when Elizabeth was specifically named Queen of Canada, the sovereignty of Her Majesty and the sovereignty of this country have been linked as one and the same.
The Queen is the head of the Canadian state, with powers and authorities under our Constitution as a constitutional monarch. She has administered those affairs with dignity and responsibility. She has, at times, remonstrated with her First Ministers and has given them cautious, careful and prudent guidance.
Although this form of Government is often misunderstood and often subject to criticism as not being democratic, this system is, in fact, one of the most stable, democratic and least costly of any system of government in modern political science.
The Queen has been enormously successful as an institution in government. We do not talk of a kingdom in this country.
The people of Canada know that Parliament is supreme. We see no threat in Her Majesty, but we see her as part of our heritage, from whose predecessors Parliament won the right of government.
We see her as a person, conducting the affairs of the monarchy, as she is called upon to do from time to time, with the utmost of grace and dignity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but he will have six minutes remaining in his speech the next time the Bill comes before the House.
The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
STATUS OF WOMEN-COURT CHALLENGE TO LANGUAGE TRAINING POLICY/MINISTER'S POSITION
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a question I asked in November concerning the Government's language policy for immigrant women. This is not a new question, but one which was identified in the 1960s, the 1970s and again in the 1980s. Over 50 per cent of immigrant women do not have access to language training.
The policy is that those who are about to have access to the job market or are seen as the head of the family are the ones who are eligible for language training. This is not effective. We know that what it is doing is making immigrant women, particularly those from Third World and Asian countries, ghettoized into low-paying jobs and poor working conditions. There now has been a colloquium of groups that have decided to launch legal action against the federal Government on its language policy. It seems to me we are just putting the wellbeing of lawyers as a priority rather than having a true policy for these immigrant women.
It has been identified as a problem over the years, and I think it would be quite simple if the Government could change its policy at this point in time. I am not suggesting that this would not be costly. Of course, it costs money to eliminate discrimination. However, we must look at the input of the Government with respect to adult immigrant women in particular. We did not educate them. We did not raise them. They were not part of any kind of liability on our health care system. Therefore, they have arrived here, and have become
December 15, 1987

part of our workforce but are not able to gain the kind of employment they would be able to gain if they had the kind of language training that certainly male immigrants have access to.
I also have great concerns about the kind of pressure we are putting on the families of immigrant people. I wonder if any of the Members in the House recognize how difficult it is if one has to call a doctor, if one has to have a parent-teacher's interview or if one has to look for or ask about food products and cannot do it because they cannot communicate in the language. I certainly have some experience in hospitals where we had patients who could not communicate in either of the official languages. It was very difficult for them. I might suggest that it would also be less costly for us in the health care system because, of course, recovery is much quicker if communication skills are available.
It seems to me to make sense rather than going through the courts, and that was the purpose of my question originally. The Minister did not respond except to tell us the numbers of people who were in language training courses through the CJS program. I am very concerned about that because now we know that we are in the process of having legal action taken against the Government. I do not think this Government, or any other Government in Canada, would want to see legal action where it seems to me very evident it is going to find itself in discriminatory circumstances. However, my major concern is that the expenditures of funds would be in defence of a biased policy rather than toward eliminating discrimination and making life much more equitable for these people.
Another interesting statistic I have looked at is that up to the age of 55 years, there are about 8 per cent more immigrant women in the workforce than there are native-born Canadian women. It seems to me that these are women who will be in the labour force and, therefore, they are going to need the language skills. I am very concerned about the fact that over the years the problem has been identified over and over again, as I say, since the late 1960s, and we still have not done anything to change this policy. Just a fairly simple change in policy would be the kind of thing that we would be looking for. It would stop the legal action that is apt to be there. It would also certainly give us a sense that the way we are treating our immigrant women is equitable to the way we treat our male immigrants. We always wanted to see ourselves as a country that welcomes people.

The Government offers language training to immigrant men and women it feels will enter the labour market. Immigrant women who are coming to join a partner in Canada are excluded from the program if the Government assumes they will stay in the home. This policy ignores the fact that these women must communicate in English or French to lead their daily lives.
Furthermore, language training is not offered to immigrant women who have few occupational skills. Immigrant men in
Adjournment Debate
the same category do have access to language courses. This discriminatory policy relegates immigrant women to the ghettos of low-paying jobs.

It seems to me it would be quite simple for the Minister to undertake to change this policy to stop any kind of legal action. I hope that is what the Government wants. That is certainly what New Democrats want to have happen to immigrant women and visible minorities.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister I can say that we hope litigation will cease. I am not very hopeful that that will happen, regardless of what the Government does. We live in a world in which it is popular to say that you are being discriminated against and popular to go to court. We could have the most flawless program which human ingenuity could contrive and there would still be someone who would say that he or she is being discriminated against.
In her question on November 27 the Member said:
Is the Minister willing or not to allow these people to become part of our
daily workforce?
Of course he is. I think the Member made an unfortunate inference in her question. The Government has instituted policies which have created over one million jobs. Almost half of those jobs have gone to women and 80 per cent of those are full-time jobs. Surely the Member will accept the fact that the Government is interested in having women take part in the workforce if they so choose.
The Member also says that the Government's policies are working against immigrant women. I want to read her statistics with regard to this in order that we can discuss concrete data. In fact, the number of training seats available to immigrant women has gone up since we came into office in 1984. In 1983-84 there were 2,123 seats available to immigrant women. There was a slight increase in 1984-85 when there were 2,474 seats available. There were 2,512 seats available in 1985-86 and in 1986-87 there were 2,280 seats available to immigrant women.
With regard to refugee women there has been a 30 per cent increase in seats available.


Marion Dewar: That's because the others were so bad.


Benno Friesen: Of course it is because the others were so bad, but it does take time to bring programs into line with needs. We could not do it on September 5, 1984, the day after we were elected. We began working on it but it does take time to get programs in place. As the trend line shows, it is improving.
I hope the Member will accept the fact that the Government is making a sincere and genuine attempt to improve the lot for immigrant women, and refugee women in particular, that they

December 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
can get the language training they require in order to get into the workforce if they so choose.
The trend line shows that in 1983-84 there were 2,942 seats available to refugee women. In 1986-87 there were 3,911 seats available. That is a 30 per cent improvement. I hope the Member will accept the fact that the Government is doing what it can to improve the lot of refugee women and immigrant women in order that they can get the language training necessary to participate in the workplace.

SHIPYARDS-DELAY IN RESTRUCTURING INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC/ REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING FRIGATES


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this is further to a question I asked in November 1986 about the problems of Quebec shipyards, and now, a year later, Mr. Speaker, the issue has yet to be dealt with. I mentioned at the time that the Conservative Government had promised the Quebec Government that it would purchase two shipyards. As we know, the Quebec Government owned Marine Industry in Sorel and Versatile owned the Davie Shipyard in Lauzon and Vickers in Montreal. Because of the problems faced by the shipyards, the incompetence of the Conservative Government and the lack of a useful policy, Versatile is now bankrupt and was unable to meet its commitments.
The Conservative Government, through the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote), who was then Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion, asked the Quebec Government to acquire, through Marine Industry in Sorel, the Lauzon Shipyard in Quebec and the Montreal shipyard, and in return, promised to grant large contracts and to see to it that the Federal Government would become a major customer of the three shipyards. This would have put back to work the
5,000	workers of the industry who were then unemployed.
One year later, Mr. Speaker, the position is still the same and there is still uncertainty. The shipyards in both Quebec and the Atlantic provinces are affected. We know that Quebec and St. John shipyards are still waiting for a decision on the frigate building contracts.
I believe that it is important to recall that, in 1983, the Liberal Government, to ensure that all shipyard workers in Canada would have jobs, promised to give overall control to the St. John Shipyard in New Brunswick and guaranteed that three frigates would be built by the St. John Shipyard and three frigates by the Quebec shipyards. To ensure that one and a half frigate would be built in Montreal and one and a half in the Sorel shipyard and to ensure that the Quebec City workers in Lauzon would have jobs, the contract for repairing four destroyers under the TRUMP Program was awarded to the Lauzon shipyard.
Mr. Speaker, in 1984, disaster struck. The frigate which was to be built in Montreal has been transferred to the Quebec City shipyard. There is now a dispute with the Sorel shipyard
about transfering the other frigate which was to be built in Sorel to Quebec City. The Government has taken away from Montreal shipyards two ships, two TRUMP destroyers, which it is intent on giving to Atlantic Canada since it is a very well known fact that the Federal Government would like to award the contract for all six frigates to St-John's shipyards.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is not only the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie who objects to this kind of attitude and who would like the Parliamentary Secretary to provide some answers. In this morning's issue of the Le Devoir newspaper ... I never thought a year ago that I would still be dealing with this today. I have here an article from the Le Devoir referring to a letter from Michel Cote to Daniel Johnson, under the following headline:
Ottawa had promised "huge contracts" for Quebec shipyards
All those who know Daniel Johnson, the Quebec Minister of Industry, recognize that he is rather a non-partisan moderate man and, among Quebec Liberal ministers, he does not really stand out as a staunch liberal because of his background, his own father having served as Quebec Premier under the National Union banner. And for such a man to accuse the Federal Government, the Quebec Federal Ministers in Ottawa, of not meeting their commitments, and I can tell you he came down quite hard on the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) who have failed to honour their commitments to Quebec shipyards.
What matters, Mr. Speaker, is not only the question of the industry itself but also the question of manpower, the 5,000 workers. All decisions made by this Government over the past three years clearly show that it is intent on starving the Quebec shipyards. First there is the lack of decision concerning the sharing of the work. Second, the then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion considered the Atlantic Provinces and decided that from then on any ship repair contract under $5 million would be awarded without tenders. Mr. Speaker, they even played around with some of the projects: an $8 million contract would be split and awarded so as to give preferential treatment to shipyards located in the Atlantic Provinces, to the detriment of Quebec shipyards.
In another decision the Minister said: Listen, in Quebec the seaway is frozen, there is no navigation, so we will not seek to obtain bids from St. Lawrence shipyards in Quebec. There again pressure had to be applied to have the decision reversed. And recently, they said that so-called trimming and short-term repairs have to be done in a ship's home port which means none of the business will come to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, all Quebecers, including the Government of Quebec, are outraged at the attitude taken by the Conservative Government. If Mr. Bourassa trusts this Government on free trade, I have the impression he is going to get the same
December 15, 1987

treatment as his own Minister, Daniel Johnson, who trusted the Government on the shipyards and today sees, to his chagrin that the Government is not delivering the goods.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have some positive answers to give for the holidays, so that these workers who have families to support will soon be able to go back to work, and so that during the holidays, like all the moms and dads across this country who work in our shipyards, they will be able to give presents and celebrate like the rest of us.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should be very much aware that he is lucky he does not come from Halifax where we have absolutely nothing.
The Hon. Member is under some kind of illusion that the federal Government is not concerned about the difficulties. I only reiterate that certainly the Government is aware of the difficulties being faced by shipyards in Quebec. I should like to assure him that the charges he makes are simply not the case.
I remind the Hon. Member that the contracts were somewhat in jeopardy because of the financial difficulties of Versatile. It took the co-operative efforts of both the federal and provincial Governments to make it possible for the contract for the Caribou ferry to be signed and for work on other contracts to which my hon. friend has alluded to proceed.
As far as specific contracts are concerned, work is proceeding on schedule with regard to the Tribal Update and Modernization Program or TRUMP. The work in the shipyard has commenced as scheduled in November of this year.
With regard to the CPF project, I am pleased to report that although the prime contractor, Saint John Shipbuilding Limited, experienced difficulties with scheduling in the early stages of the project, the work is now going well and no more slippages are anticipated. The early slippages affected only the first two frigates to be built at the Saint John yard and will not affect the ships to be built in Quebec. In fact, construction work on the third ship, which is the first to be built in Quebec at Sorel, has already started.
Finally, work on the Marine Atlantic Caribou II ferry is progressing satisfactorily and is on schedule for delivery, as was forecast, in 1989.
Might 1 reiterate that we recognize the importance of marine contracts to the shipbuilding industry in Quebec and reassure the Hon. Member that work on all federal contracts is proceeding on schedule.



Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen the movie Bleve! I think I may have asked you that
Adjournment Debate
question in the past, but I am sure I have not asked the Parliamentary Secretary. If Your Honour or the Parliamentary Secretary had ever seen the movie, you would never forget it.
In that movie, Mr. Speaker, the first thing you see is a train derailment. Then you see a huge ball of fire engulfing everything and going up in the air, and suddenly an explosion. Across the screen you see the written words that tell you that the cameraman who took the picture you have just seen was killed by the explosion or the bleve which you have just seen in the movie. The movie is a fascinating but frightening experience. I can promise you, Mr. Speaker, that if you had ever seen it, you would want to make sure that something like a bleve would never happen again. It is an experience you would never ever forget.
A bleve is caused by the derailment of a train carrying hazardous goods. One train carrying hazardous goods was derailed in my constituency of York East on July 14 of this past year. It was a CP train drawn by three locomotives. There were 103 cars on the train. Some 31 freight cars on that particular train on that particular day derailed near the intersection of Don Mills Road and Winford Drive in my constituency. One of the cars on that train, No. 87, was carrying something called vinyl acetate. According to the Enrivonmental Contaminants Act, vinyl acetate is a toxic substance and it is highly dangerous. The fire chief for the City of North York, when his crew investigated the situation and was cleaning it up, said that that the stuff was just like dynamite. He said that if car No. 87 had actually derailed and caught fire it would have been an absolute disaster. He said in addition to that that we would have been looking at evacuating within 2,500 feet in all directions of that car and it would have been something like the Mississauga train derailment of 1979. That is a situation that occurred in my constituency on July 14, 1987.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as the Parliamentary Secretary I know is aware, some 60,000 carloads of dangerous chemicals are carried by rail through Metropolitan Toronto every year. Let me emphasize that, 60,000 carloads of dangerous chemicals. The main CNR and CPR tracks are right through the centre of my constituency. In my constituency alone there are approximately 100,000 people who live right next door to those railway tracks. That is not all, of course. Those railway tracks run through the heart of Metropolitan Toronto. There is something like 25 schools right beside the CPR tracks alone. There are senior citizens homes and all sorts of institutions. If anything ever happened in the way of a believe on that line or those lines with those 60,000 cars of dangerous materials carried every year, there would be a literal incineration of the people living next door to those tracks.
The particular train that derailed on July 14 was travelling, we are told, at something like 35 to 45 miles per hour or 56 to

December 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
64 kilometres an hour. Just to the south of this area they have limited the speed limit to some 25 miles an hour. Here there is no particular speed limit and trains are going 35 to 45 miles an hour. The fire chief for the City of North York said something else. He said "If you pick up the paper every morning you will see a story about a train derailment. Aren't we learning something from these stories?" I hope we are. In fact, the former Minister of Transport in this Government appointed the Toronto area Rail Transportation of Dangerous Goods Task Force to look into this situation to study it and see what could be done. They have been holding hearings.
Some studies have been done. In fact last week I got a stack of studies from them, nine in all. If I stood on top of them and jumped, for sure I would break my leg. So far I have been able to read one called The Risk Perception Study. It tells me that people out there in Metropolitan Toronto have the same concerns that I have about this situation. There are all sorts of other studies, routing studies, risk assessment studies, risk management, technology, speed, buffer zones, emergency responses, land use implications, all sorts of other things. I do not know whether the task force has the message from all these studies and from all the input they have received from the public and from me but if anything happen it will not be the task force that will be to blame; it will be you, me, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister.
If we have not learned anything from the last couple of weeks, surely we have learned something from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the problems he has been having with issues of public safety. If one single solitary life is lost as a result of the carriage of dangerous goods by train through my constituency or anywhere else, there will be hell to pay and the hell to pay will be for the Minister.
Tonight I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to show us the way and to give us some answers to this problem at long last. We have had enough excuses and enough studies. The time has come for action and we are expecting it from the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary today.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague from York East on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). I have not seen the movie to which he referred, but I do not doubt for one second the seriousness of the example of the movie nor of the case he makes for
Toronto. However, I would remind the Hon. Member that there are certain limits on what the Minister can do, particularly since a task force has been appointed.
The task force is going about its responsibilities in a very responsible way. It is undertaking studies. Its mandate is to look not only at the speed of trains going through the Toronto area but to see if there should be new routes and new rights-of-way and if old rights-of-way by schools should be closed. I think that is the only responsible way that can be studied.
The people who know best are the people from the Toronto area. A large group of people from the Toronto area are on the task force. They are doing first-rate work. If they felt that there was a serious problem in the short term, they would say so to the Minister and we would try to accommodate that. Indeed, I think the general rule is 35 miles per hour, and CP itself has dropped the speed to 25 miles per hour in one of the areas.
If the members of the task force felt that that new speed limit should be extended throughout the rest of the district, I think they would tell us that. I am sure the Minister would respond positively. In any event, the task force will report in the late spring of next year.
I do not have the message the Hon. Member wants to hear today, whatever that message may be. Does he want the speed limit dropped to 10 miles per hour or does he want trains stopped totally? He has not indicated that.


Alan Redway: One mile per hour would be fine.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Hon. Member has said that he would like the limit to be one mile per hour. That may be a little slow, but perhaps the speed limit should be 20 miles per hour. Who knows? We do not know and that is why this task force has been appointed, a task force consisting of highly responsible people. We look forward to responding positively to their recommendations when they submit their report in the late spring of 1988.


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


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

Wednesday, December 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers