1987-12-10

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages copies of the 1988 Federal Regulatory Plan.
* v *


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to inform all Members of this House that today is Human Rights Day and marks the 39th anniversary of the universal Declaration of Human Rights. This historic document on basic rights and fundamental freedoms was proclaimed on December 10, 1948, by the United Nations. Its philosophy of equality and personal dignity symbolized a new era in human understanding and tolerance. The member nations that signed the declaration in 1948 voiced their united support for individual liberty in all countries throughout the world.
For our part, we in Canada have continued to stress the importance of these principles within our own borders with a distinctly Canadian vision of a fair and harmonious society.

The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights affirmed the privileges which all Canadians enjoy as citizens of this country. Bearing the signature of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker, this monument to freedom which we hold so dearly states, among other things: " . . . in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race,
national origin, colour, religion or sex, the . . . human rights and fundamental freedoms ... ".

Our Canadian Human Rights Act came into being in 1977, followed by the Constitution Act of 1982. This encompassed the social principles of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a statement in support of human dignity and equality that is the envy of many of our neighbours worldwide.
On December 1, I tabled in this House the Canadian Multicultural Act. When passed, this historic Bill will confirm the constitutional freedom of all Canadians of whatever origin to preserve and enhance their multicultural heritage and to share it with others. It will recognize that all of us are equal participants in our society, thereby reinforcing both our Canadian identity and the unity of this country.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has also heralded civil rights on a world-wide scale. The position we have taken against the injustices we see in South Africa, in Central America, and in a number of other regions of the world vividly attests to our firm determination to restore the kind of climate where all nations of the world will be able to feel like true equals.
[DOT] (UIO)

Another example of the Government's commitment to human rights lies in its plans to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development as jointly announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry). This centre's important mandate will be to uphold human rights and strengthen democratic institutions by means of international co-operation.
International Humans Rights Day is a time for recalling the millions in the world who are denied their basic rights. It is also an occasion for solemn reflection, for some through prayer, for others through giving thanks, for the blessings we enjoy in Canada where human rights for everyone is a central pillar of our society's structure.

As Canada grew to maturity, its citizens displayed ever increasing openmindedness in mutual respect for one another. But we still have some way to go because it is always possible to improve the situation. Given the understanding which has

December 10, 1987
Statements by Ministers
developed between the people and the Government of Canada, I firmly believe that the principles underlying our hopes are that much stronger. Indeed, cultural or racial origins must not stand as obstacles to the free expression of fundamantal rights.

Allow me to conclude by quoting from the introduction to the Multiculturalism Act a week ago. It states:
.. . The Government calls upon all citizens to make a renewed commitment to the principles of equality, diversity, and community and to continue the great task of building their homeland into a free and united country that will continue to be a symbol of hope in a fractious, turbulent world .. . The proposed Act should reinforce Canada's stature among the nations of the world, adding another page to the country's long record as a leader in matters relating to human and civil rights.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I read the text of the Minister's statement which I received about an hour ago, and I have listened carefully in the hopes that it might be amended. On an occasion as important as International Human Rights Day, I am frankly disappointed that he would limit himself to painting such a rosy picture of human rights in Canada and, in a sense, publicize or promote his own legislative program when the world is in such agony and chaos. Instead of addressing the problems facing our native people, or the inequality affecting women, or the problems of discrimination faced by visible minorities, the disabled and handicapped, he has reviewed and rehashed generalities with which I am sure we all agree. I wonder if the Minister wrote the statement himself.
The Minister spoke about the Multiculturalism Bill, and of course we have all supported the multiculturalism concept for decades. Yet I would have liked him to have told us what it actually achieves. What does it do, for example, about racism and discrimination?
The Minister passed over the world's problems in several sentences, yet at this very hour burning issues exist. Let us take just one example, that of Haiti, where a brutal military regime has savaged its population for several years and sponsored or condoned death squads which have been murdering citizens lining up for an election. The election had to be cancelled for that reason and that Government has had the audacity to announce today that it is trying to call illegal elections for January 17. That is just one of many tragic examples of international problems. On a day of such importance and such solemnity as International Human Rights Day, I am disappointed that the Minister has not risen to the occasion and discussed with us the problems, instead of shovelling self-serving and self-congratulatory propaganda of sweetness and light for the Government.
Perhaps he would like to deal with the real human rights issues here in Canada. What about the failure to appoint a commissioner from the Atlantic region to the Canadian Human Rights Commission? What about the slow pace of dealing with human rights cases before that commission, some reputedly taking as long as a year to a year and a half or even two years? What about the failure to deal with the human
rights concerns of our native people? What about the aboriginal land claims? What about the way in which we deal with our native people in our system of justice? What about the human rights problems facing our native people with respect to housing? What about the problems faced by our native people with respect to medical care? What about youth programs? We know so many young people in the native communities are struggling to find meaning in life. What about the basic right to life? What about the fact that our native people have a higher mortality rate than others in Canada, particularly for their children? What about human rights issues in this country?
On International Human Rights Day, I was pleased that the Minister recognized the occasion but I have to ask him, on a day of this importance, can you not get serious?


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise on behalf of the NDP to add my voice to that of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and the Official Opposition spokesman in recognition of the thirty-ninth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This day marks the culmination of the recognition of a new ideal among nations in a world where, only a century before, slavery and the attitude that supported it were pervasive.
It is because of this new ideal that we have a better world, but not a perfect world. Even now, in the glow of glasnost, Jews plead for Russian refuseniks and Afghans for their land. In Haiti the people struggle for a blood-free vote. In southern Africa, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala human rights lay victim to local tyranny and foreign conflicts. In Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere we see that religious intolerance is still a powerful force for suppression.
We in Canada, as the Minister says, can look with pride upon a nation striving to become a new model for understanding among an increasing diversity of people. As we increasingly reflect the many peoples of the world in our own citizenship, we are asked to become an increasingly powerful voice on the world stage for equality, justice and freedom. Whether it be in southern Africa, Central America or elsewhere, we must be sure that our voice will be heard above the cacophony of national or big power interests which tempt compromise. In our own land the recognition in legislation of the multiculturalism of our land is not enough unless equality is absolutely assured.
On this thirty-ninth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us not forget that, as we celebrate Meech Lake, we still have not dealt with the limits on equality presented in our Charter of Rights by the override clause. Those of us who have supported Meech Lake and those of us who look upon Canada as a multicultural nation insist that the first priority, as the provinces and the federal Government deliberate about the next constitutional change, be the elimination of the that clause which says to too many of us
December 10, 1987

who are not of English or French descent that we are not quite equal if there is a need for compromise for some purpose.
Let us also recognize that increasingly those of us who looked with hope upon the Human Rights Commissions of the federal Government and the provinces see now that they have virtually deserted us. When it takes not days, not weeks, but years all too often for complaints of discrimination to be processed by provincial human rights commissions or the federal Human Rights Commission, it suggests to many that we are willing to move too slowly on something which should have been completed long ago and for which there was so much hope not too long ago.
We join in celebration. We are proud of the contribution that Canada has made. We are pleased by the changes which make this country more representative of the world's population, but we cannot sit down on this day satisfied that we have achieved perfection domestically or internationally. We have done well, but we have much more to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes beginning at one o'clock.


STRIKING
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the Forty-sixth Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: Since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the Supply Bill. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bill be distributed now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House condemn the government for its failure to allow an adequate period of review prior to the signing of a highly complex trade agreement with the United States pn January 2. 1988 and, as a result, this House calls upon the government to seek an extension of the January 2nd deadline by at least 60 days.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are just three short weeks away from signing what has been described as the most significant economic agreement in the history of the relationships between Canada and the United States. That description is one which my Party shares. This deal is indeed very significant, if not quite comparable to the Magna Carta which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would like to suggest from time to time in his highly exaggerated rhetoric, and will have an immense impact on the lives of Canadians, not only for the rest of this century but into the next century as well.
Yet, as serious as this is, the incredible fact remains that the Parliament of Canada has not yet seen the final text. This is absolutely outrageous.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John Edward Broadbent: The Conservative Government and the United States administration agreed to the elements of this proposal in the first weekend of October. We were assured at that time that the people of Canada and their representatives here in the Parliament of Canada would have a final legal text within a matter of weeks. Weeks turned into months and it will be more than two months after that promise was made that a final text will be presented.
We are now told that tomorrow the Government of Canada will release publicly a 250-page agreement with over 1,200 pages of tariff tables for the people outside of Parliament and the Parliament of Canada finally to consider in detail. In terms of the parliamentary agenda leading into the Christmas period, that means that an agreement of this immense complexity and seriousness will have to be discussed and debated, according to the Government's proposed schedule, for only five days, the five sitting days of next week.
On behalf of all the members of my Party and, I am sure, of Canadians from coast to coast, this is not a democratic process but a mockery of the democratic process.

December 10, 1987
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister, regrettably, is still determined to sign this deal on a schedule imposed and proposed by the United States of America. The January 2 date was not decided upon as a consequence of a Canadian initiative even though the impact of this deal will be much more significant on the lives of Canadians than it will be on the lives of Americans for the obvious reason that their society and economy is so much larger than ours. Even though the consequences are much more horrendous from our point of view, and positive from the Government's point of view, the Government has accepted the January 2 deadline which was proposed by the United States.
Even the Conservative Chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade which looked into this accord in the past few weeks, without the final wording of course, has said that it would be "absolutely silly", to use his words, for his committee to consider the final text until some time in the new year.
Surely when a government proposes such a massive change in Canada-U.S. relations there is an obligation to ensure that the democratic rights of Canadians to consider this deal are honoured. If it was absolutely silly to think that the committee could consider the final wording of this text in a matter of days, it is absolutely silly and irresponsible for the Government to expect the Parliament of Canada to do so in a matter of a few days.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: For once the Government should act in a responsible and serious manner. It has an obligation to live up to the implications of the serious agreement which it has signed. It has an obligation to give Parliament, the provinces and, most of all, the people of Canada, the facts on which they are supposed to make a judgment.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative majority decided that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade would be on the road for less than two weeks. Dozens of private citizens and groups have been unable to make presentations before the Committee. Only a few groups and individuals have had a chance to explain their concerns to the Parliamentary Committee. Day after day, NDP Members on the Committee moved to have the hearings opened to the public. Day after day, they moved to give ordinary citizens a chance to express their views, and day after day, the Conservative majority voted against this democratic opening up of the consultation process.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not want a democratic process. They merely wanted to give the impression it was democratic. That is typical of this Government.
Today's debate is not about the substance of the Agreement. We may have a debate on that Monday, at least I hope so.
Today, our subject is the need for a real, informed debate in this country. We are talking about the democratic rights of the Canadian people. Whether Canadians are for or against the Agreement, most Canadians would like to see the details of the Agreement. They want a chance to judge the Agreement with all the facts.
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians share our concern about fundamental changes in our political, social and economic life. The status of our relations with the United States is crucial for Canadians, especially for our trade relations.
Today we are each other's principal economic partner, and that will remain so. However, Mr. Speaker, as a nation, we are masters in our own house and we want it to stay that way. The Conservatives must understand this fact. All Canadians understand the basic reality of our economic and foreign policies and their impact on our relations with the United States. All Canadians understand as well that in business terms, a healthy relationship with the United States is of vital importance to our economy, our communities and our jobs. That is why we are so concerned about the impact this trade agreement will have, whether on energy, agriculture or regional equity. All these concerns are central to our economy and our way of life. In all these areas, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have sacrificed our sovereignty. That is the truth.
On Monday I will outline at length the New Democratic Party opposition to very specific parts of the deal. Today, I simply want to note some specific matters of concern in a discussion that is fundamentally about the democratic process.
One must ask, why this particular deal? Why are we making major concessions on the control of our decision-making in energy, on our right to retain control over business enterprises to ensure that they stay in Canadian hands in almost every sector. Why are we making major concessions that will negatively affect the agricultural sector, the manufacturing sector and particularly will have a negative effect over the capacity of our western provinces to become industrialized and not simply remain resource exporters?
The Deputy Minister of Finance has already announced major changes affecting our capacity to have just and equitable regional development programs. All of these elements are found in this deal. Why is the Government doing this? I hope that either today or in Monday's debate these questions will be faced head on.
When the Prime Minister first proposed this, we had a $20 billion surplus in trade with the United States in our commercial exchange. We were doing quite well in trade with the United States. It is true that from the time the Prime Minister announced this the United States has taken negative actions against some of our key exports which, incidentally, were supposed to be going in duty-free already.
December 10, 1987

In spite of those actions, most of which were unfair and totally unwarranted, even today the monthly trade figures for October show that we had a surplus in our merchandise trade with the United States of $840 million. So far this year we have had a trade surplus with the United States of $10.1 billion without this deal.
I say, as a Canadian and a New Democrat, that we are a confident and competent people. Whatever the domain of activity, whether it is the arts, athletic activity, or business activity, during the last 25 years in particular I believe that Canadians are second to none in the world. In terms of our ability to compete with the United States of America, we have never been in a better position. In sector after sector we are winning the competition with the United States already.
I want to remind the Conservatives who are embarking upon this historic mess that already 95 per cent of our exports into the United States are duty free or at a level of duty or tariff of 5 per cent or less. We are doing well in competition. We are not confronted by significant tariff barriers for most of our exports to the United States.
The Government reminds us that the Americans took unfair actions in some parts of our economy. We all noted that and objected to it. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) promised that the Conservative Government would move "to get unfair U.S. laws changed", and said that we had to have guaranteed access to the United States markets. The Conservatives went after a dispute settlement mechanism which the Minister for International Trade and other spokespersons for the Government said would give us this guaranteed access. They got no such thing. There is a tribunal that does not have the authority to change U.S. laws.


Mr. McDermid:: Or Canadian laws.


John Edward Broadbent: Or Canadian laws. I say to the Member opposite that it was not our agenda, it was the Conservatives who promised to get us guaranteed access to the U.S. markets. After making so many sacrifices, they did not even get that.
If we are winning in our trade competition with the United States, whether it is in shakes and shingles, softwood, tubular steel, pork or any other part of our trade, the U.S. Congress will have exactly the same powers to pass unfair laws against us as they had before this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: We find that unacceptable.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: The Member says that is wrong. I hope he can prove it. If he can, it will be the first time he has done so in the House.
Unless there is a fundamental change in the nature of the dispute settlement mechanism, the constitutional right of the U.S. Congress to take action against us when we win the
Supply
competition will remain in place. The Government got nothing, having given away so much on the part of the people of Canada.
Not only did it get nothing out of what was stated to be its central goal in these negotiations, but our prairie farmers, in this case, the grain exporters, thought that if we had this locked in trade agreement with the United States, at least they should be protected from massive American subsidies in grain exports when they export directly to countries in which we have had traditional markets, whatever other limitations in the agreement.
Our grain exporters are the most efficient producers of grain in the world and are quite prepared to meet honest competition. But the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) tried to justify the continuity of these subsidies by saying: "Oh, these were from a pre-existing program established by the U.S. Congress". It is a pre-existing program that will still be applicable, that can still use the massive resources of the U.S. treasury against our agricultural sector which is effective and competitive, and I say, once again, the Government sold out the interests of our grain producers.
The right of Canadians to export processed products as opposed to unprocessed products is something we in this Party have maintained as a goal. We have wanted this, particularly for the development of western Canada; not to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, not to go for the quick buck fix so characteristic of the Tories. We wanted the right to maintain as a nation the sovereign control over resource development to whatever level of finished processing before we export it.
There was a preliminary decision by GATT against a very important part of the British Columbia economy, the export of processed fish. According to news reports about the change in the wording of this agreement, incredibly enough, this Conservative Government is prepared to sacrifice this right. It has-and we will see if they got it-maintained the right for the east coast fisheries to ensure that we can export processed fish without having action taken against us by the U.S., but it has completely capitulated in terms of the interests of British Columbia, and we find it totally unacceptable.
To give one more example, late yesterday afternoon I had incredible news presented to me by a document produced by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada, which up to this point had been supporting this deal on a tentative basis. It has now unequivocally withdrawn its support. Why? Interestingly enough, when it saw the first wording on the weekend of October 3 and October 4, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, like the New Democratic Party, opposed this deal in this particular instance because of its impact on the automotive sector. It went to work to try at least to persuade the Government to increase the North American content in automotive production.

December 10, 1987
Supply
I remind Conservatives Members we are talking about 65,000 direct jobs in automotive parts alone, not considering the indirect jobs. The Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association wanted the Government to at least raise the North American content from 50 per cent to 60 per cent in this agreement. I learned yesterday that the American side had agreed to this, that the Americans saw this could be like the original Auto Pact, if it applied equitably to both sides.
If we consider competition from other parts of the world, both Canada and the United States could benefit from increasing the North American content provisions from 50 per cent to 60 per cent. It would have been beneficial to Canadians, and the Americans concluded it would have been beneficial to the Americans as well. Incredibly enough, I learned yesterday that it was the Canadian side in the negotiations that said no to this. The Canadian spokesperson said this was not in the Government's interests. So we have the incredible situation that the Government gave away the enforcement mechanism of tariff imposition to enforce the Auto Pact, the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association arguing for some improvement, at least raising North American content from 50 per cent to 60 per cent, the American side agreeing with this and the Canadian side turning it down. I say this is disgusting behaviour and totally unacceptable to Canadians wherever they may live.
As I said at the outset of my comments on this motion, although I referred to a few of the details of the resolution today, the debate is fundamentally about process, about the denial of a serious opportunity to Canadians to consider the impact of this major proposal in their lives. When so many significant groups representing all walks of life have indicated their concern about having the opportunity to learn, to understand and to comment upon the agreement, the Government has an obligation, in our view, to respond fully and to facilitate such a debate and discussion. It is a denial of democracy not to give the Canadian people an opportunity to fully examine this deal.
The committee studying this proposal, as all Members of the House know, went simply to a handful of cities across the country from Vancouver to St. John's. It obviously heard from some people in those hearings. However, I ask, what about the people and groups who were denied the opportunity to speak to the committee either to give their views or to obtain information? Even given the committee's own democratic decision not to advertise, many groups and individuals in all these communities tried to appear before the committee and were frustrated in their attempts.
An anti-poverty organization in Fredericton, womens' groups in Edmonton, a textile firm in Montreal, seniors' groups in Toronto, all were denied their right to be heard on this important matter which affects their lives and the lives of all other Canadians. In Manitoba over 30 different groups wanted to appear before the committee and could not. In Charlottetown, the coalition against this deal was forced to hold its own hearings because it was denied access to the
committee. A British Columbia coalition of 43 groups was given only a 30 minute hearing. That worked out roughly to 20 seconds each. I repeat, this is not a democratic process. It makes a travesty of democratic process.
Other groups which did get to appear, particularly in Atlantic Canada, gave the deal only qualified or lukewarm support. Many said they wanted to see the final text before making up their minds. The Economic Council of Newfoundland, the Halifax Board of Trade and the Atlantic Chamber of Commerce gave the deal what could at best be described as lukewarm support. The Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce said the Government is trying to sell free trade and not educate Canadians as to its content. The Prince Edward Island seafood processors complained of what they described as political manipulation.
The Prime Minister and the Government have to be seen to be doing more precisely what they are doing. What they are up to is not presenting a democratic process. What they are up to is railroading a deal through Parliament, disregarding the whole democratic process of this country. They are doing it in a way with which we totally and fundamentally disagree.
While the Canadian Prime Minister refuses to give Canadians adequate time to assess this measure, it is worth noting that in the United States members of the U.S. Congress will have a minimum of three months to consider its impact. Our Parliament does not again reconvene after next week until after the January 2 deadline. While Canadian families will be celebrating with their loved ones, friends and neighbours, and while they are enjoying themselves during the Christmas period, this Government will be busy signing away the country's control over its own future. Beginning the new year by signing away the control of the country without allowing the country a chance to study this deal is absolutely unacceptable to the New Democratic Party and the people of Canada.
Just last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in the House:
January 2 is a day of no great significance to Canadians or to the House of
Commons.
He was right when he said that. It remains true today. But the Prime Minister has refused to act on what the logical implications of that announcement are. If January 2 has no great significance to the people of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada, why doesn't the Prime Minister put an end to January 2 as the deadline?
Mir. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to continue his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the Government and others for giving me the extended time. I will not abuse that privilege.
December 10, 1987

I want to conclude by saying that the Prime Minister does owe the people of Canada the right to thoroughly look at, to understand in all its complexity, what he has described as the most important economic deal in the history of relations between our two countries. There is nothing magic and there is nothing of significance about January 2. We need as a people at least the amount of time the Americans have to assess the impact of this proposed arrangement on our lives. Canadians want, Canadians deserve and Canadians should have the democratic right to a real debate on the facts. The deadline of January 2 must be extended.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have listened today with great interest to the leader of the socialist Party in Canada. There are a couple of areas in his speech with which I agree wholeheartedly. One is that Canadians are good, they are competitive. They work well and they are able to compete in this world today. 1 agree with him wholeheartedly, they are. That is what this agreement is all about. There is no question that we in the Progressive Conservative Party and the Government of Canada have great faith in our workers and our competitive position within the world. We can compete with the best.
We are following a process which started after the Second World War when tariffs dropped from an average of 40 per cent on a myriad of items to an average of 9 per cent on a few selected items. What has happened to this Canada in that period of time, Mr. Speaker? We have become a stronger country, a more sovereign country and a more affluent society. Prosperity has followed. This is just the natural progression following on those reductions in tariffs to get an open trading agreement, and not only with the United States. I am sure we will have some good progress in the current negotiations that are going on under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva today.
My friend from Oshawa fears a great American takeover. The economy of his riding is generated by one of the finest automobile manufacturing operations in the world, namely, General Motors. He fears the American investment and he fears the Americans coming. He keeps saying around the country that we are going to be the fifty-first. Yet he welcomes with open arms $2 billion of investment by General Motors in his riding. That is welcomed with open arms. He does not call for an investigation or a review of that investment, not at all.


An Hon. Member:: That is not free trade, it is managed trade.


John Horton McDermid: He is there applauding it. The Member thinks it is great if investment is in his riding. He thinks the Auto Pact is terrific because it helps his riding and his UAW friends. It does. We say that is great. I like it too because it helps in Brampton as well. I have an auto manufacturing operation in my riding as well. But if anybody else wants to take advantage of this agreement the New Democratics say, "We are opposed."
Supply
We have heard the doom and gloom and we have seen the crocodile tears.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: I sat and listened quietly to the Hon. Member's speech. I have got the New Democrats going on the other side. I must have pinched a nerve.


Mr. Orlikow:: You are not telling the truth, that is why.


John Horton McDermid: There is the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) yelling that "You are not telling the truth".


David Orlikow: You are not.


John Horton McDermid: But the NDP is trying to frighten Canadians. Here is the latest development from the New Democratic Party which is hot off the press. The NDP business development Minister in Manitoba, A1 Mackling, would have Canadians believing that an armed invasion from the United States might occur if Canada tore up the free trade agreement or did not live up to its part of the deal.


Mr. Holtmann:: Invasion?


John Horton McDermid: Have you ever heard anything so silly and ridiculous in your life, Mr. Speaker?


John Edward Broadbent: Stick to the motion.


John Horton McDermid: I am sure the guys at Fort Bragg are having a good chuckle today after that. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North says we are not telling the truth. What about the nonsense of an armed invasion which the NDP is spreading around the countryside. It is such utter nonsense.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: He was wrong. Tell us about free trade and farm implements.


John Horton McDermid: Let us get to the crux of the motion. I want to emphasize the importance of this free trade agreement to all regions and all sectors of our economy and talk about the unprecedented program of consultation with Canadians. If the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) would sit back and relax, 1 will let him speak after me-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A thousand jobs have been lost in Brantford on free trade.


John Horton McDermid: That had a lot to do with free trade, sure.


John Edward Broadbent: You lunkhead. If they had an Auto Pact there it would not have happened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Can we allow the Member to continue his speech? The Hon. Member.


John Horton McDermid: We sure have the New Democrats going this morning, Mr. Speaker.

December 10, 1987
Supply
As I was saying before I was so dramatically interrupted, the consultations that we have had in the last number of years with Canadians on the free trade negotiations are unprecedented. Most legitimate, if not all legitimate studies done outside of Government have recommended that we enter into these trade negotiations. It was most important that this be done to protect and enlarge our markets. From the time the negotiations were begun, we have had those consultations and they have allowed us to enter into a two-way dialogue with business, labour, consumers, and with the provinces. The core of the system of consultation has been the International Trade Advisory Committee system to provide a two-way flow of information and advice between the Government and the private sector.
Under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. Walter Light, bringing together more than 40 leaders from business, labour, consumer groups, and academia, the ITAC, the International Trade Advisory Committee, has concerned itself with broad matters relating to international trade access and marketing. It has made valuable recommendations to the free trade agreement negotiation process.
Complementing the work of ITAC are 15 sectoral advisory groups of international trade, SAGITs. The SAGITs represent a broad cross-section of the Canadian economy. For the record, I wish to cover the sectors that are represented. There is agriculture, food and beverage; fish and fish products; minerals and metals; energy products and services; chemicals and petrochemicals; forest products; industrial, marine and rail equipment; automotive and aerospace; textiles, footwear and leather; apparel and fur; consumer and household products; communications, computer equipment and services; financial services; general services; arts and cultural industries.
The SAGITs were all selected in close co-operation and consultation with various national trade groups, provincial Governments, and labour. Both the ITACs and the SAGITs were provided regular briefings on the state of the negotiations by the senior negotiators of the trade negotiation office, and had the opportunity to formulate recommendations directly to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). More than 150 meetings of the sectoral advisory committees and their working groups have been held over the past 18 months. We asked for advice, we listened to it, and we acted on it.
Over and above the formal SAGIT consultations there have been dozens of briefings and consultations by officials from the trade negotiations office with all segments of the private sector. Recently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has held extensive consultations-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Couldn't sell free trade to the farmers either.


John Horton McDermid: -with representatives of grape growers and wineries in the Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia-


Mr. Cassidy:: They turned them down four to one.


John Horton McDermid: -to discuss mechanisms to facilitate the process of adjustment.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Give us the whole story, John.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Don't just put your side of the story.


John Horton McDermid: In addition, for weeks government Ministers and other Members of the House have been criss-crossing the country holding meetings, speaking, answering questions, and appearing on radio and television all in an effort to enhance the two-way dialogue with Canadians on this important issue.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Tory propaganda machine.


John Horton McDermid: We have helped explain this agreement to Canadians, and equally important we have listened to the views and the concerns of Canadians in every region of this country.
Apart from close consultation with the private sector, the Government undertook to work closely and co-operatively with the provinces. The First Ministers were briefed and consulted regularly as the negotiations progressed. They received briefings with slide presentations on every detail of the agreement. Typifying the co-operative spirit which this Government has fostered, through the Meech Lake Accord and other federal-provincial co-operative endeavours-even our Liberal friend from the Province of Ontario stated that the new attitude is very positive for Canada-the First Ministers were kept fully apprised, not through personal briefings but by a detailed network of contacts at the senior officials level.
In fact, since the negotiations began, we have held approximately nine First Ministers' meetings where the free trade agreement was the single agenda item; three First Ministers' Conferences where free trade was extensively discussed, most recently in Toronto on November 26 and 27. There have been 19 full day committee meetings of the senior officials forum, the continuing committee on trade negotiations, and scores of working group meetings on every subject of the free trade agreement. More than 500 documents have been shared with the provinces. In addition, provincial trade Ministers and designated Ministers have met with the Minister for International Trade on several occasions to review the free trade issues. No previous Government has involved the provinces so extensively in such a comprehensive process of consultations and information sharing.
It is not only the private sector and the provinces that had an opportunity to express their views and participate on the process. On March 16 of this year the House debated a motion introduced by the Minister for International Trade:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the Government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty,-
Done!
December 10, 1987

social programs,-
Done!
agricultural marketing systems,-
Done!
the auto industry-
Done, and-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Done in.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Sold out.


John Horton McDermid: and our unique cultural identity.
Done!
Hon. Members opposite were given a full opportunity to express their views on that occasion.
To ensure further that Parliament fully take account of the views of the Canadian people on this important national issue, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade of this House, representing all Parties, has been holding hearings in Ottawa and across the country.
Today I listened to the Leader of the socialist Party stating that all those groups and individuals could not appear before the committee. I do not know how many committees he has served, probably not too many because he has primarily been the Leader of the Party, but 1 can tell him that there has not been a committee that I have served on where it was humanly possible to accommodate all the witnesses who wanted to appear before any committee, no matter what it was.
For over one month now this committee has been hearing why the free trade agreement is so important to Canadians in all regions of the country. It held hearings in Vancouver, Edmonton, Yellowknife, Regina, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax, and St. John's. Prior to that, hearings were held for two and a half weeks here in Ottawa.
The Minister for International Trade and senior officials of the trade negotiations office have appeared before the committee whenever requested to ensure that the terms of the agreement are clearly understood. Women's groups, labour leaders, representatives of our First Nations, trade associations, have all had and are having a chance to be heard. Altogether, this committee has now heard from nearly 200 Canadian organizations and individuals from every province and territory in Canada.
Furthermore, despite the large majority of Conservative Members on that committee, which reflects the composition of this House, Members from the Opposition have been given an unprecedented degree of influence to guide the course of these hearings, including the power to select fully one-half of all the witnesses invited to appear before the committee. I do not think that anything has been fairer.
Supply
I do not understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth today of the Leader of the socialist Party, because there have been over 200 representations. If the Hon. Member took time to analyse the composition of those who appeared, I am sure he would find that virtually every corner of this country was represented by one group, organization, or individuals who appeared before the committee. Alone, the churches that appeared before the committee represented a very large crosssection of Canada.
To round out this comprehensive consultative process, the standing foreign affairs committee of the other place has been holding public hearings on the free trade agreement for nearly one month. I might say, Mr. Speaker, it was a study by the Senate that also supported Canada entering into free trade. It was the Liberal dominated Senate that recommended that the Government enter into trade negotiations with the United States.
The Senate committee has been receiving highly detailed evidence and testimony from a wide range of Canadian experts and specialists, and making an extremely important contribution to the public dialogue on this critical issue. This adds up to a major effort of consultation, allowing the Canadian people in all provinces and territories an unprecedented degree of input and awareness. It is a reflection of the commitment of the Government to hear the views of the people of Canada as individuals-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How can you read that with a straight face, John?


John Horton McDermid: -through their provincial Governments, through their federal MPs, through their business, economic, labour, and church leaders.
The Hon. Member opposite laughs. The church leaders appeared before the committee. What is he laughing at? I mean, what is so funny?


Michael Morris Cassidy: You ignored them.


John Horton McDermid: Why is the NDP laughing about the church leaders appearing before the committee?


Some Hon. Members:: We are laughing at you.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member for Brant is laughing at church people appearing before the committee. What is so funny about that?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Go ahead, John.


John Horton McDermid: What is so funny about that? This is only one element that chose not to participate in the consultative process.
The groups were offered the opportunity of confidential briefings and refused. They should remember that. The Leader of the New Democratic Party and his buddy, the right hon.

December 10, 1987
Supply
gentleman in the Liberal Party, say that everything is secret, that everything is done in secret, and that nobody knows what is going on. They were offered briefings, they were offered confidential briefings. Not only were they offered them; they asked for them.


Mr. Hopkins:: Briefings in secret.


Mr. Riis:: Secret briefings.


John Horton McDermid: They asked for them. They asked for confidential briefings. We offered it, and they turned it down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They didn't want to do things in secret, under cover, or in camera.


John Horton McDermid: Is it not terrible that they turned it down? Dear, oh, dear! They stand up with this great song and dance about how badly they have been treated on this. There has never been, to my knowledge, as much consultation or as much involvement with the Canadian people in an agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You should go to Kamloops and say that.


John Horton McDermid: NDP Members sit there and howl. They know, for example, that the Auto Pact was never brought to the House. It was negotiated in secret. It was signed. It was a fait accompli. There was absolutely-


Some Hon. Members:: So what?


Michael Morris Cassidy: We are talking about the people of Canada now.


John Horton McDermid: I know, but let me finish my point.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) likes to sit on the seat of his pants and yell. We understand why the Ontario NDP kicked him out as leader. The only time he ever made any sense was when he was sitting on the seat of his pants.


Ms. Dewar:: You are really stretching it.


John Horton McDermid: Let me say that there has never been consultation in any trade arrangement-


Ms. Jewett:: Even Pat Carney is better than this.


John Horton McDermid: -by any Government in Canada like there has been on this one-never, never in history. For them to stand here and say that we have not consulted is absolutely ludicrous. Given the extensive, wide-ranging, consultative effort in which the Government has been engaged for over two years, it is unnecessary, in our view, to delay the signing of the free trade agreement beyond January 2. Not only is an extension unwarranted but, as Hon. Members opposite should know, it is manifestly unrealistic.
Barring a Congressional extension, the U.S. President does not sign the free trade agreement. We know what they are up to. They are going to try to scuttle the agreement any way they
can. We know that. We know what their bottom line is. This talk about "give us another 60 days to consider" is nonsense. They are out to scuttle the deal. They know that. They have known the timetable of these negotiations right from the beginning. It has not been a secret anywhere, any time. Now they want it extended because they know what happens if we do not sign the agreement. They know that Congress would no longer be bound to the fast track rules requiring a straight up or down vote, with 90 legislative days following the submission of the implementing legislation. They are going to be considering their legislation as well as the agreement. The same process will be going on here in Canada. We will be considering the agreement and our legislation as well.
This means that the U.S. Congress would have the right then to pick apart this delicately balanced accord and introduce any amendments it saw fit, or simply delay the action indefinitely. Clearly it is not in Canada's interest to have this fast track process derailed for any amendments at this stage by the U.S., because it would not serve-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: I wish the camera would be on the whole House so that the people would see how the Opposition is acting.


John Horton McDermid: Yes, that would be a good idea. I would support that amendment.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That would put you on too, Harvey.


John Horton McDermid: Furthermore, while the January 2 deadline could theoretically be extended by Congress, it is hardly likely, given that Congress is set to recess at the end of next week and in the meantime is preoccupied, as the Hon. Member knows, with a full agenda including arms control and deficit reduction. Deficit reduction, which the NDP does not understand. In summary, as I have outlined, the free trade consultations that we have conducted with the Canadian people have been extensive, exhaustive, and thorough.
Even if it were possible, therefore, there would simply be no need to delay the signing of this historic agreement.
The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement is crucial to Canada's long-term economic prosperity. 1 urge my hon. friends opposite to set aside their narrow partisan interests and join the Government as it prepares Canada to take its place in the new competitive environment of the 21st Century.
In closing, I want to remind the people of Canada that it is the same bunch that opposed the Auto Pact 23 years ago-


John Edward Broadbent: Another lie.


John Horton McDermid: The same gang exactly that opposed the Auto Pact 23 years ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Lie after lie.
December 10, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Today they are protecting it with their lives.


John Edward Broadbent: I called you a liar. Did you hear?


John Horton McDermid: I will make a prediction today, that 20 years from today that same bunch over there will be standing up and saying that this was one of the best agreements that Canada ever signed in international trade and will be protecting this one with their lives.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. I would like to put a question to the Member who just spoke. He was talking about the Auto Pact. Tories love to refer to the Auto Pact in the same breath as they are referring to free trade. The Auto Pact is not free trade. It is managed trade with sanctions against those companies or those countries that do not go along with the specific agreement.
However, thanks to managed trade in the Auto Pact in the last 10 years, between 1974 and 1984, we created 4,000 new jobs in this country.
Let us take a look now at free trade in the agricultural implement industry. We have had free trade in farm implement manufacturing with the United States since 1948. In every year since 1948 we have had a net deficit with the United States in the manufacture of farm implements-a net deficit. Between 1974 and 1984 we lost 5,000 jobs thanks to free trade. We lost 1,000 of those jobs in the City of Brantford when White Farm implements was forced to close, I believe it was, in 1985.
I want to ask the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary how he can explain that. The point here is that through free trade-and I am not talking about the three or four bad years farmers went through before White Farm went down in 1985, I am talking about the good years in the fifties, sixties, and seventies-we had a net deficit in farm implements. That is the devastation which this Mulroney trade deal will bring upon the whole country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. future minister for Brampton-Georgetown.


John Horton McDermid: I keep getting promoted.


John Edward Broadbent: With that kind of performance I think you are ripe.


John Horton McDermid: I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). It is very kind of him to say that.
The Hon. Member knows full well that the Americans lost about 50,000 jobs in the farm implement business too. It was an international problem, and he knows that full well. He cannot blame that on free trade between Canada and the United States. He is comparing apples and oranges, and he knows that full well.
Supply


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You are talking about the recession.
I am talking about the good years, the fifties, sixties, and seventies. I am talking about 30 years.


Marion Dewar: It is scary.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He does not understand the elementary aspects of this.


John Horton McDermid: They are trying to say that the free trade between Canada and the United States in farm implements destroyed that particular industry for Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: You got it. Right on.


John Horton McDermid: It did not.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: There is only one Canadian firm left.


John Horton McDermid: Why is there one Canadian firm left? It is because they are competitive, because they are good, and because they can compete in the market-place. That is the whole story.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Where did the other ones go?


John Horton McDermid: Why can Canadians compete in so many other areas? It is because they are good at it. If there is one firm left and it is competing in that area, it is because it is good at it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That is incredible, John.


John Horton McDermid: It is as simple as that. The Hon. Members knows that comparing the farm machinery matter with this agreement is comparing apples and oranges.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is not. It is free trade.


John Horton McDermid: He is totally out to lunch on it, and he knows it.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the Hon. Member. During the course of his speech he took some pride in announcing that churches had been consulted during the course of the committee hearings. It is true that the Primate of the Anglican Church appeared, the Moderator of the United Church appeared and Bishop De Roo representing the Conference of Catholic Bishops appeared. They represent the three largest denominations in Canada. All three said that the proposed trade agreement was immoral. All three said that it should not be signed. All three said that the process is undemocratic. All three said that it would fundamentally change the structure of the economy.
If the Hon. Member believes in consultation, is the Government prepared to listen to those church leaders representing a vast majority of Canadians speaking from an ethical point of view who are saying that this agreement stinks, is immoral and

December 10, 1987
Supply
should not be signed? If he believes in consultation, why is the Government not listening to those church leaders?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to them. My father was a United Church minister. I am a member of the United Church of Canada. One of the United Church ministers who appeared before the committee said that every Christian should oppose this trade deal. As a Christian, I am offended by that type of representation. I believe that there is nothing immoral about this agreement whatsoever. It is a commercial agreement. The ministers to whom I have talked in my community from those congregations do not necessarily support what their churches are saying.
The point I was making earlier was that the Leader of the New Democratic Party was saying that we did not consult broadly. That was the point he was trying to make and I was saying that we did consult broadly.
We listened to them. We listened to what they had to say. However, we can have differences of opinion. That is allowed in this country, thank God.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the Hon. Member's erudite comments on the auto industry in which he repeated the systematic disinformation the Conservative propaganda machine has been kicking out about this free trade agreement. I want to ask the Hon. Member a straightforward question.
If it is a free trade agreement, why is it that when it came into being it had investment requirements in Canada built into it? Quite specifically, the presidents of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford signed letters committing themselves and their companies to a certain level over time of investment in Canada. Is that what the Hon. Member is describing as free trade? If he is, I can tell him that there is not an economist in the world who would agree with him unless he happens to be a big "C" Conservative economist and has as little regard for the truth as the Hon. Member.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, here is what NDP Members said about the Auto Pact. They said that the Government is devious or insufficient with the Auto Pact. They said that the Government has made no plans to handle the dislocation and retraining of those who would lose their jobs as a result. One thing they did not say at that time was that we would lose our culture. They did not say that, but they did say that all the American firms would move back to the United States and that we would lose jobs because of this deal. They made all these dire predictions and they are doing it again.
The Hon. Member does this. He asks questions and then he walks out of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Yeah, because I want an answer to the question.


John Horton McDermid: He did the same thing the other day in Question Period. He has absolutely no interest whatsoever in any answers. He does it all the time.


John Edward Broadbent: You are a lying phoney who won't answer the questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Horton McDermid: Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think Hon. Members know that they should not comment on whether Members are present or absent in the House.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was called by the Leader of the New Democratic Party just now a lying phoney. I would ask him to withdraw that remark.


John Edward Broadbent: Which part of it do you want withdrawn?


John Horton McDermid: All of it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would be totally happy to withdraw the unparliamentary language and I now hope that the Hon. Member for once in his life in this Parliament would have the integrity to answer the question that was asked of him.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to this somewhat heated debate on trade. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the headlines which appeared in one of the major newspapers from Ontario today. One headline reads: "Ontario's future rosy under trade pact, province forecasts". Down a little further, it says: "Ontario treasury officials say provincial exports to the United States will grow next year". It goes on to indicate very clearly that there seems to be some contradiction.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) represents an Ontario riding that has received great benefits from trade with the United States. It indicates here that provincial government officials from the Province of Ontario feel that this will continue and expand under a free trade agreement. There seems to be some contradiction here.
I am a western Member and know that western farmers and producers have been wanting to get what Ontario has had. We now see that the advantages of free trade will be expanded. I am very pleased with this debate because there seems to have been a turnaround in the direction of the provincial Government of Ontario. I would like to hear the Hon. Member's comments on that.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in reading this morning's report that the Treasurer of Ontario, Robert Nixon, released. I think he was a little concerned about that report. Obviously he tried to do some backtracking on it. After he read it, he said: "No, no, I don't want you to misunderstand this, now, this is not an endorsation of the free trade agreement". However, it certainly was very interesting. Knowing
December 10, 1987

the Department of the Treasury in Ontario fairly well, it usually puts out some fairly good and accurate information. Needless to say, we were very pleased to see that.
We have said all along that Ontario has the most to gain from this agreement. There is no question about it. If we do not get a free trade agreement with our largest customer and if we do not have access to and open up that market, then Ontario has the most to lose. I believe the people of Ontario understand that, and that support for the agreement is growing.
1 might add that opposition Members have had for the last three years a plan to discredit this Government by rising in the House of Commons to call the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Secretaries or the Ministers liars. They are still at it today. They do not have to justify it, they just rise and say it. Unfortunately, it has, to my way of thinking, detracted greatly not only from this debate but from any debate.
One of the things that concerns me about the free trade debate is the name-calling on all sides by both-


Marion Dewar: You started it.


John Horton McDermid: Now they are-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Simon Reisman called us a bunch of Nazis and you supported that. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) supported that. She said that that was quite right.


John Horton McDermid: May I finish what I was trying to say?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Prime Minister broke his promise and called us Nazis. Do you support it? Do you call us Nazis as well?


John Horton McDermid: I am saying that name calling by both sides is wrong. It takes away from the importance to Canada of this debate. Someone said "You started it". It does not matter who started it, it is wrong on both sides. I hope it will stop so that we can debate this agreement without totally unfounded and unfair name calling.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, over the last hour or so I have listened with some interest to the presentations by both the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and the Parliamentary Secretary. Between the scuffling some very important issues were joined. The Parliamentary Secretary, who in his presentation almost makes one long for the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) to be in the House-


Mr. Blaikie:: And that is not easy.


Lloyd Axworthy: -and that is not easy, has now admonished us to try and stick to the facts. I will do that. I will take the Parliamentary Secretary at his word, that he is prepared to listen to the facts, not as they are pumped up by the public
Supply
relations firms his Government has hired, but by the reality of what has taken place in this country on the issue and what Canadians are saying about it.
Let us start with January 2. That is a very important date. It is not insignificant, as the Prime Minister said. Under a parliamentary form of Government, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) exchanges instruments with another country he commits us to a course of action. It is not the same for the President. He is restrained by the obligation to have congressional concurrence. When our Prime Minister signifies his intent to enter into this particular arrangement on January 2, he is committing Canada to that course of action. That is not insignificant.
The one thing which has become very clear in this debate, from whatever source, is that this is not a trade deal. It has elements of trade but the principles tabled on October 4 go way beyond the conventional trade negotiations conducted between countries. They go way beyond anything in the common market today. They deal with matters which no other group of nations has ever tried to negotiate or come to an arrangement on. They go into areas of control of our domestic economy way beyond anything attempted before, control of our energy sector-


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Lloyd Axworthy: -investment, cultural arrangements, and service industries. Those areas of such incredible concern were not forecast in any announcement by the Government. They were not given any kind of preliminary airing in this Parliament. Yet they were part of a deal arrived at in Washington in a sort of finger liken' good fried chicken dinner between the respective negotiators. All of a sudden we found we do not have a trade deal, we have a form of sovereignty association, economic union, and economic integration which goes way beyond anything attempted in the past. So for the Hon. Member to cite studies to demonstrate that there has already been full and adequate discussion misses the point.
The point is this agreement was not included in any of those studies. A North American energy policy was not part of any forecast that the Government provided. In fact, when two Ministers, one from Prince Edward Island and the other from Manitoba, were directly asked about that, they both said clearly that the Government did not even include the provinces in those discussions. Whatever consultations did take place, there were a lot of hidden cards in the deck which were not revealed even behind closed doors.
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary made a historical gaff. He said this agreement is in line with successive government efforts since the 1940s to reduce trade barriers. No other Government in that period of time ever put forward the proposal that we sign a comprehensive commercial trade and economic arrangement with the U.S. There have been sectoral discussions. There have been reductions in tariffs brought about as a consequence of international negotiations, not

December 10, 1987
Supply
bilateral negotiations. This is the first time since 1911 that any Canadian Government has wilfully decided to initiate negotiations on a comprehensive trade arrangement. That has nothing to do with historical continuity. This deal breaks that continuity and, furthermore, goes against the wisdom of history which shows that we were able to achieve reduction of tariff barriers without surrendering control over large parts of our economy.
One of the distinct advantages of securing trade liberalization through the international system is that you can do it without having to surrender autonomy over your own economy. The rules of subsidy under GATT are very different from the rules of subsidy established by the Americans. They did not concern themselves with regional development policies or cultural issues. That was not part of the international trade regime, but this is. The Hon. Member wants facts. That is a historical fact and the Hon. Member is wrong in what he said as a result. He did not state the facts properly.
Let us talk about these consultations that went on. He talked about SAGITs and industrial groups. During the course of the committee's travels across the country I had occasion to ask the National Anti-Poverty Organization whether it was consulted. No, it was not. Was the National Farmers Union consulted? No, it was not. Were the churches consulted? No, they were not. Were women's organizations consulted? No, they were not. In other words, a large part of the Canadian population was excluded from those consultations.
What the Hon. Member was really describing was an elite process. Consultations were confined primarily to spokespersons or advocates of those who want a free trade arrangement. They did not include a broad spectrum of Canadian society. When he tries to make the case that consultation is already taking place, yes, consultation among friends but not among the broad population.
It is interesting to ask who was the chief agricultural representative appearing in front of that committee. It was the spokesman for Cargill! Hardly what you would call a representative of the grain economy in western Canada. That company certainly has a right to be heard but it certainly does not represent the kind of broad-based pool and co-operative farm movement on the Prairies.
On the other side of the border, who was the chief advisor on agriculture to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chief Trade Negotiator? It was the former president of Cargill. They got it both ways. They locked up the consultation process in one company. So when we talk about consultation, we have to ask who, and for what interest?


John Horton McDermid: Be honest.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member talked about a wide range of studies which were produced to provide support for the trade deal. Let us look at those studies for a moment. Where do they come from? Who did them? What was in them? What did the Macdonald Commission report, the Government's Bible, have to say? It said there are two kinds of
major trade issues, tariff and non-tariff barriers. The nontariff barriers can only be handled, says the report, by getting an exemption from U.S. trade laws. In other words, the primary criteria established by the Macdonald Commission, has not been met by this agreement. To cite that report as proof that somehow this agreement has a wealth of evidence behind it simply ignores the studies themselves.
What about the famous Economic Council report which has been waved in the face of countless House of Commons sessions by the Prime Minister to prove that 350,000 jobs will be created. The Economic Council based its study on the premise that countervail and anti-dumping laws would no longer apply to Canada. Furthermore, it did not include the service industry which accounts for 70 percent of jobs. The arrangement that has been negotiated does not include exemptions from countervail and anti-dumping and does include the service sector. In other words, the study is irrelevant and useless.
The point is that we have to talk about the deal. All that went before is only prologue. We have to talk about the specifics of the deal. What has the Government done to enable large numbers of Canadians to gain information about the arrangement and to ensure that when Canadians were consulted they would be listened to and responded to? There is no point in undertaking consultation if it is a one-way street, if it does not complete the circle. If there is no response from the Government it is only a cynical, crass attempt to manipulate public opinion. In genuine consultation people are responded to.
What have we achieved with this arrangement? When the elements of the agreement were tabled on October 4 we were promised that there would be a final text in a matter of a few days, in a couple of weeks at most. We are still awaiting that final text. The Government expects Canadians to give their opinions on something they have not yet seen. That would give Jonathan Swift a wonderful subject for satire. It is too bad that he is not alive to day to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary speak. He would have a new rendition of Gulliver's Travels. Let us go out and consult, they say, but we will not tell them what we are consulting about because we do not yet have the final text.
We understand that there were problems in the second round of negotiations. We understood that there were pressures. Why could the Government not be honest and say so? Why could it not just say that the October 4 document was incomplete and had problems, that it had to go back to the bargaining table and renegotiate, that it would come back with an agreement in December and start with the fast track process? Instead, the Government maintained its charade. It launched a committee across the country without the final text.
December 10, 1987

The Member pointed to that committee with great pride. He said that we had all the consultation we could possibly stand. In fact, the majority members on that committee refused, by vote, to extend the hearings to a date when we would have a final text. They refused to open the committee by advertising in newspapers where the committee was sitting in order that people could come forward. Witnesses were pre-selected.
There have been plenty of precedents for the openness about which I have spoken. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on International Relations which studied free trade one of the most important parts of the committee's hearings was at the end of each day when the session was opened up to individual representations. It is true that sometimes we had to sit until 11 p.m. or midnight, but some days we heard 20 or 30 unsolicited Canadians who came forward to be heard. That was one of the most important parts of that committee because it gave us insight into the basic anxieties and concerns of a broad cross-section of Canadians.
This committee was deliberately refused that opportunity by the majority of Tory members on that committee. For the Hon. Member to stand in this House and say that that was a legitimate process denies what went on. It denies the fact that a parliamentary committee was restricted, limited, and circumscribed in the proper functioning of its duties. It is a fact on the record that the committee was handicapped in its work.
After 100 years of tradition in this House and centuries of tradition in the British House the whole point of having a committee is that it will be heard and that its report will be tabled in the House and responded to. The committee will report next Tuesday. Its report will contain a number of recommendations from people who spoke about how the agreement must be changed. Even those who are philosophically in favour of free trade said that it is a bad agreement and needs correction. Is the Prime Minister going to allow those corrections to take place? Is he going to give proper and due consideration to the findings of that committee?
For example, we are faced with a fundamental dilemma in that the Grocery Products Manufacturers association, the largest employer in Canada employing close to 300,000 workers, said that under this deal they may be forced out of business because, by reducing tariffs to zero, the Americans will be able to import packaged, processed, and frozen goods at a much lower cost, while in Canada we are also being required to fulfil supply management. We must remove supply management or they will be put out of business by the tariff changes. They asked the committee to do something about it. 1 am not making that up, it is the fact.
It would seem to me that a government interested in governing would recognize that it is putting at risk the whole food processing industry of Canada, to say nothing of the supply management system. That legitimate and deeply-felt concern was expressed to the committee.
Supply
Will the committee's findings on that be incorporated in the new agreement? Of course not. The Prime Minister is going to run off and sign something on January 2. He will not fulfil his proper parliamentary obligation to listen to the findings of a committee of this House. We say that the rights of Parliament are being usurped and one can find no clearer evidence of that than what I have just cited.
A very dangerous trend is being started by the Government. The constitutional arrangement was negotiated by the executive behind closed doors with no accountability to elected representatives, provincial or federal. This economic union arrangement was negotiated behind closed doors by executive bureaucrats who did not tell us what was going on. Now this Parliament is being denied the lawful and rightful functioning of its committee.
In addition to the clear and prevalent danger to the economic, social, and political arrangements of this country in the arrangement which the Prime Minister and the President will be signing on January 2, in whatever form, there is also the erosion of Parliament. The fundamental rights for proper and free discussion and for accountability are being undermined and eroded by the Government. This is the most basic contempt for this House that we have seen in generations. That is one of the most serious consequences that we face.
I would like to point out one final fact. The justification for this ramrod, choo-choo, hurry up, headless horseman approach to the trade deal has been that we must follow the American timetable of the fast track. That has been the one and only justification. Today we learned that the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said that the agreement would not even be dealt with until June. Mr. Speaker, the fast track is in Canada and the slow track is in the United States.
The timetable has nothing to do with the American timetable in this respect. If the American legislators are saying they cannot even begin to deal with the matter until late June, would it not have been proper to ask for the kind of extension that this motion seeks? According to the American legislation, Congress has the right to grant that extension. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Congress has the right to grant that extension, if requested. But the Government has not even taken the time to request it.
Once more, we see that contempt for Parliament and the complete disdain for the rights of Canadians to know what is happening and be able to understand what will be in the agreement. The Government has refused to listen and respond to their concerns, and incorporate them in the agreement itself. All the fundamental obligations of a parliamentary democratic system are being spurned, ignored and thwarted by the Government in proceeding as it has with this particular deal.

December 10, 1987
Supply


Mr. Harvey:: Mr. Speaker, this morning you may have noticed there was a lot of panic in the Opposition ranks, among the NDP and the Liberals. It may be because Canadians are starting to realize these two Parties do not always tell the truth. Actually, I find it hard to take the heated exchanges we were hearing from both Opposition Parties, especially the last speaker, very seriously.
How can anyone be expected to take the Hon. Member's comments seriously after watching the position taken by the Liberal Party in recent weeks and months on issues that are of vital importance to all Quebecers and all Canadians? I think of Bill C-22, the legislation on drug patents, where the position taken by the Liberals was a mass of contradictions. Some Liberal Members even left the House to avoid voting on the Bill, including the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). Finally, however, we all agreed to condemn the attitude taken by the Liberal majority in the Senate, which has arbitrarily opposed a Bill that will generate thousands of jobs in Quebec.
The Liberal Party was also divided on the Meech Lake Accord, an agreement that in the final instance led to national reconciliation, while the profound differences within the Liberal Party were not surprising, considering the divisive policies of this Party.
Regarding the issue before the House today, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member first of all when the Liberal Party is going to start its campaign against free trade in Quebec. Second, I want to ask him what he thinks about the position taken by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, who, I would think is perfectly capable of defending the interests of Quebec and has spoken out several times in favour of the Free Trade Agreement?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member's information, we have started our campaign against the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement on economic integration of Canada and the United States. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings with, for instance, the groups representing farmers and the agricultural industry which are very concerned about the Conservative Government's proposal. In fact, the Quebec Government has changed its position on agriculture-that may be of particular interest to the Hon. Member-and on the textile, food, clothing and research sectors.
Representatives for these industries made representations against free trade because jobs would be lost in these sectors. This is not just a Liberal concern. It is a concern that is felt by the people of Quebec as well.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the speech by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) a Government Member rose in his place and referred to an article in The Globe and Mail this morning which had the
headline: "Ontario Future Rosy under Trade Pact: Province Forecast". When we saw that article we immediately called the Ontario Government to find out if the report was correct. Of course, we were told that it was not.
I now have a copy of the forecast of the Ontario Treasury Department, and I believe the Hon. Member has one as well. It states:
A single quantitative estimate of the macroeconomic impact of the proposed
Canada-U.S. trade and investment agreement is not possible. The proposed
deal covers many areas and issues-for example from tariffs to investment, to
energy, to services, to procurement, to agriculture, and to dispute settlement.
Most, if not all, do not lend themselves to summary arithmetic evaluations.
It goes on. Unfortunately, even great newspapers like The Globe and Mail badly interpret complex Government reports from time to time. Would the Hon. Member comment further on this? I noticed that Government Members took great glee in referring to this headline which is now shown to be false.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I think he has corrected what was clearly an attempt to provide misinformation to the House.
If one reads the actual report, one can see that the economic forecast clearly states that it will not make those kind of quantitative judgments because, as I have said, so much of what is in the agreement goes way beyond trade and into the inner workings of our economy. Therefore, the judgments that must be made are those based upon whether we will retain the ability to manage our economy.
The Ontario study itself suggests that losing control over regional development, over the energy sector and over the automobile sector would result in serious consequences. It points to one example that I think is important to illustrate. Our Party's position is not against tariff reduction. Since 1948 our Party has witnessed and has initiated substantial reductions of tariffs around the world. Members of past governments have certainly made great efforts to work out amicable trade arrangements with the Americans, the Europeans and other countries.
The fallacy in the Conservative Government's case is that it puts forward the argument that only by a comprehensive bilateral, all-encompassing economic arrangement with the United States can we secure tariff reduction. Of course, that is absolute, total nonsense. Negotiations are currently taking place in GATT to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers, without giving away all of the sectors of our economy that are included in this agreement. Furthermore, the United States trade legislation itself has a specific requirement to negotiate the reduction of tariff barriers with Canada. In other words, we would not have to become involved in energy, investment and services. They are not part of tariff reduction.
My point is that there are other ways of bringing about whatever benefits reduced tariffs may have. The way is not to sell out the fundamental institutions of this country.
December 10, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This the last question. The Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we know the Opposition will do absolutely anything to scuttle this deal. It has opposed the deal right from the start. Before the Opposition ever saw the deal it was opposed to it. It is still opposed. Now it has come to the conclusion that the only way it can scuttle the deal is to extend it on into 1988, into the American elections, and let it be picked apart and torn asunder. We know that is the raison d'etre of the Opposition, and we understand it.
The Hon. Member talks about GATT. This is the favourite vehicle of the Liberals. It is interesting to note that our GATT partners were very interested in and very supportive of this agreement. They say it bodes well for the negotiations going on now in Geneva, and if Canada and the United States could not have had had a free trade agreement, two of the largest trading partners in the world, it did not bode well for the negotiations going on in Geneva at the present time. So they were supportive and pleased to see the progress made on that agreement.
The Hon. Member talked about services. Services are the fastest growing industry in the world and the GATT, which again the Opposition loves to talk about, support and embrace wholeheartedly, felt as well that services were a very important part of the negotiations, in fact, so important that they have it on their agenda for the negotiations in Geneva as well. They felt because of this fast growing part of our economy in the world that something had to be done.
If the Hon. Member is saying we took services in under this agreement, we certainly did and we are proud of it. We are a Progressive Conservative Government. We look forward to the future. We know that services play a very important part in the world's economy today and have to be tackled, and we had the guts to do it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has just displayed to this House the Conservative mentality when it comes to trade negotiation. He is obviously saying that we would prefer to negotiate services through a bilateral arrangement as opposed to doing it internationally. If, as he quite correctly states, GATT is going to negotiate services, then why did we not negotiate services as part of the GATT process, where there were 95 other countries involved, where we would not give up the right of establishment, and the right of investment performance, which other GATT countries are prepared to defend?
When I was at the Uruguay Round, it was made very clear that most of the other countries in the world wanted to find some way of protecting their financial institutions and their service sectors against total takeovers from large countries like the United States. Yet this country has already given that up before we even get into that negotiation.
Supply
The fact is that the international system works because there is an ability to get a much broader bargaining base against a large powerful nation like the United States when a country can have many other countries join it in that bargaining rather than doing it one on one.
When the Parliamentary Secretary states that there is general approval, I take issue with it. Arthur Dunkel, the Secretary General of GATT, has said that the most imminent danger to the international trading system is the emergence of regional trading blocs because those regional trading blocs, similar to what is being proposed today, set up discriminatory barriers against other countries. The fundamental principle of the international system is that it is non-discriminatory. The tariff and non-tariff barriers are the same for everyone. What we are negotiating under the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement is that we will be putting up different barriers than those countries in the Pacific Rim, the Europeans, the Latin Americans, and giving preference to the Americans.
That is the fundamental flaw in the whole reasoning. In fact, the Government is contributing to the breakdown of the international trading system by proposing and promoting this evolution to regional trading blocs which will simply become large, competing, controversial, combatative trading systems, and that will destroy the international trading system which this country has for so long tried to defend and promote.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on an issue which was debated earlier. It has to do with the Auto Pact. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade (Mr. McDermid), was offended when some of us on this side questioned his affection for the truth with respect to how he described the Auto Pact. Like a great many Conservative Members, and like a great many proponents of this free trade agreement, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary characterized the Auto Pact as a free trade agreement. This has been done in my own home city by the Winnipeg Free Press, for instance. It has been done right across the west by Premier Devine and others in an attempt to create the impression that somehow there is a free trade situation in Ontario with respect to automobiles that the New Democratic Party and others are trying to prevent from happening in other parts of the country.
I ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, rhetorically at this point because I am the one who has the floor, how in heavens name would anyone with any self respect get up and say that the Auto Pact is a free trade agreement when he knows it involves performance guarantees, safeguards, and the invocation of tariffs if certain conditions are not met? He knows all those things. He knows that they have absolutely nothing to do with free trade.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary comes from Brampton. He knows there has been free trade in agricultural implements since about 1948. In the free trade relationship that exists with respect to agricultural implements, there are no tariffs, no performance guarantees, no agreements that for every combine

December 10, 1987
sold in Canada we have to make one in Canada. There are no agreements whatsoever about anything. That is free trade, which is quite different from the Auto Pact.
If the only tactic that can be employed to promote this agreement is to so falsely characterize the Auto Pact, then Hon. Members opposite are indeed desperate for an argument. The fact is that the Auto Pact is not a free trade agreement and future agreements like the Auto Pact will be impossible under this agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth than what the Conservatives, whether it be the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary or Premier Devine, the Winnipeg Free Press or anyone else, happen to be saying about the Auto Pact. I do not understand it. I find it a constant source of despair that people who I otherwise respect and have a great deal of time for, have the nerve to stand and say the kinds of things they do. It is just beyond me.
The motion has to do with the timeframe in which this is all happening. The motion the New Democratic Party has moved could not be more reasonable. We are calling upon the Government not to sign the agreement on January 2 but to seek an extension of the January 2 date by at least 60 days. What could be more reasonable than for the Government to ask of its counterparts in the United States that the appropriate time for due parliamentary process in Canada be provided? We will probably have the text tomorrow. The House will likely adjourn next week and the deal will be signed January 2. Neither this House, Canadians, nor the committee charged with looking at it will have anything that remotely approaches the appropriate amount of time.
I recall when the former Liberal Government brought in an energy omnibus Bill which dealt with so many things, the Official Opposition at that time, the Conservatives, rose up in righteous indignation and tied this place up with the ringing of the bells for much longer than we will have to consider this agreement after we have the text. What has happened in the meantime to the parliamentary conscience of the Conservative Party in giving Parliament an opportunity to consider matters that are before it? One of the complaints against the energy omnibus bill was that it included too much. We did not have enough time to look at everything.
What could be more of an omnibus situation than the agreement we have before us which deals with almost every economic thing you could think of concerning Canada, yet we will get to debate the matter for only five days?


John Horton McDermid: You will have the legislation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We will get the legislation says the Parliamentary Secretary. But this is not the United States. Maybe some day it will be as a result of this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: There you go.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: But it is not yet the United States. In this country we have a parliamentary system of Government and that means Parliament has to have its say before things are signed, not after. Congress has its say after things are signed but Congress has power after things are signed. Congress can say yes or no. In Canada the executive and legislative dimensions of Government are one in the sense that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) controls the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member is saying to us, "Well, Parliament will get to consider the implementing legislation". But he knows that there are 210 seats in his pocket. It is absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would stop making such uncritical comparisons between the American system of Government and the Canadian system. There is a difference between our two systems of Government.
The parliamentary system should be respected before our Prime Minister commits the country to an agreement between the United States and Canada, which will be quite different than what Ronald Reagan will be doing when he signs the agreement, because he will be creating the context in which he can then present it to Congress. But that is not what our Prime Minister will be doing. He will be signing the agreement. When it comes down to the real agreement, it will be Congress on the American side that signs the agreement with Canada. The Congress will sign it with the Prime Minister who will already have signed it on January 2. That is why what is happening here is one of the most enormous crimes against democracy that you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have moved this motion.
I take it my time has run out. I look forward to resuming this debate after Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.14 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.14 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day. It is an appropriate day to be reminded that the litmus test for a democratic society is how it treats its minorities. I went to Washington to join 200,000 other North Americans to bring this message to Mr. Gorbachev.

**m
December 10, 1987



HISTORIC EVENTS

[Stage Direction]
1 1669
This is an appropriate day to bring to the attention of this House the plight of the refusenik, Professor Vladimir Dashevsky. Professor Dashevsky is an astrophysicist of international reputation. He is one of only three Soviet members of the American Astronomical Society.
He applied for an exit visa in 1977. Since then he has not been allowed to work in his profession. His family has very little means on which to live. Professor Dashevsky's application was first refused on the grounds of "state interest". He has now been assured that he has no security obligations to the institute in which he worked. However, he is still not able to get the Soviet authorities to act, and no visa has been granted over these 10 years.
Perhaps we can hope that in this period of glasnost, and with the enormous hopes raised by the Washington Summit meeting, Professor Dashevsky and others like him will be given their freedom.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last week my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane), brought to the attention of the House, through a committee, problems with airport security. Although the Government has made many significant improvements and innovations to airport security across Canada, two of my constituents who work in this industry brought to my attention some problems with airport security procedures.
Screening and control of small package delivery companies that guarantee same-day delivery is considered to be very lax. There are no formal security procedures or checks for air freight, space available shipments. I am also informed that certain security procedures have been overlooked or disregarded to expedite onschedule departures. These are holes in Canada's airport and airline security.
If we are to have adequate airport and airline security, then the entire security issue should be thoroughly addressed. Security must be the quintessential concern of the air travel industry, but we have to reconcile an approach which will keep passengers secure; one which is fair to long-time loyal employees in this industry; and a security check procedure that will protect the individual's right to privacy.
The priority should be given to those areas which are a definite threat to safety and security rather than scrutinizing the personal lives of employees who have served the industry and all Canadians loyally in past years.



&quot;RUSSIFICATION&quot; OF UKRAINE-FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, 1987 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the tragic murder by the Soviet secret police of 10,000 Ukrainian citizens, residents of the city of Vinnytsa.
The logic behind these murders was the Soviet program of "Russification" of Ukraine. This process deliberately attacked Ukrainian religion, culture, language, and heritage, with the ultimate goal of eliminating all things Ukrainian. Similar atrocities took place in many towns and cities across Ukraine and amounted to deliberate cultural genocide.
The great famine of 1933 is a clear example of the viciousness of the Soviet regime against the Ukrainian populace. In 1933, in the process of collectivization, 7 million Ukrainian men, women, and children died, victims of a state-planned famine.
Many Canadians of Ukrainian origin have families in Ukraine who still suffer under the "Russification" program. They join with me in urging the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to exert all pressure possible on the Soviet Government to ensure fundamental human rights to the people of Ukraine, and to provide some measure of protection for cultural, religious, and linguistic rights of all minorities living under Soviet domination.



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, several needy families in an isolated community in my riding fear that there will be no Christmas cheer this year, as they have not been issued the child tax prepayment cheques on which they were counting.
The Northwest Angle 33 reserve is a Canadian community with a population of 122. It is only accessible by air, and because there is no post office there is no choice but to receive its mail through the United States mail service.
The problem is that Revenue Canada will not issue refund cheques to a mailing address in the United States. The residents are told that they have to find a mailing address in Canada.
While the Government pushes the pipe dream of the trade give-away to the United States, it is more than a little ironic that, despite knowing about this situation a year ago, such a basic service as mail delivery between the two countries is apparently restricted for financial control reasons.

December 10, 1987
I call upon the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Mac-Kay) to have a chat with his computers and get those Christmas cheques moving. Alternatively, why doesn't the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) direct Canada Post to serve all communities in this country?



INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday on Parliament Hill, I had the privilege of receiving, on behalf of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a most peaceable delegation from the Haitian community in Montreal, whose members had come to express publicly the outrage and expectations of the Haitian community.
Today, the whole world is celebrating International Human Rights Day. None of us can remain unmoved by the terrible events that occurred on November 29, when peace-loving citizens were waiting and looking forward to exercising their democratic right to vote, for the first time in many years. We know they were massacred.
Today it is clear that the spectre of the Duvaliers still hangs over Haiti. I sincerely hope that Canada will exercise moral and political leadership, vigorously condemn the Haitian Government's failure to act and make appropriate representations to the United Nations so that at last we can have the assurance these incredible violations of the fundamental and legitimate rights of the Haitian people will be stopped as soon as possible.
* *
*



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to stress the Conservative Goverment's outstanding performance in creating jobs. Since September 1984, 1,042,000 jobs have been created in Canada. The unemployment rate has gone down 3.5 points since election day, reaching 8.2 per cent in November 1987, the lowest rate on record since November 1981. During that time, more jobs were created in Canada than in France, Germany, Italy or Great Britain, countries with twice our population.
Total youth unemployment has dropped by 163,000 since the election. This means that since September 1984, youth unemployment has gone down five points, from 18.3 per cent to 13.3 per cent in November 1987. The number of unemployed women has dropped by 134,000 since the present
Government came to power. The unemployment rate for women has dropped 3.2 points since the election, from 12 per cent to 8.8 per cent. The number of women in management and the liberal professions rose 30 per cent between 1984 and 1986.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this Government will continue to reduce unemployment by means of its economic renewal program and the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, in order to improve the standard of living of all Canadians.
* *
*



CHILD CARE


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) claims that the child care strategy finally announced last week will improve the availability, affordability, and quality of child care for Canadian families. This promise is a cruel joke for many parents who have been anxiously awaiting some government relief in just these areas.
CBC-Radio recently described a nurse who is a single parent mother of two, paying $800 a month for child care in order to be able to earn an independent living. The child care expense deduction is useless to her because she pays no income tax. She had a right to expect that the Minister would understand her situation. After all, there are thousands more hard-working, independent single parents like her in Canada.
What kind of a national strategy is this that turns its back on a whole category of parents and children? This policy does not deserve to be called a national program. It is simply a politically expedient hodge-podge of measures, which proves once again that the Government cannot be trusted to look after the interests of ordinary Canadians.
* *
*



FISHERIES


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in defence of those who work in the mussel industry in my riding in Atlantic Canada.
The damage the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is inflicting on this industry should not be underestimated. We all agree that public health is a paramount concern. The
December 10, 1987

Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has made that clear on behalf of the Government.
The toxin problem, however, may be very isolated, and it may very well be due to natural causes. In such an instance nature may remedy the problem and the industry will suffer only in a minimal way.
To raise the fears of all consumers, as the Leader of the Opposition is doing, is to undermine the market in the long term. I call upon the Liberal Party Leader to resist being seduced by the lure of political opportunism. This is a time for all political Parties to act in a non-partisan way. Surely our shared concern about public health and the long-term economic health of the mussel industry is enough. Act responsibly and leave the bush league politics at home. The Liberal Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should comment. It is a very difficult issue. I interrupted the Hon. Member because I was not sure where his remarks were leading. Hon. Members will understand that Statements under Standing Order 21 are not a place even to begin to impugn the motives of another Member of this place. However, I recognize the very serious matter that has been raised.



PESTICIDES


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the title Pesticides in Canada, the Law Reform Commission has published an important study which recommends that the law controlling pesticides be amended to include timetables for regular re-evaluation of pesticides already in use so as to assess their potential to cause cancer, birth defects or mutations.
In addition it is recommended that the legislation be amended to require chemical companies to notify the Government immediately of studies or other evidence revealing that one of their chemical products may endanger human health or the environment.
Finally, it is recommended that the legislation be amended to require that companies indicate on their products all ingredients, not just those which are deemed active as presently required by the Pest Control Products Act.
To sum it up, the proposed changes are urgent for the protection of public health. Again we urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to launch a public review of present laws adopting Pesticides in Canada as the foundation on which to build a modern law.



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION GRANTING OF ALL-NEWS LICENCE TO CBC-DEMAND THAT GOVERNMENT OVERTURN DECISION

Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was astounded, as were many Canadians, to learn of the CRTC decision to grant a licence for the cable news network of Canada to the CBC over the other applicant, Allarcom Limited. The CRTC has shown a disregard for the need for more diversified and regionally balanced news services and for the interests of Canadian taxpayers.
A corporation that can lose track of $57 million and cannot produce a financial statement capable of being audited by the Auditor General does not inspire the confidence of Canadians in its ability to take on new ventures. Of most concern, however, is the even greater concentration of the media and control over news and public affairs by a single entity, and a Toronto based state-owned corporation at that. This is not a healthy situation in a democracy in which the balance and independence of the press are required.
I call upon the Government and the Cabinet to exercise the power granted to them under the Act by setting aside this decision.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON NORTHERN MANITOBA

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Commons the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) made some flippant remarks about the way I am representing northern Manitobans. He said that I was astonishing them because I am opposed to the Conservative trade deal.
Northern Manitobans do not want the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) trade deal. We know that our economy is dependent on the resource sector. We also know what the trade deal could do to our raw resources. Northern Manitobans know that our raw logs and unprocessed minerals could be sent south to the States. We know that with this deal more of our jobs would be sent south to the States where low-paid nonunion workers could do the work.
As I travel around my riding I hear northern Manitobans telling me that they do not want this deal. They have seen what the Americans have done to our shakes and shingles industry. They know that this deal will not protect them from the American trade laws that caused the problems in the first place. Even the Thompson Chamber of Commerce admits that its members are divided on this issue.

December 10, 1987
When I was in The Pas at the beginning of this month, 1 witnessed the passing of a resolution against the Conservative trade deal by the regional chapter of the Manitoba Metis Federation. They know that native employment and economic programs may be jeopardized by this deal. This resolution reflects the concerns that northern Manitobans and Canadians across the country have about the Prime Minister's trade deal.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON ECONOMY OF ONTARIO

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, will wonders never cease? For months, Premier Peterson and the Ontario Government have been knocking the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement as being bad for Ontario. Now a forecast released by the Ontario Government itself says that the elimination of tariffs between Canada and the U.S. over the next 10 years will have a "very small but marginally positive effect" on the Ontario economy.
According to the report, Ontario's textile industry, which Premier Peterson says is particularly vulnerable to the tariff reductions, has a growing trade surplus with the United States and the province's businesses are doing well even in competition with such low-wage states as Georgia.
Now that the Ontario Government has spoken out in favour of free trade, who knows what will happen next? Perhaps organized labour and the NDP will also decide to support free trade now rather than waiting until later, the way they did with the Auto Pact.
*
* *



HUMAN RIGHTS


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, today is International Human Rights Day. As Canadians we are thankful for what we have accomplished thus far in our own country. Yet we know we must strive for further improvements.
Canada has played and should continue to play a significant international role in obtaining basic human rights for all people. However, in many parts of the world dreadful human rights violations continue to occur.
Canadians were shocked by the recent and tragic turn of events in Haiti. The Haitian people, who suffered for years under the Duvalier dictatorships, finally had a chance to obtain a democratically elected Government. Instead we saw
voters hacked and shot to death in polling booths by roving bands of thugs, with the consent and even encouragement of the military regime of Colonel Namphy.
The Haitian regime has displayed its contempt for Human Rights Day by announcing today its plans to hold a fraudulent election on January 17. The Canadian Government must finally and at last inform that regime of Canada's displeasure over the gross violations of human rights in Haiti and do all it can to pressure that regime into holding free and fair elections as soon as possible.
*
* *



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Deputy Premier Robert Nixon who is also responsible for the Treasury Board and acts as Minister of Economic Affairs and Minister of Finance released a study which clearly shows that the economy of Ontario will continue to grow with free trade. Ontario would even corner a larger slice of the American market. This is a courageous position taken by Mr. Robert Nixon.
For Mr. Nixon, the interests of Ontarians take precedence over political shenanigans with the Liberal Party of Canada. For Mr. Nixon Ontario is part of Canada, whereas for Mr. Peterson Ontario is part of the Liberal Party.
At a time when the Liberal caucus of Canada, along with its leader and even its Quebec members, is trying to regionalize the free trade issue, the intervention of Mr. Nixon is most appropriate. I would suggest that this challenging message from Ontario's Deputy Premier must be viewed in a Canadian context. It amounts to an official political acknowledgement that the message of the Ontario business community has been fully appreciated by the Deputy Premier of Ontario. It is a message of solidarity with Canada and, let us admit it, with the Government of Quebec, the Liberal Party of Quebec, and the Conservative Party of Canada.



FISHERIES


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question on the minds of many Nova Scotians which must be answered. Will the Government of Canada act now to protect the fishery on the Georges Bank?
December 10, 1987

The Georges Bank is the most productive fishing ground in the entire North Atlantic. Studies of scallop stocks demonstrate that the growth of scallops on the Georges Bank on a yearly basis is far greater than that found on other banks off the coasts of the North Atlantic.
The Georges Bank is vital to the economy of Nova Scotia and contributes more than $300 million in value to the fishing industry, and accounts for more than 6,000 jobs.
I have stated in the past the view that there must be no oil and gas exploration on the Georges Bank. This rich fishery must be declared an environmentally sensitive area and protected as such. As a matter of public policy and not politics, I believe this vital renewable natural resource must be protected for this and future generations.
The Government has been duped on environmental issues by the Americans, on fishing issues by the French, and now appears ready to be duped by oil and gas companies that may, with their drilling, destroy the environment in this rich fishing ground. It is time that the Government of Canada made a clear and unequivocal statement about the fishery on Georges Bank.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He knows perfectly well that during the last four days, his Minister of National Health and Welfare has been unable to explain why he failed to warn Canadians immediately of the dangers of eating toxic mussels. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, his version of the facts was contradicted by what was said by his top expert in the field. The Prime Minister is well aware of this since he was right here in the House at the time, and Canadians are not going to tolerate his remaining silent on this matter much longer.
Could he inform the House whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare has offered his resignation? If not, does he intend to ask for the Minister's resignation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is talking about two things: The absence, according to him, of facts, and a version that was allegedly contradicted, the version provided by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In both cases, I think the House and the Canadian people will acknowledge that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has consistently given the House all the facts, and his version of
Oral Questions
the facts has never been contradicted either by him or by a third party. In concluding, the Leader of the Opposition asked me if the Minister had offered his resignation or if I had accepted it. The answer is negative in both cases.


PRIME MINISTER'S CONFIDENCE IN MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister bears the ultimate responsibility for the competence and integrity of the Ministers of his Government. Canadians do not expect that from time to time problems will not occur. However, they do expect that if there is a case of ministerial incompetence, or if a Minister fails to supervise properly the operations of his Department, the Prime Minister will act swiftly.
The Prime Minister cannot duck the issue. Is he prepared to say in the House of Commons that he reaffirms his confidence in the Minister of National Health and Welfare, or will he do the proper thing and secure the resignation of that Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers, I suppose, to the possibility of ministerial resignation in the event of lack of competence or lack of integrity by the Minister. I know that not even he would suggest that the Minister of National Health and Welfare lacks either competence or integrity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raises the question of what I, as Prime Minister, believe my responsibilities are in the event that the Minister is ducking the issue. I have not ducked the issue. The Government has not ducked the issue. The Minister has been here every day to deal in an honourable, straightforward, and effective way with a difficult issue. He has done the opposite of ducking the issue. He has dealt with the issue in the most honourable traditions of this House.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the words I used were that the Prime Minister bears the ultimate responsibility for the competence and integrity of his Ministers. I have not accused the Minister of lack of integrity because I accept that. However, I do accuse the Minister of lack of competence in overseeing his Department and in his own reaction to this health crisis.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that surely as First Minister of the country his first loyalty is not to the Members of this House whom he chooses to act as Ministers of the Crown, but to the people of Canada who elected him as Prime Minister of Canada.
] 1674

December 10, 1987
Oral Questions
When will the Prime Minister learn that a case of ministerial negligence cannot be evaded and that the problem will not just go away? Does the Prime Minister not agree that, if he does not begin to deal with these issues, negligence starts to taint his own performance as First Minister of the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course any time in the British parliamentary system when there is a situation such as that mentioned by my right hon. friend in respect of a Minister either being incompetent or lacking integrity, it clearly impacts, as it should, on the Prime Minister of the day. 1 notice that my right hon. friend, who has served both as a Minister and as Prime Minister, withdrew any suggestion about a lack of integrity on the part of the Minister.
in regard to the question of competence which he raises, I believe that most objective Canadians and observers would come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding difficult circumstances, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as has been his tradition, has dealt with this with a great deal of competence and alacrity as it came to his attention.
With regard to the question of loyalty, the first and foremost loyalty of the Prime Minister is to Canada, and his first and foremost loyalty is to do his best by those requirements that govern his job, as it is the responsibility of all Members of the House, including the responsibility to be fair and objective when analyzing difficult circumstances in this House. It is my view that a fair and objective analysis will confirm the judgment that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has acted with competence, dignity, and great ability, as he has always done since he first set foot in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MESSAGE GIVEN TO CHARLOTTETOWN WAREHOUSE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. 1 suggest that his responses on this issue have in fact indeed been checkered with contradictions and confusion. He originally insisted that no public warning was issued until Tuesday night because no testing had been done and therefore the link had not been established. This morning we learned that, on November 27, Sobey's Food Warehouse in Charlottetown was visited by government officials personally, with one message: "Please stop selling mussels". Why would the Government send an agent to Sobey's Food Warehouse in Charlottetown, P.E.I., and not let the public of Canada have that information at the same time?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you would give me the latitude first to take the opportunity to express on my personal behalf and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House my deep condolences to the Pomeroy family on the loss they have suffered.
1 think all of us who have public responsibilities have to search our consciences to be convinced that everything we have done is correct. I have done that again, and I believe every established practice of the Department and the Government of Canada, which has been developed over years by experts, was followed exactly. I did not interfere with scientists. 1 did not interfere with their expertise. I did not interfere with any advice. When I received their expert advice, I acted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


QUERY WHY PUBLIC DID NOT RECEIVE SAME INFORMATION AS STORES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the same Minister who failed to react and even contributed to the situation by his silence from the very beginning until December 1. I would like to ask him . . . Obviously, people will be offering their condolences to the family of Mr. Pomeroy who died this morning. However, 1 would like to ask the Minister why on November 27-before the date on which Mr. Pomeroy ate the mussels-when Government officials visited at least one establishment, Sobey's Food Warehouse in Charlottetown, to ask them to withdraw the mussels, those officials did not give Canadians, did not give Mr. Pomeroy and all consumers the same information?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have not been contradictory. I have not given any information to the House that was not factual, and I have not given any more than has been factual.
I have said time after time that there are established practices. They have been developed over time, they are dictated by experience, and they are based on expertise. Those established practices are there to protect the public. Those established practices were clearly followed.
In terms of the specific question raised by the Hon. Member, in order that the Government is not seen to be protecting itself in any political way, 1 have offered a number of times a full briefing, on the record, from officials, in terms of those practices. Again, if I can use the opportunity, today at four o'clock in the Sir Frederick Banting Building, that will again be formally constructed. The press, my opposition critics, or whoever can ask my officials, on the record, for any detail of practices. I am responsible to follow the practices, and I have done that.


REASON FOR STOPPING SHIPMENTS AND NOT STOPPING SALES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I would hope he would agree that his duties as Minister are more than following the practices. If, as Minister, he finds the practices are
December 10, 1987

wrong, his obligation is to change the practices. I notice the Minister is nodding in agreement.
The Minister knows that rats that were injected with material from the infected mussels were dying on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and that the Department took action to stop shipment on the Sunday, but there was no action to warn consumers until Tuesday. The Minister in this House has attempted to justify that practice, that time gap. If he thinks that logic, under the circumstances, was sufficient to stop shipment of the mussels, why would the same logic, with even greater serious implications, not lead to the conclusion that not only should consumers have been warned at that precise moment but simultaneously an instruction to stop sales ought to have gone out?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is a valid question and I will try again to answer it as I have done before. I will not go into all the testing of the week prior to the Sunday in question because that has been put on the record and I am trying not to take up the time of the House.
1 just want to say to the Hon. Member that the mouse and rat tests done both by DFO and by the Department of National Health and Welfare gave results very different from what was at that time being tested, paralytic shellfish poisoning. In terms of the Sunday and the stop shipment, that is done as an investigative tool for the purposes of giving us both samples and time to do further testing. That is what was done. In fact, I said yesterday in the House as well that, in terms of the number of cases we get just on food complaints a year, obviously every one of them has to be tracked down. We do that. We have over 2,687 cases, of which five led to a medical alert.
I know the Hon. Member is trying to be fair about this, as I am trying to be very open. I believe that any rational approach to this would indicate that with that type of expertise and history, my officials followed very clear procedures and informed me according to the dates I have given the House earlier.


TIME LAPSE BETWEEN STOPPING SHIPMENTS AND WARNING PUBLIC
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, no one at this point is questioning that the officials involved were not following traditional procedures. What is being questioned, and certainly I am asking questions about it, is why the Minister accepts those procedures.
1 want to ask either the Minister or the Prime Minister what seems to me to be quite a serious question under the circumstances. If rats are dying three days in a row, and that is deemed to be serious enough to stop shipments-in other words, major action was taken-why in heaven's name, ought procedures not also require at precisely that same time that consumers be warned, and the whole process be stopped until
Oral Questions
we are completely secure about the health implications of the product?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is not-and I am not trying to hide behind this-trying to question the competence of the people who work with these products day in and day out. I am not, and he is not. They use their expertise, and competence, based on the experience they have gathered through the years. That is what they did. That is what they do case after case.
In terms of the stop shipment I can tell the Hon. Member- not trying to hide behind any cases-that we have a number of stop shipments as an investigative tool throughout the year which do not lead to medical alerts. It is part of the process, and at no time-and I say this very directly to the Hon. Member-did I ask for a second opinion. At no time did I ask about the industry. I don't know who is involved. It was health only. When they came to me with a health conclusion and asked for action, I acted within the hour.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES BE CHANGED
John Edward Broadbent: As the Minister knows, we now have the terrible circumstances about which he feels as badly as does everyone else, that in fact someone has actually died in this process. What does concern me a bit is that the Minister seems to be saying, notwithstanding this happening, that we ought not to be changing procedures.
Since we have now found that one of the consequences of the adopted procedures can lead to a product being out there, much of it presumably still out there, people eating it, and as we know, people actually dying from it, does the Minister not agree that what ought to be done now is to change the procedures so that, as soon as a warning is sufficient enough to stop shipment of such a product, simultaneously instructions should go out to stores from one end of Canada to the other to stop selling the product?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the procedures, and 1 was not trying not to answer the question-I think we have to look at two things. First, the procedures that we presently have in place, time-tested, based on our experience, have worked well for us as Canadians. Our health system is a good system.
In terms of the Hon. Member's question, should they be reviewed, I think that is always a legitimate question, and that is being done on a constant basis. When we take a look-and we have done this-at other countries that were involved with similar, I am not saying the same, but similar cases, and we take a look at the timeframe they used to try to solve the issue, we found we have been able to act much faster, based again on that experience, even to the point, for example, of getting additional kits from Japan in the last days. We do the bioassay on mice and rats, we do the chemical testing which is done

December 10, 1987
Oral Questions
with DFO of Mont-Joli, and if there are additional kits and procedures, we are using those as well.
So even on the basis of world expertise we believe we have touched everything we could have used. If there are additional things we could do, it is my responsibility to put those in place as well, and we will do that. But I have everything in place that the experts tell me is available world-wide, and we have used it.
[Translation)


QUERY WHY MINISTER DID NOT FOLLOW UP DEMAND MADE BY MAGDALEN ISLANDS' MUSSEL FISHERMEN
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in this sad sequence of events there is someone else who has a responsibility, and 1 am referring to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. My question is therefore directed to him. Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter dated Grande-Entree, Magdalen islands, November 28, 1985, sent to the Minister by the Magdalen Islands mussel growers association. At the time, the association asked the Minister for preventive monitoring of the marine environment for contamination by jonyaulax, the toxin that causes paralytic shellfish poisoning.
What I want to ask the Minister is this: Why did the Minister fail to act on the request made by mussel growers in the Magdalen Islands on November 28, 1985, when the growers were worried about the possibility of shellfish poisoning?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for that question. Obviously all the resources of the Government, the DFO, the Department of the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare, or any other Department or agency, are being used. But I want the hon. gentleman to be very clear when he asks these questions. At the present time of the investigation we are using labs, not only government but private labs as well. It has not been determined what the exact toxin is in Prince Edward Island.


Jean-C. Lapierre: What about the Magdalen Islands.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 will get to that. In terms of the Magdalen Islands, again it appears that what we are dealing with is algae bloom and paralytic shellfish poisoning. In fact, with these two cases, one in the Magdalen Islands and one in Prince Edward Island, there could have been two very different sources but a confluence of those cases at the same time period, or relatively the same time period. When the gentleman asks his question, I want to say to him that we are checking the matter very closely. Obviously we have been doing so on an ongoing 24 hour basis, but I do not want the Member to jump to conclusions which scientifically have not been established.


QUERY WHY PREVENTIVE PROGRAM WAS NOT ESTABLISHED
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, as far the Magdalen Islands mussel growers and their mussels are concerned, we realize there is a difference, but the fact remains that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had a responsibility on November 28, 1985. He was warned before anyone else, and well before the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but he failed to act on a request made by fishermen who were worried their product might not be fit for human consumption. We are not talking about twenty-four hours a day. This was two years ago, and the Minister has not yet taken any action. I want to ask him why he did not act responsibly. Why didn't the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make sure there was a preventive program instead of just an annual inspection?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Again, Mr. Speaker, I cannot change the answer or give it any differently than I did the first time. I say to the hon. gentleman that these are highly technical issues.
I think it would help the Canadian public, who have a right to be reassured about their health safety, their public health system and the fishery, that at four o'clock not only will health officials be available but also officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to answer all those technical questions.


CASE REPORTED IN OTTAWA ON NOVEMBER 20
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I received a call this morning from a Dr. Donald Smith of Ottawa whose wife, Doris Smith, became ill after eating mussels on November 19. Her husband, Dr. Smith, brought the matter to Dr. Even Todd at the Health Protection Branch on November 20 who recommended that she contact the regional health office. However, no further action was taken until November 25 when Health and Welfare heard of further cases in Montreal.
Is the Minister aware of this particular incident? If he is not, now that I have raised it with him will he investigate this matter because there seem to be some lapses of time here which would be very important for the kinds of processes that have to take place?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that situation. My officials have not brought that to my attention. I will be glad to check into it.
I think the Hon. Member has to recognize that any of these health cases, which can be accessed either through an emergency system, a hospital, or a doctor's office, would not immediately be brought to the attention of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have not been informed of
December 10, 1987

that case. We will, however, check immediately after Question Period.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES WILL BE CHANGED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same Minister. He described the procedures. On Sunday he ordered shipments be stopped and on Tuesday there was a health warning to Canadians.
Will the Minister tell this House, in light of what has taken place, is he prepared now to give a commitment that, in fact, the process will be changed so that if the Minister has to err he will err on the side of safety for Canadians? Will the Minister give this House that assurance now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that has always been the practice. I give that assurance to the Member right now. If there are improved procedures we can use, whether in Canada on the basis of our experience and expertise or whether on the basis of world experience, the answer is yes.
I do not want the Hon. Member to be under the impression that we have not been trying to improve whatever procedures are used world-wide. If we can improve them, if there is a lapse, obviously that is my responsibility. I am as interested in that as any Member of the House and any person in Canada who should expect that, and has a right to expect that. I want to assure the Member and Canadians that, to the best of our human abilities, the system is as good as any that we have seen. If we can improve it, we will improve it even beyond this point.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, as he knows, there was a significant decision brought down in the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the prosecution of those charged with first and second degree murder by association. This decision obviously has serious implications for the future.
What are the Minister's feelings on this decision and what does he intend to do about it in the future?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in justice and legal affairs.
This is an important decision that has been handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has implications, specifically for one section of the Criminal Code, namely Section 213(d) dealing with constructive murder. The implications are now
Oral Questions
being studied. On receipt of the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada I instructed my officials to examine the judgment itself and the implications, and we are communicating with our provincial counterparts who are responsible for the administration of justice.
Finally, the matter is an agenda item with the Deputy Ministers of Justice who will be meeting this month. I hope that after those examinations have taken place we will be in a better position to determine what action is required legislatively* * *


TOXIC MUSSELS-TIMING OF PUBLIC ALERT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been exposed to a deadly toxin as a direct result of the indecision and inaction of a Minister of the Crown, not because of flawed processes.
For two and a half days after an industry advisory went out Canadians were left in the dark with respect to the existence on their grocery shelves of a deadly toxin. Seventy-five Canadians have been afflicted; many of them are seriously ill. Tragically, one has died.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians want to know why it has become a common occurrence for this Prime Minister to put his misguided sense of loyalty with the Minister of the Crown and not-


Mr. Thacker:: That is shameful.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to say that that question clearly imputes the motive of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I would have to call it exactly the same for any other Minister or any other Member. I am sure the Hon. Member could rephrase the question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I kindly suggested the actions were misguided but I will attempt to rephrase the question.
The Prime Minister's first responsibility, and indeed he has acknowledged it today in the House, is to Canada. That is number one.
Has the Prime Minister examined all the facts with respect to this tragic episode? Is he satisfied in his own mind that an industry advisory with respect to the existence of deadly toxins should have been released two and a half days before consumers were aware that toxic filled mussels were available on the grocery shelves? Does the Prime Minister believe that that represents a timely warning to the consumers of Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is couched in the same words as I have answered before. It is a matter of how much

December 10, 1987
Oral Questions
time does it legitimately take with officials working as diligently as they can with the resources of government, with their own expertise and their own deep desire to protect the health of Canadians, and was there a time lapse.
[DOT] (M50)
I say to the hon. gentleman that officials did everything in their power to develop medical, scientific, and toxicological answers, and it was on the basis of that evidence that they advised me on the Tuesday that a health alert was in order. It was on the basis both of that detective work, that scientific work, and that expertise and advice, that the Government acted.


DISCHARGE OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the actions of officials are not in question here today.
Two and a half years ago after the tainted tuna episode, the Prime Minister announced that henceforth the highest possible health standards would be applied to seafood. He also announced that, in order to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest in the Minister's responsibility, in future the Minister of Health and not the Minister of Fisheries would be responsible for issuing advisories on food warnings. It was the Prime Minister's decision that there would be higher standards and the responsibility removed from Fisheries and brought to Health.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied, given that decision he took, that the Minister of Health in these circumstances has properly carried out his responsibilities. Can he be satisfied that a two and a half day period of ignorance by the people of Canada as to the dangerous nature of toxic mussels on grocery shelves is acceptable and represents a proper carrying out of responsibilities by this Minister of Health?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning of inquiries in the House, the Minister of Health has provided full and complete answers which I think respond to the concerns of all Canadians coming from all political Parties in an extremely difficult human situation.
My hon. friend alludes to the question of the competence of the Minister of Health himself, which I believe was a question raised by his Leader. I give him exactly the same response, that few Canadians, from whatever political background, based on the evidence of some 15 or 20 years service to Canada, would question either the integrity or the competence of the distinguished Minister of Health.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC WARNING-MINISTER'S POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Minister has yet to say to the House that he agrees that those procedures need change. I wish to ask the Minister the following simple question. If he believes the scientific procedures were correct up until Sunday morning-and I have no way to determine if those procedures are the best in the world or not, so I will accept the Minister's word-surely once those scientific procedures had been completed, it then became a question of judgment.
When the Minister or his Department ordered the cessation of shipments of those products, surely at the same time consumers in Canada were also entitled to receive that information?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that question has previously been put, and I have answered it.


Mr. Benjamin:: No, you did not.


John Edward Broadbent: Are you going to change your procedure, Jake?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, I have answered that question, but I will answer it again.
In terms of the procedures, Members in the House, as the Hon. Member himself stated, accept the best advice we get from experts whether they are health experts, or whatever is the issue of the day.
If procedures can be improved in any way, as we examine them, obviously they will be improved. But let us not take the improvement of procedures, if in fact it is possible, with the period of time experts need exactly to have the very best procedures, and it is those kinds of questions that the Member and I have to accept from experts. If there are better procedures on a world basis, we will search for them. That is obviously what we will do.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PROCESS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, even if we accept that scientific procedures require what those officials did, surely after those procedures have been followed it then becomes a question of judgment, which is not tied into the same structures. That is the question.
I simply ask the Minister again, will he not assure the House and Canadians, and stand up and agree to change that process after the scientific procedures have been done?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I know what the hon. gentleman is asking, and I have examined that very closely.
I go back to when I mentioned to him the number of food complaints, drug complaints, or cosmetic complaints that we receive in the Department. If that procedure were to be followed as rigorously as he outlined in his question, I would
December 10, 1987

have eight or nine "stop shipments" every day, before we would receive the investigatory evidence which we have to have.
It is for that reason that I am not trying to change procedures, I am trying to improve procedures, but keep in mind that it is a detective approach that we have to take in terms of science and toxicology, and that is what has to be done and what was done.


ALLEGED NOTIFICATION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RETAILER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The Minister knows that the issue is not one of procedure; the issue is a judgment call by the Minister himself.
I wish to ask the Minister, why was a retailer in P.E.I. notified of this particular problem on Friday, November 27, the Minister had knowledge of this particular issue for some days, and then he waited two and a half days before letting the general public know. I ask the Minister why he waited for two and a half days before informing the general public?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is false. The alleged facts are false. The Department issued the "stop shipment" on Sunday.
As I have stated a number of times in the House and to the press outside, I was informed by the Department on the Monday that they were looking at a problem with mussels. I indicated to them to give me all the evidence and the advice as promptly as they could. That was done on the Tuesday. The Members states 1 was incompetent and did not act. I acted immediately-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You did not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I acted immediately. I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to give me the same right as an hon. gentleman in this House to deal with the facts, and I wish she would too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
I tell the Minister that the applause of his colleagues is not necessarily the applause of Canadians in the faith of this Minister, or the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister sincerely and seriously, if you knew on Monday, why didn't you tell the Canadian people?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The question was a little out of order, but I think the Minister heard it. Perhaps the Minister would reply.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not give any new information to the Hon. Member and his exercise does not change the facts.
The facts are as I gave them, and I said very directly to the hon. gentleman, to the House, and to Canadians: I will expect from my Department, from my officials who are honest people, who are Canadians as concerned as any of you, that once the medical information is given I acted, and I will act just that way.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. As the Minister knows, in the late 1950s a number of Canadians were victims of terrible brainwashing experiments by Dr. Ewen Cameron in Montreal, funded both by the Canadian Government and the CIA.
In view of the permanent scars that were suffered by these individuals, a number of whom are suing the CIA and in fact a number of whom are in the gallery today, when will the Minister do the right thing and offer each of these elderly victims an ex gratia payment of $100,000 to ease their burden, as was discussed in the Cooper report last year?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member raising this question. I want simply to put the record straight, though, with respect to a couple of the allegations made in the course of his question.
The first was that the Canadian Government in some way was aware of CIA activity during the course of these treatments. That is absolutely incorrect. We have had a very extensive, thorough, and full examination of the circumstances by the Cooper report. This document has gone through the details in a precise way and has in fact concluded, as my predecessor pointed out on the floor of the House and publicly on different occasions, that there is no legal liability on the part of the Government of Canada.
The Hon. Member in fact asked me, I think it was last June, if there was something we could do as a Government to assist in the legal case that was being brought by these Canadians against the CIA.
I have been trying to carry on some negotiation and discussion with my colleagues, particularly with the Hon.

December 10, 1987
Oral Questions
Member for Winnipeg North as an interlocutory between these people and the Government, to see if some assistance might be possible with respect to out of pocket expenses or legal costs that would be incurred.
We have manifested our interest and support for these people in a number of ways. 1 will continue to carry on these discussions so long as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North wishes to do so.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It is particularly shameful that a Government, which could come up with over $650,000 in legal fees for Sinclair Stevens-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -does not find one penny for the victims of these terrible experiments.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Even George Cooper, whose appalling report was basically a whitewash absolving the Government of all moral and legal responsibility and was used as Exhibit No. 1 by the CIA in the lawsuit in the United States, suggested that the Government look seriously at the question of an ex gratia payment of $100,000 over and above legal fees.
When will the Government finally do the right and decent thing and pay these people the compensation to which they are entitled before even more of the elderly victims have died? When will the Government finally act?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 find the question rather disconcerting inasmuch as the Hon. Member's Leader has been in touch with me by correspondence. He has asked me- and I have agreed to do it-to try to find what might be possible on an ex gratia basis, that is to say in simple terms, while there is no legal responsibility, we are compassionate with respect to these people. We as a Government have not been directly involved, but we understand what has taken place in the past. We have attempted to come to terms with determining a reasonable amount of money that might be available to the victims of the experiments.
I have proposed to carry on my discussions. I undertook that I would, for the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not think it is fair to say that somehow we are not prepared to help. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has done this so often in the past in a number of ways that I am determined to carry it on. I hope the Hon. Member will assist me in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in the Question Period. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


TOXIC MUSSELS-CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question for the Minister of Health. 1 have listened to him carefully during the four days that this issue has dominated the House of Commons. I accept his word that he did not, as a Minister, learn until Monday morning, the relative weekend, Monday morning-well, on the Monday-


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


John Napier Turner: That is what he said in answer to my colleague. The Minister has to make up his mind.
The facts remain that Dr. Todd said on television that rats were dying from this toxin on the Friday afternoon. The shippers, exporters, companies involved, were informed on the Sunday. The Canadian people were not informed until Tuesday evening. That is a large gap for me to swallow and for the Canadian people to understand.
The Minister bears some responsibility for the period in which he knew. He also bears responsibility for the period in which his Department knew, and he has to take responsibility for it.
I have yet to get a satisfactory explanation. I ask the Minister one more time: what happened between Friday afternoon and Tuesday night before the Canadian people were told?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question as well, and I can go through the chronology again. I can go through the chronology, if you give me the time, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Which chronology?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have only used one chronology. The Hon. Member might have used more. I can go through the chronology. It will be available again at four o'clock, but I want to get directly to the right hon. gentleman. I said that I had been informed on Monday, prior to Question Period on Monday, that the Department was investigating a mussel problem.


John Napier Turner: Didn't they tell you during the weekend at all?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No. Just as he wants me, and I do respect his word, I ask him the same thing, respect mine.


John Napier Turner: I respect your word. I just want to know what happened during that weekend.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I am saying to the right hon. gentleman is that the Department, through that period of time, was testing and came up with a medical link on Tuesday, late

December 10, 1987

afternoon. It was my House duty on Tuesday. I came out of the House from my House duty on Tuesday. There was a CBC reporter, because there had been a story running on Charlottetown CBC. I said: "I am going to my office. I want to know as well". He came to my office, waited outside my office. My ADM came into my office on Tuesday, around six o'clock Tuesday night.
As 1 received the request for a medical alert, as it got into my hands, I gave it to the press. That is how instantaneous it was.
So, Mr. Speaker, on every count I have acted quickly. I have acted responsibly. I have allowed my officials' full expertise to function, and I say to the hon. gentleman very sincerely, he and I have been in this House a fair period of time, and in ministerial responsibility I take my responsibilities as he did as Prime Minister and as a Minister. 1 believe he also expected from his officials the best, and when the officials gave him the information he acted. I did the very same thing, and 1 ask him to respect that as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that the Minister, given that he was quoting at length from a document, in fact table the document.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a request for a tabling of notes. It is a known fact in this House that Ministers are prepared and always quote from notes. I will check the "blues" to see if in the course of the Question Period there was any reference to an actual document.
In any event, the Minister has stated to the House that he is holding a full briefing at four o'clock, and I am sure that document will be available there.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Minister made very clear that he was quoting from an official document to which he referred over and over again as a chronology. He did not simply have a piece of paper in his hand which he glanced down at from time to time. He said that he had an official document which he called the chronology, and he said that it was the only chronology. I think the precedents are clear. They are in Beauchesne's. The Minister has done something in a way which requires him to table in the House the document from which he was quoting.
Business of the House
I would say further that it is no answer to the point of order of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) to say that there will be a briefing at four o'clock. The House of Commons takes precedent over any briefing by an official. The Government is not willing to respect the House of Commons. You, Sir, on behalf of all Members and on behalf of the Canadian people, should ensure that the Government carries out its duties to the Canadian people which must be expressed through this House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my undertaking to check the "blues". If the Minister made any reference to a document in his answers, definitely the document will be tabled without question.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, of course, I would expect that the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) will try to obtain that information as quickly as possible. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has raised a fundamental matter of procedural law in this Chamber. If indeed the Minister was using an official document and reading from it, of course, it ought to be tabled and I think the Minister of State has given that undertaking. I am sure that if that is the case, the Minister of State will report back to me or to the House shortly.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this point of order will not be controversial. I simply want to ask the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) to give the usual statement of business the Government wants to call for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would offer to table my notes but I am not sure that you could read my writing.
Tomorrow, we will deal with Bill C-88 at third reading stage. The Bill deals with some minor changes to the Judges Act. We would hope that we could complete that between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. We would then move to Bill C-87, the Customs Harmonization Act, and we expect that we could complete third reading of that Bill tomorrow.
As for next week, there are a number of Bills now at committee which may be reported back to the House. We could deal with them on an ad hoc basis. In addition, we expect finalization of the free trade agreement with the United States very soon and that will be tabled in the House as soon as possible. I will meet with other House Leaders to finalize the framework for a full and complete debate in the House.

December 10, 1987
11682___________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to allow an adequate period of review prior to the signing of a highly complex trade agreement with the United States on January 2, 1988 and, as a result, this House calls upon the government to seek an extension of the January 2nd deadline by at least 60 days.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m., the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) had the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose, I was speaking about the inadequacy of the process the Government has imposed upon Parliament and the Canadian people and the inadequacy of the time for debate and examination of the free trade agreement. I was speaking to a motion put by my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), which condemns the Government for the process as it stands and which calls on the Government to request a 60-day extension to the January 2 signing date so that Canadians, both those who are for and those who are against the agreement, can have time to take a good look at the text of it.
I was arguing that the time which remains to Parliament and Canadians between the time we receive the text, which will, I hope, be tomorrow, and the time of the signing of the agreement on January 2 is hopelessly inadequate. Given that there is a provision in the United States for Congress to extend the fast track, I cannot understand why it is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is unwilling to have the decency to request such an extension so the due parliamentary and political process can be followed.
If it is possible under the congressional procedure to have a time extension, why on earth would the Prime Minister who had given a commitment to full parliamentary and public debate not request such an extension? Perhaps 1 could understand it if there were no possibility of extending the date of January 2. 1 would still be angry with the Government for having put us in such a position. I would be angry with the Government for having negotiated with the Americans at the end of their fast-track procedure when they would have the natural advantage over us, because we would be in a position of having to conclude an agreement by a particular time.
The fact remains that the Prime Minister has not even tried. He has not requested or tried to see whether or not Congress and the President would allow for the possibility of such an extension. For that, the Government is to be condemned. That is why we have moved the motion condemning the Government, for not seeking that extension and for being satisfied
with a process that gives Canadians only a few weeks to consider the text of an agreement which will be some 2,000 pages long.
Part of this process has been the committee hearings. 1 had the dubious privilege of serving on that committee which travelled the country to hear witnesses, both pro and con, on the agreement. That process was completely flawed because the committee did not have the text before it; nor did the people from whom we heard. Many people who came before us supporting the agreement were only able to give conditional support. They would say that they support the agreement but they hope that this does not mean this and that does not mean that and that they need to see the final text. These people have thought through the agreement, want to see the final text and want to have an opportunity to render a judgment on that final text. However, they will not have that opportunity because of the time frame the Prime Minister has accepted for Canadian due process.
Looking for a silver lining in a cloud, I suppose that the committee hearings were not completely without value. They were awfully frustrating to the great many Canadians who were unable to come before us, but many of the people who came before the committee in support of the agreement, and there were just as many who were against it, were much more forthcoming and honest about the true impact of the agreement than we could ever get the Government to be.
The very best example of this that I can think of is the presentation of the former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lough-eed. Mr. Lougheed said openly and directly before the committee that under this agreement, provinces would never again be able to have a preferential pricing policy for domestic consumers or local industry. We have been trying to get the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) to say that in this House as clearly for months on end. We could not get the Government to be honest about the real impact of the part of the agreement which provides that there will be no discriminatory pricing.
Mr. Lougheed said to the committee that that would be the effect of the agreement and that he was glad of it. I am not glad of it. I think it will be a real disadvantage, particularly to provinces which have been able in the past to use preferential energy pricing as a means of attracting industry. Mr. Lougheed was at least honest about the effect of it.
Another example of this was the question of marketing boards and supply management. We have been saying since day one that this agreement would put at risk our supply management and marketing board system.
1 wonder if we could have some order, Mr. Speaker. It is a little hard to speak over the chuckles. I have the greatest of respect for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but if I cannot hear the jokes, I would prefer not to listen to the laughter.
December 10, 1987

We said from the very beginning that marketing boards and supply management were at risk as a result of this agreement. Every time we said that, the Government would say marketing boards are not on the table; the NDP is trying to create fear. The NDP is exaggerating. The NDP is this and the NDP is that. The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada appeared before the committee. I hope they cannot be accused of being part of the socialist hordes. They said things like you cannot have marketing boards and no tariffs. It makes no economic sense. Once you reduce tariffs, then you have to have either the elimination of marketing boards or a very fundamental change in them which would require farmers to receive a lower price than they do now for the products they sell to the association.
What is clear from that? Marketing boards are at risk. Exactly what we have been saying all along. That was said not by opposition Members but by the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada.
Every time we said social programs were at risk under this agreement we were accused of hysteria and trying to whip up irrational fears among the Canadian people. The irony is that the claim about social programs being involved was most validated in the evidence the committee received from businessmen themselves. Ironically, they brought it up.
I recall in Vancouver a member of the Business Council, I believe his name was Mr. Matkin, and on the other coast Mr. Cummings of National Sea, referred to the fact that one of the reasons investors sometimes locate a plant in Canada is because they find the social programs to be of benefit, not only to their employees but to themselves. Mr. Cummings said they had done a comparative study of their plant in New Hampshire and their plant in Nova Scotia. They found the Canadian plant was more competitive on balance. One of the reasons was that the plant in New Hampshire had to pay health care insurance for its employees, whereas the plant in Nova Scotia did not.
A similar point was made about how social programs become part of the calculus in determining what constitutes competitive advantage by some of the businessmen who appeared as witnesses in Vancouver.
The point is this. Whether we like it or not, social programs are part of the calculus. They are part of what is taken into consideration when we calculate competitive advantage. If we enter into a relationship with the U.S. in which we, over the next five to seven years, negotiate the meaning of a level playing field, it is absolutely inevitable that our social programs will come to be part of that debate. By entering into that agreement we will be creating a context in which arguments about social programs as part and parcel of what is calculated as competitive advantage will come about. Whether it is the argument I have just made about Americans saying Canadian social programs constitute a competitive advantage, or Canadian employers saying the tax burden they have to
Supply
bear in order to fund these social programs puts them at a competitive disadvantage, the point is that they become part of the calculation, I say to the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head.
I am trying to make this point-


John Horton McDermid: Negatively.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -in as non-partisan a way as I can to show how this will become part of the argument. That is what we mean when we say our social programs are on the table whether you like it or not. To deny it is to simply bury your head in the sand.
A final point in the same vein. One of the things we said in the beginning was that a free trade agreement with the U.S. would mean the end of the Crow benefit in western Canada. It would be a further step towards dismantling the economic structures set up in western Canada over the years and which we value. We could not get the Government to say they were at risk but we saw a supporter of the agreement, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and others, come before the committee and say yes, the Crow benefit is at stake. Not just the benefit being removed as a result of the agreement but the payment to the railways is at stake. This will lead to payment to producers and when you do that it means more trucking. When you use trucks, it means more use of inland terminals. You know who owns the inland terminals? It just happens to be the company that the Canadian negotiator on agriculture worked for and the company that the American negotiator on agriculture worked for, Cargill-surprise, surprise.
I see my time is up. However, the fact remains that the only legitimate and final political process appropriate when a Government proposes to change the very nature of this country by entering into this comprehensive an agreement with our southern neighbour is an election. The sooner we have it, the sooner the Canadian people will be able to render their own judgment. That is absolutely necessary.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member. They were not rantings. I cannot use that word. However, I happen to disagree with them. I think they are causing unjustified fear among the public.
The Hon. Member talks about social programs being an unfair trade practice or tipping the scale in trade negotiations. I submit that if that is the case, why has it not been brought forward before now? The laws have been in place for that kind of an attack, as the NDP likes to put it, on our social programs. Yet it has not happened heretofore.
I know what the NDP are trying to do. They are trying to tie this into the trade talks, but it is just not factual. The trade laws on both sides of the border are basically the same. They come under the rules and regulations of GATT. The U.S. has had the opportunity to bring charges against Canada for

December 10, 1987
Supply
unfair trade practices if in fact they feel it is a distortion of trade, or places companies in an unfair competitive position. This has not happened and it is not going to happen.
Lowering tariff rates is not doing that at all. National treatment comes into play, as the Hon. Member knows. As long as all companies are treated equally and fairly, these will not come into play at all.
He talks about subsidies and transportation. That was another one of his theories. I can say to him that the agreement says very clearly that until all distortions to agricultural trade are on an equal basis, those particular subsidies will remain in place. The Hon. Member knows that. That has to do with trade with the U.S., not trade overseas or the shipping of any of our grain products overseas. There is a good market in the United States for certain types of our high quality grains. The agreement says that once we get on a level playing field, to use the current terminology, subsidies on both sides will be gone and there will be fair trade. We are talking about what is fair to both sides.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I will have to keep my remarks brief because the committee which is drafting the report on the agreement is meeting right now and I need to be there. My understanding on the transportation subsidy is that the Crow benefit for Canola, for example, comes off right away rather than after everything else has been leveled out. We heard from the Canola producers and Canola oil manufacturers in western Canada that this would affect them right away.
With regard to the Crow benefit in general, I was talking about the effect this would have in the future. I did not make the claim which the Member alleged I made about it happening immediately.
I did not say that our social programs were an unfair trade practice. I do not think they are. I do not think they should have anything to do with trade. The Parliamentary Secretary talks about what has happened so far. I know what has happened so far. I am talking about what might happen as a result of this entirely new relationship. That which has happened so far is not a reliable guide.
The point I am making is that when you get into a levelplaying-field relationship these arguments will be generated. I am not saying that these arguments will succeed. I hope they will not. However, either the Minister is being very naive indeed or simply he does not want to admit that the arguments about social programs will become part of the negotiations. Over the next five to seven years we will be negotiating what constitutes a non-tariff barrier, what constitutes an unfair trade advantage of a non-tariff kind.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that he does not know how lowering tariffs can affect social programs. I am not talking about the lowering of tariffs. I am talking about the negotiations that will take place over the next five to seven
years about what the level playing field will look like. I think that is where the arguments will be generated about social programs.
I could be wrong, and I hope that I am. I hope I never get to find out. I hope we kill this deal, because I do not like it. However, if it does go through, and if what I am predicting does not come to pass at the end of the negotiating period, I will be one of the happiest guys around. However, if you consider the things that have been said you will see that social programs will become a part of the argument.
We know that the Americans already tried once to countervail unemployment insurance. They did not succeed, but I think they will have a better chance of succeeding under this arrangement. I believe the Government has gone into it "bass backwards" if you like. Before we get rid of all the tariffs we should have agreement on non-tariffs. We should have a standardization of social policies such as exists in the European common market countries.
I do not want standardization according to American standards. For the benefit of the American people I would like to have standardization according to Canadian standards so that they can have a medicare program like ours. However, I do not expect that to happen. If it does, it would be great, but history tells us otherwise. When you enter into this kind of a relationship, the weaker country tends to take on the characteristics of the stronger country.
We heard from a number of native people throughout the hearings who had something to tell us.


John Horton McDermid: They got before the committee?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, they got before the committee on a couple of occasions. The Assembly of First Nations appeared before the committee here, the President of the Dene Nations appeared in Yellowknife, and Chief Moses Okimaw of Manitoba was part of the coalition. I am not pretending that they were not heard. I am saying that they had some advice for us.
They told us that they had lots of experience with treaties between themselves and very powerful institutions such as the Canadian Government. I see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) is here, which is rather appropriate. The native people told us that in their experience it is the powerful people who interpret the treaties, who in the end have the leverage to say that the treaty means something other than what the native people said it did.
That is the kind of relationship into which we are entering with the United States. That was stated very well in Manitoba by Chief Moses Okimaw who was quoting from The Ecstasy of Rita Joe, I believe. He concluded by saying that free trade will make Indians of us all.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, in its motion put forward today the Opposition is asking us to extend the deadline for signing the agreement by 60 days. On the face
December 10, 1987

of it, that seems to be a reasonable request which anyone might wish to consider. It seems hardly likely that it could not be accommodated. However, the fact is that there are two reasons why it is an unreasonable request. First, it implies that extending the agreement would not jeopardize the agreement we have, that we could simply extend the deadline by 60 days and examine the agreement a little closer without having an impact on our ability to conclude successfully the agreement which we have reached. Second, the Opposition is suggesting to the House that we have not spent enough time considering the free trade agreement. If the Opposition were a little more aware of what has been going on in the country for the last five years beyond the assembly lines of Oshawa it would know that westerners have been requesting a free trade agreement for years. In 1911 this desire of western Canada was put forward. We were not successful at that time, but we intend to be successful this time.
The Official Opposition and the NDP know that liberalized trade has been on the national agenda for many decades and has come to the top of the agenda in the last 10 years. Our national economy and our standard of living depend upon our ability to sell the goods and services we produce. We sell our goods all over the world. Thirty percent of our Gross Domestic Product is comprised of exports. The United States is our largest trading partner by far. We must keep certain economic facts in mind when we consider a free trade agreement.
Within the entire organization of the OECD, Canada is second, after West Germany, in the percentage of our Gross National Product dependent on international trade. Canada is a trading nation. We have always been and always will be. The Opposition has forgotten that this free trade agreement must be placed within the entire history of our trade with the world. Trade is fundamental to us. Our country was founded on trade with the Hudson's Bay Company and the Northwest Company. The fur traders and voyageurs built forts, travelled this country, and brought settlers because we had things to trade.
We still have things to trade and we have examined ways in which we can continue to trade them. Free trade is one of those options. It has been studied by many people. I recall when Premier Lougheed of my Province of Alberta put this idea forward at a First Ministers' Conference. He envisaged this as the way the West, and Alberta in particular, could fulfill its true economic potential, by providing Albertans with an avenue into the American market. He also saw the threat of protectionism against those items we currently sell to the American market. He was at the forefront of that trade debate and brought this issue into the modern era.
The question of free trade has been studied by many groups, including economists, professors, bankers, and business people, as well as the federal Government and some provincial Governments. One of the most important of those studies occurred in the fall of 1982 when the former Government set up the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. It is more commonly known as the Macdonald Commission, and was chaired by the Hon. Donald
Supply
Macdonald, a former Minister of Finance under Prime Minister Trudeau.
That commission concluded that we must venture into untried ways that will demand open-mindedness, courage, innovation and determination. It went on to say that we must concentrate our efforts on obtaining secure access to the American market on which continental economic forces have made us increasingly dependent.
The Government has reacted to these challenges. We have been open minded and courageous. We have obtained secure access to the American market. Time and a series of international events have been on our side, such that we have been able to put this trade deal on the national agendas of both Canada and the United States. The Opposition is trying to ensure that free trade, and the state of the Canadian economy as a result of American protectionism fall to the bottom of those agendas.
We have spent years considering free trade and how it will affect us. During the 1977 to 1979 round of GATT negotiations, the Premiers of Canada expressed the view that, contrary to what the federal Government was then doing, there should be a two-pronged effort in Canadian trade initiatives, with a multilateral approach through GATT as well as on a bilateral basis with the United States. We did not do as well as we should have at the GATT negotiations because we are not part of a trading bloc like the European Economic Community, nor do we have the trading leverage of the larger nations like Japan or the United States. We did not have the empathy of the lesser developed countries and various other groups of nations in the world.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan sought election as President of the United States. One of his early commitments was to improve relations with his continental neighbours, Mexico and Canada. In 1983, the Macdonald Commission discussed the future of the Canadian economy through public hearings which were held throughout the country. It studied where the opportunities for job prospects might lie.
At the same time, the Ontario Economic Council produced a report by Mr. Harris and Mr. Cox which said that within Ontario there would be higher real incomes for Canadian labour and lower prices for many imported and domestically produced goods if we had a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States.
In 1984, however, the United States began to develop a trade deficit. This deficit developed for a multitude of reasons, including perhaps, an overvalued dollar. This, combined with a reduction in exports, caused protectionist Bills to spring up in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. This mood in the United States was increasingly threatening to Canada.
In January, 1985, the recently elected Conservative Government set forth three options for securing and enhancing access and export markets. The following month, the First Ministers met to discuss these options. One western Premier in particular, Peter Lougheed, was especially vocal in his support for a free trade deal.

December 10, 1987
Supply
In July, 1985, when the Macdonald Commission reported, its primary recommendation for economic policy was a comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States. This recommendation came from a group of people with the same political background as those who are now opposed to the deal.
Subsequently, the Prime Minister appointed a chief negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman. The Premiers met to discuss provincial involvements during which there were several months of intensive negotiations. Throughout the course of negotiations, the Government consulted with advisory groups from various sectors of the economy. It met with industry representatives to discuss how particular tariff reductions would affect their industries. After numerous discussions and consultations, a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States was made on October 3.
There have been a number of arguments against free trade presented in this House and elsewhere. Those arguments are wrong for a number of reasons, which I will outline later. Generally, though, they are wrong because they have neglected two factors.
First, those arguments neglect the fact that this is a trade agreement, not a political or cultural agreement.
Second, they do not recognize that this is a trade agreement which affects a number of sectors of the economy. The suggestions that our sovereignty will disappear or Canadians will no longer govern this country have extended the trade agreement to other spheres far beyond the scope of anything that this agreement does or contemplates doing. Those who say we will lose as a result of this deal have forgotten that this is one trade deal with one customer. We trade with other countries and hope to pursue liberalized trade with them in due course.
Let me give a brief outline of the basic aspects of this agreement which we signed with the United States. It is important to understand what underlies this agreement and how important it is to proceed without delay as has been suggested by this motion today. At the outset of the free trade talks, the Government stated clearly that a free trade agreement would be good for Canada or there would be no agreement. We have delivered on that commitment. On January 3, we will sign an agreement that is good for Canada.
Unlike the Opposition, our Government is not living in the past. We know that there is no status quo in the world trade environment, with rising protectionism in the United States and a changing world around us.
The events in the stock market last month demonstrated our vulnerability to world events. What happens in New York affects Toronto, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Zurich and London. We cannot insulate ourselves from the changing world around us. With today's information technology, business is conducted at paces never envisioned 25 years ago. Capital is moved around the world at the speed of light. In this environment, no country
can shield itself behind a wall of protectionism and try to insulate itself from world forces. We cannot return to the days of 50 years ago when every small village and town had a bakery, butcher shop, livery barn and blacksmith shop. Today, we cannot insulate ourselves from continuing change and from moving ahead into the future.
Every recognized study of this issue has concluded that the free trade agreement will be positive for the Canadian economy. These studies include those by the Economic Council of Canada, the C. D. Howe Institute-generally believed to be more of a Liberal-thinking research institute-the Canada West Foundation, the Fraser Institute, various banks, professional groups, professors and universities. Every single study of which I am aware concludes that this would be positive for the Canadian economy. No one concludes otherwise. We can rest assured that there are people around who are prepared to pay for studies to come up with the conclusions they want, but even the Ontario Government's study which was released yesterday indicated that this agreement would be a positive thing for the Ontario economy. We all know it will be positive for the regional economies. We all know Quebec is on side and agrees it will be positive for Quebec. And these studies also conclude that it will be good for Ontario.
Our industries operate in world environments, energy, agriculture and high technology. In the things we do, we are among the best and the most efficient in the world. We already trade in international markets. So what are the implications of this agreement? There will be lower prices for consumers as tariffs come down. For consumers, tariffs are a tax. They are highest on food and clothing, the very things on which people with lower incomes spend most of their income. If those tariffs are taken away, the standard of living is automatically increased for every Canadian.
The Economic Council of Canada has suggested a 5 per cent increase in the standard of living of Canadians. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has suggested that in terms of setting up a complete household, the savings would be in the order of $8,000 per household. A study was done some years ago on the potential impact of removing tariffs on the poor. The study concluded that the removal of tariffs could put 25 per cent of the people currently living below the poverty line above that line.
We will be exporting goods and services to the United States, not jobs. There will be increased foreign investment in Canada. The economy will become more specialized, more efficient and more productive. Canadian firms will move to the frontier of technology and our society will become more outward looking.
Many members have heard of the slogan of the anti-free traders 75 years ago: "No truck or trade with the Yankees".
December 10, 1987

Those who echo that slogan today are, to quote Marshall McLuhan, marching backward into the future. This agreement reflects the confidence and determination of those who have a vision of a big Canada, big in prospects, big in opportunities, big in competitiveness, productivity increases and research and development.
This agreement is consistent with other agreements in the world. The European Economic Community has a more far-reaching agreement than is envisaged here. When Britain was considering entering the EEC, the same kind of arguments were put forward, that somehow the agreement would diminish the status of England as a independent country, somehow it would be less independent. But, as we know, that is foolishness. Britain is still Britain, the Queen is still the Queen, and Maggie Thatcher is still the Prime Minister and just as tough as ever. Smaller countries in Europe which have entered into the agreement agree it has been of great benefit to them. One will find none of those countries today that would withdraw from the EEC. None of those countries would give up the benefits that that trading arrangement has given to them.
Between Australia and New Zealand there is a trading agreement. These are two countries with relatively the same population differentia! as between Canada and the United States. New Zealand has benefited greatly from that agreement. All the economic theory indicates that smaller countries have benefited more than the larger countries because the smaller countries are the ones gaining access to the larger market.
In Canada we have a trade agreement with the United States called the Auto Pact. It was signed in 1965 by Prime Minister Pearson without consultation of Parliament. The same people who opposed that agreement are opposed to this one. Yet that agreement can be cancelled by either side on six months' notice. It is now the darling of those who opposed it when it was first brought in. Today the people who are the greatest benefactors of that agreement, namely the auto workers' unions, lead the opposition to the free trade agreement.
The City of Oshawa is the home of General Motors in Canada and is represented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, known also as the Member for General Motors, which was built with $4.6 billion of foreign investment. Premier Devine has said he wants to take all the mayors from all of the towns and cities in Saskatchewan to visit Oshawa. He wants them to see whether all that foreign investment would be as bad for Saskatchewan as it has been for Oshawa. He said that all he wants is $4.6 billion for all of Saskatchewan. He will stop there. He is not greedy. That will be enough.
The free trade debate is really about two views of Canada. The first view is that we should protect ourselves from a too competitive world by using the state to prop up the inefficient and the uncompetitive. The other view, one in which we believe, is of confidence in our ability to compete in the world
Supply
as an outward-looking nation ready to take advantage of global opportunities. We firmly believe that Canadians will choose our vision of the future. Protectionism leads to depression and we must unite against that.
I want to examine for just a moment that other vision, the vision proposed by the Party putting forward the motion today that seeks to derail this agreement. I think it is worth while to consider for a moment the views of the New Democratic Party and, to a lesser degree, the views of the Liberal Party. Let us examine the New Democratic Party. On the national scene we have professors, high school teachers, community college lecturers, media types and so on. That is not meant to be negative about any of those people. We have plenty of them in the Conservative Party as well. But what the New Democratic Party does not have is balance. Those Members are long in the realm of ideas but short on experience. They have rarely managed anything, let alone an entire Government, yet profess to have the expertise necessary to tell all Canadians how to run their affairs. They do not have the confidence to trust Canadian initiative. They do not have the confidence in the ability of individual Canadians to compete in the world if they were just given the opportunity.
The NDP world is a world of ideas and commentary not the world of management. It wants to maintain the status quo. The NDP find solution in government intervention as a matter of first resort. That Party believes the free market should be interfered with whenever it threatens the present state of affairs. It spouts the cliches of outmoded protectionism. Protectionism is for those who have a small vision of Canada. The NDP is dominated by fear. It has neither confidence in itself nor a vision for Canada. New Democrats doubt their capacity to be Canadian without an artificial wall around them. They forget that trade has always been fundamental to our development as a nation, especially in western Canada.
I believe we must defeat this motion today. We must proceed with this agreement with dispatch. This motion would jeopardize the agreement that all of us from western Canada have worked so hard to get. I urge the House to defeat today's motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I appreciated the comments of the Hon. Member and the tone in which they were delivered. I did not agree with much of what he said but I respect his right to make his opinions known.
I am perplexed about one area on which the Hon. Member spent a great deal of time, that is, the energy area and what the free trade deal will do to assist the Albertan economy. He quoted his ex-Premier, Peter Lougheed. When we are building our economy, particularly our manufacturing section, we look to see what our competitive advantage is. Some countries have very cheap labour costs and with other countries it is the whole elimination of environmental standards and health and safety standards, while in other countries, perhaps, it is the location, but we all try to maximize what advantage we have in terms of competing on the international markets. One thing that

December 10, 1987
Supply
Alberta has that other parts of the country do not, of course, is ample and abundant energy sources, relatively inexpensive energy when it comes to importing from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela with respect to the petrochemical industries.
One of the advantages Alberta has always had is in the development of its petrochemical industry. Alberta could purchase feedstocks for that industry at a price lower than world price. This gave Alberta an obvious advantage because the critical raw material was there and it gave Albertans that extra leg up to develop and compete internationally. Albertans might be able to compete with a country where the cost of labour is significantly lower than Alberta's but the cost of energy is higher.
What we have done in this agreement is to lose our ability to price our feedstocks of oil and natural gas. They will be world price and the price will be the same whether it is Leduc, Red Deer or Dallas, Texas. I simply pose the rather hypothetical question to my friend but it will provide him with an opportunity to answer.
If he were a major investor, industrialist or a large business person who was going to invest in a major petrochemical plant locating it in Red Deer or in Amarillo, Texas and the cost of gas or oil, even if it were from Alberta, would be the same no matter where and he had a choice of locating it close to major American markets or way up in Canada, what would motivate the Hon. Member to open up that major petrochemical complex far away from markets in Canada if the price of feedstocks were exactly the same wherever he opened that plant?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, one of the easiest ways to answer the Hon. Member's question is to tell him about the reaction of the petrochemical industry in Alberta to this agreement. It is one of welcome. For one thing, currently there are tariffs between 12 per cent and 18 per cent on petrochemicals being produced in Alberta going to the United States. We already have that 12 per cent to 18 per cent disadvantage. This agreement will remove those tariffs. Certainly there are choices and a variety of factors that come into being in the location of a plant.
Peter Lougheed has pointed out that Alberta has developed a petrochemical industry which was not there 15 or 20 years ago and it has developed it to a state of maturity where it can now sustain itself in world markets, if it can get access to those world markets without due restraint, such as the 12 per cent to 18 per cent tariffs. There is no doubt about that at all. The industry is ecstatic about this agreement. The industry will believe it will lead to an expansion of facilities, sales and more employment. That speaks volumes, more than any rhetoric or scare tactics.
The basic difference is philosophy. Our province and our Party believe that we can compete with market forces and we can do so very well. Let us not forget what we are talking
about when we are talking about controlling prices. We are talking about the Government controlling prices, and the Government saying what the price will be and indirectly what the wage and what the return will be. We reject that philosophy. We believe the free market is the one that will serve us best.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) who is quite an authority on the energy business in Alberta. He knows the devastating and damaging effect of the National Energy Program on his province. We now see a repeat with the New Democratic Party opposing free trade, which will deny western Canada tremendous wealth if we enter into a free trade agreement with the amount of energy that we have in reserve. We have some 680 years of energy reserves. We will not run out of energy. In fact, we had better start getting rid of the surplus gas and oil as quickly as possible because by the turn of the century there will be all kinds of other alternative sources of energy and there will not be the same need for all this gas.
A book written by Ron Graham quotes the ex-Liberal Energy Minister Marc Lalonde. It reads:
For the first time Mr. Lalonde admits publicly that the purpose of the NEP
was to prevent the west from growing too wealthy.
We know that the National Energy Program was introduced by the Liberal Party, fully, totally and completely supported by the NDP.


Mr. Manly:: That is a lie.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a lie.


A. Daniel McKenzie: If that blow were not bad enough, the NDP
is-


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is a lie.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The New Democrats are saying that Marc Lalonde is lying.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I challenge the New Democrats to challenge Marc Lalonde. I am quoting Marc Lalonde. I am not lying.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are a liar.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Challenge the NDP. Go to Marc Lalonde.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are a liar.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I want this man removed from the Chamber. He called me a liar. I am quoting what Mr. Lalonde said, not what I said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to withdraw his remarks.
December 10, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, because of the parliamentary rules of the House and my respect for them I will reconsider the name that I have called my hon. friend because I think he was misleading the House by saying that the NDP supported the NEP in all its phases. He knows. He was here and he knows that is incorrect. Perhaps my calling him a liar was a bit out of line and I withdraw that comment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The NDP might not have voted for all phases of the NEP, but the New Democrats voted for the majority of the phases.
Mr. Lalonde went on to say:
Our proposal was to increase Ottawa's share appreciably, so that the share
of the producing provinces would decline significantly and the industry's share
would decline somewhat.
We know the devastating effects of the National Energy Program. Two banks collapsed because of it.
I am not an authority on energy-


David Orlikow: Or on anything else.


A. Daniel McKenzie: -so I have to turn to people in the field who are authorities. I do not turn to the New Democrats to find out anything about energy or about anything else.
The Independent Petroleum Association of Canada presented figures on energy reserves. Let me quote them. We have 680 years of supply. These energy figures were quoted to Members of Parliament in November this year, and they are made up of two components; one, estimates of reserves that have been discovered, and two, estimates of the potential reserves that have not yet been discovered. This data was obtained by IPAC from the Canadian Petroleum Association.
Will we run out of energy if we sign this trade deal? Doesn't the Member think there is enough energy to go around with 680 years of supply? Is there a problem if the West goes into this trade deal? I think the West will become extremely wealthy if we enter into this trade deal and export all this surplus natural gas. I am sure the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, who is more associated with the industry than I am, could give us an explanation on the points that I have raised.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can briefly respond. As the Hon. Member has pointed out, there are ample studies, including the one to which he has referred, done recently by the standing committee of this House which has shown that there are large supplies of energy in Canada. There is no danger of our running out of energy.
The concern and the question is the price of that energy and whether or not a Government, as was done through the NEP, should impose a government price that robs producers and gives them half or less of what the product is worth. Producers should be entitled to a rate of return and a price that they can
Supply
achieve in the market-place. We know what the answer is from our Party because we got rid of the NEP. In this agreement we are securing access to markets at market prices.
Maybe I could add one more point concerning the energy field. In Alberta we think of oil and natural gas. I spoke to a representative of a utility company which produces electric power from coal. He said to me that this agreement would be a great boon to them, because in Alberta we also have tremendous resources of coal. This agreement would allow them to produce electric power for export to the United States, and use those coal resources that are currently under utilized. Therefore, over and above the supplies of oil and natural gas, there are huge volumes of other energy which this agreement has the potential to tap, allow to be developed, and provide the jobs, income and growth that we are all seeking.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the United States-Canada trade deal, falsely called the free trade deal, has raised more serious issues for Canada than any other measures submitted to Parliament or the Canadian people since the Second World War. Yet despite that fact, we are asked to deal with it as if it were a minor piece of legislation.
The manner in which the Government is trying to ram this measure through Parliament and past the Canadian people is totally unacceptable and contrary to all our democratic traditions. Not only are we meeting a U.S. fast-track timetable, a timetable which was made in the United States, but also under that timetable we in the Canadian Parliament will have much less time to consider this deal than the United States Congress.
The impact of this deal will be much greater in Canada than in the United States. For example, 80 per cent of our foreign trade is in the United States, while only 25 per cent of the United States foreign trade is in Canada. Yet our Government has submitted to a fast-track schedule for dealing with this matter which is against our interest.
The other thing for which one has to have complete disgust is the fact that it provides the American Congress, which is less interested in the deal, with more time to consider the measure than the Canadian Parliament. Not only that, but we have not yet seen the legal text of this agreement. We will be asked to approve it next week.
When the 35 page document entitled Elements of the Agreement was tabled in the House a short while ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that we would have the legal text within three weeks. It is now 10 weeks, we are told that the legal text is finished, and we were told that we would have it today. We do not have it today. We are now told we may have it tomorrow, or perhaps we will have it on Monday. The House will adjourn on December 18, which is next Friday. We will be asked to debate, examine, and approve or reject this 1,200 page legal document in that short period of time.

December 10, 1987
Supply
Christmas and New Year's will come along and the break for the holidays, and the Prime Minister will sign the document on January 2. I do not know how anyone with any reason and intelligence can accept that something so important and with such far-reaching implications should be dealt with in such a summary manner.
I wish to refer to the United States system. Under the American Constitution treaties must be approved by the Congress, especially by the Senate. Under our Constitution in Canada, in law the Government need not submit a treaty to Parliament for its approval. The signature of the Government is sufficient to make that treaty legal. However, from time to time when something is divisive and controversial, and there appears to be a lack of consensus, Governments nevertheless have given Parliament a chance to examine the matter, debate it, and then decide on it. We know with the great majority of Conservatives in the House, that they will approve of it whether it is good or bad. But to deny the right to a full and complete examination and debate is totally unacceptable, as is stated in this resolution.
We are dealing with this free trade agreement which impacts on every aspect of our economic, social, and political life, and we are asked to do it in a summary way without having the total document. Compare that with the process we have with an ordinary Bill. The Bill is tabled for first reading, distributed, we all have a chance to look at it, then there is second reading debate, and a vote at the end of the second reading debate. The Bill is then sent to committee where witnesses are heard. The committee then sends it back to the House, there is a report stage with more debate and more possibility of amendment, and then there is a third reading debate and another vote. Then the Bill is sent to the Senate. Generally, those rules provide for a complete and thorough examination, but that is not happening with this so-called free trade agreement.
I can say as a member of the committee who examined the agreement-I hate to use the word "examined" because we were given only four weeks to examine with witnesses the Elements of the Agreement, two weeks in Ottawa and one day in each province and territory, except the Yukon-that at every meeting witnesses stated that they wanted more time to consider this. Even those who are in favour of free trade in principle stated that they had doubts, concerns, questions that they wanted answered, and they wanted more time. Not only professors and church people but business people came to the committee, such as people from the printing industry or the small printers in New Brunswick and the maritime provinces, and they wanted to look at the legal text of the deal to see how it impacted on their businesses. They were afraid that they would not have enough time to readjust their businesses to compete with large American firms. The demand for more time, more information, answers to questions, and concerns over what might and might not be covered were raised all over the country. Yet the Government is rushing this thing through as if it did not want us to know what is in it.
Why do we need more time? We need more time because this is a very complex, complicated deal which impacts on every phase of Canadian life, and seriously changes the type of country that we have. I know the members of the Government do not think that that is true, but many Canadians think it is true and they want time to look at this. Having been a member of that committee, I might say that when one reads something like this for the second, third, fourth and fifth time, one always sees something new. That is the benefit of a long debate and discussion. New individuals come to the committee with a new perspective that was not seen before. But that will not happen when it is rushed through in such a quick manner.
We are not dealing here with theoretical free trade. Some people are debating this issue as if we were at a university and discussing theoretical free trade or text book free trade. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the 35 page document, up to this moment the 35-page Elements of the Agreement signed between Canada and the United States on October 4. That is what we are discussing. Is that agreement a good or a bad agreement? We are not discussing theoretical free trade.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) stated that this is just a trade agreement. All the members of his Party have been saying that wherever we went. But it is not only a trade agreement; it has serious implications for our political system and for our social programs. It needs close examination because of that.
What is in the 35 pages? 1 keep referring to the 35 pages, but God knows what will be in the 1,200 pages. At the beginning they stated it would be exactly the same as what was in the 35 pages. Then there was renegotiation of the shipping parts, the transportation parts, and now we hear something about postal rates. We will have to wait until we finally see the legal text. What is in the deal in itself requires much more examination than it has had to date.
Let us take a look at some of the things contained in the deal. If we look at the provisions on energy, I do not know how government Members can state that this particular statement with respect to energy is nothing more than a trade statement. It states:
There is broad agreement to assure the freest possible bilateral trade in energy, including non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies . . .
If we look back at the political battle during the OPEC crisis in the seventies, if those were not political battles as well as economic battles, I do not know what political is. This is a sell-out of Canadian energy and resources to the United States. This is untrammeled access to Canadian energy supplies, or whatever it says. I just put it on record.
With respect to agriculture, our horticultural industry and many aspects of our farming industry are very, very upset and concerned about what it will do not only to the economics of
December 10, 1987

the farming industry but to a way of life-the family farm which is already in danger.
Turning to the Auto Pact, they said that the Auto Pact would not be included. However, we now find in the Elements of the Agreement that the safeguards have been taken away. The agreement removes any ability of the Canadian Government in the future, as long as the agreement exists, to screen or to bar foreign investment, even investment which it thinks is not in the best interest of the country. It outlaws "buy Canada" policies or government procurement policies which favour our own industry. If that is not political, I do not know what is, especially as an instrument of regional economic development. For the first time in the world we are including services in a trade agreement between countries. It has never been done before.
It also includes financial institutions. It changes the nature in which we deal with our financial institutions and with our cultural industries. We find that mentioned in the deal. All these things require a lot more discussion and examination than they have already been given, and it is not being done.
What did we get in exchange for some of the things I have just mentioned that we gave up, such as total access to our energy and putting Canadian agriculture which has a tough winter to deal with in competition with California, Florida, and Arizona in the southern United States where they do not have winters and they have very low costs? What did we get in exchange?
We are lowering tariffs over a 10-year period so that we will bring them down to a zero level. However, 80 per cent of the products which go between Canada and the United States are now tariff-free. By the way, because of that Canada had a $20 billion trade surplus with the United States just before the agreement was signed.
Until we went begging to the United States for this special arrangement, most Americans did not even realize that we had that big surplus with them. They thought the principal bogyman was Japan and they were aiming all their darts and arrows at Japan. Now they know that Canada must be dealt with as well. Of course, as soon as they knew, they started hitting our shakes and shingles, softwood lumber, potash, and many other industries.
In exchange for giving up all the things to which I referred, we got a lowering of tariffs from 20 per cent where there are still tariffs applicable. The non-tariff barriers still remain and, in particular, the right of the United States to apply countervailing duties and anti-dumping measures against us. This seriously impedes our regional development programs.
In our hearings in Atlantic Canada we referred to the fact that the American Department of Commerce had decided that 12 federal programs geared to assist the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada were unfair subsidies subject to countervail in the United States. They were such things as fishing vessel assistance programs, agricultural and rural development
Supply
agreements, economic and regional development agreements, fishing vessel insurance plans, industrial and regional development programs, and so on. In other words, the United States has reserved the right to countervail against programs, even programs that we in Canada might consider necessary to assist the lesser developed regions of the country. A lot more examination needs to be done in respect of those things in the deal.
What are the implications of the agreement for major matters not mentioned in the deal itself? Every time witnesses came to our committee and said that the Mulroney-Reagan deal undermined our sovereignty or restricted our political action, Conservative members of the committee would take out the Elements of the Agreement and say: "Where in here does it say that our sovereignty was threatened or undermined?" Of course it is not mentioned within the covers of this blue booklet. It is not mentioned there at all.
The same thing happened whenever witnesses would say that social programs, minimum wages, health and safety standards for workers, unemployment insurance, affirmative action, marketing boards, and environmental laws were threatened. Each time something like that was said, they would say: "Show it to us. Where does it say in this little blue book that those things are up for grabs?" Of course it does not say that in the little blue book, but it does not take much intelligence to conclude that when Canadian companies, which are subject to Canadian labour standards and to minimum wages and must pay check-offs for medicare and other things, compete with American companies, especially from "right to work" states in the south of the United States, they will have much higher costs in Canada and will not be able to compete.
This is exactly why the Grocery Products Manufacturers Association of Canada made representations to us. This is not the radical left. We heard from large companies. The President of Quaker Oats said that if we had to buy our raw material food products on the Canadian market, with all costs that are entailed, we would not be able to compete with American companies that can buy their products at much cheaper prices and with much cheaper overhead due to the fact that they have lower wages, lower social standards, and so on.
What happens when we have Canadian companies living in that regime and trying to compete with American companies? By the way, there has been a movement in United States manufacturing from the north to the south where those cheaper standards and lower standards exist. They even have-and it would take me a whole debate to get into it-this Mexican connection whereby American companies send products into Mexico to have them assembled at much cheaper rates and then send them back into Canada. In any case, what will happen is that there will be pressures to harmonize all our social and labour programs with those of the United States so that our Canadian companies will be able to compete, or Canadian companies will scale down their Canadian operations and open plants in the United States so that they can

December 10, 1987
Supply
manufacture at a much lower cost and still import or export into the Canadian market.
I would like to quote what a prominent German businessman said about this matter at a seminar on free trade in Montreal last weekend. The former chief of loans for the Dresden Bank said that without a free trade deal Europeans were almost forced to invest in Canada to reach the Canadian market, but that free trade would allow them to serve Canada from plants in the United States. He went on to say: "I know that is not a friendly argument but it seems to be the truth. If larger European firms are given the option of locating a manufacturing plant in either Canada or the United States, they will almost by definition choose the United States because of such factors as transportation costs, taxation rates, market size, and labour laws".
There is a lot more testimony if somebody wants to read it before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on that very same matter.
There is pressure to harmonize or go to the United States. By the way, if that happens, a Canadian company which owns a branch plant in the United States to serve Canada will still make big profits. However, the workers in its Canadian plant will suffer because they will be laid off.
In conclusion, let me say that for a long time the Liberal Party has been in favour of liberalized trade. As a matter of fact, since the Second World War there has been a progressive reduction in tariffs between Canada and the United States, mostly accomplished through multilateral and sectoral arrangements. In those 40 years, Canadian tariffs came down from an average of 21 per cent to 9 per cent. United States tariffs came down from 32 per cent to 6 per cent. Right now, 80 per cent of the products that move between Canada and the United States are without tariff. Only 20 per cent of the products have some kind of meaningful tariffs. Because of the soundness of Canadian business practices, we have a $20-billion surplus with the United States.
Tariffs and other barriers to trade can be lowered without giving away our energy supply, without destroying our agriculture and without giving up our political control. We did it before in the 40 years since the Second World War and we can do it again.


Mrs.   Duplessis@: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time when we just signed an agreement-the most important in this century-that will bring prosperity to all Canadians, men and women, and to all provinces, an agreement that will keep on ensuring prosperity across the land, I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that having listened very carefully to the speech delivered by the Hon. Member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), I would like to know what his position as a Quebecer is on energy matters, since Quebec's
Premier welcomes this Agreement because of its impact on the economic development of the Province of Quebec, where energy is so vital.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is a very easy question to deal with. We have not had a free trade deal for years and Quebec has been very successful with its energy and the export of its energy. We do not need this kind of deal to assist Quebec in the export of its electrical energy.
The problem with this deal is that in the opinion of many, and I admit it is divided opinion, this deal will prevent Quebec from having a two-price system under which it could charge lower prices for its own citizens or for industries as an incentive to establish in Quebec.
We all know that the aluminum industry in Quebec was established because of special deals between the electricity companies and the Government. According to Mr. Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta, that kind of two-price system will no longer be possible even for electricity. If one price is charged in Canada, that is the price that will have to be charged in New York, Maine or New Hampshire. We will not be able to charge a high price down there and a lower price up here.
I will refer to the provisions of the deal again, because this is a very important question. I would ask the Hon. Member to look at the provisions in the document under energy where it refers to non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies. Electricity is energy. It goes on to say that both sides have agreed to prohibit restrictions on imports or exports including quantitative restrictions, taxes, minimum import or export price requirements or any other equivalent measure subject to very limited exceptions. These exceptions include national security, times of war and short supply.
The point is that we will not be able to discriminate between sales made to Americans and sales made to Canadians or sales Hydro Quebec would make to an industry that would want to establish in Quebec. I think that that is a mistake.
I can understand Mr. Bourassa wanting to sell as much electricity to the United States as possible. I support that, but to accept this kind of agreement which ties his hands is another thing.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the manufacturing in Mexico to which he referred. If I have the figures correctly, I believe there are about 300,000 people in northern Mexico who work in plants that have been built by Americans. These people work at a very cheap rate of pay, 68 cents or 70 cents per hour American. These people will be able to make all kinds of products.
How does the Hon. Member, who was a member of the committee looking at the trade deal, see that affecting products produced here in Canada where there are higher
December 10, 1987

transportation rates and climatic differences? Does he see this as being an attack on certain industries in Canada?
Today, there are decent wage rates and social benefits such as unemployment insurance in Canada. Does he see this as an attack on the social net within Canadian society itself? Is this an indication that this agreement will assimilate Canadians to the American way of life, to American attitudes and to American high-pressure business at the expense of Canadian labour and competition?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to what we call the Maquiladora Corridor, a corridor along the Mexican-U.S. border in which approximately 300,000 Mexican workers are now working in plants assembling parts made in the United States at wage rates much below those they would be paid in the United States.
For example, blue jeans are being assembled for $1 per pair in Mexico, whereas it would cost $7 per pair in the United States. This is not happening only to things like jeans but to refrigerators, stoves, video machines and a whole host of consumer goods like that.
Not only will that system hurt Canadians under this deal but it is already hurting many American workers who worked in plants in the northern United States. The American attitude is not one of intervening to protect the workers in the same way we traditionally do in this country. They are letting these American companies get away with it.
The trade negotiations office says that these products will not qualify under the free trade agreement for export to Canada without tariff. How will we be able to tell if a radio or a washing machine coming into Canada with an American brand name of an American company situated in the midUnited States did not have some of its components made south of the border under these kinds of arrangements?
The trade office says that there will be Canadian inspectors roaming all over the United States looking behind the panels of these products to see where their components are made and asking questions. With the deregulation in the United States and Canada and with the cut-backs in inspectors, I do not know how that will happen. Will there be massive armies of inspectors roaming all over the United States checking out these goods?
In any case, there is some dispute about this particular matter raised by my hon. colleague, and it is for this reason that these things should be given much more time. We should not rush through this debate in a few days. We should be holding hearings at least as long as the American Congress which, it seems, will hold hearings until next September. It does not even want to look at the deal in an official way until June.
Here we are, closing the whole debate next week sometime, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will sign it on
Supply
January 2. That is it for us. The American Congress will have time to look at all these things. We will not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) for a last question.


André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Hon. Member's contribution and it is my view that if there were a vaccine against exaggeration and inconsistency, it would now be in short supply in Canada because of the Liberal Party. One day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) supports the principle, and the next day he is against it. They bring in all sorts of qualifications. They talk about regional economic development and say that some programs would be cut, reduced. If there is one party, Mr. Speaker, if there is one Government that has cared about regional development over the last three years it is this Government, especially in Quebec with the number of sectoral agreements that were signed in key industries with our economic development in mind. I will spare you the list.
They talk about jobs. They talk about lost jobs, although the Economic Council of Canada and the Macdonald Commission-whose chairman, by the way, was not that much of a Conservative-made recommendations and reported very positive findings in that respect. Concerning the whole cultural aspect, Mr. Macdonald suggested among other things that whatever relates to popular culture is exempted from the provisions of the agreement. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, this issue may give rise to a high level of demagogy with reference to this theme which is a part of the history of this country.
The Premier of Quebec and his predecessor on a number of occasions have given unconditional support to this day to the free trade agreeement with the United States, especially as far as Quebec's interest is concerned. That deal will allow for significant economic renewal over the forthcoming decades. I would therefore simply ask the Hon. Member for his view, for his opinion on Mr. Bourassa's support for that Canada-U.S. free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that Mr. Bourassa gave his approval to this agreement too quickly. It is interesting to note how his Minister of Agriculture, in attending the meeting of I'Union des producteurs du Quebec began to hedge on this matter. It is also interesting to note that we had only one day of hearings in Quebec. We did not go to Quebec City, Lac-Saint-Jean, the Abitibi, or the Gaspe, just Montreal.
The eight groups that appeared before us in Montreal were divided. Four were opposed and four were in favour. Yet even those in favour had conditions. They had doubts in their minds. What we are discussing today is a motion by the NDP which says we are going at this thing too quickly. If the


I 1694 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1987
Supply
agreement is good, it will stand up to intensive scrutiny over a period of time. The problem is that we are rushing at it too quickly. The Hon. Member does not have the legal text, and neither do I. Perhaps the Cabinet and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have it, but neither of us know what is in the legal text. If the agreement is as good as he says it is, let us spend at least as much time as the U.S. and really test it. Let us hear everybody.
It was only today that the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association said it is now opposing the agreement. It took that group this long and there are others that will take that long.
The Hon. Member referred to the Macdonald Commission and the Economic Council. Their studies were made before the agreement was concluded. They were done on a theoretical free trade model, not on this agreement. I repeat over and over again that we are discussing this agreement. Mitchell Sharp, a former Liberal cabinet Minister, said he was a free trader but is against this agreement. So is Eric Kierans. It is not a question of whether you are for or against textbook free trade, it is this agreement which is at issue.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate on the motion put forward by my Leader condemning the Government for rushing this trade deal through. Bishop De Roo of the Roman Catholic Church spoke of what he called the secretive fast-track deal the Government is rushing through. We are rushing it through on an American timetable which the Americans themselves are not going to follow. They have set the agenda, we are following it, and they are not going to follow it themselves.
The agenda does not leave adequate time for the people or Parliament of Canada to look at the agreement and see what is in it for them and what we are giving up. It does not allow us to engage in an important debate. President Reagan spoke of this as a new economic constitution for North America and we in this House should be able to look at the fine print and have the time to debate it. The committee should have the time to hear witnesses who have had time to study the document. The committee should not hold farcical hearings across the country where the witnesses have not had the final text to study. It spent a day in each province hearing from eight or 10 different organizations. The whole process from beginning to end has been a complete farce.
Horace Walpole once said this world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel. No doubt there are some who have no feeling for Canada as a nation. If they stand back and look objectively at what the Government has done, they should be able to appreciate the farcical nature of what is happening. For those of us who care about Canada, who have a sense of Canada as a nation in which we grew up and in which we want our children to grow up, a nation where we see a future, then this deal is a tragedy. The process is a tragedy and has to be condemned as such.
The process goes back to at least 1983 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was seeking the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. At that time another person seeking to be the Leader, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), put forward a proposal for a comprehensive partnership with the U.S. When the present Prime Minister was asked what he thought about that proposal he said: "Canadians rejected free trade with the U.S. in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades". I am quoting from Maclean's magazine of June 13, 1983.
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clarke), who was involved in the trade discussions, said: "Unrestrained free trade with the U.S. raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear. Before we jump on the bandwagon of continentalism we should strengthen our industrial structures so that we are more competitive." The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) said: "It's silly. Canada must improve relations and trade with the U.S., of course, but our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister". The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said: "Bilateral free trade with the U.S. is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally".
We need to ask why these four people, all very influential in the present Cabinet, were opposed to free trade in 1983, and why they are attempting to foist off this trade deal on the Canadian people in 1987. If, as the Prime Minister said four years ago, Canadians would reject this deal, then why try to impose it on Canadians now?
I suggest one of the reasons they opposed it in 1983 was because there was still a substantial number of members of the Conservative Party who had some allegiance to the Diefen-baker heritage. Whatever faults John Diefenbaker had, at least he had a vision of Canada that went beyond Canada being just a branch plant of the U.S. I would like to read from his last speech as Prime Minister on February 5, 1963. He said at page 3441 of Hansard'.
Somebody said to me that if I take this stand then we are going to suffer danger in Canada, damage to Canada, and that we are going to do harm to Canada's economic strength. I do not accept that argument. It is an unworthy one.
-I cannot accept the fears of those who believe we must be subservient in order to be a good ally of any country in the world.
Macdonald fought this battle. The great merchants in the city of Montreal, in those days-not the French Canadians-had their views on this subject, that after all Canada would be that much stronger if it were joined with the United States. That was not Macdonald's view. That idea comes in with almost every generation.
I say this, Mr. Speaker. We are influenced in this way every day in our country on radio, television and in the press. When the leader of the United States speaks, we get it in detail over our television . . . .When I hear some saying that the fact that one dares to speak out will endanger Canada's economy, I wonder what the future of this country would be if those who have such fears and those who are of little faith held office in our country.
December 10, 1987

I believe in co-operation, in the closest co-operation, but not in the absorption of our viewpoint by any other nation. 1 believe in the maintenance in spirit and in fact of Canada's identity, with the right to determine her own policy without extramural assistance in determining that policy.
That was John Diefenbaker in 1963. It was that legacy to which the present Prime Minister felt he had to appeal when he was seeking to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. It is that legacy which he is betraying right now. The first people who were betrayed by this free trade deal were the members of the Conservative Party to whom the Prime Minister made commitments in 1983.
During the election campaign in 1984 the Prime Minister did not travel across Canada saying that he was going to strike a trade deal with Ronald Reagan. Instead, he talked about fair and honest government, open government. He spoke about the pork-barrel patronage that we had seen and were all fed up with. We have not seen open, honest government free from patronage. Instead, there has been a continuation of that and, in addition, the betrayal that is represented by the free trade deal which the Government is presently trying to push upon us.
Following the election in 1984 the Prime Minister proceeded to bring Canadian law into compliance with the desires of American business interests. Instead of a relationship of mutual friendship and respect there was a fawning subservience to the power of United States business. We saw the gutting of FIRA, the doing away with the National Energy Program, and the elimination, through Bill C-22, of decent pharmaceutical laws which allowed the production of low-cost generic drugs in order to satisfy the American pharmaceutical industry.
The Government allowed U.S. business to move into areas which it said it was going to protect. It allowed Gulf and Western to take over Prentice Hall book publishing. It is allowing Amoco to take over Dome Petroleum. All the time that we are making these concessions the United States is moving against vital Canadian industries. Yet the Prime Minister does nothing but smile and put his arm around President Reagan and sing with him.
While we were moving toward the trade deal the United States was trying to stake out an ever-wider territory in Canadian business. We saw the imposition of a 35 per cent countervail on shakes and shingles. The Government tried to maintain the other day that that had no real effect. However, Mr. Scott Clarke, a representative of the Independent Shake and Shingle Producers Association of British Columbia, appeared before the standing committee studying the trade deal last month. He supported the deal, yet he said:
As you are all aware, our industry was hit with a 35 per cent tariff on June 6, 1986. Prior to that date, our industry was a free trader. Since the inception of the tariff, our industry has seen curtailment in production, loss of jobs, and an increased failure rate among producers. In addition, some of my family's operations, along with our fellow competitors', have been forced to close down in Canada and relocate in the U.S.
Supply
Later, when asked, Mr. Clarke estimated that approximately 1,000 jobs had been lost in the Canadian shake and shingle industry because of that 35 per cent tariff.
We saw a 15 per cent countervail imposed on Canadian softwood lumber which was later changed to a 15 per cent export tax. In order to change that export tax we have to get the permission of the United States. We surrendered our sovereignty on that issue. Because of that John Sereny, the President of Green Forest Lumber Corporation of Toronto, one of Canada's largest lumber wholesalers said:
It is cheaper to bring lumber to the Ontario market from the U.S. west coast
than to buy the product from British Columbia.
That is what that 15 per cent countervail converted to a 15 per cent export tax has done to our lumber processing.
An 85 per cent tariff has been placed on potash. A 6 per cent tariff has been placed on Atlantic groundfish. All of this is taking place while the Prime Minister is talking about his great friendship with President Reagan. He was negotiating the free trade deal with what he might call good faith but what Canadians who look at it with some objectivity would call naive simplicity, or perhaps naive complicity, while the United States was pushing us for every possible advantage.
If I were going to preach on this issue I would take the text from the Book of Jeremiah, the second chapter, in which Jeremiah describes the nation of Israel as "A wild ass used to the wilderness, in her heat sniffing the wind! Who can restrain her lust? None who seek her need weary themselves".
The lust of the Prime Minister to get a free trade deal is like a wild ass in heat sniffing the east wind, as Jeremiah said. The way the Government has made one concession after another is absolutely obscene. "Open for business" is the way the Government has described it. "Canada is available" is what the Prime Minister is actually saying.
In the meantime the Americans appealed to the GATT over Canadian export restrictions on unprocessed salmon or herring. This directly affects the jobs of 4,000 to 6,000 shore workers in British Columbia. It affects several small communities in British Columbia which depend upon fish processing plants. Last month the preliminary decision of the GATT panel came down and it went against Canada. The final decision has not yet been made. It will probably be made early in the new year.
We know that of 52 decisions made by GATT panels 45 have been accepted, five have been dropped by mutual consent, and only two have been overturned by a full meeting of the GATT. Therefore, we do not have a great deal of confidence that, having lost the early appeal to the GATT panel, we will succeed before the larger meeting.
In the past Canada had the right either to accept or reject a GATT decision. As we have a lot of regard for GATT and believe in that kind of process we have usually accepted GATT decisions. However, this decision, which prohibits Canada from putting restrictions on the export of unprocessed herring

December 10, 1987
Supply
or salmon, erodes our basic right to shape our own economy. It erodes our sovereignty. It takes away from our right as a nation to control our own economy. It is something we cannot accept. It is something we must reject.
Unfortunately, the preliminary draft of the free trade deal makes this impossible. I quote from page 11 as follows:
Both Parties have agreed they will not maintain or introduce import or
export restrictions except in accordance with the GATT, or as modified by the
Agreement.
We have given away the opportunity to accept or reject GATT decisions. We are now bound, by this agreement with the United States, to accept GATT decisions.
It is important to look at the nature of shore workers. They have a highly seasonal type of work. At times they work long and unpredictable hours, at times they work a lot of overtime, and at times they work only a few hours a day. Seventy per cent of the shore workers in British Columbia are women. Due to a whole series of struggles that they along with other people in the fishing industry have experienced, they are highly unionized and have a decent wage. In 1983, the average wage was $11.94 an hour.
Yet because of the short work year, where they work concentrated hours in a few months, the average income for women is between $8,400 and $13,900, or between $11,400 and $20,000 for men. These shore workers are asking why their jobs were not protected in the trade negotiations. Why are they thrown overboard to the American sharks that want to come in to take their fish, leaving them without their jobs and their communities high and dry?
The Government should have insisted that the United States withdraw this appeal to GATT before it went any further with the trade negotiations. A primary consideration should have been to protect the jobs we already have.
Not only did the Government not ask strongly enough to have this withdrawn, it allowed an agreement that confirms this GATT decision and takes away Canada's right to reject it.
Part of Newfoundland's hesitancy in supporting the free trade deal was that it traditionally had the right to insist on the processing of fish before they are exported from Newfoundland. Newfoundland insisted on having that right protected. That right was confirmed for Atlantic Canada when the Government was involved in developing the final text, which none of us have seen yet. Now Atlantic provinces can continue to have restrictions that would prevent the export of unprocessed fish.
However, we have a Premier in British Columbia who was standing on the sidelines and cheering the trade deal as the greatest thing since sliced bread. He either did not take the time to look at what is involved in the agreement as far as British Columbia workers were concerned or did not care. As a result, we have a situation in which Atlantic workers are given
some protection and British Columbia workers are thrown overboard to the sharks. Fish will be processed in Seattle or Bellingham by non union workers. What kind of level playing field is that?
I understand that companies will be insisting on a level playing field. What about a level playing field for the workers?
In conclusion, let me just say that before Atlantic fishing communities give their support to this agreement they should look at the effects of that 6 per cent countervail.
On page 21 of the Elements of the Agreement dealing with the dispute settling process, it states that the panel:
. . . would review, based upon the administrative record, final AD/CVD
orders to determine if an investigative authority of either Party made a
decision not in accordance with its law (including statutes, legislative history,
regulations, administrative practice and judicial precedent).
This panel has to look at the whole history, at the precedents and previous practice. In the decision that was handed down in Atlantic Canada, there were over 50 different federal or provincial programs that were declared to be unfair subsidies. These are now enshrined in this agreement as part of the material that any panel involved in the dispute settling mechanism will consider. The ARDA Program, transitional programs, economic regional development programs, interest-free loans, over 50 different federal or provincial programs that are named in this countervail will be part of that history. They are enshrined in this agreement as something the Americans can continue to appeal as being an unfair subsidy.
This has been a flawed process. A bad process does not lead to a good agreement. It was a secretive and fast-track approach. We are working on the United States agenda rather than developing it in terms of our own agenda and our own needs. The Prime Minister is following the American agenda, which is not in the interest of the Canadian people. I urge government Members to listen to their constituents who are unhappy and confused about this agreement. They are unhappy about the way it is being rushed through without giving due process so that different segments of the Canadian society can examine it and have an impartial say. I urge that the whole process be slowed down.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the Hon. Member's speech. This afternoon it was mentioned in the House that Mexico will be able to ship cheap goods to Canada. We heard comments about the climate and cheap labour in Mexico.
This question was raised at one of the committee meetings which had been held across the country, and was responded to immediately. Gordon Ritchie, Ambassador and Deputy Chief Negotiator, wrote to the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. He explained to him fully that there is no way Mexico will be able to ship cheap goods to this country. I will provide a copy of the letter
December 10, 1987

to the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).
I have been a Member of Parliament for 15 years. There is no way that any Member of Parliament will be an authority on all subjects. One must do research and listen to the experts.
In November, 1982, the then Liberal Government appointed a royal commission to study the economic union and development prospects for Canada. Three years and $24 million later, the Macdonald Commission presented its report which overwhelmingly recommended that Canada pursue free trade with the United States. The New Democratic Party is suggesting that these people are wrong and do not know what they are talking. That is absolutely ridiculous.
In March, 1974, the Liberal dominated Senate standing committee on foreign affairs was appointed to study Canada-U.S. relations. Eight years and over 100 witnesses later, the committee presented its report which overwhelmingly recommended that Canada pursue free trade with the United States.
Members opposite talk about plunging into this agreement. That is simply not the case. It will be phased in over 10 years.
If members of the NDP are correct in saying that this is a terrible and disastrous deal, I do not understand why the Canadian Manufacturers' Association would be supporting free trade. They are the ones who will be affected and know more about it than I or, especially, the NDP.
In the November 1987 issue of The Canadian Manufacturer, the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Mr. J. Laurent Thibault, stated:
The CMA supports the agreement and will continue to work closely with the federal Government to further improve the relationship with our most important trading partner.
He further stated:
It offers the opportunity of continued increases in our standard of living while removing many historical tensions between western and central Canada. Canadian consumers will be clear beneficiaries through lower prices and increased choice of goods.
These are responsible people who are in the business. They know what they are doing. Therefore, I will listen to them and support free trade. If we had received a document from the CMA saying it is going to be a complete and total disaster, I would have great difficulty in supporting this free trade proposal.
Mr. John Bulloch, a very responsible Canadian and businessman, has great knowledge of business affairs in this country. He is the President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He stated recently that securing access to the United States market is essential to the long-term viability of Canada as a participant in a fundamentally changing world economy. This idea that we are going to sit still and do nothing is not going to work.
Supply
While appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade on November 3, 1987, Mr. Bulloch said that the main interest of small business in the trade deal is the removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. That will be done over a 10 year period. He questioned his membership of 41,789 owners of small and medium-sized businesses, and the result was five to one in favour. Am I going to tell Mr. Bulloch he does not know what he is talking about? Am I to believe that these 40,000 business people are all wet, that they do not know what they are talking about? That is just absolutely ridiculous. More than five to one predicted the impact would be either positive or neutral. Mr. Bulloch pointed out all the reasons why it will benefit Canadian business. If it is going to benefit Canadian businesses, manufacturers and all the rest, it is going to be creating more employment.
I will listen to the experts. I am afraid I cannot accept the arguments that I have heard from the New Democratic Party today.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief comment in response to the Hon. Member. First, he should know, as we all do, that some industries have expressed real concern about this agreement. As far as the Canadian Manufacturers' Association being in support, is concerned, it might be good for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. What I was saying is that it is not good for Canadian workers. It is not good for the shore workers of British Columbia. It will not be good for the fisheries workers of Atlantic Canada. We can look at a number of industries right across Canada and find the same thing.
The Hon. Member for Yellowhead said in 1983 that it was not going to be good for textile and furniture workers. I would like to read from the well-known Conservative George Grant who wrote Lament for a Nation. He said:
Capitalism is, after all, a way of life based on the principle that the most important activity is profit-making. That activity led the wealthy in the direction of continentalism. They lost nothing essential to the principle of their lives in losing their country. It is this very fact that has made capitalism the great solvent of all tradition in the modern era. When everything is made relative to profit making, all traditions of virtue are dissolved, including that aspect of virtue known as love of country.


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment with respect to the attitude the New Democratic Party assumes, which is virtually anti-American. I would like the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) to really put his case forward as to whether or not he feels we can compete with the Americans. I think if he really sat down and studied the Province of British Columbia, he would realize that the reason the 15 per cent export tax was placed on softwood lumber is that we were much too competitive for the Americans. The industry in the United States took action against our Canadian industry.
The Hon. Member spoke of Scott Clarke from Scott's Cedar Products. He cited the fact that there was an adjustment due to the 35 per cent tariff on shakes and shingles. He read from

December 10, 1987
Supply
Mr. Clarke's delivery before the standing committee, but he left out the fact that in the final analysis, Mr. Clarke, like everyone in the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia, whether cutting blocks or bolts or running saw mills, advocates and supports 100 per cent a free trade initiative with the United States of America.
1 think it is important that this be brought to light. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on Mr. Clarke's position. I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that in a forum at which I was present in Vancouver with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), a Mr. Bentley, who is head of Canadian Forest Products in the Province of British Columbia, clearly enunciated to the forum, to all British Columbians and to all Canadians that had we had the free trade arrangement in place, he felt there would be no 15 per cent export tax on lumber today because it would have been circumvented by that very agreement.
In conclusion, the Hon. Member cites the case of the B.C. shore workers. We are concerned about them as well. However, I think he is prejudging the situation. I have not seen the final draft, nor has he. Let us wait for the final draft on that particular issue.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, beginning with the Hon. Member's last comment about waiting until we have the final draft, the very point we are making over and over again is that the final draft has been delayed so long that the people of Canada are not going to have a chance to examine it in any kind of detail before the Prime Minister has signed away Canada's future. That is what we are concerned about.
The Hon. Member asked the question, can Canada compete? Well, I think any theory of free trade depends upon the concept of comparative advantage. Different countries will each do what they can do best. The question is, who decides what one country can do best? 1 believe it is the responsibility of the Government of a country to have some say over the economy of that country and to help to shape that economy.


Gerry St. Germain: That is socialism in its extreme form.


James Douglas Manly: That is not socialism. That is the sort of thing that is happening in Japan. That is what Sir John A. Macdonald wanted to do. He felt there should be a national policy. If that is socialism, we will baptize Sir John A. Macdonald and take him over here into the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives can forswear him. They have already forsworn his heritage of Canadianism. If the Hon. Member wants to say that Sir John A. Macdonald's policy is socialism, he can go ahead.
The problem with this trade agreement is that we are giving away our ability to shape our own economy. We are giving away our control over our energy resources. We are giving away our control over our fisheries resources. We are surrendering the comparative advantage that would allow the Government to make basic decisions about the strengths of this country. If we surrender everything in advance, as this
Government has done with the Americans, it is going to be very difficult to compete. If we are going to make all the concessions in advance, we are not going to be able to compete.
Finally, the Hon. Member commented on my statements regarding Mr. Clarke. I have made it very clear that Mr. Clarke was a witness who was in favour of the trade agreement. If the Hon. Member checks my remarks, I think he will find that. As for Mr. Bentley, the Head of Canadian Forest Products, I worked for him as head of Canadian Forest Products a few years ago. I did not have any great regard for the kind of attitude he had towards his workers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate that is so important because we are talking about the question of free trade and the history-making agreement that has just been concluded by our Government and the United States. It is perhaps not so important if we consider the substance of the motion presented by the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, from the very beginning the New Democratic Party systematically opposed a free trade agreement with the Americans, without even knowing what the Agreement contained or the whys and wherefores. It was simply because their union leader, a Mr. Bob White, had said they were not going to support it. It was mainly because Mr. Bob White, who happens to be a personal friend of Mr. Broadbent, decided that free trade would not be a good thing for Canadians. They conveniently forgot one thing, Mr. Speaker. The Auto Pact is probably the best example of free trade with the Americans we did not have to sell in Canada, and it has been of particular benefit to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), although he doesn't mention that, Mr. Speaker. He is not rising in the House to say there has already been a kind of free trade agreement with the Americans. When I hear NDP Members deny it is a free trade agreement when automobile parts circulate freely without tariff barriers, I wonder what it is, Mr. Speaker.
Before going any further, I would like to let Canadians who are listening know what the Opposition Parties are and what they stand for. I have some quotes I intend to use. I am quoting from Hansard of February 24, 1972, when the former Minister of Finance, today the Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner), said:
The division of the world into large trading blocs, to which I referred a few moments ago, presents particular dangers to Canada as a major trading nation and one of the few industrialized countries without free access to a market of 100 million people or more.
We in this country must now use what influence we can bring to bear to press for a resumption of the postwar movement toward greater liberalization of international trade. The dangerous alternative would be a move backward
December 10, 1987

toward greater protectionism. This alternative would present a serious threat to our economy .. .
And a little further, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
. . . there still remain out-standing issues involving bilateral trade relationships between Canada and the United States.
... we remain hopeful that a number of these issues between us can be resolved to the mutual benefit of both countries.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that in 1972.
In January 1986, however, he changed his position. He said, for instance, that he felt it would be very dangerous to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world through bilateral negotiations with the United States. In 1972 he said the exact opposite.
In fact, he went on to say in the same speech that we should start talks with the United States and see how we could expand access to our respective markets.
Mr. Speaker, this is inconsistency in its purest form. It is particularly apparent from what the Leader of the Official Opposition says when asked for the Liberal Party's position on this issue. One minute he says he would like to tear up the Agreement and the next that maybe we should see whether we cannot reach an agreement of some kind. That is the typical Liberal position, Mr. Speaker. Clear as mud.
And now back to our NDP friends. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the New Democratic Party has always been opposed to free trade. Why? In 1970, the Leader of the New Democratic Party wrote in his book, The Liberal Rip-Off \ and I quote: "In my view, we should gradually get rid of that moral fantasy we call capitalism." He goes on to say: "Free will and free enterprise are all part of the same myth."
Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty clear statement of the philosophy of the New Democratic Party and how it applies to the development of our businesses, job creation by the private sector, and the production mechanisms developed by the private sector. Mr. Speaker, to them it is worthless. Absolutely worthless. They want no part of it. They do not want Canadians to make their own business decisions. They do not want Canadians to be so productive and ingenious and competitive that they can take an active part in our economic growth, create jobs and finally Mr. Speaker, take their rightful place on international markets. Mr. Speaker, the position of the NDP is this: no to capitalism, no to private enterprise, and yes to trade unionism. The New Democrats would nationalize everything. If they did, who do they think would want to invest in Canada? Could they tell me for what possible reason a Canadian with no say in such a policy would want to invest in Canada for the sheer satisfaction as a Canadian of creating jobs, of making sure that Canada progresses and the unemployment rate in this country remains at a more acceptable level, compared to the 15 or 18 per cent it reached under the Liberals. Such is the policy of the New Democratic Party.
Before considering the pros and cons of the free trade issue, one must consider who are those opposed to it, what they do,
Supply
what they have done and what they would be likely to do if they were in a position of power as the Government having to deal with this issue. We are dealing here today with one of our Government's initiative. In 1984, the Prime Minister announced that he was firmly committed to creating permanent jobs and putting an end to protectionism which, by the way, is causing the financial situation to deteriorate even further.
When we look at the Opposition parties who are dead set against free trade, we get the impression that they do not realize that Canada is a net exporter in need of foreign markets to thrive, whose economic activity must expand far beyond its frontiers to preserve existing jobs, to ensure technological progress and to go forward with new concepts and new investments.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at our Canadian exports, we realize that 80 per cent of those going to the United States benefit from a free trade situation. Both opposition parties are saying: We must not deal with the Americans. Absolutely not! They are going to invade us, they will deprive us of our cultural sovereignty and as individuals, of our Canadian identity. They will abolish the Auto Pact. They will pass all kinds of protectionist measures against us. They will have us scrap our marketing systems for farm products.
Mr. Speaker, I think that both Opposition parties are inconsistent when they say such things, because if we look at the mechanism provided for in the trade agreement, we see that from the very start we have set up a committee. We have set up a committee on free trade and both parties opposite have been asked to take part in those proceedings. We asked the Liberal Party and the NDP to sit with us. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to Canadians that both parties systematically refused to sit with us, to discuss the problems which could have raised some concerns and which they could have pointed out. They would rather go before the public and say all sorts of things without knowing what they are talking about and so today Canadians are undecided about the advantages and disadvantages of free trade since they were never implied at that level.
Mr. Speaker, at the very start, we set up a trade negotiations office made up of experienced men and women who were asked to organize and carry out the negotiations. Afterwards, we set up with the provinces a standing committee on negotiations whose purpose was to hold briefings with provincial trade representives. We met practically every month. We also met regularly with the Advisory Committee on International Trade chaired by Walter Light as well as with 15 other advisory groups representing the entire Canadian industrial community.
We have done our utmost to keep them informed about any progress and have asked them their views on matters which more directly concerned them.
When those mechanisms were set up, Mr. Speaker, our negotiators initiated the talks and this was in May 1986.

December 10, 1987
Supply
There were 28 official sessions, some of which lasted more than a week, as well as many sessions of detailed negotiations with task forces responsible for specific sectors and problems. That is what really happened, Mr. Speaker. And to demonstrate how desirable it was that these important talks should rise above the level of partisan debate, we invited, I repeat, we invited both Opposition Parties to come and sit down and discuss the issues with us, but they consistently refused. Mr. Speaker, how could we possibly have a debate that to Opposition Members would be an open and honest debate, a debate that would be good for Canadians, when they refused to participate in a process, when they refused to bring their queries to the negotiators, to raise points of particular concern, points that, to a certain extent, might jeopardize our economy and constitute some kind of danger for Canadians? Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the New Democrats refused to take part in this process with us, as a normal part of the negotiations. We heard the Liberal Leader say: I will tear up the Agreement. That is really smart. That is typical of the rough reasoning of the Liberal Party. He does not want to negotiate, and he is ready to tear up the Agreement.
We saw the Leader of the New Democratic Party say: It is unacceptable. He even wanted to tell the Premier of Quebec what to do about electric power sales. He wanted to tell him what to do. And he calls that democracy. This morning, 1 heard the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) say the Canadian Government was not democratic because it wanted to conclude this Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, what is democracy? When six provinces are in favour of free trade, including Quebec, and when the two Opposition Leaders, the two Opposition Parties keep saying the Agreement is no good- Mr. Speaker, I do not think democracy is a one-way street. And when the Canadian public-48 per cent, according to one poll, is satisfied with the Agreement; Mr. Speaker, 62 per cent of Canadians think that the Free Trade Agreement would be a good thing for their province! Of course it does not work out 100 per cent, there is nothing absolute. Still, Mr. Speaker, it is a show of democracy on the part of a Government that promised to create permanent jobs, promised to get involved, promised to do something other than voice pious wishes. There are risks involved, Mr. Speaker, huge risks as we saw last March 16 when a motion was introduced in the House because indeed perhaps there were problems related to the free trade deal or the free trade negotiations. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the House considered a motion which can be summed up in these words: That Canada and the Canadian Government support bilateral negotiations with the Americans. However, we will protect our social programs, our cultural identity, our farm products marketing boards, and the Auto Pact.
But here is the strangest thing: The motion was moved by our Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and was tabled, then the vote began. Of course the Party in office rose to vote because it was altogether logical and reasonable to
protect what the various advisory groups had asked us to protect. Well, both Opposition Parties refused to vote on that. They voted against. They voted against preserving our cultural identity. They voted against maintaining social programs. They voted against keeping our farm products marketing boards. They voted against keeping the Auto Pact. And since then, Mr. Speaker, we have seen them repeating around the country: It is dangerous for the auto pact, for farmers, for our social programs, for our cultural identity. But where is the logic in all that, Mr. Speaker? Where is the logic of a Party that refuses to support a Government motion saying those areas are protected, but while it claims on the other hand the agreement offers no such protection? Mr. Speaker, the Government has a much more consistent and logical approach on a bilateral agreement than the two Opposition Parties, and 1 can tell Canadians the motion of March 16 is directly reflected in the agreement documents. It is reflected in the agreement because that was the wish of the Canadian people.
All day long the New Democrats and the Liberals have been saying the free trade agreement is jeopardizing social programs. This is quite untrue, Mr. Speaker. The best proof would be to look at a European country such as Sweden. If there is one country which is proud of its social programs, where the individual is protected and assisted by the state, it is certainly Sweden. I am sure that all the Hon. Members will agree.
If we look closely at the trading activities of Sweden, we find that Sweden is a founding member of the European Free Trade Association. It still is a member of this association, which has signed a free trade agreement with the European Economic Community. The Swedish manufacturers of Volvos therefore have a guaranteed access to about 355 million consumers. The strategy of Sweden is not based on a closed economy or on fear of competition, but on openness and on the belief that its manufacturers can compete on any European or world market. Yet, Sweden had some of the best social programs in the world. It is also an ardent defender of free trade agreements. The parties opposite should look at what could happen. They should look at what is going on in other countries. Perhaps then, they would better understand that an economic agreement in no way threatens such basic values as our social programs.
The Liberal and NDP Members suggest that we shall lose our cultural identity with free trade. They are trying to make Quebecers and French Canadians believe that we shall lose our cultural identity. Mr. Speaker, there are approximately six million French-speaking Canadians. Did we lose our cultural identity because we live among 250 or 300 million Americans and Canadians? No, Mr. Speaker. We have developed and strenghtened our identity. We have not been assimilated, and contrary to what the Opposition may say, we shall not become assimilated under a free trade agreement. We have defended our institutions. We have improved them and they are among the best in the French-speaking world. Take our educational system. Take companies like Bombardier. Did Bombardier,
December 10, 1987

Lavalin, SNC or Alcan Canada lose their cultural identity because they gained access to the American market? No, Mr. Speaker. All Canadians and all Canadian Governments are proud of these companies. They have developed an international market. They got involved, and that is why the Free Trade Agreement will be a success.
The basic principle here is that, to expand, our economy needs foreign markets. It cannot expand and excel unless it has those markets. The two Opposition Parties are against this principle. They are against creating jobs here in Canada. They will not accept the fact that we can develop markets. They forget or refuse to admit that 80 per cent of our exports with the United States are subject to customs duty. They claim that Canada's farm producers have lost their marketing boards. They don't understand. The marketing boards are protected. The Minister of Agriculture said so. We had a special debate on this, and the NDP Members are now saying that it does not stand up.
Mr. Speaker, they spent the whole day telling us they did not have the final text so they could not make a final judgment, and now they are telling us: No, it is not protected. We are going to lose our cultural identity and our social programs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say,-you are signalling that my time is about to expire-that the Free Trade Agreement in Canada and the United States is first and foremost an economic agreement, an agreement based on enterprise, job creation, and opening up international trade. Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian I am proud to take part in this kind of debate, to make this economic choice, because we in the Progressive Conservative Party are not afraid of the challenges of international trade. We are not afraid of meeting the challenge of the markets, especially the U.S. market, and although there are those who would have Canadians believe they should not ask for more, we say that Canadians can be competitive on international markets. We have the credibility and we have the know-how. That is what the two Opposition Parties tend to forget, but we will be there to remind Canadians.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the Hon. Member because I am sure he would not want to leave on the record the kinds of inaccuracies which he committed in his speech just now. He made a statement that the Liberals and NDPers were offered a briefing by the Government, and that is absolutely wrong.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) offered a briefing to the Leader of the Liberal Party and to the Leader of the NDP, but he said: "Boys, don't say a word about it. You can't say a word to your own caucus. You must be entirely secretive about it". That is the kind of democracy we have in Canada today.
The Hon. Member mentioned the word "democracy" many times in his speech. We have a Prime Minister of Canada who is going to brief the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader
Supply
of the NDP, and then he says: "We offered a briefing to the Liberals and to the NDPers". That is absolutely wrong, and I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to have it on record.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) said this afternoon that he has been in the House for many years. He said that no Member of Parliament is expert on all subjects, and then he went on with his deliberations. I want to say to that Hon. Member that no one has exemplified that fact any better than he has over the years in Parliament.
The Hon. Member also talked about this tremendous agreement and what great things it will do for Canada. If this agreement is so tremendous, why is the Hon. Member, his Party, and the Prime Minister ramming it through? We are about to get the details of this agreement, many hundreds of pages of material. Parliament sits next week and then it adjourns for Christmas. The Prime Minister is to sign this agreement on January 2. When we come back in January, it will be gone. Is that what he calls democracy?
We get the same old rhetoric from the Government day in and day out. If the agreement is so tremendous, why is the Prime Minister in such a great rush to get it through? Why did he not have the details before the House long ago?
The American Congress is going to take many more months to debate it than it had originally planned. What is wrong with Canada? 1 will tell him what is wrong with Canada. It is that we have a Government today that does not believe in democracy. It does not believe in free discussion. It does not want the people of Canada to know the details of the agreement. It does not even want Members of Parliament in the opposition Parties to know about it before it has been sent south of the border.
They think that it is a bad thing if they inform people about what is going on in the country, and that the more they can keep from them the easier it is to slip it through-slither it through, let it go south of the border, and let the American Congress handle it from there.
I say to the Prime Minister, to the Hon. Member who just spoke, and to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine that this so-called deal is not a free trade agreement. Let us stop calling it a free trade agreement. It is a deal cooked up by the Government and by the Reagan administration, and they expect to sell it to the Canadian people-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but we have one minute left and I would like to give the last word to the Hon. Member so that he may reply.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, this shows the inconsistency of Liberals. We offered it to both opposition parties. This is true. We did offer both parties, including the Liberal leader, to sit at the negotiating table and to act as a

December 10, 1987
Supply
man and as a responsible person. He refused, Mr. Speaker. I find it rather amusing when I hear a Liberal talk about democracy. It is amusing, Mr. Speaker, because I have to remind him that when the Constitution was patriated, some people were left out. But I will put that aside for the time being.
Mr. Speaker, when you talk about democracy-


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has just restated the very words that I told him were incorrect in the first place. Only the Leaders of the two opposition Parties were offered briefings on this agreement, not members of the Parties, and those two Leaders were told not to say anything about it. They were offered briefings only if they did not say anything about it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 82(10) to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.

The question is on the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Broadbent), which
was negatived on the	following division:	
Allmand	(Division No. 303)
 YEAS Members Dewar	MacLellan
Althouse	Dingwall	ManlyBaker	Foster	McCurdyBenjamin	Fulton	McDonaldBlackburn	Gauthier	(Broadview-(Brant)	Grondin	Greenwood)Blaikic	Guilbault	MurphyBoudria	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonBroadbent	Heap	(Trinity)Caccia	Hopkins	NystromCassidy	Hovdebo	Orlikowde Jong	Jewett	ParryPenner	Rossi	WaddellPrud'homme	Skelly	Young-37NAYS	Members	Bernier	Guilbault	PietzBlenkarn	(Drummond)	PlamondonBlouin	Halliday	PlourdeBouchard	Hamilton	PriceBoyer	Harvey	RedwayBrightwell	Hawkes	ReimerBrisco	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Jacques	St-JulienCardiff	James	SchellenbergCarney	Jardine	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Champagne	Jelinek	Scott(Champlain)	Johnson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)C ha rest	(Bonavista-T rinity-	ScowenClinch	Conception)	SiddonCollins	Kelleher	SparrowComeau	Kempling	TardifCooper	Landry	(Charlesbourg)Corbett	Lewis	ThackerCossitt	MacDonald	TremblayCote	(Kingston and	(Quebec-Est)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	the Islands)	TupperCrouse	Mailly	TurnerDarling	Mantha	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Martin	ValcourtDuplessis	Mayer	Van De WalleEdwards	Mazankowski	VezinaEpp	McCrossan	Vincent(Provencher)	McCuish	WeinerFennell	McDermid	WilsonFerland	McDougall	(Swift CurrentForrcstall	(St. Paul's)	-Maple Creek)Fretz	McKenzie	WinegardGagnon	McKnight	W iter-91Gass	Merrithew	Gervais	Nickerson	Girard	Nowlan	Graham	O'Neil


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1987-88, laid upon the Table Thursday, August 27, 1987, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 10, 1987

Donald Frank Mazankowski: That Supplementary Estimates (C), 1987-88, laid upon the Table Thursday,
November 19, 1987, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Mazankowski thereupon moved that Bill C-95, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
Mr. Mazankowski thereupon moved that Bill C-95, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1988, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, as the Hon. Member knows, we normally follow the traditional customs and procedures. I can assure the Elon. Member that the Bill is in the same form as that passed in previous years.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Chairman, since the Liberals voted for the Bill already, I am not sure why they even asked the question.


Mr. Gauthier:: May I just indicate to my socialist friend that the principle of the Bill is a good one. I have to tell him that this Bill is not debatable, but if he wants to debate it now, 1 am ready to do so.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule A carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule A agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Schedule B agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the preamble carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall the title carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, December 11, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers