1987-10-27

[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 27, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 30 petitions, Nos. 332-3110 to 332-3117 inclusive, 332-3119 to 332-3123 inclusive, 332-3128 to 332-3130 inclusive, 332-3132, 332-3140 to 332-3143 inclusive, 332-3191 to 332-3193 inclusive, 332-3201, 3323205, 332-3206 and 332-3214 to 332-3216 inclusive.
I would point out to those who signed Petition No. 3323214, tabled by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), that it was certified on August 18 but not presented until October 1. However, the Government has responded within the required 45 days.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition signed by 280 constituents who ask that the Government pass a special Bill permitting family reunification for people who are in the Philippines right now. The situation there is volatile, with great insecurity and the danger of a Communist takeover, and they pray the Government will pass a special Bill.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling several petitions from rural communities in New Brunswick, expressing concern about the fact that Canada Post wants to close down post offices in their areas. The petitions are from all over New Brunswick and bear several hundred signatures.
Your petitioners humbly inform the House that Canada Post's new corporate plan has created two classes of citizens by installing its super boxes in urban and rural areas; that closing rural post offices deprives Canadians of a unique federal presence and reduces postal services that are vital to rural areas; and that rate increases, especially for second class mail, jeopardize the distribution by mail of many newspapers, weeklies, regional papers, magazines and religious publications.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject Canada Post's plan and urge the Corporation to deliver the mail to all Canadian taxpayers, without exception.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of tabling a petition signed by the residents of Ottawa and Willowdale, Ontario. Your petitioners object to the fact that this Government has either levied or increased a total of twenty-five taxes since September 1984. They object particularly to the proposed tax reform that includes the possibility of imposing a tax on food. They believe this decision would be particularly devastating for the elderly, the unemployed, youth and low-income families.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament reject any measure that would have the effect of putting a sales tax on food.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions on the Order Paper stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

October 27, 1987
Motion to Adjourn under S. O. 29
O)


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29 I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the decision of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to undertake a precipitate study of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement in the absence of a complete text of that agreement and on a timetable that will not permit either adequate committee study or informed comment from Canadians before the committee prepares its report, thereby breaking the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) that the complete text of the agreement would be referred to committee for full and detailed analysis.
The House of Commons and its committees should not be made a party to what could amount to a sham or charade whereby there is the appearance of the study of the Government's trade deal with the United States when neither the House nor its committees are doing that at all. Let us have the full text of the agreement and then let Parliament and its committees study this matter.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: What a charade of that Standing Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member presented me, as he was bound to do, with sufficient notice. The Chair has had a chance to consider the matter. While the subject matter is of importance to all Hon. Members, it is a matter within the committee. 1 do not think that at this early stage it would be appropriate for the Chair to adjourn the House for a debate. However, I do thank the Hon. Member for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair and the Chamber.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre) moved:: That this House condemn the government for negotiating a trade agreement with the United States that has failed to stop the predatory practices of the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, and that will;
(a)	lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat;
(b)	undermine the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board;
(c)	reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards;
(d)	reduce the growth opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable producers;
(e)	adversely affect the Canadian wine and grape industry;
(f)	provide little benefit for red meat producers; and
(g)	provide no new benefit for farmers purchasing farm equipment or other farm inputs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the agricultural aspects of the proposed agreement between Canada and the United States which purports to deal with free trade but is probably more correctly called a trade agreement between the two countries.
I do not think there is any doubt that this is not a good deal for agriculture or for Canadian farmers. The circumstances under which the deal was consummated left doubt as to whether the outcome would be in the best interests of Canada. The deal was arrived at in haste late at night under a deadline imposed by the American Congress.
This is an international agreement and there is great difficulty in arriving at international understandings between our countries because of the different democratic systems which we employ. The United States has a republican system and we have a parliamentary system. Under their system anything the President or his administration signs must get the approval of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In our system anything that the Prime Minister and his Ministers sign by way of international agreement becomes law virtually automatically because of the requirement for a majority in the House. Therefore, the bargaining positions of the two sides are different.
In international negotiations the Americans often use the ploy of having the executive branch of the administration sign agreements which they are fully cognizant that the Senate or House of Representatives will not accept. That does not appear to be the case with this particular agreement and that is why I, a person who finds this agreement less than good for Canada, have some difficulty knowing what I should do about it.
1 realize that the Americans already perceive that they have gained a victory with this agreement. This has permeated the Senate and the House of Representatives to the point where they appear to be quite willing to endorse this agreement which is a victory for the United States. They are getting more than they are giving up. They have gained something from Canada and it is, therefore, a good deal for them.
As an opposition politician I am cognizant of the fact that any further opposition to the deal in Canada will only build on the perception across the border that this is indeed a bad deal for Canada. The obverse of that is that it is a good deal for the Americans. I face that dilemma but, being a Canadian and a representative of Canadians, I think it is my duty to speak out when faced with such a patently obvious bad deal for the interests of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Government has clearly broken its trust with rural Canadians. During the negotiations the Government was as clear as possible in the House arid in releases across the
October 27, 1987

country that there would be no discussions on agriculture. The Government began by saying that agriculture was not on the table and then amended that by saying that the marketing boards and structures were not on the table. When we look at the tentative agreement which was presented in this House some days ago we see that neither was the case.
We learned last week that the American interpretation of what the agreement says is somewhat in conflict with that of everyone else. In spite of the clause which appears to represent a commitment by both parties not to engage in subsidization of exports to third countries to which the other party to the agreement sells, Canada's sales to the U.S.S.R., China, and India were put in jeopardy last week by the offer by the United States of a continuation of their Export Enhancement Program into those markets.
This is something that seemed to be very clearly contrary to the agreement that had been signed just two weeks before. That has not yet been cleared up and it is one of the issues we wish to highlight in the debate on this motion today.
There is also a question as to whether the over-all agreement will be more helpful to our country or to the Americans.
This morning I wish to briefly refer to a study by the Economic Council of Canada before I deal with the points in my motion. The Economic Council uses the econometric models and shows that some 355,000 jobs may be saved according to their perception of the free trade arrangement with the Americans. I want to caution the House about this particular study because the same econometric model was used by the same people to produce the results by the University of Maryland study which, with the exception of a couple of assumptions, showed quite clearly that the Americans would gain from a free trade agreement, particularly those aspects involving agricultural products. The Americans would gain more access to Canada's markets for fruits and vegetables and those products now under marketing boards such as chickens, eggs and dairy products. I remind the House that the Americans already show a trade surplus with Canada in those particular goods in agricultural trade. The University of Maryland study shows that this surplus in trade would be augmented and strengthened.
The Economic Council study was based on some different assumptions and even contains some figures that would indicate to the layman that there would be some 7,500 to 7,800 fewer jobs lost in agriculture than would be the case without the agreement. The drafter of the report told me that this does not really mean there will be jobs created but that jobs would not be lost quite as quickly. Therefore, when the Government tells us that 355,000 jobs will be created, it is not what the Economic Council intended and is not the way the report should be interpreted. It simply means that 355,000 jobs may not be lost as quickly as before the agreement.
Supply
I questioned this study because it appeared to the layman that 7,500 to 7,800 jobs would be created in agriculture as a result of this agreement, which is a complete reversal of the trend of annual job losses in agriculture that has been in effect since the 1930s. The technicians who prepared this report assured me that those losses would continue and this agreement would not reverse that trend. This figure represented an estimate of a possible decrease in the number of jobs lost.
The assumptions made in that report were not the same assumptions with which we are now dealing. Therefore, as far as agriculture is concerned, that report is of no use to the debate at all. I simply wanted to refer to it in order to make that point very clear at the beginning.


Mr. Gormley:: Logical gymnastics.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It is not logical gymnastics. It is simply putting facts on the table. If people wish to refer to the Economic Council report they should do so on the basis upon which it was presented and on the basis of the assumptions that the report used, none of which fit the proposed agreement that is before us. I invite the Member to check it out.


John Kenneth Gormley: Sour grapes, Vic!


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Member mentions sour grapes. I will get to the sour grapes in a moment.


Mr. Riis:: Tell that to the grape growers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Indeed, it leaves a sour taste in the mouths of the grape growers who are on the Hill today advocating the removal of the aspects of the trade agreement that affect their industry which will, in effect, wipe them out over the next seven years.
Let me review the points I have listed in my motion. We believe the proposed agreement will lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat. This is not only my assessment of the agreement, it is also the assessment of Grant Devine, Premier of Saskatchewan, who is an avowed free trader and supporter of the agreement. Even he realizes that the agreement will do away with the two-price system for wheat for which Canadian farmers have fought long and hard.
The agreement undermines to some extent the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board by removing the import licensing provisions which the Board now has for oats and barley and which it used to have for the importation of wheat and wheat products before the Government took office. The removal of those powers undermines the authority of the agency to establish prices for those three grains in Canada.
The agreement reduces the growth of supply management marketing boards. It is in this area where I believe those farmers who produce under supply management marketing boards feel most betrayed. The Government has essentially decided that the amount we now produce in Canada under those marketing boards, including the poultry boards, egg

October 27, 1987
Supply
board and the Dairy Commission, will in effect be frozen at these levels over time.
There seems to be an assumption in the agreement that Canada will not be able to expand efficiently and competitively in these particular areas of production and therefore the import quota levels have been permitted to rise each year according to this agreement.
The agreement provides for an initial poultry import quota increase from 6.3 per cent of Canadian consumption to 7.5 per cent of Canadian consumption in the coming year; an increase in the turkey import quota from 2 per cent last year to 3.5 per cent of the domestic consumption in the coming year. There is an increase in the shelled egg import quota from 0.675 per cent to 1.647 per cent, which is almost triple. There is a similar increase of almost quadruple for processed eggs, as well as a slight increase with respect to powdered eggs.
Furthermore, there seems to be a tacit understanding that there will be additional quotas issued above those levels if they are applied for by importers, and that those additional import levels will become written into the agreement for the coming years. This is a clear signal to Canadian poultry and egg producers that they will have a fairly static market. The poultry market is growing much faster than average, but it will be filled to a large extent with processed products from the United States.


Mr. Belsher:: You are reading between the lines.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Perhaps I am reading between the lines, but it seems to be fairly clear. I have checked it with people from Agriculture Canada who have not been able to dispute that assessment. They say there will be some possible renegotiation, but at the moment that seems to be the way the negotiations stand.
The importation of fruits and vegetables and the growth opportunities there I think are even more frozen in time for Canadian producers than is the case under the supply management marketing boards. We retain an ability to provide seasonal import tariffs for 10 to 20 years. However, there are two very firm restrictions on the application of those tariffs. We can only apply those tariffs if the price has fallen below 90 per cent of a five year average formula-and this is the one that 1 think is the most detrimental to the growth of the fruits and vegetables industry in Canada-and the requirement that our acreage in a particular fruit or vegetable has not increased.
What the Government has in effect done is frozen the current acreage for fruit and vegetable production at its current level. It has not taken into account the possibility of a growth in demand through a growth in population. We are frozen at about 25 million people over the next 20 years. What we have in effect signalled to the producers of those products is, zap, you are frozen, and most of the increase in demand will be filled by U.S. products at a cheaper rate.
It is a vision of no growth in fruits and vegetables. It is a vision of no growth in eggs, in poultry products, as well as in dairy products. The mechanism being used in dairy products is a proposal to do away with any tariffs. This will mean a tendency for processed products such as yogurt, ice cream and some of the cheeses, to come in at the expense of potential Canadian production.
We have set up a system that assumes Canada will continue to be exporters of raw product. We will continue to provide the Americans with red meat and relatively unprocessed products. I remind the House that we have had access to each others markets in red meat on a virtually free trade basis for almost 50 years. That will continue. The way some companies have adapted to gain and maintain access to the U.S. market is something of which I think the House should take recognition.
One of the main plants in Saskatchewan has been exporting pork into the California market. That has always appeared to make sense on the surface. The distance from Saskatchewan to California is closer, or at least no farther, than the distance from Iowa. There are no major pork production units between those production points and the point of consumption. Yet pork producers have often run into difficulties at the border with inspections and sort of non-tariff barriers to the free flow of pork.
One of the ways we have adapted, which gets us around that, is to kill the hogs in Saskatchewan, hang them as sides, run them down to California and have the processing done there close to the final point of consumption. If there is a problem at the border, the workers in the plant, who are American workers, complain to their Congressmen that they are no longer able to get raw product from Canada and they are in danger of losing their jobs. The wholesalers who have been handling this meat go through a similar kind of process and so we have American jobs being potentially hurt and Americans complaining about it. However, what we end up with is only the opportunity to ship virtually raw product into the United States with very little processing-or jobs-in this country.
What we have done with this particular agreement is exchanged access to the American markets for an ability to send in more raw material. This means that in exchange we will import more U.S. processed product, whether it is food in the form of processed poultry, in the form of TV dinners or as yogurt or ice cream. In simple terms, we have made a simple exchange. We have decided to export jobs as far as agriculture is concerned.
Rather than become self-sufficient for our own needs and create the necessary employment and economic activity that goes with it, we have agreed to send raw products south and to bring back on occasion the processed product with the additional costs that go with it to the additional benefit of the American economy.
We have not dealt clearly with all the aspects that affect agriculture in this brief presentation, nor have the questions
October 27, 1987

and answers provided in the House given us a full understanding of the deal. I think it is relatively clear that we have given away some of our sovereignty with this agreement by providing full investment freedom to the purchase of resource lands. It appears we have also done the same thing for farm and recreation lands. I simply pose a simple question at the end of my remarks; if giving away control over who invests in these fundamental lands which make up our country is not giving away sovereignty, what is?


Mr. Wise:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party on agricultural policy. It behooves me to say that 50 per cent of farm income comes from export sales. If we exclude grains and oilseeds from those sales, we find that two-thirds, or roughly 60 per cent of agricultural commodities which we produce here in Canada is sold into the export market, but sold exclusively into the export market.
If we think about that for a moment, we must ask how in the world the Hon. Member can stand in his place and say this is not a good deal for Canadian agriculture? I really do not know who he speaks for. I think we should be referring to the industry spokespeople. They are not ministers of agriculture. They are not opposition critics. These are people who have made their living day after day in the agricultural industry. The spokesperson for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, a big industry in Canada, is supportive of the U.S.-Canada bilateral trade arrangement. The spokesperson for the pork industry says it is supportive of the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement. The spokesperson for the dairy industry of Canada is supportive of the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement.
The spokesperson for the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency, and he should be very familiar to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, is very supportive as well. The spokesperson for the Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency is very supportive. The spokesperson for the Canadian Horticultural Council, speaking on behalf of that industry, is very supportive as well. The list goes on.
I sat here and listened to the spokesperson from the New Democratic Party say this is not a good agreement for Canadian agriculture when in fact, if we look at what the spokespeople for the industry itself are saying, the industry is taking a very positive position. So I simply ask the Hon. Member who in the world he is speaking for?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I speak for the farmers in my riding. I speak for the farmers across the country.


John Kenneth Gormley: You haven't gone back to your riding for years. What a joke.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I was there last Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Sir.


An Hon. Member:: And it was three years before that.
Supply


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: And many times before. I am just giving the most recent. The Hon. Member says three years.


Mr. Broadbent:: He was here before you were, and he will be here after you are gone, fellow.


Mr. Mayer:: There is another farmer, the hon. farmer from Oshawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. This debate having just started, I am sure all Hon. Members will have a chance to put forward their opinion. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has the floor.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will know and agree that there are flaws in this agreement, that it does in fact encourage the export of products rather than the home processing of products.
I said in my speech that it does not change greatly the relations between our two countries with regard to red meat. We did not really need to state anything in this agreement with regard to red meat. We have had access to each other's markets for a long time. It has occasionally been interrupted by individual states, and this agreement does nothing about that. It has occasionally been disrupted by so-called health considerations, and this agreement does not really attempt to do anything about that. In fact, it recognizes that there will be occasions when our health requirements, on either side of the border, will affect trade.
I will admit, and I may not have mentioned it in my speech, that it has changed the tariffs between our two countries with regard to live cattle. It has taken that last one cent which was no real impediment to trade in any case on a $1.50 feeder calf- another cent does not make much difference. So that section of it was simply a regurgitation of what had been in the agreement before.
But the sections dealing with those products that are produced in Canada under supply management have created a field-day for American imports.


Charles James Mayer: He does not understand the agreement.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The import licences have been increased, as I read the agreement. It has been agreed that the import licences will be increased.


Charles James Mayer: They are maintained at exactly the same level as they were over the last five years.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: As I understand the process of those import licences, the incentive will be for the processors and wholesalers who now hold those import licences to bring in the most highly processed product they can. It is now conducted on the basis of pounds. If one brings in a TV dinner that is all set to go which might retail for $2.95 or something like that, then one is making the best use of one's import licence. It will not

October 27, 1987
Supply
result in increased processing in Canada, processing that would result in jobs. This will result in jobs in the United States. The processing and production will be done in the United States. I doubt very much if the benefit of those imports will be passed on to consumers since these people are now holding the import licence and, in effect, the import quota. It will be a great opportunity to convert those imports into profits. I see very little chance of that being passed on to consumers by way of lower prices.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Madam Speaker, a little while ago the Minister rhymed off a litany of all those people who were supporting the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) free trade deal. I noticed he did not touch on the wine producers or the grape growers. I want to ask the Hon. Member if he would comment on the consideration of the Government in this free trade agreement of actually labelling those in the wine industry and the grape growing industry as losers. That is what it is doing. It is blithely writing them off as losers and forgetting the implication and the depth of that industry, as well as the importance of it to Canada. I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on that point.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I think it has been fairly clear to grape growers that this particular agreement is not going to be something that will leave their industry untouched. In fact, many of them believe that this will be the end of their industry and that the crop that they are now taking off will probably be the last for many of them.
There is a great deal of change-over that will have to be undertaken if Canada's grape and wine industry is to be competitive. The immediate effect will not hit until the seven-year phasing-in period. Whether more northerly produced grapes will be able to produce wine that will be competitive with those produced in southern California or Europe is a moot point. My understanding of the way grapes develop is that they need heat and sunshine in order to produce the necessary level of sweetness to produce the best kinds of wines. Our climate does not always measure up to that requirement. As a result, I think it is fairly clear that the Canadian grape and wine industry will be pretty nearly devastated by this agreement over the course of the seven-year implementation period. Consumers will most likely be consuming American wine which is produced in very large wineries.
My information notes tell me that the Gallo Brothers winery will produce most of what the Canadian market needs in about seven or eight days' production. So the chances of that happening are very high indeed.


Ross Belsher: I have listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). While I have always admired his critiques from the point of view of his agricultural portfolio, I nonetheless find some passing interest in the fact that a few weeks ago he was saying that it was the marketing boards that would be destroyed. Now he has it that the marketing boards are not going to grow quite so much. He has been able to adapt to the reality that the marketing system
has been protected in this agreement. That is something that is very vital. The marketing system has been preserved. That comes through loud and clear.
The Hon. Member mentions scare tactics about TV dinners being the things that will start to roll across. That is precisely what will not be allowed to happen as a result of the agreement. I do not know how he can turn around and make these misrepresentations to the Canadian people as to what will happen. He is starting to read between the lines, and again his doom and gloom comes through loud and clear.
The Hon. Member made specific reference to the dairy industry. When I read the agreement I see that the very items that he does mention can be put on the global import control list. Will that not give us the protection that the Hon. Member is so quick to say is not there? Why does he turn around and make misrepresentations on dairy products, the subject about which he is speaking this morning?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: May I ask the
Hon. Member, since the time has elapsed, to please give a short answer if at all possible.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I will be very brief, Madam Speaker, in light of the time. The import control list is still an activity that we think we can maintain. However, using the import control list does not comply with the over-all sense of the agreement. We will not be able to continue to use export control lists of any kind if we are going to live up to some of the earlier phraseology in the agreement. I think it runs contrary to the spirit of the agreement. So I have assumed that we are intending to live up to the high-flown phrases at the beginning of the agreement and that eventually the use of the import control list will be phased out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to speak in the debate today dealing with free trade in agriculture. I think we approach this debate from the point of view of a complete reversal of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and most of his senior Ministers told the people during the 1984 general election campaign.
At that time, in responding to a question from a reporter from Maclean's magazine, the Prime Minister 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-
If we look at the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who rushed off to Washington after the agreement had collapsed, at the behest of the Prime Minister, and who was running in the same leadership race at that time, we will see that he said:
Bilateral trade is simplistic and naive, it would only serve to further diminish
our ability to compete internationally.
October 27, 1987

The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), who had the senior responsibility with regard to the trade agreement with the United States, when questioned on his views on free trade stated:
Unrestrained trade with the U.S. raises the possibility that thousands of jobs
could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear.
At the same time the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) when he was asked to comment on free trade stated, "It's silly".
When comparing the Tory view of free trade in 1983 and 1984 with what they are doing now to the country with this agreement with the United States, it is unbelievable. There is no question that there was never any mandate.
In the actual negotiations period it was repeatedly suggested that agriculture would not be on the table. The Secretary of State for External Affairs commented to that effect in January, 1985 or 1986. Yet today we have a free trade agreement that touches most areas of agriculture.
If we look at it in balance, what did we get and what did we give, obviously we gave a lot; in some sectors, completely everything, in other sectors, nibbling away at the powers of the various agencies and the policies of the Government of Canada. What did we get in return? We did not get very much. We certainly do not have unrestricted access to the United States market. We still have dumping duties and countervail duties by the United States. We have a binational disputes handling mechanism. Every legal authority that I have read has stated there is effectively no change in the powers and the prerogatives of the United States Government to impose countervail duties or dumping duties as it has done on many Canadian products for many years. We do not gain the binational panel.
A few months ago we had a briefing from one of the senior trade negotiators. He said there was going to be a binational panel up front where either country could take complaints for resolution by an independent tribunal. In fact, pork producers, potato producers, or producers of any other commodity that has a dumping duty or countervail duty imposed upon it, still has to go through the whole process of the countervail duty, the analysis by the Commerce Department in the United States, and the final disposition by the International Trade Commission of a countervail duty. Those producers are no longer able to take the dispute to the International Trade Court of the United States for adjudication. They are no longer able to go to a GATT panel. There would be this binational panel. Most legal authorities say that the access by Canada would not be appreciably changed. Clearly, the impact will be severe in many sectors of agriculture.
Our international relationships are even more interesting. If we look at what was negotiated in the agreement, it is clear that we did not get an exemption by the United States from its export enhancement program where it is spending several
Supply
billion dollars to take away markets that Canada has had in the past. It agreed to take our export interest into account, but that is all.
If one reads the statements made by United States senior officials during the last few weeks, in fact it takes us into little account because the officials in the United States Agriculture Department have made it clear that they will be using the export enhancement program in a ruthless manner. This not only takes away traditional markets of Canada, but any market. This trade agreement only requires them to take it into account. They have already indicated that they will not take it into any serious account.
Clearly the two-price wheat system will be destroyed. The Minister for grains and oilseeds denied that in the House a few weeks ago. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) suggested that it would be destroyed. We have to go to the Saskatchewan Legislature, where the Premier of Saskatchewan, a bosom buddy of the Prime Minister and fellow Tory, has stated that the two-price wheat system will be destroyed and that the federal Government will be providing full compensation. It was nice to hear from the Saskatchewan Premier and Minister of Agriculture that the Government of Canada will pony up $280 million to compensate Canadian grain producers for their loss of the two-price wheat system. But it would be nice to hear it from the Prime Minister here, or from the Minister for grains and oilseeds, and not have the shilly-shallying around which has been going on.
In other areas of the agreement the Government is sending a signal to the world that the Western Grain Transportation Act is a subsidy. Obviously, other countries will take that into account, because in the agreement they have agreed to remove the Western Grain Transportation Act assistance from the grain which goes into the Pacific northwest. That would happen immediately in January of 1989. Whatever tariffs are there would be phased out over a several-year period. This will cut us out of that market. We have some 300,000 tonnes of grain a year going into that market, from the information that I have been provided by the wheat pools.
The $280 million which is going into the farmers' pockets now with the two-price wheat system, not only benefits western farmers but farmers in Ontario. The Ontario Wheat Marketing Board has made it clear that the cost to it is in the range of $30 million. It is very upset at the loss of those revenues at a time when other revenues are down in any event.
With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, we are told that within a very few years, certainly as soon as the funding is reduced for the American Farm Bill, that wheat will be able to come across the border without licence from the Canadian Wheat Board, except a cursory provision of licences for end-uses such as milling, feed-lot operations, malting, and so on. It seems clear to me that the powers and the prerogatives of the Canadian Wheat Board will be lost.
I put the question to you, Madam Speaker, if a farmer across the border in Montana delivers wheat or grains to a

October 27, 1987
Supply
milling operation in Lethbridge and does not have to comply with the quota or negotiate a price below the Canadian Wheat Board price, how long will the Canadian farmer living outside of Lethbridge be able to put up with that situation? The Montana farmer can deliver as much wheat or other grains, oats, barley, as he wishes into that milling operation in Lethbridge, whereas the Canadian farmer living a few miles from the milling operation through his Wheat Board quota book can only deliver up to his quota level and, of course, at the Canadian Wheat Board price. I just do not think that that situation will last very long. In fact, there will be an incredible demand on the part of the Canadian farmer to deliver to the milling operation on the same basis as the Montana farmer.
I submit that the strength, resilience, and ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to maintain the marketing arrangements which we have had for some 40 years or 50 years will be markedly reduced by the agreement. Clearly there are many aspects to the agreement which will be extremely harmful. In my opinion none is worse than what will happen to the fruit, vegetable, and wine industries. There has been a deal made by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister to destroy the Canadian grape industry. No other sector of the agricultural economy has been dealt such a blow. All we have to do is read the recent reports by Canadian Grape Growers and the Canadian wine industry which indicate that next year they will be cutting back on the purchase of Canadian grapes. I am told that the industry provides employment in the order of some 12,000 to 15,000 part and full-time jobs in Ontario and some 5,000 to 6,000 in British Columbia.
Similarly, seasonal tariffs in the tender fruit industry will be wiped out, unless the industry retracts, regresses, and is not growing. Even if it is growing, it will only have a snap-back provision which will be quite ineffective in protecting the industry. It is not that these growers are not dynamic, effective producers; it is just that their crops come into play a few weeks later than those of California and other tender-fruit-growing areas which, as a result, get the peak of the market at the first of the season. However, as it goes down, Canadian commodities come on the market. The tariff on processed fruits will be removed, and we will see industries in southwestern Ontario moving to the United States because at present they live with the protection of tariff arrangements.
The poultry industry will be severely affected. In fact, the 12.5 per cent duty on poultry meat will be removed, so TV dinners, chicken pot pies, and the like will move into the Canadian market. The quota for poultry meat will be increased by some 20 per cent. Likewise, producers will be allowed some four million additional dozens of eggs. Pressure will be put on the industry as a result of the wide-open arrangements for foreign investment in Canada to which the Government agreed in the agreement.
We will see a takeover of Canadian processing and manufacturing industries such as we have never seen before. I
predict that the poultry and feather industries will be adversely affected.
I thought it was very instructive that yesterday in the House the Minister for International Trade made remarks about the case before the GATT dealing with wine pricing by suggesting that in fact Canadian producers had discriminatory pricing or some unfair advantage. It seems to me that that prejudices the hearing before the GATT. Of course, placing all that in the agreement adversely affects these negotiations.
I would like to refer to another aspect of the trade agreement. I would not want to call it a free trade agreement. What is free about it? Wine producers and grape growers will be wiped out. The breweries are not affected, so it depended upon who the Government decided to wipe out in the agreement. I think this aspect is of great concern to Canadian hog, beef, and other commodity producers. The Government portrays this agreement as a tremendous opportunity to bust into United States markets. However, two or three studies which have been carried out by the Government indicate that if the agreement is ratified the Canadian dollar will appreciate to some 90 cents or 95 cents compared with the American dollar. If that in fact happens, the impact for many of our producers would be extremely negative. The impact of the loss of the 25 per cent or 35 per cent exchange rate will have an extremely adverse effect upon primary producers. Certainly that would be the case in the Canadian hog industry.
Apparently negotiators of the agreement with the United States tried but were unsuccessful in their attempt, if they attempted, to negotiate away the 4.3 cents per pound export countervail duty which the United States has had on Canadian hogs. If we had an agreement through which we were trying to make a free trade area of Canada and the United States, surely we would have tried to negotiate away that countervail duty. In fact, we did not. Canadian hog and other producers are still subjected to the countervail duty. The countervail duty could be imposed on pork. It could be increased on hogs. It could be imposed on potatoes and on other commodities. The agreement and the binational commission which has been established do not in fact prevent that from happening with resulting long negotiations.
I think the agreement is very unequal. Canada gives up in many sectors. Canada does not get a binational commission up front which deals with disputes. Canada gets the same old International Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce and the rigmarole involved there; a binational commission which will not deliver, in the opinion of very knowledgeable people, any significant improvement in our access to United States markets or to freedom from countervail and dumping duties. In general it opens up our markets and detracts from our opportunities to provide the basic production of food in Canada.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the agriculture spokesperson of the Official Opposition. If not all Members of the House, certainly a majority of them, would
October 27, 1987

want to join with me in presenting the Hon. Member with a special award. I would suggest it should be an award for doom and gloom.
1 was amazed listening to the Hon. Member, because it was evident from his speech that he has no confidence in the ability of Canadian farmers. He has absolutely no confidence in the people in the Canadian agri-food industry to rise to the occasion and take advantage of probably one of the greatest opportunities and challenges that have faced them since Confederation.
I am not sure where the Hon. Member gets his figures when he indicates that there will be a 20 per cent increase of poultry products and a 25 per cent increase of something else. If I refer to the agreement itself-


Nelson Andrew Riis: We haven't seen the agreement yet-


John Wise: -and look at the actual amount of increase in chicken parts and products, it is not 20 per cent, but 1.2 per cent. These increases simply reflect the exact amount of imports that have come into the country anyhow over the last five years.
If we look at the turkey parts and processed products, the increase is not 20 per cent, but 1.5 per cent. If we look at shelled eggs, there is a total increase of 0.9 per cent. If we look at processed eggs, liquid and frozen, the increase is 0.299 per cent. If we look at powdered eggs, the increase is 0.02 per cent.
Does the Hon. Member not realize that the agreement was reached, not unilaterally by the Government but by consultation and negotiations within the SAGIT committee? Our Government made a firm commitment to maintain supply management intact. People play around a little bit with the tariff list. If people understood the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the rules of GATT we could move those semi-processed products and so on from the tariff list to the import-export list to protect part of the underpinnings and the day-today operations of the supply management board. We did not do it unilaterally, we did it by agreement with the United States, consistent with Article 11 of GATT.
The SAGIT committee recommended this action in support of the continuing financial viability of the Canadian Food Processing Industry, which is the largest single employer in Canada. It does not make much sense to maintain supply management if you place in jeopardy the financial viability of the food processors. If the food processor goes down the tube then where in the world will Canadian producers sell their primary products?
This was a sensible arrangement arrived at through negotiations and consensus within the SAGIT committee. We have full and complete control over the additional product if required. Of course, the local agency has the opportunity to supply its product. That has always been the case. It cannot supply the product in a three week period. It varies product to
Supply
product. Often times the national agency will say "Look, issue the import permit". Nothing has really changed.
Under this agreement, does the Hon. Member not realize that not one extra chicken piece or part will come into Canada than has already come in over the last five years? Does the Hon. Member not realize that and understand why we did that? Does the Hon. Member not understand Article 11 of GATT?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, we have great confidence in Canadian producers, farmers and food processors but we have no confidence in this agreement. It really moves to sell out Canadian producers.
I note in the agreement that Canada will now not go to GATT as an independent country fighting for Canadians but will go there as an adjunct to the United States. As the Prime Minister has done in every single international negotiation since 1984, it will be a "me, too" with President Reagan. That is exactly the way the Government will behave in the multilateral trade negotiations and at the GATT.
I am glad the Minister mentioned Section 11. I defy him to table in this House the documents which the Minister for International Trade tabled in Geneva last week. It is totally unacceptable that we have a Government that tables in GATT its proposals for the negotiations but refuses to table them for Canadians. The United States has tabled its documents in the United States so that the legislatures know what is going on, but this Government tables documents secretly.


John Wise: What did you do? You did not table documents in two rounds of GATT.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Minister of State (Grains and Oil Seeds) (Mr. Mayer), if he read the agreement, would find that his Government said, "Our position at GATT and at the MTN will be a me too position".


John Wise: False.


Maurice Brydon Foster: We are not going there as an independent country. Read the agreement. The Member has not read the agreement. The Minister mentioned section 11 of GATT. Where will Canada be at the end of the day on those negotiations? The Minister knows that the United States of America is going to GATT saying, "We want section 11 removed" which provides for marketing boards, for supply management and border controls. We also know that a lot of the Cairns Group about which the Minister speaks often wanted the same thing. That group wants to get rid of the power of supply management, border controls and marketing boards which have worked extremely well for Canada. I want to know what those secret documents say and what Canada's position will be in that regard. Nobody knows.
Let me deal with the question of the poultry imports. Clearly Canada's poultry industry will be put under a great deal of pressure.

October 27, 1987
Supply


John Wise: No way.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The 12.5 per cent duty will come off poultry meat and off prepared foods, TV dinners and chicken pot pies. That stuff will roll into the country with markedly reduced tariffs.


John Wise: False.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Just read the agreement.


Charles James Mayer: It is false.


Mr. Nelson:: We have not seen any agreement yet.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Minister was talking about percentages. The poultry quota has been increased from some 31 to 37 million kilos a year. I said that poultry meat coming into this country would be increased by 20 per cent. The quota for eggs will be increased by four million dozen eggs. The Minister can play around with figures but those are facts. He knows that.
The Minister talked a great deal about supply management. If he wants to be completely forthcoming with the House, with Members of Parliament and Canadians who are under supply management and are benefiting from it, he should table the documents tabled at GATT to show what Canada's position will be at the end of the day with regard to supply management and section 11 of GATT. It is extremely important to Canadians.
We know where the leader is and who the leader is by this agreement. It says that the Government of Canada and the United States will co-operate in these GATT negotiations to remove all subsidies for agricultural commodities. We want to know what kind of a commitment the Government of Canada is making. Is it saying yes to the Americans in Washington who want to get rid of supply management and border controls or not? That is what we want to know.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate this opportunity to discuss the very important issue before us today. It also gives us a golden opportunity to send a message of accuracy, clarity and realism to the agri-food industry.
I am firmly convinced, and there is no question in my mind at all, that this Government has achieved a very positive deal for Canadian agriculture. The United States is our number one export market. Secure access to that market for our agricultural products is a key to the prosperity of Canadian agriculture. I do not care how you want to cut the cake, that is a fact which cannot be ignored. By negotiating improved access to our biggest market, this Government demonstrated its understanding of the importance of agriculture to our economy.
Canadian agriculture generated more than $20 billion in cash receipts last year. It accounts, directly and indirectly, for
the jobs of 1.6 million Canadians. While only about 4 per cent of Canadians produce food, one in four, or roughly 25 per cent, are employed directly or indirectly in the Canadian food chain. As well, the industry is responsible for 10 per cent of all economic activity in Canada.
I remind the House that most sectors of our farm economy simply could not survive without trade. Nearly half of our farm cash receipts are earned from export sales. Again, our most important customer by far is the U.S. Sales of farm products to the U.S. account for about one-third of total agrifood exports.
This House will recall that during the past two years Canadian farmers have been increasingly concerned about growing protectionism in the U.S. A lot of people seem to ignore that fact. If you are under the illusion that we are going to enjoy the same type of atmosphere and attitude in the decade ahead that we have enjoyed over the last two decades with the U.S., then you are simply ignoring the facts.
A series of actions taken in the U.S. have been aimed at our exports. One involved restricting entry of hogs and pork to the U.S. It was obvious to the Government of Canada when we entered into these negotiations two years ago that we could no longer afford the luxury of maintaining the status quo in our trade relationship with the U.S., be it in agriculture or anything else. Without this trade deal Canada faced the dismal prospect of deteriorating trade opportunities with our largest trading partner. We now have a proposed deal and it is a good deal for Canadian agriculture.
Canada has obtained future duty-free and more secure access to the U.S. market for all agricultural exports, including meat and livestock, grains and oilseeds, potatoes and other commodities. This Government has delivered on the commitment it made to the farm community since day one. We said our agricultural marketing systems would be retained and that the underpinnings of supply management would remain secure. I was questioned day after day about whether we would keep our commitment. We did.
What did 1 mean when I referred to underpinnings? Very simple. They come in two parts. One part, of course, is the import-export control list. The other part is the tariff list. However, supply management systems have been maintained and the day-to-day underpinnings required for operation of supply management boards have been maintained. Supply management systems for poultry and eggs have been retained as well. Marginal increases in the level of global import quotas for those commodities have been agreed to. Yet this reflects only the actual average level of imports during the past five years. We have reserved the right to add new poultry products to the import-export list if required.
We have had the critics and the doom and gloomers in this House, and of course there is always a few of them across the country. 1 hope they take the time and trouble to examine what we have agreed to and how it will positively affect the agri-food industry in the future. This is the position of the
October 27, 1987

Canadian Broiler Hatching Egg Marketing Agency, a national agency which we put in place. The chairman said:
We would like to applaud the Canadian government for the manner in which the Agreement has dealt with supply-managed commodities. The Canadian government has, from the very beginning, maintained that producers in Canada would be able to choose the manner in which they market their products.
Who else with greater credibility could 1 ask? Let the industry spokesmen speak for the industry. Let us listen to what they are saying.
In addition to retaining marketing boards already in place, there is nothing in this agreement to prevent the creation of others in the future. People say yes, but if you protect the existing supply management system then you will give up the right of Canadian farmers to decide what system of marketing best suits their needs. Shortly after we entered into these negotiations I had the opportunity to speak to the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I said then that we would not only protect the underpinnings of supply management, we would reserve the right of the Canadian Government to decide, in co-operation with the farmers, what system of marketing best suits their needs. That is exactly what we have done.
The Government of Canada's commitment to our dairy industry, $300 million annually, $1.5 billion over the next five years, has been maintained. When I announced the dairy policy in January of 1986, I told the dairy farmers of Canada that the industry had nothing to fear from the bilateral trade negotiations with the U.S. The supply management system in our industry works well, if it works well, do not touch it. What did the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada have to say about the agreement? He said:
The dairy farmers organization supports the proposed free-trade deal with the United States because it guarantees the Canadian government the right to include any dairy products on an import control list.
That is not the Minister of Agriculture, it is the current president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Who else would 1 go to for a more accurate non-partisan assessment of this arrangement?
In negotiating this deal we also said we would take into account the sensitivity of our fresh fruit and vegetable industry to imports from the U.S. We have maintained the right, and this is important, to reimpose tariffs temporarily, when prices are depressed, for a 20-year period. 1 should say "impose" because we have not imposed any seasonal tariffs since the last time we were in Government in 1979, because the law officers of the Crown have ruled those regulations ultra vires.
In addition, this agreement does not prevent Canada from proceeding with amendments to the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act which would provide us with legal authority-and that is what we must have because we have not had it for five or six years-to prevent imports on a consignment sales basis and to control imports in non-standard bulk containers.
Supply
I have in the past referred to the very positive words of the executive vice-president of the Canadian Horticultural Council. Where else would I go to get an accurate and credible assessment of the agreement? The deal is important to the horticultural industry because we will have greater access to the U.S. market.
You should look at the U.S. tariff lists on some commodities. Under the existing trading arrangement between Canada and the United States, we have no access to mushroom markets and there is great potential in that for us. There is a tariff of 30 or 40 per cent on that product. In addition to the levels of tariffs, they have quantitative restrictions which make it impossible.
The previous Government sat around and did not impose any of these seasonal tariffs simply because they had been ruled ultra vires. That Government did nothing about bringing in amendments to the CAPS Act. We did not have the legal authority to impose Sections 56, 57 and 61(1).
Very soon we will be introducing amendments to the CAPS Act which will give us the legal authority to put in place regulations similar to and perhaps even more effective than Sections 56, 57, and 61(1) of the old Honey Act that have not been used for the last five or six years. That will be a better deal.
The new trade dispute settling mechanism will guarantee impartial application of anti-dumping, countervail, and other trade remedy laws. New rules will also minimize the trade impact of technical regulations. Also, export subsidies on agricultural trade between our two countries will be prohibited.
Agreements on import regulations and tariffs will enhance agricultural trade between our two countries. Most tariffs are to be phased out in equal steps over a period of ten years beginning when the agreement comes into effect on January 1, 1989. Let me quote the President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers' Association who said:
1 think Canada now has a better chance of retaining current access and
getting further access.
That is a very positive statement with regard to the people he represents and their ability to take advantage of that challenge and opportunity.
He continued:
It's better than no agreement at all. A dispute-settling mechanism that
involves both countries is likely to be fairer and it is especially encouraging
that the two countries have agreed to jointly work out new rules.
With regard to bilateral grain trade, Canada's requirement for import permits for wheat, oats, and barley will be eliminated only when support levels in both countries are equivalent for each commodity. However, end-use certificates will be required and these will ensure that U.S. grain does not enter

October 27, 1987
Supply
the Canadian grain handling system or jeopardize our quality standards.
The new trade deal protects many aspects of Canadian agriculture. For example, the import control list regulates most dairy and poultry products coming into Canada and the United States. Although yoghurt, ice-cream and further-processed chicken and turkey products are not now under import quota, there is nothing in the proposed agreement to prevent Canada from adding these products to the import control list. We do not do that unilaterally. We do not violate the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement or Article 11 of the GATT rule.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) had some very inaccurate and negative things to say about the position we are taking on GATT. The Member is misinformed. We did not table a position identical to that tabled by the United States.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Prove it.


John Wise: That is why I said to him, Madam Speaker, through you, that that was false information. If he would take the time to read the statement made by the Minister of International Trade (Miss Carney) in the House of Commons he would see five paragraphs dealing specifically with the position we are taking on GATT with regard to supply management. Unlike the Americans, we are going to GATT with supply management as an example of responsible marketing, not only domestically but, more specifically, in the export market.
Canada's dairy program has been studied by 26 countries and is being implemented by 21 of them. One can search long and hard but will not find anything in the world that will come close to Canada's dairy program. There is nothing in the world so responsible in balancing supply and demand in the domestic market.
Dairy farmers have to deal with feed conditions, weather conditions, and many other factors that are beyond their control. They are not running an assembly line. One does not go to the barn and turn the cows off and on with a flick of the toggle switch. You do not turn them up 50 or 60 pounds and turn them down with a little knob. The dairy farmers managed to balance supply with demand, despite all of these things over which they have no control, within one-half of one per cent.
Dairy farmers met with me a year and a half ago and said that producing extra milk for the export market was sheer nonsense, that it was costing them $15 million a year out of their own pockets and was costing the federal Government anywhere from $15 million to $30 million. It made no sense, so we agreed to reduce the amount that they produced for the export market.
One would search long and hard for an example of responsibility and not find a better one in this world. Those commodities that are not supply managed had better study the market
opportunities and pay a little more attention to management of supply.
The Member criticizes the Government for not tabling all of the details of GATT. The Member's Party was in government for the last two rounds of GATT. I ask him to check the record of how they handled the situation. The Canadian tradition existed then, as it does now, that you do not table the details of those agreements in the House of Commons. The Minister makes a statement in the House, as our Minister did last week, with respect to that. We followed the historic Canadian tradition of tabling the details in GATT and having the Minister make a statement in the House of Commons.
Canada retains the necessary latitude to prevent our supply management programs from being undermined by increased imports. I attended 190 events outside of Ottawa last year. At such events there is typically a brief speech by the Minister. 1 suppose some in the audience may have thought I could have been briefer. However, almost invariably the first question to be asked at a public meeting is with regard to supply management. People were concerned that we would not be able to negotiate that with the United States and asked what we would do in GATT. The supply management people led the public debate on that issue.
At the same time, Canadian farmers and food processors will have new marketing opportunities in the United States. No one from across the way talks about that. For example, some soft, ripened specialty cheeses produced in Canada are outside of the U.S. quota system. As the specialty cheese industry develops in Canada these high quality, competitive markets could find larger markets in the U.S.
I have only scratched the surface, Madam Speaker, but you have given me an indication that my time has expired.
In conclusion, I ask Hon. Members not to ignore the facts. Leave the partisan politics aside and listen to what the people in the industry are saying.
Let me deal with the grape industry. I never said that it was a winner in these negotiations. It is one industry that has attracted the attention of the Americans simply because of the provincial pricing mark-ups and pricing policies. There is no way you can ignore that. They are extremely discriminatory. It not only attracts the attention of the Americans, that issue is under challenge by GATT. The GATT panel will soon rule on that question and it is not appropriate for me to make any further comment than to say one of these days GATT will rule on that issue. I know those people in the industry. I work with them every day and we have all kinds of members from the peninsula, from the Okanagan in British Columbia and other grape-growing areas. We have been buying grapes from the peninsula since we assumed Government and we have an agrifood agreement with the Province of British Columbia where we have been removing red grapes and so on.
October 27, 1987

Let us not ignore the facts. While it may be premature, it appears at the moment that it is an industry in agriculture that has attracted the attention of the Americans as a result of the pricing mechanism of the provinces. It appears, at the moment, that there is no doubt it could well be a sector of our agriculture industry that did not fare very favourably under the Canada-U.S. agreement. We will not walk away from them today. We have not walked away from them since day one. We are quite prepared to sit down with the provinces and the industry to try to map out some kind of strategy to assist them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) recognized the position in which the Canadian wine industries and the grape-growers in particular have been put and that there is some difficulty there. He will be well aware that there are over 16,000 people involved in that industry.


John Wise: Well-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Full and part-time jobs because there is a great deal of part-time work. Let us say that there is 12,000 full time and another 4,000 part-time jobs, plus many more as a result of the multiplier effect.
He will also know that the farm gate receipts for the 1986 grape crop in Canada was in excess of some $40 million. There is also a multiplier effect that is significant when it comes to this industry. We are probably talking about at least one-third of $1 billion in terms of money generated because of those farm gate receipts.


John Wise: I do not know about that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The multiplier is nine to ten. If there is some dispute about that by my hon. friends opposite, perhaps they can explain what multiplier effect they would use. I use nine or ten, which is provided by Agriculture Canada and the industry.
I believe it is fair to say that the grape growers of this country believe that their industry will be wiped out if this deal is signed, to say nothing of the soft tree fruit industry and others which we will deal with later.
Does the Minister agree that this agreement will be detrimental to that industry and will essentially devastate the majority of it? What does he plan to do about that, or is he prepared to throw these 16,000 people on the scrap heap as the price the Government is prepared to pay? I am sure that is not his belief because he is an honourable gentleman.
What does he plan to do with these thousands of Canadians who in some cases have spent generations developing this industry?


John Wise: Madam Speaker, 1 quarrel with the Hon. Member's mathematical calculations. However, setting that aside, I think he asks a legitimate question. That is why I spent the last minute or two of my speech dealing with that question.
Supply
Politicians, regardless of where they sit, like to deal with positive issues, but I turned that aside and dealt with this question.
As I indicated, at the early stages it appears that the wine industry may be in some difficulty. I have stated publicly before, and will say it again, that we as a federal Government always take our obligations and responsibilities seriously. We will follow that same pattern with the wine industry. We are quite prepared to sit down tomorrow with the provinces, since it is really the provincial pricing mechanism and mark-ups that have caused the problems. Today, the Hon. Member's challenge is as a result of the Canada-U.S. agreement. Who knows what might occur when the GATT panel rules.
Agriculture is a joint responsibility under the Constitution. It is shared with the provinces. The federal Government would like to include the producers of all commodities in that partnership. That is how we have operated since day one and the way we will continue to operate with that policy.
If the provincial governments want to sit down tomorrow, I am available. However, the people in the industry should also be at the table. It is the people in the industry who will be able to assess the impact.
There has been some positive response from the wine industry. For instance, they will have greater access to the U.S. market, and with proper types of grapes and proper types of wine, access to the U.S. market may provide some opportunities.
I am sure there will be some opportunities, but the Hon. Member calculates a worst case scenario. It is somewhere in between there at the moment. We are quite prepared to sit down with the provinces and the industry to map out some reasonable strategy to deal with this problem.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) indicated that it was time people began to analyse this deal, not on the basis of politics but on the basis of fairness. I ask him to do that with regard to the five-year averaging formula that is used in the poultry section of this agreement. It has been agreed to go from import quotas of 6.3 per cent to 7.5 per cent, based on five-year averaging.
He should know that those quotas are on an increase scale. While I do not have the proper mathematical formula, I estimate that if those quotas are filled each year between the next six and ten years, our consumption on the basis of these quotas will be at and above 10 per cent. According to this agreement, will we not in fact become dependent on U.S. products because of the economics of production on each side of the border? Will we not become more dependent on imported U.S. products coming in through our processors and wholesalers who now hold those licenses, rather than taking advantage of the increased consumption in this country with our own domestic producers and processing jobs taking up that slack? Does this agreement not open us to increasing imports

October 27, 1987
Supply
of poultry meat? The turkey agreement is similar but I am just referring to poultry at this point.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, I answered that question on a couple of occasions. I put that question to a senior official at the trade office. If I can recall, he indicated to me it was not a rolling average, not a moving average. I will give an undertaking to the Hon. Member that I will double-check that today or tomorrow. If I am wrong, I will communicate that to the Hon. Member.
However, we must remember a couple of things. The new percentages are up slightly, 1.5 per cent the highest and .012 per cent the lowest. That is very small. What those increases do is simply reflect the amount of product that has been imported from the United States into Canada over the last five years, not unilaterally at all. If the food processing industry is short of product, does the Hon. Member want to lose a market opportunity? Does he want to shut down a product line? Does he want to lay people off? I do not think so.
If the Canadian system cannot at that given time supply the product, the processor applies for an import permit to keep the product line operating, to keep people employed. They go to the national agency and ask, "Can you people supply this product to the processor?" That is not a combative meeting. They search the market-place. If they can supply it from Canadian sources, they put it into that processing. If they cannot supply it, they tell us to issue the permit. We always check with the agency to see if they have any problems if we issue an export certificate, which is not issued by myself but by the Minister for International Trade. But she picks up the phone and she talks to me. We communicate with one another.
Why was that done for the past five years? It was done to keep the Canadian food processors in business. Everyone benefits. That is exactly what the system is going to do in the future.
With respect to an increase in the market, if the Canadian industry can supply it, it will be supplied by the Canadian industry. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case. However, there will be times when the Canadian industry is not in a position to supply the product. We have full control over that under Article 11 of the GATT because that is one of the underpinnings which is necessary for the day-to-day operations of supply management.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). While I believe he is basically an honourable Member and an honourable man in that he believes strongly in agriculture, I believe he has been betrayed by his Cabinet colleagues, and what I have to say is not a reflection on him as a person.
I think the Hon. Minister should have cqlled his speech on the free trade deal with the United States, "The moment that
the Government of Canada abandoned the family farm in Canada". That would have been a more appropriate title for his speech, because what we have found by listening to the Minister of Agriculture is that the Government of Canada had decided to abandon farm families, the family farm, family enterprises, family processors and rural Canada. That is what this Government has just declared to the people of Canada.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, that it seems to me we have come to a very critical question. Has the Government decided to support the family farm or is it prepared to abandon the family farm and turn it over to corporate enterprise or, more appropriately, to the United States? We now know that the Government has decided to abandon the family farm and the rural communities that built Canada and has given them to the United States. I want to take the next few minutes to explain why I feel this ultimal betrayal has taken place.
First, we find that the Government has decided to hold hearings across Canada on this deal. Presumably we will go across the country holding hearings in a variety of communities, but based on what? We have not seen the deal yet? We have not seen the free trade deal with the United States. We will not see it this week or next week. We will not see it until the end of November or the first part of December. Yet the committee is expected to hold hearings across Canada based on what? There is no document.
That is like asking the House of Commons to debate a Bill that is not on our desk, to debate legislation the Government has failed to introduce. How can we do this? Yet the Government's decision is to hold hearings on the most serious economic matter facing this country, by the Prime Minister's own words, the biggest trade deal in Canadian history, and no one will have seen the deal. No one will have seen the deal that presumably our negotiators initialed early in October. If that is not the con job of the century, if that is not the sideshow of the decade, to have our parliamentarians going out to hear key witnesses on an agreement no one has read or seen, then what is?
Let us identify this scam that is underway. This is the style Canadians have become used to. It is Mr. Mulroney's style.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is his style to make the decision at the eleventh hour, at one minute before midnight, when we do not have adequate facts before us, but push Canadians up against a wall to sign the agreement. By the Prime Minister's own admission, this is the biggest trade deal in Canadian history. To ask Canadians to discuss this in an intelligent way without having seen the deal is an absolutely remarkable request. It is an absurd process. Yet that is what we are expected to do and we are expected to take this whole thing seriously.
I ask my colleagues opposite, and I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister responsible for wheat and oilseeds, do we really believe that we can have an intelligent conversation, an intelligent set of hearings, talking to experts
October 27, 1987

who will be touched by this particular deal, before they have seen it? What are we going to talk about? What are the experts going to react to? That is the folly of this, the unbelievable nature of this process.
I am obviously very exercised about this deal. I am very exercised about how this deal is being handled. I think what we have seen, as 1 said at the outset, is that the Government has decided not only to open Canada for business but to have a special fire sale on agriculture. It has decided to sell out this critical sector of our economy.
I say "critical" because I believe that Canadians have a very strong attitude towards maintaining our farm community. I believe Canadians are prepared to invest money to maintain a viable and strong farm community. That is why we have seen our farm community built on supply management programs. We have seen our farm community built as a result of marketing boards. We have seen our farm community strengthened because of border controls on cheap imports coming in from other countries. That is what built this country and that is what built our agricultural fabric from Newfoundland to the West Coast of British Columbia. That is what the Government is now abandoning. The Government is now saying it is prepared to turn its back on rural Canada.
As the Minister of Agriculture just said, the best example is what is happening to the grape growers of Canada. There are going to be thousands of thousands of people who for generations have dedicated not only their lives but the lives of their families to developing that sector of the agricultural community who are about to be abandoned. I think the Minister of Agriculture had the courage, and I respect him for it, to essentially admit that, yes, this has been one of the prices we have decided to pay in order to obtain this free trade deal with the United States.
I see, you rising, Madam Speaker, to indicate that it is one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until 2 o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.05 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of all Members to the fact that we had a fire in the equipment on the sixth floor. Nothing serious. It was simply a malfunction in one of the elevators.
Tabling of Documents
There was a malfunction in a piece of apparatus for one of the elevators. An extremely alert employee noticed the smoke and identified it. The fire alarm was put in action. Fire Department personal was here within a few minutes. They have located the problem. There is nothing to be alarmed about. We have received word that everybody can come back into the building and we can continue.
I wish to say to Hon. Members that we are indebted, first, to a very alert employee. We are also indebted-I was with them on the roof-to a very competent group of people from the Fire Department in whom we should have every confidence. I wish to express regard for the alert employee, and for the members of the Fire Department who not only got here immediately but also obviously knew what they were doing. I think that that should be recorded.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the left-over confusion, I suggest that we wait five or six minutes, and if it is the disposition of Hon. Members perhaps we can commence Statements by Members at 2.15 p.m., and then we will carry on as normal.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I might also state that I and other Members of the Board of Internal Economy, who are your servants, have felt for some time justified in approving the expenditure of a great deal of money to try to make this place more fireproof. I hope that we have your support.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
At 2.10 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to lay upon the Table the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1987.

I may remind Hon. Members that this document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

October 27, 1987


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, once again, Canadians have reason to complain about the Conservative Government's failure to act. This time, people have had to bear the brunt of the Government's inaction with respect to daycare centres. And this at a time when the Government is acting too quickly to endorse agreements like the Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the Government ought to realize that time is of the essence as far as day-care centres are concerned and that it must act quickly. In fact, since the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement was signed, many people have been concerned about the impact the Agreement will have and about any negative effects on a national day-care system.
If we open our borders to American services, what guarantee do we have that they will not open day-care centres in this country which, as in the United States, will be private and aimed at a wealthy clientele? There is a real risk that a profit-oriented day-care service will be set up in this country. Is that the best this Government can do for the Canadian people?
The Government is dragging its feet, and Canadians are fed up. Thousands of children are waiting for openings in day-care centres. The Government must act quickly and help those who are starting to get impatient, and rightly so.


Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it was heartening to be at the London Airport this morning to see three jets carrying 205 chronically ill, terminally ill and severely disabled children, with their volunteer helpers and medical support, leave on their Dream Lift to Disney World in Florida. The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has proclaimed these young people "Canadian Ambassadors" to the United States of America for today.
Today's miracle came about as the result of hundreds of volunteers inspired and led by Ed and Donna Czach who themselves were parents of a terminally ill child who longed for the opportunity that was afforded to so many others today. Today's inaugural Dream Lift is a tribute,to their son Paul's memory and serves as an inspiration of hope to thousands of
others across Canada who might some day be touched by the Sunshine Foundation.
This concept, with the help of volunteers throughout the country, will hopefully spread to embrace all parts of Canada so that these special children will be able to enjoy a ray of sunshine similar to what we saw this morning in London which even the driving rains could not discourage.
The success of this movement is going to rely on the warmth, generosity and assistance of Canadians, and I would urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to encourage and support the creation of a chapter of the Sunshine Foundation in their own constituencies.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, Herbert Ernesto Anaya Sanabria, 33 years old, a man of truth and love, yesterday gave his life for his people in El Salvador.
In May, 1986, Herbert was arrested, tortured and imprisoned by the Government of El Salvador while working for the non-governmental Human Rights Commission. In prison he and other political prisoners did a study of the torture techniques used against them which they smuggled out for publication.
On February 2, 1987, after release and a prisoner exchange, Herbert and his companions returned to serve the Human Rights Commission. On May 5, with my son David interpreting, I met Herbert at work in the Human Rights office. He spoke relaxedly, his face shining with cheerful courage, about the struggle of the El Salvador people against United States guns.
He daily took down statements from relatives of the disappeared, identified tortured bodies in garbage dumps and published the truth as he found it, while receiving government propaganda attacks and death squad threats.
On October 26 at 6.35 a.m., as he prepared to take two of his children to school, two men shot him to death.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to the New Democratic Party, but our country stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Yes, it is true that there are areas of Canada not found within the
October 27, 1987

borders of Ontario and there are cities that are not called Oshawa.
Canadians in other parts of Canada are pleased and supportive of the free trade agreement which the opposition Parties are desperately trying to stop. Strangely, in all their righteous indignation, they still want to keep one of the original examples of a free trade agreement, the Auto Pact. It has, for over 20 years, provided a specific part of Ontario with money and jobs. The place I am talking about is none other than the riding of the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent). His particular style of tunnel vision leaves westerners shaking their heads. Doesn't he want any other province or city to prosper? It is time for him to remove his blinkers and see that the free trade agreement will help all of Canada, as the Auto Pact has helped Oshawa.




Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in order to lay open the charade of the Conservative Government's trade deal with the U.S., I am going to quote from a letter written to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix by Mr. Dan Wirl:
Just before the federal Tory leadership race in 1983, the following were quotes from leadership contenders when asked a question, "How do you respond to economic partnership with the United States?"
In other words, free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It continues:
Brian Mulroney's answer was: "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 ..."
Michael Wilson replied: "Bilateral trade is simplistic and naive, it would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally."
John Gamble: "We would be eaten alive."
Joe Clark: "Unrestrained trade with the U.S. raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear."
David Crombie: "It's silly."
What changed the minds of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his colleagues? Could it have been U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who saw this Government could be persuaded to agree with his plans and thereby allow for the takeover or destruction of Canadian industries? This is just another example of the Government not knowing where it is going from one day to the next and of a Prime Minister who says one thing and does another.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, after the free trade agreement, in principle, was signed 1 told the people of Abitibi-Temiscamingue and the media that the accord was very good for our local mining industry.
Today Mining Association of Canada officials support free trade. Canada is the world's leading exporter of minerals, and the mining industry and its employees must be able to rely on a properly operating international trade system. Without guaranteed access to our most important market, the industry cannot survive and prosper.
In recent years our exports of metals and minerals have been increasingly affected by the protectionist measures advocated by American mining interests. Without free trade this harassment can only grow worse.
The agreement will protect existing jobs in the industry. In addition, more secure access to the American market might spur investment in new mines in Canada and in Abitibi-Temiscamingue. In the long run there will be increased and more secure employment in the mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Mining Association of Canada for encouraging all employees of mining companies to give careful consideration to the free trade agreement.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of non-profit organizations in Canada and Quebec are concerned about the inaction of this Conservative Government as concerns job development programs.
Everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that, in early September, the Government usually asks non-profit organizations to submit projects to create jobs and make them more effective. The Government is already late in asking for these projects. Its coffers are empty, and according to the Auditor General, it has wasted a shocking amount, as much as several million dollars in the Departments of Defence and others, when it should have allocated this money to job development programs which would help all non-profit organizations in every constituency in Canada.

October 27, 1987



A. O. 21 FREE TRADE IMPACT ON CONSUMERS

Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once more how proud I am that our Prime Minister had the vision to initiate free trade negotiations with the United States.
Quebec and Canadian consumers should also be proud because, according to the Economic Council of Canada, they will be the first to benefit from this free trade agreement. They will benefit mostly from lower prices, a larger variety of products and services, and better quality products. This will be of enormous benefit, Mr. Speaker.
While it is too early to predict exactly how much consumers will save, the Economic Council of Canada forecasts a decrease in the consumer price index of between 5.7 and 7.5 per cent. Based on these first assessments, this would mean that the elimination of tariffs would represent an $8,000 savings for Canadians who decide to build a new home. What great news for young couples buying their first house!
Mr. Speaker, I know of no one who is not in favor of lower prices, a greater variety of products and services and better quality products. Major household appliances, clothing, bedding and furniture will all be available at lower prices once the tariffs have been eliminated. I think that consumers will be very satisfied with the benefits of free trade. They will certainly be very grateful to the Government.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the United States Air Force will once again test the air launched Cruise missile in Canada today. These tests continue to be an affront to Canada's history as a peacemaker in the nuclear world. The tests continue to undermine Canada's potential to play a large and credible role in disarmament efforts. The tests continue to make Canada a partner in the nuclear arms race.
How hollow have been the Tory arguments that the Cruise missile would be tested until progress was made in Geneva. Arms control progress has been made and we are on the eve of the world's first nuclear disarmament agreement. Yet Canada goes on testing the Cruise, playing its supine role in escalating the nuclear arms race in strategic weaponry.
What a shocking betrayal of the people of Canada and of their belief in the leadership role Canada should play in arms
control and disarmament, a role that the Government has now totally abandoned.



FISHING INDUSTRY-POSITION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADER ON CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, if the anti-trade position of the NDP Leader is accepted the opportunity to create hundreds of jobs in the fishing industry in my riding will be lost. That is a cost we are not prepared to pay because of ideological obsessions of the NDP.
At the present a U.S. tariff on secondary processing of fish products is a barrier to the movement of value-added fish products into the United States. Consequently, we are exporting fish fillets, and the jobs created while upgrading the fillets are outside Canada. These jobs are Canadian jobs that should exist in Nova Scotia. The free trade agreement will mean the elimination of this punitive U.S. tariff and the reclamation of these lost jobs.
The members of the NDP, however, do not support that. They only want free trade in automobiles. Is that because the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) represents a city which depends on automobile manufacturing, or is it because the president of the CAW is telling the Leader of the NDP what to do? Who actually leads the NDP-Bob White?
It is time for the Member for Oshawa to be honest with the fishing industry. My constituents are as entitled to free trade in fish as are his to free trade in cars. Can the Leader of the NDP tell us how it is that selling cars to Americans does not threaten our sovereignty but selling fish to them does?
Atlantic Canadians are sick and tired of the hypocrisy and double standard of the Leader of the NDP. He can expect me to continue to expose him for what he is.



CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is so driven by the profit motive that it is now prepared to sacrifice the health and, potentially, the lives of workers in its quest for the almighty dollar. I refer to the Government's intention to dismember, dismantle and, in effect, repudiate politically the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
October 27, 1987

The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, located in Canada's most industrialized city, Hamilton, was set up as an access for workers, both union and non-union, companies, and others to the most up-to-date information about chemicals and other dangers present in the workplace. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has now told the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety that it must raise $1 million in private funds by 1992 if it is to survive.
The time has come for the workers of the country to tell the Government that the lives and health of working people are not to be bartered away by the almighty dollar. It will be impossible for the Centre to raise the SI million by the end of 1992. That will spell the end of the Centre.
I think it is a crying shame for the people of the country that the Government does not believe in getting information out to workers about chemical spills and other labour hazards in the workplace. That is the role of the Government. It is not the role of a private company to pay for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. The Treasury Board had better get that message.



POSITION OF MANITOBA PREMIER ON CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, Howard Pawley returned from a weekend love-in with the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and union leaders Shirley Carr and Bob White demanding a federal election on free trade. In the same breath he refused to recall the Manitoba Legislature to discuss the issue, but announced instead that he would be holding propaganda style closed meetings by invitation only to sell his opposition.
Could this be the same Government that spent $2 billion to build the Limestone hydro generating station?
Could this be the same Government that wants to export more energy from another hydro station at Conawapa downriver from Limestone?
Could this be the same Government that earmarked $80,000 U.S. to fight an American group lobbying against hydro imports from Manitoba?
How can the New Democrats of Manitoba oppose free trade and fight for improved access at the same time?
As the Winnipeg Sun said this morning: "Pawley and his advisors may find out that Manitobans are a lot smarter than they think".
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS



EVACUATION CAUSED BY FIRE ALARM-EMPLOYEE'S PROMPT ACTION

Mr. Speaker:: Before we get into Question Period I want to say something that I believe all Members would want expressed on their behalf. I had hoped that my remarks just before we assembled would have covered this, but I am informed that for some reason they were not covered on the television broadcast. I want to repeat them because I think the people of this country and all Hon. Members ought to know that when we had a fire alarm a little while ago all of us owed a tribute to one of our workers, whose name I do not yet have but will obtain and deal with appropriately when I do.
This employee identified a malfunction in a motor and was able to alert other people immediately. As a consequence, the Fire Department was called.
I was on the sixth floor and on the roof of the building with members of the Fire Department. I want to say to you and the country that they were extraordinarily well led, effective, confident and competent.
We are indebted indeed for the very swift action that was taken, beginning, as I say, with an employee of this place who very correctly and alertly discovered the problem and was then very well supported by the officers and members of the Fire Department.
I know that you would want to join with me in saying to these people that what they have done is appreciated by this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been advised by the Minister of Finance that the complete and final text of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States may not be tabled until the end of November. He used the phrase "six weeks" when he made that statement.
However, the Prime Minister said on October 5, as reported at page 9632 of Hansard:
I shall table the complete text of the Agreement as soon as the wording is finalized. It will then be referred to the appropriate committee of the House for analysis, study and debate.
Those were the Prime Minister's words.

October 27, 1987
Oral Questions
I was amazed to learn from my colleagues that the Conservative majority on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade have rammed through a motion calling for hearings to begin next week and to terminate on December 4. That means there will only be four days of public hearings after a final text of the agreement is received. I find that to be a violation of the Prime Minister's commitment to the House. It is absurd, dangerous and antidemocratic.
Will the Prime Minister live up to his commitment to allow Canadians to have time to analyze a final text of this very important agreement, to make their submissions, to come before the parliamentary committee after the text is received, and not to have a meaningless discussion before that text is received?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the proposal of the Government that is at variance at all with what I or the Minister of Finance have said.
Although the final text is yet to arrive, we are trying to get this into a parliamentary forum so that Canadians can be consulted and can debate the issues across the country, as my hon. friends would no doubt want. As soon as the definitive text is received it will be submitted to the committee, on which I presume it can conduct other or more precise hearings if it wishes.
The absence of a definitive text has not prevented the Liberal Government of Ontario from holding ministerial hearings across the province. This is a Members' committee. Surely the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not want to prevent ordinary Members of Parliament from consulting with Canadians on this important issue.


NEED FOR DEFINITIVE TEXT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-OPPORTUNITY FOR THOROUGH DISCUSSION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, any intelligent person knows perfectly well there are hundreds of groups in this country, hundreds of Canadians who want to appear before Parliament to express their views on the trade agreement with the United States. First they need a definitive text. Then they have to prepare their briefs. They have to analyse the details to examine the impact on their own transactions and the companies they represent. They have to make reservations to travel to Ottawa and express their views before the Members of this House. To do all that requires very careful preparations. Why start committee hearings before the definitive text is published? Why try to avoid an in-depth discussion with Canadians who ought to be able to analyse their own situation in terms of a definitive text?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I increasingly get the impression that the Leader of the Opposition does not want Canadians to speak out on this
very important document. The absence of a definitive document-


An Hon. Member:: What document?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, but we submitted ... A document was submitted here in the House. Premier Bourassa called a meeting of a parliamentary committee to discuss free trade issues, including the documentation available. Premier Peterson in Ontario's Liberal Government has deployed a half dozen ministers across the province to get the views of Ontarians on this matter. I think it is quite normal that the Parliament of Canada should be able to do the same, both the Government and Parliament.
I know this does not suit the Liberals. You don't want the people to know how advantageous this document is for all Canadians, but we are going to let them know.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMITTEE DEADLINE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is placing phoney public relations in front of serious public discussion. Will he give an undertaking that these hearings, which are beginning on the basis of a general statement of principles, will continue past the deadline set by the committee so that when the final text is received people whose businesses are being affected, industries whose future is being affected, and Canadians who are facing a document that will change the political, cultural and social nature of this country, can be examined in detail on the basis of the final text?
The undertaking we want from the Prime Minister of this country is that the commitment and promise he made to this Parliament will be fulfilled and Canadians will have an opportunity to make their submissions on the final text that means something in detail.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are very much ready to make certain that the committee, which is of course master of its own rules-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Oh, sure!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is very much in keeping with parliamentary reform, an initiative of this Government which was celebrated by the Opposition some three years ago. The committee is very much able to do this. I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would have any objection to Members of Parliament proceeding on this basis, when he is ready to tear up a deal that he has not even seen yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: You will have to make up your mind. You are ready to reject a document you haven't seen.
October 27, 1987


An Hon. Member:: You cannot have it both ways, John.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Have you seen it, Brian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As soon as the deal was initialled, the next day I brought it forward and gave it to the House of Commons, as I ought to have done. We have had debates on it. Question Period is devoted to it. A parliamentary committee is now being set up. Surely nothing could be more democratic than to ask Members of the House of Commons to consult with ordinary Canadians on a matter of such importance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Deputy Prime Minister's conduct as Acting Minister of DRIE during July, 1986. The Auditor General's Report tabled today in the House tells us that the owners of the West Edmonton Mall were given a non-repayable $5 million DRIE grant during the Deputy Prime Minister's tenure as Acting Minister of DRIE.
The payment was made on the Deputy Prime Minister's recommendation to Cabinet despite the fact that the West Edmonton Mall was ineligible for DRIE assistance and despite the fact that the mall's application for assistance was turned down by the previous Liberal Government, the current administration, and by the Government of Alberta.
In light of these facts contained in the Auditor General's Report tabled at two o'clock today in this House, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what possible explanation can he have for this $5 million gift to the West Edmonton Mall?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the grant in question of $5 million was in fact a contribution to the West Edmonton Mall project. It was made for reasons of commercial viability to ensure the realization of that project. It was approved by Cabinet to fund a project that would be of great benefit to that particular region.


MINISTER'S EXPLANATION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the application was rejected by the previous Government, this Government, the Government of Alberta, and senior officials of DRIE. He knows that the mall project was started and
Oral Questions
completed before the funds were ever given to the owners of the West Edmonton Mall, so they did not contribute to the financial viability of the mall. The payment was received by the mall's owners long after the mall was completed and was operating.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, in light of the facts contained in the Auditor General's Report, in light of the facts laid before all Member of this House-not my allegations, the Auditor General's Report-what possible explanation does he have for the taxpayers of Canada for giving a $5 million gift to the owners of the West Edmonton Mall? What kind of scam was the Deputy Prime Minister involved in in July of 1986?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the previous Government would reject any support for western Canada. That has been a tradition.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will answer the question because the Hon. Member should get his facts straight. It was not for the West Edmonton Mall. It was for Fantasyland, which is a very major and very important tourist attraction to Edmonton, to Alberta, to western Canada, indeed to all of Canada, and it deserves support.


John Napier Turner: Oh, boy!


Mr. Caccia:: Your Party belongs to Fantasyland.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he wants to talk about the Auditor General's Report, this is what the Auditor General had to say, and I quote: "In summary-",


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The question that has been asked of the Deputy Prime Minister is a serious one and it carries tones of an allegation. I think, in fairness, the Deputy Prime Minister should have courtesy from all Hon. Members in order to respond.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member deliberately overlooks is some of the more positive things that are said in the Auditor General's Report and I quote Paragraph 4.212. This is what the Auditor General had to say about the performance of this Government-


John Napier Turner: Oh come on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: October 27, 1987
Oral Questions
In summary, our study found major improvements in financial control in
government. We are encouraged by the progress made by a number of
departments, particularly in the past two years.


John Napier Turner: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A $5 million kickback.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, but I say to the Deputy Prime Minister first-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What did Riis say about kickbacks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What did Riis say about kickbacks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Has he the courage to put it on the record?


An Hon. Member:: Come on, get up and say it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Five million dollar kickback.


Mr. Shields:: Goddam sleaze bag.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Come across here and say that, you phoney.


Charles Joseph Clark: Have some courage, Nelson.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Stand up and say it. Say it publicly.


Mr. Masse:: Say it publicly.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can ask the Hon. Member for Oshawa, despite how great the temptation may be to get into an earlier exchange, to concentrate on the question he is going to ask and to concentrate on that question to the particular Minister to whom he wishes to put the question.


John Edward Broadbent: As always, your Honour, I accept your advice.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who said not many weeks ago that the trade deal negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States-and if these were not the precise words, the idea was there-was the most significant trade deal in history. Considering that this is the case and considering that almost every sector of the Canadian economy is seriously affected, does the Prime Minister not think it is incredibly irresponsible for the Government to say now that the final wording will be produced perhaps as late as the first week in December, and to have this ail completed by January 2?
Does he believe the Premiers of Canada have time to look at this, that the Parliament of Canada has time to look at it and the people affected have time to look at it? Why does the Government not go back to the United States and at the very least ask for an extension of the deadline?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend should not get exercised. We said we would produce the final wording just as quickly as possible. The day after, I produced the documents in the House that were available to all of us, invited debate thereon, followed by another series of debates. I have indicated consistently that just as quickly as the final wording is available it will be made available to the House.
Meanwhile, the Government of Ontario has sent out a committee of six or seven Ministers who are travelling the province seeking views, generally speaking, on the trade initiative as it is defined. The Government of the Province of Quebec is doing the same thing. While waiting for the definitive text, I would hope the House of Commons would follow suit. Just as quickly as we have the information, I will provide it to my hon. friend and it will be in ample time for even him to make up his mind.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint Jacques):: Cheap shot.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 will ignore that touching comment by the Prime Minister.


COMMITTEE MEMBERS' DECISION ON HOLDING OF HEARINGS
John Edward Broadbent: I want to say to the Prime Minister that it is not the Government of Ontario that has negotiated the deadline with the United States. It is not the Government of Ontario which will be signing the agreement with the United States. It is the Government of Canada that will be doing that. It is the Government of Canada's responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the Conservative Members of the House committee that will be looking at this, earlier this month said in committee that they would not consider this issue until they had final wording, will the Prime Minister inform the House why the Government forced the Conservative Members of that committee to change their decision yesterday to meet your deadline?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a genuinely preposterous situation put forward by the Leader of the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Ever since we brought in the trade deal the NDP has been saying that if the Canadian people knew about it they would turn it down. Now, when we try to make it
October 27, 1987

available to the Canadian people, the hon. gentleman is opposed because he knows full well that it is in the national interest and that Canadians will approve it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Call an election if you believe it. You are afraid of the people of Canada.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What could be more democratic than to have the House of Commons invite one of its committees to visit with Canadians across the country to discuss an important issue?


Nelson Andrew Riis: An election would be better.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It seems to me that this is entirely consistent with the idea of parliamentary committees doing their jobs. We have done nothing. We have placed no limitations on the right of the committee to govern itself, to make its own value judgments. Surely, I would expect my hon. friend to join with us in helping that committee fulfil what is clearly a very important national function. If there has been activity in the field in Ontario, and, perhaps, Manitoba and elsewhere, surely the national Parliament will want to do no less on behalf of allowing all Canadians to be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARINGS UNTIL PRODUCTION OF FINAL DOCUMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the best way to have all Canadians to hear and to understand what is involved is for the Prime Minister to have the courage to call a general election now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I do not readily expect that. Since it is important for the people of Canada actually to be able to look at the final wording, and it is important whether we are talking about the resource sector, the service sector, the agriculture sector-it is important for all these people to be able actually to see the final wording-would the Prime Minister not agree that either a new deadline should be negotiated right away with the United States, or that he should scrap these phoney hearings that will not have a final document to look at?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be generally acknowledged that ordinary Canadians who do not have the easy access to the media that some other people do have, legitimately, Members of Parliament, but also, for example, Mr. Bob White, ordinary Canadians, small businessmen-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you afraid of an election, Brian?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -should have a chance to come before a parliamentary committee to express their point of view. If they
Oral Questions
are in favour of freed trade, then they can say so. If they are against tree trade, then they can say so as well.
My hon. friend from British Columbia is calling for an election. We will call an election just as soon as members of his Party get themselves a new Quebec lieutenant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns a statement-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity has the floor. As Hon. Members who have been here for some years will know, she is one of the Members who ask the clearest, most concise and most direct questions in this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure Hon. Members would want to extend the proper courtesies to hear her. The Hon. Member for Trinity.


Aideen Nicholson: My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns a statement in the Auditor General's report which I quote:
The transaction that resulted in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation paying $200 million to facilitate the sale of the Bank of British Columbia was structured in a way that could be regarded as an attempt to avoid income taxes.
Since the Deputy Minister of Finance is a member of the Board of Directors of that Crown corporation, will the Minister tell the House if he approved that particular method of transferring of funds?


Mr. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for asking the question very precisely because the Auditor General used the words "could be" interpreted. This particular transaction was a complicated one, structured in such a way that no one, if they had asked, would have been able to figure out the tax implications of the transaction. Those questions were not asked and not considered because the problem was quite different.
We were trying to save a bank in British Columbia. The $200 million that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation advanced to the parent company, the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, was to it and not to its Canadian branch. It was made to it in order to allow it to keep the bank running, to keep the doors open, to keep the depositors' money, and to guarantee that bank long into the future. The CDIC felt that was a

October 27, 1987
Oral Questions
transaction well worth doing, as did the Government of Canada.


METHOD USED TO MAKE PAYMENT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by that answer but, doubtless, either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance might be able to make a Statement on Motions which would clarify it.
What we were told in the Flouse by the Minister of Finance at the time was that the money was intended to enable the new Bank of Flongkong in Canada to increase its capital base and to make provision for possible loan losses. That does not seem to fit with the answer just given by the Minister.
My supplementary question is this. If, indeed, the Government wanted the assistance to the bank to be tax free, why not do it up front via a remission order and an Order in Council? Why was it necessary to use an offshore bank?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the guarantees made to the Canadian subsidiary were made by the offshore bank. It was the entity that was going to keep this bank going, not just this year, next year, but decades into the future. That is why the guarantee was structured that way.
The Hon. Member knows too, and I have heard her putting questions that have been perceptive about this in the standing committee, that banks and their tax structures, their allowances and provisions vary enormously from bank to bank and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Therefore those tax questions were not pursued.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jelinek:: It's about time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is about his Deputy Prime Minister's Fantasyland in Edmonton. The Auditor General stated in his report:
In August 1985, notwithstanding the Cabinet decision, the DRIE Minister
offered the company a $5 million contribution under IRDP.
It is also the understanding of the Auditor General that the Lougheed Government at the time did not approve of this.
What I want to ask the Prime Minister is this. Why did his Government and his Minister at that time offer this $5 million
grant in defiance of the Cabinet and in defiance of the Peter Lougheed Government and, more important, perhaps in breach of the IRDP? It is a very serious allegation by the Auditor General. I think the country demands an answer by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question. At least he did not accuse me of accepting a kickback, as his colleague the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap did.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Shame, and typical. He is learning from Broadbent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important initiative. I can assure the Hon. Member that his allegations are not founded. I can assure him that this is a matter that was considered. This particular contribution was made to support a very unique tourist attraction in Alberta. It is one of the most major tourist attractions in western Canada, if not in all of Canada. It deserves the support of the Government to expand and to diversify the economy. It was in that spirit that the support was given.
I would hope that the Hon. Member, rather than criticizing support for western initiatives and, in particular, diversified initiatives, and rather than condemning and ridiculing, would be supportive of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASON FOR FUNDING PROJECT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister just made a very, very serious statement. I would like to ask him to explain then why the Auditor General would have stated, and I quote again:
Review by DRIE staff indicated that the project would proceed without
federal funding. This made the project ineligible for funding.
It was also noted that the project began in the summer of 1984 and was reviewed in March of 1985 by a DRIE internal board that recommended against support under IRDP.
I wonder in light of this, and the recommendation by DRIE people themselves that it should not be funded, why was this project funded. Why were the rules broken? When the project was going ahead anyway, why spend taxpayers' money on something where we did not have to do it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, because very simply it supports an
October 27, 1987

initiative and an endeavour which we are trying to engage in in western Canada, namely, to diversify, broaden, and strengthen the economic base in western Canada. It is for that reason that we did it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PAYMENT MADE TO TRIPLE FIVE CORPORATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same subject. We are talking about a $5 million windfall, a gift, to the Triple Five Corporation, a corporation that has $6 billion in assets.
The Deputy Prime Minister has not provided this House and Canadians with an adequate rationale why $5 million of taxpayers' money was paid to the Triple Five Corporation. The principals of the Triple Five Corporation are not paupers.
Is it coincidence that this particular company obtained a $5 million windfall when in 1984 it contributed $25,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party and only $250 to the Liberal Party of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Members opposite are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
What we have today is one of the best and most optimistic Auditor General's Reports that has been introduced in this House in 10 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am quoting a Canadian Press story which states, "Still my report this year inclines to be one of cautious optimism, Dye says in what is clearly his most upbeat report since taking over as Auditor General in 1981".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESULTS OF PAYMENT
John V. Nunziata: The Deputy Prime Minister is not answering the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Make a charge, John. Come on, show a little courage.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Regional Industrial Expansion Act requires that no DRIE assistance be provided if it is probable that a project will proceed without assistance.
My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is the following.
I can understand why the External Affairs Minister is somewhat uneasy in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: What do you mean by that, John?


Charles L. Caccia: Why are you so touchy? Calm down.
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what social or economic benefit did Canadians derive as a result of a $5 million gift to a corporation that has $6 billion in assets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we know the position of the Liberal Party. It has traditionally been against western Canada for a long time, including the fact that they now have a Leader from western Canada who takes a position that is totally contrary to the interests of western Canada.
The Hon. Member just asked the question, what benefit is there. I can tell him. He should go out and visit the West Edmonton Mall and visit-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It also refers to the bail-out of the Bank of British Columbia. In his report the Auditor General states:
I am obliged to conclude that a principal reason for these circuitous
transactions, and in particular for making the $200 million payment off-shore,
was to attempt to avoid making the payment subject to Canadian income
taxes.
On that basis, does the Minister think that his Department is operating appropriately by assisting somebody to avoid income taxes in Canada?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think that question was dealt with previously in answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Trinity.
In the long run for Canada and for British Columbia, that particular transaction will result in a healthy, regionally based bank which will pay taxes for years and years.


PROCESS USED TO AVOID PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX
Stanley J. Hovdebo: The issue here is not the bank, but the process by which a Department of the Government would assist in the avoidance of income taxes.
Can the Minister guarantee to the House and to the Canadian people that the taxpayers' will not be forced to pay another $100 million on this scam of sending money offshore and then back to Canada before it is used by the Bank of Hong Kong?

October 27, 1987
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the funds that were forwarded by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation were funds that it raised through allocation of fees. These are not funds that come in the long run from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, therefore, it was not in the direct sense a taxpayer contribution whatsoever.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: But the taxes come to Canada.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, and it concerns the Auditor General's Report.
Can the President of the Treasury Board explain to us the following situation where the Minister of the Environment increased his budget for Environment Week from $35,000 to $1 million, gave a $650,000 untendered contract which resulted in a rake-off of $143,000 to a middleman who was supposed to do, of all things, rent hot-air balloons that never flew?
Could the President of the Treasury Board explain that blatant abuse and waste of the taxpayers' money?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in this House the Hon. Member is the resident expert on hot air.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Michael McMillan: In most cases I would defer to him on that subject, except that he is far off the mark in his question and in his comments.
An independent assessment was done for the Government of Canada after Environment Week in 1986 by a totally disinterested party, that in some respects was critical of the program. Those criticisms were taken into account in our planning for the 1987 program.


Don Boudria: Are you going to get the money back?


Thomas Michael McMillan: That independent assessment stated, "In terms of financial planning, the $1 million proposed budget for Environment Week in 1986 was likely realistic in delivering a high standard of quality". It went on to state, "The Department should be commended for having the courage to attempt what it did".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rules of this House, I am sure that you will ask that that report now be tabled for the Members of Parliament.
Now I know, Mr. Speaker, what the meaning of a "balloon payment" is.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, also concerning the report of the Auditor General, why he interfered in the matter to offer a $5 million contribution to a company in his province that was not even eligible under any program while his fellow citizens elsewhere in the country and in his own province could not benefit from those programs even though they were eligible? What kind of double standard was used to reward his friends?


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh, oh! What a gutless one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again we see the contempt of the Hon. Members for western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Contempt for you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have already responded-


Jack Wendele Shields: Go phone Shirley Carr and get some direction.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Go phone Conrad Black.


Mr. Fulton:: Take a deep breath. Jack, and increase your


Mr. Speaker:: It might occur to opposition Members that time is being used up.
The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member does not take seriously the importance of western Canadians, and the importance of the industries that are unique to western Canada.
I have tried to respond to previous questions, but I think what is important is to put this whole thing into context. Roughly 10 years ago the Auditor General of the day said: "I am deeply concerned that Parliament, indeed the Government, has lost or is close to losing control of the public purse".
October 27, 1987

He went on further to say: "The present state of financial management and control systems are significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness".
In the Auditor General's Report which was just tabled, he had the following to say at paragraph 1.15:
With expenditures by our federal government exceeding $100 billion a year, protecting the public purse demands that the correct amounts be paid out to the intended recipients at the right time. A decade ago the Auditor General could provide no assurance that this was happening. Today, 1 can do so. The essential framework is in place. With some exceptions, financial controls are working well.


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 think that is a tribute to the Prime Minister and to-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON FUNDING OF FANTASYLAND PROJECT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I begin by saying that what is at issue is not the Deputy Prime Minister's commitment to western Canada, or anybody else's for that matter.
The fact of the matter is that the Auditor General says in respect of the Fantasyland project "this made the project ineligible for funding".
What is the Deputy Prime Minister saying? Is it that people who want to do things for western Canada are above the law, that people like the Deputy Prime Minister who want to do things for western Canada can do anything they like as long as they can stand up and justify it on the basis of their regional loyalties?
Surely western Canadians are interested in honesty and fairness in government as well as anybody else. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to say why he thought he was above the law and funded a project which was ineligible for funding.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are national programs developed to assist and aid industry right across the country. The tourist industry is a very important industry to western Canada.
The initiative with which we are dealing here is a very important tourist attraction. It brings huge dollars into the western Canadian market. It is very supportive of jobs. It is one of the most significant job-creating activities in western Canada. It is an important industry. It is an important diversification element. It was on those bases that the project was approved.
Oral Questions


REASON FOR FUNDING PROJECT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, no one is disputing what the Deputy Prime Minister is saying about the project. What we are asking is why the project was funded when it would have been a project which would have gone ahead anyway.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the end justifies the means, that the Deputy Prime Minister can do anything he likes as long as he can stand up and say that it was a good project? Surely that is not the way the people want the Government of Canada to be run.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a cabinet process which is followed. The cabinet process in this case was followed, and I am sure the Hon. Member would be interested in that.
There was an application that was originally turned down. I think it called for some $20 million. That was considered. During the course of consideration we considered the importance of the project, the importance that it meant to economic development of western Canada, particularly the city of Edmonton which had a very, very high level of unemployment at that time, and the prospect of certain elements of this proposal being closed down. There were just and valid reasons for support. I have no hesitation at all in defending that here, in committee, in the country-anywhere at all. I will go to Edmonton and debate it with him any day of the week.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Minister has outlined a plan to reduce acid rain emissions in this country to some 50 per cent of their 1980 levels by the year 1994. Recently, however, the Americans have said that this plan is misleading and that in fact it will only reduce acid rain emissions by some 35 per cent as opposed to 50 per cent.
What is going on? Is the Minister trying to kid the troops?


Thomas Michael McMillan: No,
Mr. Speaker. It is true that the Canadian acid rain program is 90 per cent in place. It will slash acid-rain-causing emissions by 50 per cent by 1994 based on 1980 allowable figures.
The Hon. Member asks why we used allowable figures rather than actual figures as the basis of comparison between 1980 and 1994. The reason is that by definition a control program aimed at 1994 has to deal with allowable figures, those levels of emissions that will be allowed.

October 27, 1987
Oral Questions
To calculate the percentage cut, we have used 1980 allowable figures so that we are comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges.
In any event, the relevant point is that the whole control program is based on the threshold of acid loadings above which, scientists tell us, damage to the environment begins to occur. It is a sound program. It is much better than that in any other country of the world, including the United States from where some of the criticism is coming.


TELEFILM CANADA
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on October 19 the Minister of Communications received an urgent telex from independent producers and senior executives of public and private TV-from Global, CTV, CBC, TVA, Quatre Saisons, Radio Quebec, and TV Ontario-who are very concerned about the present operating policy and financial position of Telefilm. The Minister knows that that will have a very negative impact on the Canadian content of television in years to come.
As the Minister knows, Telefilm Canada halfway through its fiscal year has no more money and is offering promissory notes for April of next year instead of cash commitments for the programs of this year. Why has the Minister not advised the Canadian film and broadcast industry of what steps she as the Minister responsible is prepared to take and when she is going to meet with them, or is she planning to shut down Telefilm for the next six months, which would certainly please her American cousins?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the last full year the Liberal Government was in office the budget for Telefilm Canada was $16 million annually. This year the budget for Telefilm Canada is $114 million.
That is the difference between the importance that this Government attaches to the Canadian film industry and the importance that the previous Government attached to the film industry.
Telefilm Canada has said that it will honour all of its commitments. It has also moved-and I am very pleased to see that it has done so-to undertake a revamping of its cash flow methods. I would think that the Hon. Member would be pleased with that.
Obviously the growth of the film industry in the country has been great. I am pleased to see that one of the reasons it has been great is the funding which has come through Telefilm Canada.


CORPORATION'S ABILITY TO MEET COMMITMENTS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is only the third year that Telefilm is in financial crisis and, according to Mr. Jean Sirois, the reason for that crisis is that the Minister of Finance did such a "fine" job with the capital cost allowance in his provisions for next year's budget. That is what has brought about the crisis, not financial management, according to Mr. Sirois.
Did the Minister authorize Telefilm to issue promissory notes against next year's government allocations to Telefilm? Does this mean that they will be playing catch-up in next year's budget, or is the Minister standing here in the House and offering an increase over their present year's budget so that they can meet not only their commitments but their advance commitments for next year?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that one day the Hon. Member comes into the House and says "You must not direct the cultural agencies. You must keep an arm's length relationship with the cultural agencies" while the next day she comes here and says "You must get into the running of Telefilm Canada". She cannot have it both ways.


Sheila Finestone: You are the responsible Minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member, in the words of the chairman of Telefilm Canada, that it will meet its commitments. Certainly it will have to extend those commitments over a period of time. I assure the Hon. Member that the Government will continue to back the Canadian film industry in many ways. I must say that she is obviously the spokesperson for the American film industry in Canada because she is the one who keeps raising their interests all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should indicate to the House that there will be a question from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso followed by a question from the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and that will close off Question Period.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON CONSUMERS
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the Minister tell us how increased competition in a larger variety of consumer products will benefit lower-income and ordinary Canadians as a result of the trade agreement?
October 27, 1987


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is one thing on which we do not have to wait for the fine print. The benefits to Canadian consumers as a result of the free trade agreement are tremendous. There is simply no losing whatever on the part of consumers. Any Member of the House concerned about consumers should be enthusiastically backing the agreement.
For example, in terms of low-income Canadians, the Economic Council of Canada has estimated-taking the most conservative of its estimates-that the average wage earner in Canada, based on 1983 average wages of $23,000, will have an extra $1,000 a year in spending power as a result of the free trade agreement. Everybody in the House should be applauding that.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister recently told the media that he is still studying the best way to present a child care proposal in the spirit of Meech Lake.
Will the Minister or will he not present the total child care plan at the First Ministers' meeting in November? Will he assure the House that these repeated delays in announcing a national child care program with objectives are not related to the Tory trade deal which allows U.S. rights of establishment for services in Canada? Does the Minister intend to allow profit-making U.S. child care chains to take over child care in Canada subsidized by Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard various allegations about the trade agreement and the fears expressed, but this one is about as good as any I have heard.
Respecting child care, the Government of Canada is committed to a child care program in the matters that have been discussed in Cabinet.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: When?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They will be put forward to my counterparts in the provinces at the appropriate time. Let me assure the Hon. Member that the program has nothing to do with a trade deal. We need to generate income in order that social programs can not only survive but can be expanded. We need that kind of growth and wealth. 1 wish that the Member would once and for all learn that Government does not generate wealth but people do.
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, will there be a child care program announced with national objectives this year?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes or no?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As I said to the Member earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Government will announce it at the appropriate time. I am sure she is as anxious about it as most of us are.


PRIVILEGE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think, during the course of the Question Period, I heard a comment from across the way coming from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Either advertently, inadvertently or maliciously he accused me of accepting a kickback. If I heard that in error, I would accept the Hon. Member's explanation. If he did say it, I would hope that he might reconsider the statement and perhaps withdraw it.
I have known the Hon. Member for a long time. I hold him in very high regard. I respect him as a very skilled and aggressive debater. From time to time all of us tend to overstate our case. I certainly would not hold it against him if he made such a statement in an uncontrolled outburst. I hope that in the spirit of the traditions, dignity and decorum of this place he will do the honourable thing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to make it very clear that I would not suggest for a moment that my hon. friend accepted any kickback. If there was any thought of saying that, I certainly would have withdrawn it. Again, there was never any intention and certainly I would not have suggested such a thing by my hon. friend.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields). Is it on the same point?


Jack Wendele Shields: I would like to-


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member. The question that I have asked is, is it on the same point?


Jack Wendele Shields: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly

October 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Mazankowski
heard the Member hurl an accusation across the floor. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said that the accusation was not directed at the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Chair is in some difficulty. The Deputy Prime Minister raised a question of privilege. In response, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) stood and withdrew completely any suggestion of impropriety and has done so in the best tradition of this place.
My difficulty here is that I am not sure what point the Hon. Member is raising. If it has anything to do with the point which the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has made, I have to advise the Hon. Member that that issue is closed unless something extraordinary came out of the exchange.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me just a moment to explain my position. The accusation "kickback" was hurled across the floor. That is the most devastating accusation that one Member can make in this House against another.


Mr. Speaker:: It may or may not be the most devastating accusation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It often depends on exactly how it was put and in what context.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap said that he did not in any way mean to imply that the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister took a kickback in any of the senses that that would ordinarily apply. One cannot do more in this Chamber than have an apology as direct, unequivocal and as honourable as that. I must take the position that that closes off the issue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not take down the exact language of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) in his response to the point raised by my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I would appreciate knowing-I think the House would- whether the statement by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap was specific to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: The reason I raise the question is that I very much believe I heard the Member from Kamloops-Shuswap shout twice across the floor-twice-the word "kickback" aimed at someone in this Government. If his explanation was designed to indicate that he was not referring to the Deputy Prime Minister but was designed to leave open the suggestion that he was referring to others, then I think further clarification is required and further action by him.


Mr. Speaker:: This House has the highest regard for the right hon. gentleman and I have certainly listened carefully to the point which the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has made. Unless the Chair was completely mistaken, I did not take that suggestion, either directly or indirectly, from anything the Hon. Member of Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said. The Hon. Member, who is well respected in this place, can of course comment. Perhaps he might make it easy for the Chair by making it absolutely clear that the Chair did not misinterpret what he had to say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, because of the great respect I have for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and his position, always have had, and presumably always will have, I want to make it totally clear that I cannot imagine any scenario where I would ever accuse the Hon. Member of kickbacks. I did not in the past. I did not today. If there is any suggestion that I did, I want to withdraw it completely. I want to make it completely clear that I have the most respect for the hon. gentleman.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: That is enough!


Mr. Speaker:: On the basis of what the Chair has heard, someone, and it may well have been the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said "kickback". The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) was the member of the Government receiving the questions on a particular grant to an operation in the City of Edmonton. The question of privilege was raised by the Deputy Prime Minister, directed at the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, and that Hon. Member has made it unequivocally clear that he is not accusing the Hon. Member of receiving a kickback.
If there is a second question of privilege, which may be what the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is getting at, then it is the obligation of the Chair to hear it. However, I want it clearly understood that, at least in the view of the Chair, the first point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister is settled. If there is another point, I am obliged under the customs and rules of this place to hear it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to prolong this. In order that all of us on this side of the House may determine whether or not there is a question of privilege we want to raise, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) would indicate exactly whom it was he was accusing of having received a kickback.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You know the rules, Joe.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Secretary of State, who is well respected in this place and a skillful debater, will know that what he raised was not a point of order or question of privilege, but was clearly something which should be taken up
October 27, 1987

in another way in another place. With great reluctance I have to indicate to him that he is out of order.
There are some other questions of privilege which the Chair must deal with, and I will hear first the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie).


EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF CANADA-U.S. TRADE AGREEMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with questions raised in the House today. I see the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is here.
I hope he will stay and give us a few minutes of his time to listen to this question of privilege.
It concerns, to use his words, the important national function which the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade could fulfil with respect to the trade agreement the Prime Minister has entered into with the U.S. Our contention is that our ability to do that, and therefore our privileges as Members of Parliament, is being severely inhibited by the fact that we will not have the text of the agreement the Prime Minister wants the committee to look at until either the end of November or early December. Given that the agreement supposedly has to be signed on January 2, that means that the committee would have maybe two weeks in which to look at the actual text of the agreement, discuss it, and travel across the country holding hearings.
This is not Question Period so I cannot ask this of the Prime Minister, but I say to you that our privileges as members of the committee, charged with the important national function which the Prime Minister mentioned in Question Period, are affected because we are being put in the position of having only seven to 14 days to fulfil that function. I say to you and to the Prime Minister through you that that is not in compliance with parliamentary reform. That is not parliamentary involvement. That is not a meaningful opportunity for public input. If the Prime Minister wants to live up to the commitments he made to this House in this respect, then the Government has to seek an extension of that January deadline so Members of Parliament can do the work they were elected to do.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to assist Hon. Members by indicating to the Hon. Member that while he may very well have a complaint, it is centred around something that happened in committee. It may well be that the Hon. Member has a point in what he has said as well. That point has now been heard. I have to say to him that under the circumstances it is not a question of privilege.
I can only suggest, because I cannot give an order in this direction, that perhaps he and other members of the committee might meet to find some way to resolve the difficulties he has put forward. It may well be that Hon. Ministers, having heard the point raised, might be able to assist. In any event, it seems to the Chair that the committee can indeed do some work, although the complaint raised by the Hon. Member that
Privilege-Mr. Blaikie
before that work can be completed it would be certainly appropriate to have the document seems to be without question. In any event, it is not a question of privilege. It is a complaint. It has been heard in the House, and I hope Hon. Members will try to respond in some meaningful way.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty. Earlier this morning there was an application under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate. The opposition Party in that situation lays its complaint upon the Table and there is no place for the Government to reply. I would have appreciated the opportunity of having my hon. colleague, who has left the House, put the position. It is only fair that the position on this matter go on the record given that we now have a specious question of privilege.
The committee met yesterday with lots of notice. Committee members democratically decided, under parliamentary reform which never would have been dreamed of under the previous Liberal Government, according to Standing Order 96(2) to study the subject matter of the essence of the agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. The committee decided to study it. The committee decided it wanted to travel. The committee decided it could hear witnesses before seeing the agreement which my friends complain about. There is no question, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, that once we have that agreement it will be laid upon the Table, as was the essence of the agreement itself the very day after it was signed.
It is absolute nonsense for the Opposition to get up and claim that something is being railroaded and ramrodded when all the committee is doing is studying. We have watched committees do that under parliamentary reform brought in by this Government time after time after time. I might say that it has been done on a lot of delicate subjects so far as the Government is concerned. Yet we have sat here under parliamentary reform and it has happened. Now, when it is a subject matter which the Government is proud of-


Some Hon. Members:: Cool down, Doug.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member who complains is an NDP Member. The NDP Premier of Manitoba will not even recall his Legislature to deal with this. The Liberals complain, while at the same time Liberal provincial cabinet Ministers are travelling around Ontario without the benefit of this agreement. This is nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is rising on the point of order in response to the response of the Hon. Minister of State. I will hear him for a moment.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the point of order which the Deputy House Leader has put forward, I think it should be

October 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier
brought to the attention of the House and you, Sir, that at the previous meeting of this particular committee, of which I am a member and which meeting 1 attended, it was indicated very clearly that the members did not wish to look at this agreement until the full text was available. There was a sudden flip-flop, which led to this change yesterday, which is so destructive to the possibility of Canadians hearing this agreement appropriately.


Mr. Speaker:: All Hon. Members will know that on occasion the Chair exercises considerable latitude, in Members bring forward a problem that has something to do with the workings of a committee, especially because we are in a reform stage and the Chair has found that it is sometimes helpful for these problems to be aired. I think that the fact that they have been aired has sometimes led to their resolution. However, this is not the place to be debating an issue which ought properly to be debated in the committee. I ask Hon. Members to cooperate with the Chair and conclude this matter.


COMMITTEE STUDY OF CANADA-U.S. PRELIMINARY TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rose a few moments ago to be recognized on the same question, but since 1 had given notice this morning, a few minutes before the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party, I wanted to raise before the House the issue of consideration in committee of the so-called preliminary document or agreement signed by Canada and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, with respect, I submit that since we have broadened the terms of reference to enable committees to examine practically anything they please or almost any subject that rises from the terms of reference of the department or agency they are considering, I think we have thereby also given the House the right to be informed about what is going on in committee. We all know that this Government and the U.S. Administration differ in their interpretation of the Agreement tabled on October 5 by the Prime Minister. Basically, we know there is no agreement on the interpretation of this document as read by the Government and as read by the U.S. Administration. Today, we are told that a committee of this House, which is an extension of the House and which has certain powers, of course, under Standing Order 96(2), namely to study, has decided to circumvent the democratic process, and that is the subject of my question of privilege: circumventing the democratic process of debate on a subject as important as a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. I say circumvent, Mr. Speaker, because witnesses who will want to appear before the committee to express their view points will not have time to prepare themselves or draft briefs because the document is not available.
The Government does not want to give us the document. The Prime Minister promised on October 5, and I quote verbatim at page 9632:
Mr. Speaker, I shall table the complete text of the Agreement as soon as the
wording is finalized. It will then be referred to the appropriate committee of
the House for analysis, study and debate.
I just heard the Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) inform the House that as soon as the Agreement is concluded and finalized in legal terms, we will have an opportunity to debate the whole question in committee.
I take it for granted that what the Government has just given us is a firm promise that the committee will resume the study it will be undertaking within a few days, of the preliminary report, or at least of the preliminary agreement tabled in this House on October 5.
Mr. Speaker, 1 submit that what this House wanted to achieve by extending the terms of reference of the committees was to give more power to Members of Parliament and to the Canadian people. I also submit that it is absolutely essential in a democracy to have the opportunity to express one's views.
When I look at the agenda of the committee, and I can read it to the House, I see that the committee will meet during the week of November 2 for public hearings, and on November 16, November 23 and November 30.
Mr. Speaker, if we accept the explanations of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and what has been reported by the media, the final and legal text of the agreement will be available only in late November at the earliest, and perhaps even in December, which would give the Canadian people and the Members of this House at best, and I emphasize "at best", one week to examine the final agreement and tell the Government what we think about it. I do not think that this House can accept such a thing. I find it unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and a serious restriction of the ability of Members of Parliament to debate this issue, of Canadians to express their views and of the whole country to influence the actions of this Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) is rising on a point of order. Is it on the same issue?


Don Boudria: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member in a moment. [Translation]
But first, it would probably be a good thing for the Chair to express its views about the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) because this is clearly the same question of privilege. Unfortunately, the arrangements made by the members of the committee may not be satisfactory for some Hon. Members. It also seems that it is necessary to have the final text of the document. However, the Chair does not consider that this constitutes grounds for a question of privilege.
October 27, 1987

Privilege-Mr. Nunziata


ALLEGED INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
[Stage Direction]
It is obvious that those who have spoken today dealt with arrangements which some Hon. Members do not consider satisfactory.
I would suggest an immediate meeting with the members of the commmittee and perhaps also with . . . This is not an order of the Chair, but only a suggestion.
As for coming to an agreement on this matter, it would be impossible for the Chair this afternoon to reconcile the views of the various Members.
I therefore regret to say that this does not constitute a matter of privilege, but it is certainly a complaint. I hope that the Hon. Members will be able to settle the matter between themselves.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his intervention.
[Stage Direction]
Perhaps I can say to the Hon. Minister of State that I am trying to make it very clear that, while there is a complaint, that complaint ought to be resolved within the committee. Unless something should develop which moves the difficulty clearly into a question of privilege, I do not think the Chair can add anything more to it.
As I said, I have only suggested, it is not my place to order. Perhaps some Hon. Members could get together and see if they can resolve the matter.

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Citation 327 of Beauchesne states:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or
other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the
Table.
Such an incident happened today when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) quoted from a document.
The rules of the House, just as in a court of law, provide that the Minister is compelled to lay this document on the Table of the House. I rise to bring this to your attention and to ask that you ensure, Sir, that the document in question be tabled pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly refer to the "blues" and see whether or not the Hon. Minister referred to his notes or quoted from the document.


Don Boudria: He had it in his hands.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I was not sitting beside him, as you obviously were, to see what was in his hands. We will see whether the Hon. Minister referred to his notes or in fact quoted from the text of the document. We will report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) raised a question of privilege earlier and very courteously agreed with the Chair's suggestion that the matter be put over until the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) might be able to make a statement to the House or at least add information which would be helpful to the Chair.
I understand that the Solicitor General is here today, and I thank him for his courtesy in being prepared perhaps to help the Chair on at least some of the facts surrounding the incident.


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) yesterday in the House. I think it is important to understand the facts in their entirety with respect to this matter.
I am advised that the inmate involved is serving life for second degree murder. At the time he was the chairman of the inmate committee, a group nominated by the inmates to deal with prison officials in the resolution of day-to-day problems.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, also to know that on August 18 of this past summer there was a serious disturbance and fire at Joyceville Institution, during which extensive damage took place. Since that time, the atmosphere at the institution has been somewhat more volatile, given some operational problems due to the physical damage that took place and which is now under repair.
Given that background I will deal with the specific point raised by the Hon. Member in my absence. It is true that on Wednesday, October 21, 1987, the MP's assistant, and not the MP, phoned to speak to the inmate. He was informed that the inmate would phone him back at the number provided.
The inmate was called up from his cell to the living unit office where such calls are normally made, and the inmate used the telephone provided. It is important to note that this telephone and office used were clearly marked with the following advisory, as per correctional service regulations. There was a sticker on the phone and a sign in the room used, stating: "All activities, including conversations and telephone communications in this area, are subject to monitoring and may be recorded". The inmate proceeded to place his call to the Member's assistant, using this phone, and a correctional officer remained in this office with him while the call was taking place. I am advised that this is the usual practice.
During the course of the conversation, the inmate made certain remarks that the officer overheard, which caused her some serious concern, namely to the effect that "something heavy" would happen at the institution if inmate demands were not met. The officer reported the remarks to the warden, and after consultation with regional headquarters of the

October 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
Canadian Correctional Service, the inmate was transferred to Millhaven in the normal course of events.
It is important to note that at no time was interception equipment used. It was simply the case of an officer overhearing the inmate's side of the conversation while he was speaking with the Member's assistant.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this background and additional information will assist you in arriving at a ruling on this matter.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) indicates a certain version of events that occurred on that particular day. In my respectful submission, the crux of the matter is whether or not an official of the Correctional Service of Canada was listening in on a conversation, regardless of the method of listening, whether by interception or overhearing a telephone conversation, with the full knowledge that that particular inmate was speaking either to an MP or an MP's assistant.
The Solicitor General seems to suggest that because the conversation did not take place between the inmate and an MP,myself in this particular case, the privilege does not extend to an MP's assistant. In my respectful submission, if a privilege attaches to a Member of Parliament, surely that privilege must also extend to staff working for that particular Member of Parliament.
I am sure, Your Honour, if you review the precedents in this particular matter and perhaps refer to some legal precedents with regard to solicitor-client privilege, you will find that the privilege attached to a solicitor extends to his or her office as well.
With regard to the other matter, whether or not my privileges were breached, I submit once again that my privileges were in fact breached because officials of the Correctional Service of Canada were well aware that this conversation was taking place between the inmate and my office. Whether or not there was a sticker on the phone or a sign in the room is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Correctional Service of Canada had full knowledge and, having that knowledge, one would have thought that perhaps the individuals involved, the warden and the guard involved, might have provided the inmate in question with another telephone in a different room, in full privacy, where they were not listening in to the conversation.
The Solicitor General indicates that the conversation was heard only one side. You are well aware of the Latin term audi alteram partem. As a result of information obtained from one side of the conversation, on the Solicitor General's admission, the Correctional Service of Canada proceeded to take punitive action against an inmate. In effect, the inmate, my constituent, was penalized when not given a proper opportunity. However, that is irrelevant from the point of view that the Correctional Service of Canada was listening in on the conversation.
This morning I received in my office a package of documents that were smuggled out of the Joyceville Penitentiary. One of the documents I received was a memorandum from the Warden of Joyceville to the inmate population.
As you know, the inmates were locked up, and are locked up as I am speaking. It is a serious situation at Joyceville. In any event I think it is important to read this memo. It is short, but will assist Your Honour in arriving at your decision. It is dated October 22, five days ago, and states:
Some eight short days ago, I assumed the position of warden of this Institution. One of my first priorities at that time was to familiarize myself with the Institution, its policies and routines. I also met with the Inmate Committee on Monday, October 19, 1987, on an informal basis to get to know the individual committee members and to prepare for a more formal meeting, complete with agenda, which was to be held on Friday, October 23.
The members of the Inmate Committee agreed to this arrangement. Unfortunately, Inmate Committee Chairman DeMaria, chose not to respect this agreement and, in fact, aired the concerns of the committee, which we are actively studying, to persons outside the Service. Such conduct on the part of an Inmate Committee Chairman is totally unacceptable to me. As a result, I have taken steps to relieve him of his position as Chairman and am transferring him to another institution.
However, I am prepared to meet with the elected Secretary and range representatives as planned on Friday to deal seriously and appropriately with the proposed agenda items. Rest assured that I will give these important items my thorough and personal attention.
1 think it is important that we put this whole situation in context. As the Solicitor General indicated, on August 18, there was what I refer to as a riot. The Solicitor General says it was a serious disturbance. Considerable damage was done. Shots were fired. People were injured. It seems to me that that type of activity constitutes a riot.
The Solicitor General indicates that since that time the atmosphere has become more volatile. But what does this new warden do, a warden of eight days at Joyceville Institution? Rather than trying to create an atmosphere of calm in the institution so as to be able to deal with the concerns of the inmate, he proceeds to listen in to a conversation between a very popular inmate, who was elected several weeks before-


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his courtesy in breaking off his intervention at this point. As the Hon. Member knows, I am very reluctant to interfere. However, it seems to me there is a key point to the Hon. Member's application on a question of privilege and that is whether or not his privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached as a consequence of the fact that someone in the prison staff listened to at least part of a conversation between an inmate and someone at the other end of a telephone who was from the Member's office. That is the issue I must determine.
What may have flowed from that may be of great importance, but it is not a matter with which the Speaker of the House of Commons can deal.
October 27, 1987

I listened to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston the other day and again today. I think I have the fact pattern as he has presented it, clearly and effectively. If I have not, if there is something missing, I would invite the Hon. Member perhaps to conclude with it in a moment or two.
I want to say to the Hon. Solicitor General that I appreciate his courtesy in coming back to the House on this matter. I have listened carefully to what has been said. I will look very carefully at everything that has been said. However, I think we cannot stray here on a point of privilege into other matters that may very well be the subject of a debate in this place but under another procedure.
I would ask the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, if he feels there is anything else the Chair needs to know, perhaps to wrap up his argument. I am taking the matter seriously and 1 am listening very carefully.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in view of your concerns, I will conclude by referring once again to this memorandum. I repeat a particular sentence where the warden says: "Such conduct on the part of an Inmate Committee Chairman is totally unacceptable to me". In other words, what the warden is saying is that it is totally unacceptable for an inmate to speak to his Member of Parliament and the opposition critic for the Solicitor General.
In conclusion, the Chair would have to find, first, that in fact a telephone conversation was intercepted, regardless of the means, and I think the memorandum and the Solicitor General himself confirm the fact that an official was listening in on the conversation. That is agreed upon. Then, Sir, you would have to decide whether the circumstances are such that my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached, whether it was appropriate for that conversation to be listened to, and the punitive action taken as a result of that particular conversation.
It would be my respectful submission that in fact my privileges have been breached for the reasons I gave today and yesterday. Accordingly, I would ask you, Sir, to find that my privileges have been breached and provide me with the opportunity to move the necessary motion to refer this matter to the Committee on Elections and Privileges for a complete and thorough review and recommendation to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. I wonder if the Hon. Solicitor General could help the Chair on just one question? And I again thank the Hon. Solicitor General for his courtesy in coming back here immediately to help us. Can the Hon. Solicitor General advise me whether there was available a private telephone that this particular person could have used to discuss whatever it was he
Business of the House
had to discuss or wished to discuss with his Member of Parliament? Was there any other form of telephone communication other than that available in the open room where apparently there were some members of staff?


James Francis Kelleher: No, Mr. Speaker, there was not, nor is there one anywhere in the prison. We do have a special room with a telephone that is, if I may use the phrase, clear or clean, when an inmate wishes to talk to his solicitor. We fully respect the solicitor-client privilege. When that is the object of the call, he is taken to that room. He is left alone and there is no such warning on the telephone. It is an absolutely clean and clear line to the solicitor.
This was not that type of call. As I understand it, it was not to the Hon. Member in his capacity as solicitor for the inmate but in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. For that reason, he was not taken to that other room.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Solicitor General for assisting the Chair in this matter. I would say to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston that the Chair will give this matter very careful consideration.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House with respect to the business for tomorrow and the next day that we will be considering Bill C-46, which is an Act to revise the Royal Canadian Mint; Bill C-75, which is an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia with respect to energy; and Bill C-76 and Bill C-77, which are in relation to the Emergency Preparedness Act and the War Measures Act.
We would reserve the right to change the order of those items in order to facilitate the business of the House. I have indicated to my hon. colleagues that in view of the earlier disruption of the business of the House for 15 minutes, and since there is no vote with respect to the opposition day topic, the Government would be prepared to extend the time allotted from 6 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. to allow for the time lost while we were outside.
I would also advise my hon. colleague, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, with respect to the House Leaders' meeting which was scheduled for 3.30 p.m., that since we have been tied up and we all have other things to do, I think, in view of the events of the day and other events which are taking place, it might be more productive to have a House Leaders' meeting later this week.

October 27, 1987
10450__________________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That this House condemn the Government for negotiating a trade
agreement with the United States that has failed to stop the predatory
practices of the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, and that will;
(a)	lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat;
(b)	undermine the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board;
(c)	reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards;
(d)	reduce the growth opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable
producers;
(e)	adversely affect the Canadian wine and grape industry;
(f)	provide little benefit for red meat producers; and
(g)	Provide no new benefit for farmers purchasing farm equipment or other
farm inputs.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock p.m., the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap (Mr. Riis) had the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pick up where I left off prior to Question Period. I think it might be appropriate to indicate that today we are in fact debating a motion put by the New Democratic Party regarding the free trade deal, that this House condemn the Government for negotiating a trade agreement with the United States that has failed to stop the predatory practices of the U.S. Export Enhancement Program which will provide little benefit for wheat producers, reduce the growth opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable producers and adversely affect the Canadian wine and grape industry. It will provide no new benefit for farmers purchasing farm equipment or other farm inputs. It will reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards. It will undermine the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Finally, it will lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat.
It was difficult to include all our concerns regarding the trade deal with the United States as it impinges on agriculture. But I believe that it can be summarized by looking at a number of examples. I will take a moment just to refer to one example, and there could be many. I chose this one because of the situation near my constituency where there has been quite a substantial effort over the last little while to develop a grape and wine industry.
The Okanagan Valley is one of the very few places in Canada, along with the Annapolis Valley, the Niagara Peninsula, a small area of Quebec, and other areas in the central interior of British Columbia, which have the climatic
and soil conditions that make the growth of grapes and soft tree fruits possible. In some cases it is relatively marginal but, nevertheless, it is possible. Over the last little while the grape growers have developed vineyards on the hillsides of the Okanagan Valley and they have developed small cottage wineries. The large wineries have opened up facilities as well in the area to process both local grapes and imported grapes. They have developed a substantial wine industry.
Today, when these wine industries from across Canada compete internationally they are able to compete head to head with some of the major wineries of Spain, France, California and other areas. But I think it is fair to say that in western Canada this industry is still struggling in terms of establishing itself in both the domestic and international markets.
I had an opportunity just this morning to meet with a group of representatives of the Grape Growers Action Committee. The story that they put before us was a story of tragedy. As they reminded us, and as most Members of Parliament know, the Canadian grape and wine industry provides 16,000 jobs in this country, and many other jobs in related industries such as fertilizer, equipment, and the usual jobs of shopkeepers and others who service this particular community.
They also reminded us that farm gate receipts for last year for the grape crop were about $40 million. It was much more when the multiplier effect is considered because this money as cash flow snowballs into support industries such as financial institutions, chemical institutions, fertilizer institutions, brokers, shippers, labour, various personal expenses and, of course, taxes at the municipal, provincial, regional and federal levels. One could go on. Obviously, this is a sector of our agricultural community that has made a real dint in establishing new markets here and overseas.
The problem that they brought to our attention was that this free trade deal will wipe them out. It will destroy this industry. The pricing situation of mark-ups will be reduced as a result of this deal. They are convinced that their industry will be eliminated. I guess I cannot describe accurately or adequately what it was like to meet these representatives of the grape growing industry and to talk to one woman in particular. As a matter of fact, she said that her husband could not have joined her because he was simply so distressed and so angered and feeling such a sense of betrayal that he could not bring himself to come to meet with Members of Parliament. He and his family struggled to establish their grape growing vineyard. Now, through no fault of their own, the Government has decided to eliminate their farm. Something that he could not tolerate was coming to Ottawa and talking in a serious way to Members of Parliament. So his wife came, along with others in the Grape Growers Action Committee.
They explained that in parts of Canada these people had been growing grapes and had been on the land for four or five generations. Many of them came in the 1800s to the Niagara Peninsula area to establish their operations. To think that generation after generation after generation is now going to be
October 27, 1987

eliminated as a way of life because of this free trade deal is something that I do not think we can tolerate. I do not think we can sit back and accept that. That is the presentation that they made. That is the fact of this matter. We are talking about thousands of people losing there livelihoods.
These people are special because, as you know, Madam Speaker, their operations are in a part of Canada where land use regulation is very extreme. These areas have been identified as some of the few good agricultural areas in Canada. The climatic and soil conditions are conducive to the development of soft tree fruits and related agricultural products. So land use regulations have been brought in to keep that land in that use. These people now find themselves in a situation in which the Government has decided that it will eliminate the grape growers and, to a large extent, all of the soft tree fruit industry as well as a result of this free trade deal. But these people are locked in to lands that are regulated or zoned for agricultural use only. So they cannot even sell their property. They cannot redevelop into other areas because of the land use regulations.
1 can only describe it as a personal tragedy for myself to have to listen to person after person explain what this deal meant to them. I suspect that if we had an opportunity to sit down with agricultural groups from Nova Scotia clear through to Vancouver Island we would be seeing people and talking to people expressing that same view. They would express the fact that they and their forefathers had been on the land, in some cases for many generations, and they now find themselves in the intolerable and unacceptable position of having to abandon their livelihoods and their agricultural commitments.
Many aspects of this trade deal concern us. We were anticipating, of course, that the binding dispute settlement mechanism would have been brought in so that when countervails were levied against certain agricultural products we would have a neutral objective third party that would arbitrate and decide on that so-called aggravation. Such is not the case. The binding dispute settlement mechanism is no more than a review panel which will simply review whether or not American laws have been broken.
1 think it is fair to say that if an American lobby group launches a countervail process it will ensure that the laws of the United States are being followed. That brings us little comfort because the laws of the United States are extremely protectionist. They have a built-in bias against imports coming into the United States from Canada. For those in the red meat industry, where we have always had free trade for all intents and purposes, they are still subject to the countervail threat. The Americans can look up into Canada now and identify what they determine to be subsidy programs for our beef producers and our red meat processors. If they determine that we are subsidizing, then of course they can launch a countervail. We were under the assumption that a free trade deal would have removed that continuous threat. We notice with hogs that the retention of the 4.4 cents per pound countervail stays in place against live hog shipments to the United States.
Supply
We were particularly alarmed when we found out the other day that the United States had broken the agreement already. This agreement is in place. It has been signed and both countries have agreed to adhere to the clauses in the agreement. The clause I refer to states that each party has agreed to take into account the export interest of the other Party in the use of any export subsidy on agricultural goods exported to third countries, recognizing that such subsidies may have prejudicial effects on the export interests of the other party.
What we found was that the United States, which has heavily subsidized its grain producers, has now taken initiatives to move into the grain markets that have traditionally been those of Canada: the Soviet Union, China, and to a certain extent India. Now that country is bringing in products, heavily subsidized, into those markets, which will result in one of two things. We will either lose sales to those traditional areas, or in order to compete we will have to drop the price so much that it will make the whole thing totally uneconomical. Those will be the two choices. Either way the Americans have broken the agreement.
When this was raised in the House with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) he stated that he was going to have a chat with the Secretary of State for the United States when he met with him on the weekend. Having a "chat" is little comfort to those thousands and thousands of grain producers who see the United States breaking the agreement that we signed only a few days ago.
I found it interesting reading the University of Maryland study which looked at this particular trade arrangement in relation to agriculture. They determined that, as a result of this trade deal, it would be very good for United States farmers. As a matter of fact, they stated that it would be excellent for United States farmers because those farmers will now gain access for fruit, vegetables, chicken, turkey, eggs, and many other products, where, until this point, they had been cut off through border restrictions of one type or another. They identified as many as 355,000 jobs in the United States that may be preserved or expanded as a result. Again, that brings us little comfort in Canada.
We have heard that the United States intends to subsidize its agricultural sector. Last year the United States Export Enhancement Program, and other subsidies for agriculture, amounted to $1.5 billion. That is a great deal of money, and in many areas that made it difficult for our exporters to compete with the United States. Consequently, we were hoping that those farm subsidies would be reduced. To our dismay, we have found that not only have they been increased, but they have been significantly increased. This coming year the United States will subsidize its agricultural sector to the tune of $4 billion. If we think that in the past we have had difficulty competing with the United States in agriculture, we have not seen anything yet. Those heavily subsidized products will cause us trouble in the market-place.

October 27, 1987
Supply
The supply management practices that will be allowed to continue in Canada as a result of this agreement raise a concern, because the products from the supply management systems will be sold to the processing industries. The processing industries will also be able to purchase more products from the United States. Of course, the United States will be selling them much cheaper than we do in Canada. We have identified the various areas, and I do not have to repeat the list, but they include areas such as chicken, turkey, shelled, processed and powdered eggs, and so on. Those products will now be allowed into Canada on an increased basis to compete with our producers. Those products will be allowed in at lower rates because of cheaper costs to do business in the United States. That will cause our farmers problems.
Unfortunately, my time has almost lapsed, and there are many other items that one ought to mention. In summary, as I stated at the outset, in our estimation, this deal with the United States that includes agriculture has been the deciding factor as to the future of the family farm in Canada. All parliamentarians, particularly those who represent rural or semi-rural areas, realized that we reached a point where the Government of Canada had to decide whether we would support our farmers in an up-front real manner in terms of making a commitment not only to the farm but to the farm family and the small towns and the rural parts of Canada, or whether we were going to abandon that and allow agribusiness or corporate agriculture to come in by and large initiated from the United States.
Unfortunately, the time has now come and it would appear that the Government has made its decision. The jury has indicated its decision which seems to me has been very clearly against the family farm in favour of corporate agriculture and, much to my chagrin, corporate agriculture sponsored, financed, and controlled largely from the United States. It is a sad day for Canadian agriculture and Canada.


Mr. Manly:: I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on the fledgling wine industry in his constituency. That is also something that is happening in the Cowichan Valley. It causes me concern as we see this Mulroney trade deal being pushed through. It will destroy or make very difficult the possibility of developing that industry in different parts of Canada.
Like most Members of this House, I enjoy drinking wine from a wide variety of places, including British Columbia, Ontario, and Europe. It is important that we try to develop our own industry. We do not need to be exclusive devotees of one particular part of the country and state that we will only drink wine from British Columbia or from the Niagara Peninsula, but it is an important part of Canada's development.
I was interested in the comments of Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail today where he stated:
The wine issue, peripheral in itself to the free trade debate, nevertheless
illustrates the nibble-nibble strategy of free trade opponents. Throughout the
country, there are groups whose interests will be adversely affected by the deal.
On behalf of each of these we can expect free trade opponents to make a
special appeal.
The implication is that the wine industry is not that important in the over-all picture of the trade deal that we are talking about. The Hon. Member pointed out that we are talking about 16,000 jobs. I would like him to comment on those 16,000 jobs, and how they all add up to what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) talked about, a possible loss of 500,000 jobs.
I would be interested in hearing the Hon. Member's comments on the relationship of those 16,000 jobs to the total
500.000	jobs that could be lost through this deal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to receive a thoughtful question from the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). As usual, he has raised a critical point in this discussion. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) indicated both outside and inside the House that, when the final analysis is done, there could be a loss in Canada of up to 500,000 jobs. The Minister stated that there was a possibility it could be as high as
500.000	jobs, although it might be less.
Today we are focusing our attention on the agricultural sector. It is unfortunate that we have to rely only on the opposition Parties to enable debate to take place in the House. We decided that we will use whatever days are available to debate it here, since the Government has indicated not much interest in debating it on the floor of the House, at least at this stage.
My friend asks if those 16,000 jobs are simply part of a pattern leading up to the half million job losses. I wish to say to him that the 16,000 jobs that will be lost in the grape and wine sector are not even the whole picture. There are two other critical aspects. Many other jobs will be lost. If 16,000 jobs are lost in the grape and wine sector, to a certain extent related jobs will also be lost, for example, the equipment that is used, the services and supplies required, and the jobs of other individuals such as shopkeepers and professionals like dentists, teachers, and nurses who are associated with that healthy, viable economy in the Niagara Peninsula.
Perhaps what is more important is the point made by my hon. friend that in his area of British Columbia, Vancouver Island, a fledgling wine industry is getting started. One could make the same claim for other parts of Canada, specifically, the Province of Quebec. That province has certain areas where the climatic and soil conditions are adequate to develop a vineyard industry, and it is just beginning. As we are seeing this new industry beginning to develop across Canada, it is being put on the chopping block, its head hacked off, and its growth stopped. It is that conscious decision to cut off the ability of this new industry to grow and expand that we find very disappointing. Not only do we lose 16,000 jobs directly, but other jobs are lost that are indirectly related to the grape and wine industry, plus the future jobs that will now not be there. This is an industry that will not be permitted to expand
October 27, 1987

and grow because of the unfair competition that it will be receiving from the United States.
The Hon. Member has raised a very important point. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity, because time does not permit it, to go through every sector of the agricultural community and every other sector which will be hit by the trade deal between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan. Perhaps, if time permits, we will have an opportunity to raise those points in another forum.


Mr. Caldwell:: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate because I see that once again the opposition Parties are using the same tactics they have been using for the past several months, that is, to scare the daylights out of Canadians. This time they are trying to scare the farming community about what is entailed in the bilateral agreement.
They mentioned that it reduced the growth of supply management marketing boards. However, the Hon. Member did not point out how they would do that because it simply is not true. He talked about the numbers of chickens, turkeys, and eggs which will flow into Canada because of the agreement. It was simply not true, and he knows that. That is why they will not get into the detail of the agreement. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) also knows that, if he understands agriculture and understands how the supply management system in the country works. I am not sure that they know how it works; I do not think they know how it works.
They also talked about reduced growth in opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable producers. How will this happen? I do not know how it will happen. Canada has been a leader in the export of fruit and vegetables, and we will continue that.
I have a company located in my particular riding, the H. J. Heinz Company, which has been selling ketchup to the States for the last number of years. It is increasing that market because it is producing a premium product, and it will continue to do so despite the reduction of tariffs.
We also have the greenhouse industry in my particular area. It has opened up a whole new market. Rather than shipping to Montreal and Toronto, it will now be able to ship to Detroit, Chicago, and such areas duty-free. They are looking at that market and saying, "We are going to go for it".
The Hon. Member is not looking at the future of agriculture. Agriculture will change whether or not we like it. Ten years ago producers in my riding were shipping tomatoes in bushel baskets. Today they take them in huge wagons and water takes them out into the plant. That is what the difference is.
Ten years ago Members of the House of Commons did not know what a greenhouse cucumber looked like, these English cucumbers. People thought they were zucchini. Millions of
Supply
dollars in export sales are now taking place in that particular area.
The Hon. Member says that we are going to lose everything. He talked about his wine industry. I have a wine industry in my particular area. The producers of those wines-and I will give them a plug: Pelee Island wines, Charal wines, and Colio wines-have been doing very well. They are looking optimistically at shipping wine into the Detroit-Chicago market.


Steven W. Langdon: Oh, come on!


James Eber Caldwell: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor does not understand that. He wants to close the walls around Canada and never mind our $2.7 billion in exports every year.
The Hon. Member also mentioned hogs and that the agreement would provide little benefit for red meat producers. What utter nonsense. Thirty per cent of our pork production now goes to the United States, some $676 million worth of hogs last year. Do we not want access to that market, or do we once again close up the walls and produce for ourselves? Do we want to have Ontario producers cut back by 30 per cent? Do we want to put the people of Quebec who process this meat out of work or out of business?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for questions and comments has expired, although I will give a minute or so to the other side-


Mr. St. Germain:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we seek unanimous consent of the House to continue with the question and answer portion with the Hon. Member?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Had the Hon. Member ended his intervention?


James Eber Caldwell: Well, Madam Speaker-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 think it is more than appropriate to continue if that is the wish of Hon. Members. Certainly I am prepared to do so. However, I like to think of it as a question and answer period, not as a speech. If the Hon. Member wants to give a speech, presumably he will have an opportunity to do so. Let us make it a question and answer period so that we can have some dialogue back and forth.


James Eber Caldwell: Madam Speaker, I was only responding to some of the items which the Hon. Member raised. Because he left so many unanswered questions, I thought I had to fill in the blanks. I was not too sure whether he was aware of what it would do.

October 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
I did not see anything in the particular agreement which would back up any of the facts they have put forth. That was the point I was trying to make.
Where does he find the facts that say that it will reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards? Where does it say that in the agreement? Where does it say that it will adversely affect red meat producers? Where does it say that? I do not see where it says that in the agreement.
I ask him to point out in detail where these things are in the agreement, for example, that it will reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards? Where does it say that in the agreement? On what page?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my hon. friend. He knows that we do not have an agreement before us. There is no agreement.
He asks where these things are in the agreement. He has not seen the agreement. Nobody has seen the agreement. I do not think, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, that even you have seen the agreement. That is what we are trying to say is part of the problem.
How are we to have an informed, intelligent debate, particularly across the country, and hear from the people who are directly involved, before we have an opportunity to view the agreement?
The question my hon. friend puts is where I get my information from. We attended briefing sessions. It is not in the document, which just contains some vague reference to the whole deal. There were briefing sessions by various sectors to inform Members of Parliament. We asked those questions, and representatives of the Government at government-sponsored hearings told us these things. That is where we got the information from.
My hon. friend also asked where those things were said in the agreement. They were not said in the agreement, and that is the precise point. What will the Government take across the country to hold hearings in Kent County or throughout the Niagara Peninsula on an agreement which not a single Canadian has ever seen? In a sense, I guess I am asking a question of my hon. friend.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick)-Agriculture-Edmonton food production inspection plant laboratory; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North
Centre (Mr. Keeper)-Canada Post Corporation-Meeting protesting plans for future service/Women-position of Minister; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Nuclear energy-Reported design flaws in United States Perry nuclear generating station.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Althouse:
That this House condemn the government for negotiating a trade agreement with the United States that has failed to stop the predatory practices of the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, and that will;
(a)	lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat;
(b)	undermine the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board;
(c)	reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards;
(d)	reduce the growth opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable producers;
(e)	adversely affect the Canadian wine and grape industry;
(f)	provide little benefit for red meat producers; and
(g)	provide no new benefit for farmers purchasing farm equipment or other farm inputs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming
debate-


Gerry St. Germain: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a question for the Hon. Member, and we had unanimous consent of the House to continue with the question period.


Don Boudria: No, no. It was for them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There was unanimous consent to continue the exchange between the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). There does not seem to be consent to continue now, so I think we should resume debate.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that during the few minutes my colleague from Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell) spoke he demonstrated his knowledge of the agricultural sector, and on a sector by sector basis we are in a position to appreciate the obvious benefits flowing from such an agreement. Quoting figures right and left or resorting to scare tactics will not prove anything, such an approach can only be a source of concern for Canada's agricultural community. A closer look at the censure motion sponsored by our distinguished colleagues in the
October 27, 1987

Opposition shows that most of their grievances about the free trade agreement can be traced back to their erroneous interpretation of the documents we have before us, Madam Speaker.
There is no doubt in my mind that the benefits of this agreement are unparalleled. As a matter of fact, the agreement negotiated with our main trading partner gives us access to the American market and unveils challenging prospects for the coming century. This has to be reassuring, if only because over the past two years the Canadian agricultural community has grown ever more concerned about the protectionist stance of our neighbours to the south. I suggest it was to some extent unanimously felt that we had to do something. We had to take some concrete action to get out of the status quo. Without this Free Trade Agreement, we had to expect the possible narrowing of our outlets in our most important market. Because of this agreement, Canada will get a more secure and a duty free access to the American market for our agricultural exports. That is undeniably a step forward.
Madam Speaker, I just cannot understand the sort of stubbornness with which our colleagues are trying to denigrate this agreement. Should we conclude that, as Members of the Opposition parties, they have chosen to oppose at any cost a major policy of this Government which, need I emphasize it, has nothing to do with party politics. Madam Speaker, we are taking up a challenge which will make it possible for our children and for Canadians to enter at full speed in the 21st century, to stand up, without hiding behind curtains, and to show that we are quite able to trade with the rest of the world, without any concern.
These bilateral negotiations, need 1 emphasize it, have been conducted brilliantly. The resulting agreement will go down in history as one of the most positive and most significant events for a trading nation such as Canada. These negotiations were not carried out in secret, Madam Speaker. And all the while they lasted, numerous committees and subcommittees advised our negotiators on the views held by Canadians on each of the issues on the table. This should not be a surprise to anyone. It is consistent with this Government's disposition over the past three years to consult the Canadians for whom we are working. I think we should not feel embarrassed about that-we had consultations with people. There was a sub-committee on agriculture, and people from every region, every industry, processors, producers, everyone was consulted. Everyone could make his contribution to help negotiators at the table.
Courage and political vision were needed to admit that most industries in our farming economy could not survive alone, without external trade. And since the United States are by far our major customer, buying a third of our total agri-food exports, it would have been stupid not to take that golden opportunity, free trade. We are often told by the Opposition: Let us forget about negotiations with the Americans, let us negotiate at the GATT level. As if it were easier to agree with
Supply
94 nations scattered over all the continents, with different needs and goals, when we have a customer next door with whom we have close affinities and with whom we are already trading!
An. Hon. Member: Our natural market!


Pierre Blais: -our natural market close by. They tell us: No, do not negotiate, forget about that. Let us not put all our eggs in one basket, as I heard. That is ridiculous, Madam Speaker. We owe our people and our producers in Canada to be secure, to maintain what we already have acquired. That is important, and we owe it to our producers. And in the face of the growing threat of tariff and non-tariff barriers, non only in the United States but elsewhere in the world, faced with that wind of protectionism that was blowing, we had to move, we had to do something. We could not stay still and wait for new protectionist moves falling on us every six months. It takes courage and political vision to act that way. That is a responsible government, Madam Speaker.
I think we at last have the possibility to put an end to certain protectionist practices which have been disastrous in the past, disrupted trade and caused severe problems to many areas of our economy, especially agriculture. Canada simply could no longer afford the luxury of maintaining the status quo.
Concerning some of the objections contained in the motion, I think, Madam Speaker, that no one wants to undermine the powers of national marketing boards. The new free trade agreement, as my colleague from Essex-Kent mentioned earlier, does not undermine these boards or the supply management system which is the reason why they exist. It would be foolish, Madam Speaker, to abandon a system whose value and efficiency are recognized worldwide. Last year only, delegations from over twenty countries came to Canada to see how our marketing system works. It is a model for every one. This proven marketing system does not put any pressure on world surpluses in the agri-food area. It is a system based on discipline.
As my colleague, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said this week or last week about our negotiations with GATT, we are trying, as a country, to bring our trading partners and other countries working in the agricultural field to think of where we are going with this international subsidy war. Canada was the second country, out of 94, to express its intentions internationally in the agricultural field. We are leading other countries and people know where we are going. We are saying: Stop this war. But this is no reason to reject the proven system we have in Canada, a system we will never abandon unless we can replace it with a better one. We owe this to our Canadian agricultural producers who worked hard for years to build a system that works.
And it is being irresponsible for people outside the House and on the Opposition side to try to have the producers believe that we are putting that system at stake. That is not the case at all, Madam Speaker. And we owe it to Canadian producers

October 27, 1987
Supply
themselves. If other marketing agencies were ever to be created in other sectors . . . and there is a feasibility study being conducted currently on a possible marketing agency for potatoe producers. We will realize once we get that report and give it due consideration that this Government by no means intends to give up its responsibilities in this area. And if there is a demand for a marketing board for hogs, for instance, the Government will then proceed. Nothing in this Accord prevents us from taking such an action. We will let the Canadian agricultural producers decide what kind of agriculture they want. These are the terms of this agreement: Canadian agriculture is not tied up. It's up to us to preserve the systems that make up the very basis of our agriculture.
Another concern expressed in the motion is that Canadian fruit and vegetable producers would suffer from reduced growth of their industry. I have to point out, Madam Speaker, that on the contrary some products from the horticultural sector could greatly benefit from increased export opportunities, particularly to the northeastern United States. This could be the case with potatoes, cabbage, carrots and onions. I have already met personnally with people in the fruit and vegetable sector, and they are much aware of that. Given the importance of that sector in Canada, special provisions have been negotiated. Present tariffs will be gradually eliminated, as in other sectors, over a 10 year period.
However, over a period of twenty years, both countries will have the right to temporarily restore present tariffs if export prices fall to abnormal levels. In other words, if an increase in fresh fruit and vegetable imports from the U.S. drives down Canadian prices, we will be able to re-establish our seasonal tariffs. This a safeguard that we have. We understand that our climate creates difficulties. We are fully aware of this fact. But we also understand that this sector should be dynamic on its own. Over the years, Madam Speaker, Canadian agricultural producers have always adjusted to market pressures both at home and internationally. During the past few years, the federal Government has constantly done everything so Canadian producers could get the kind of system they want in Canada. We saw this, for instance, when a tripartite stabilization system was introduced. Discussions had been going on for ten or fifteen years in this country.
Our Government managed to get a consensus, with patience and through consultation, not with the kind of unbending and unilateral approach we had seen for twenty years before that. Not that way. Our Government consults. Our Government acknowledges the regional differences in this country. Our Government realizes that people have the right to speak and express their opinions.
In fact, Madam Speaker, the Agreement does not prevent Canada from continuing to prohibit consignment imports and monitoring shipments of goods in non-standardized bulk containers on international and interprovincial markets.
Furthermore, the assertion that red meat producers benefit very little under the Agreement is surprising, to say the least.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent said as much a while ago. One would have to be blind not to see the obvious advantage to us of opening up our markets in the red meat industry. Is it because they don't understand the new mechanisms that have been introduced? I don't know to what extent they understand our testing system, but I think it seems pretty straightforward.
The Canadian red meat industry, whose main market is the United States, will benefit from the elimination of tariffs. Both countries have also agreed to exempt each other from restrictions on cattle imports. The advantages of a North American market in this sector are obvious. In the beef sector, Canadian beef producers will benefit from the exemption granted to Canada under the provisions of the U.S. Meat Import Law. Since the United States is by far the most important market for Canadian beef-our exports totalled about $400 million in 1986 alone-we had to obtain more secure access to this market. This is a very important part of the Agreement for Canada, and especially for Western Canada. We all know, and we saw this again today, what a poor opinion the Opposition has of the people in Western Canada. However, this Government recognizes the distinctiveness of all our regions and their contribution to this country. That is the difference. That is why this Government is a truly national Government. And we will continue to make it so.
And now, what about Canadian hog producers? Our exports of hogs, pork and pork products are worth $630 million. If we add beef as well, we get a total of over $1 billion. Need I remind Hon. Members of the recent disruption caused by several American states when they wrongfully resorted to technicalities to set up trade barriers? Remember chloramphenicol! I think the present attitude in our negotiations is such that we should be able to avoid further non-tariff barriers.
Madam Speaker, it would be to the net advantage of the Canadian red meat sector to have freer and more extensive access to a market of 235 million consumers. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Pork Council and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have had some very positive things to say in this respect. I think that a quick look at the agreement concluded in the agricultural sector will show that we have kept our word.


An Hon. Member:: Certainly not!


Pierre Blais: We have always said, and last week the president of the Federation des producteurs de lait du Quebec, who has been in the industry for a long time, told me that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had met his commitments. He always promised to maintain our marketing boards, while making it clear that agriculture was being discussed at the negotiating table. When we know that as part of the negotiations, a sub-committee on agriculture was meeting to discuss agricultural issues, I don't know by what stretch of the
October 27, 1987

imagination anyone could say that agriculture was not on the table.
It is obvious that agriculture was discussed. As one out of every three hogs produced in Canada is sold in the United States, agriculture must obviously be included in any trade negotiations with our neighbours to the south. It is obvious! I therefore believe that we have kept our commitments in this regard by maintaining our marketinig boards. We shall be reviewing this whole sector and if there are any difficulties in the future because of the lower tariffs, we shall certainly deal with them. The various national and provincial federations have already begun consultations with us. My colleague the Minister of Agriculture and myself met the Dairy Farmers of Canada last week. We simply discussed the situation calmly, contrary to what we have seen here these last few weeks. I believe that, together, we can continue to build a healthy agricultural sector in Canada, maintain our existing markets and increase them in the United States, which will benefit all Canadians.
This is a historic agreement. Because of our commitment to Canadian farmers, we have no right to reject it and we have no right to let all kinds of false and even mendacious reports go unchallenged. All sorts of things have been said; for instance, that we might lose 80 per cent of our poultry production. This is pure fantasy.
We have kept our import quotas in that sector at the same level as in the last five years. Generally speaking, we have kept our commitments.
You in the Opposition should join with us to ensure that Canada will-


Don Boudria: I can rise on a point of order if you wish.


Pierre Blais: -you still have comments to make. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) could perhaps-


An Hon. Member:: You should rise on a point of order.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on a point of order to invite the Minister not to address the members of the opposition as "you". 1 would like to remind the House, as I am sure that you wanted to do yourself, Madam Speaker, that only the Chair can be addressed as "you". I was not going to raise this point, but I was urged to do it and I am happy to comply.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The message is clear and the Hon. Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) may now conclude.
Supply


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I shall simply conclude by saying that I believe this historic agreement to be good for Canada and for Canadian farm producers. We have no choice. We owe it to our farm producers and to the Canadian population to support this agreement. It is a historic agreement and we should stop playing petty political games. 1 believe that we should now cooperate to help the 25 million Canadians who deserve this agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam
Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Minister. He spoke about many farm groups, but not about the Quebec group, the Union des producteurs agricoles. In fact, the UPA has decided that this is a bad agreement and that it does not do much for farmers.
I also believe that many of the things that the Minister said show why this group, which represents all Quebec farmers, decided to be part of the coalition against free trade in our country. For instance, the Minister talked about access to the United States market. But when we examine the agreement itself, we find it does not provide for the sure access the Government mentioned earlier. That is one thing.
Second, the Minister spoke about fruits and vegetables. The changes the agreement brings for fruit and vegetable growers create enormous problems for them. The Minister spoke of a protection system that might exist. But it will not longer be there if competition between Canada and the United States is removed, as we see now. The competition will exist and will continue without duties, a very precarious situation for Quebec farmers.
That is why that group speaking on behalf of all Quebec farmers declared this is a bad agreement.

The Hon. Minister has talked about pork producers-of which there are many in Essex County-gaining tremendously from this agreement. In fact, as the Minister knows, pork producers will continue to face the present countervail duty. They will also face the possibility of future countervail decisions. There is no possibility of avoiding that. Appeals against any future countervails will consider U.S. law only.
From my reading of the agreement it certainly seems that the United States Government is only committed to using its "best efforts" to prevent the States individually from taking actions which are against the arrangement itself. In short, it will still be possible for any individual American state to take action against any of our agricultural exports, including pork about which the Minister spoke. I ask the Minister to comment on that and the other points which I have raised.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I can see there will be a sharp decline in the extent of the knowledge my colleague, and particularly his Party, have of Quebec. Yesterday they lost the

October 27, 1987
Supply
only anchorman they had in Quebec and already their lack of knowledge about the Quebec situation is readily apparent.


An Hon. Member:: It shows already!


Pierre Blais: It shows already, we can already see how far behind they are with respect to their awareness of Quebec agricultural problems. There is precious little the NDP can teach me about Quebec's agricultural community. Earlier this morning, Madam Speaker, I attended a regional UPA meeting in Beauce where I met six or so groups from every corner of the province, local agricultural producers right where they live.


An Hon. Member:: Jacques Proulx!


Pierre Blais: Yes, I met Mr. Jacques Proulx as well.


An Hon. Member:: What did he say?


Pierre Blais: It is quite obvious that when my colleague brings up the name of the President of the Union des producteurs agricoles or refers to the coalition against free trade with Mrs. Shirley Carr, with the Canadian Auto Workers, of course you are speaking for all of them. I listened very attentively to my colleague. One thing for sure is that I saw-you demonstrated this yesterday-how you let people have their say in your own Party. But I am not in your Party. When I have the floor, let me speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would appreciate it if the Minister were to direct his remarks to the Chair, not to his colleagues in the House. Had the Minister concluded his remarks?
The Minister has the floor.


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I am not used to having people speak at the same time as I do. That is why. I apologize.
As to the question of access to the American market raised a moment ago by my colleague, I would suggest that the positive step we took when signing the agreement shows indeed that we are going to reverse the protectionist process which was gaining ground as weeks and months went by. As I see it, it was a question of principle to convince our neighbours to say: This trench warfare in various sectors has to stop. I think access is guaranteed under the agreement. That is intrinsic, that transpires from the agreement, Madam Speaker.
And whenever he speaks about the pork industry, he forgets to say that the Canadian Pork Council agrees with this Agreement, Madam Speaker, and I do not see why, in those conditions, the issue is being raised. As regards any possible further countervail action, I fail to understand why that party keeps on claiming that that agreement jeopardizes our sovereignty, and at the same time, as soon as there is some evidence that either country can preserve its sovereignty and the ability to act through its existing laws and regulations, some people say: You did nothing, and now you don't solve the problem. Both countries have preserved their sovereignty, Madam Speaker. This is one fundamental issue. We succeeded
in making a progressive deal for both parties, while preserving national sovereignty on both sides of the border. Together in the same direction, that is a good way of describing that deal, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, 1 am very pleased to rise today in this debate on the free trade Agreement and its possible impact on Canadian agriculture. As you know, our colleagues in this House have introduced today that non-confidence motion, whereby they claim that the free trade Agreement will first lead to the elimination of our two-price system for wheat and, second, undermine the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, reduce the growth of supply management marketing boards, as well as the growth opportunities for Canadian fruit and vegetable producers.
Madam Speaker, I have looked at this motion with great interest and 1 must say that I agree with most of the issues that it raises. I was recently reading an article in a newspaper which said that this free trade deal was going to put Canadian agriculture through the meat grinder. 1 think this term best describes how my constituents feel about this deal. I know the Minister intends to visit my constituency shortly and that we will both participate in a debate on free trade. At least, this is the information 1 have. The Minister will probably indicate his support for the deal and, as you surely have guessed, Madam Speaker, I intend to say to my constituents-and they already know it-that this deal is bad for Canadian agriculture.
The Minister said earlier that many vegetable growers were happy with the free trade deal. This is strange because members of the Liberal caucus met last week with representatives of the Canadian Horticultural Council who told us that their industry would suffer a lot from this deal. Where then does the Minister get his information? I do not know, Madam Speaker. The Quebec Union des Producteurs Agricoles said recently that agriculture was sacrificed in this deal between Canada and the U.S.
Madam Speaker, why does the Government of Canada want Canadian agriculture to be similar to American agriculture? Must we have the same systems? I do not think so. Madam Speaker, 1.5 millions U.S. farmers are going bankrupt. Is that what we want for our farmers? Canadian agriculture has enough problems as it is and we should all work together to improve the lot of our producers instead of trying to put them in a situation similar to that of American farmers.
The Minister says that we are being partisan. Madam Speaker, you know better. You know that I never show any partisanship in this House, and I do not intend to change my ways today or in the coming days. However, this is an issue where all Canadians have a right to be partisan and all Members have a right to voice the hopes and aspirations of
October 27, 1987

their constituents. This free trade deal, so they say, is the greatest trade agreement ever signed in the history of humanity. It is therefore a major issue, one that all Members will want to discuss.
Madam Speaker, in 1983, someone said, and I quote: "Sleeping with an elephant may be exciting until the elephant starts to move. If the elephant turns around, you are a dead man." And that same person said also: "That is why the issue of free trade was decided the way it was in the 1911 election. This would affect our Canadian sovereignty, which would no longer exist, even during leardership campaigns or in similar circumstances."
Do you know who said that, Madam Speaker? Well, if you hadn't guessed, it was the present Prime Minister when he was campaigning for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Hard to believe, isn't it, that this Prime Minister who almost always tells us the truth, could have made such a statement and then change his mind and go back on his word. Nevertheless, it is true the present Prime Minister made the statement and then changed his mind when on March 17, 1985, he sang When Irish Eyes Are Smiling with the President of United States, a song that did irreparable harm to my television set. It has never been the same since.
In any case, I have to say, Madam Speaker ... I am looking at the Conservative Member opposite, and I will try to slow down so he will be able to understand as well. I am going to talk about what many Canadians have said about this Free Trade Agreement.
I have here a brief that was submitted to all Members in October 1986 by the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers. I will quote a passage from this brief, in which the Federation said as follows: "In this statement, the Federation wishes to reiterate its firm conviction that dismantling or disrupting any of our existing policies and programs, including the program for milk supply management, would be totally unacceptable". And what happened, Madam Speaker? As we all know, the supply management system has three main components: production quotas, quantitative import restrictions and tariff barriers. Those are the three pillars of our supply management system.
As all farmers who are listening and watching today will know, when you have a three-legged milk stool and you take away one of the legs, chances are it will fall over. And in the Free Trade Agreement, one of the three legs has been partly dismantled. I am of course referring to the tariff barriers that have been eliminated. In our milk supply management system, for instance, we had tariffs on yogurt and ice cream imports. And if anyone thinks the production of ice cream is negligible, 4.6 million hectolitres of milk are used annually to make ice cream, and a little less than half a million hectolitres to make yogurt. Which means that a considerable amount of industrial milk is used in the process. By dismantling tariff barriers, about 5 per cent of Canada's dairy industry will suffer a certain amount of damage.
Supply
It is true we have not abolished the quota system. It is true we have not abolished our import quotas. But it is not true to say our dairy industry has come out of this unscathed. That is false, because damage has been done as a result of the step taken by the Conservative Government.
Other areas of agriculture have been affected, and in far greater measure. For instance, the poultry sector has not only had tariff barriers removed, as did supply management in milk, imports from the United States will be increased from 31 million kilograms to 37 million kilograms. In other words, we have given them the right to increase their exports to us by 20 per cent.


James Eber Caldwell: That is not so.


Don Boudria: The Member opposite indicates that that is not so. It is so. That information was given to Members of the House, including myself, by Mike Gifford, who was briefing us on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).


James Eber Caldwell: Say what he said, then.


Don Boudria: The Member opposite may say that they used the last five years of what was being sent to this country when there were temporary shortages of supply, averaged it out, and increased their amounts by a similar amount. Although that would be technically correct, what should be remembered is that supply management in chicken is organized in such a way that there will always be shortages so that future shortages will be in addition to that six million kilograms we already let them have for nothing.
If that was not bad enough, instead of using a cumulative average over the last five years, they took a constant of the five years prior to the agreement being signed. That included the year 1984, which had a large amount of imports into Canada, and goes to a further disadvantage in the system. I challenge the Hon. Member opposite to deny that that is the case. In other words, had we used a rolling average, we would eventually have got rid of that 1984 year. That was overlooked by the negotiators, unfortunately, or it was unacceptable to the Americans. Either way, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it has caused damage to the Canadian agriculture industry.
I have here a press release from the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency. I would like to read just one line from the press release. It is dated October 7, 1987, just two days after the announcement of the free trade agreement. It says in part:
We do not agree however that the chicken industry should be undermined by eliminating one of its very necessary underpinnings-tariffs. We will be working diligently in the months ahead to see if some accommodations can be made to the deal in order to ensure that our industry is preserved to the benefit of all Canadians.

October 27, 1987
Supply
Very clearly this industry does not like the free trade agreement one bit.
Why did we get into the free trade discussions to start with, particularly when we knew of the commitments made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he campaigned for the Leadership of the Conservative Party some time ago? The Prime Minister had a conversion on the way to Damascus because he decided that in view of U.S. protectionism we needed to secure our access to the American markets, or so he said, and, second, we should have an independent dispute settling mechanism. That sounds nice, perhaps, to some people. However, what did we get? We got a dispute settling mechanism that is going to work using American laws, and as if that were not bad enough, we have a binding dispute settling mechanism which is binding on Canadians but potentially not on the United States. Of course, as we know, under the U.S. Constitution it is impossible to provide measures in such a way as to link a future Congress of the United States. In other words, if the Americans wanted to change their laws in the future which would make certain things countervailable that are not so now, we have no means of stopping a future U.S. Congress from doing so.
The problem, of course, is going to be, and is for us, that the alleged gains we would have from signing such an agreement have not happened, and in return we have given far too much away to the United States in order to secure a so-called comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement.

Madam Speaker, I hear an Hon. Member opposite saying we did not give that much.
For the past 15 minutes now, Madam Speaker, I have been explaining to Hon. Members what we gave and what we did not get in return, and he does not understand anything. He does not understand anything. Well, that is too bad for him. I am sure his constituents will give him a lesson if he will not learn by listening to Hon. Members in this House.
The wine and grape industry, for instance, Madam Speaker, what did it gain from that free trade agreement? And I now ask this House: What did it lose? The wine and grape industry has lost its livelihood or will lose most of it. What did it gain? Next to nothing.
Madam Speaker, many other Canadian industries are losing out.
In conclusion, the withdrawal of seasonal tariffs, for instance, in the fruits and vegetables industry, in the marketgardening industry, is clear indication of another major loss. And the Hon. Member opposite who comes from southwestern Ontario knows that. I suggest he take a position on that issue because producers in his area have lost a lot. The chicken industry has lost, the dairy industry has lost, market-gardening has lost. How many other farm industries have, and will lose
out when we see the list of detailed documents? Madam Speaker, we have lost enough. In my view, producers in my constituency should not be forced to lose anything more than they already have.

I would ask the Conservative Members opposite to shake up their Prime Minister and convince him that he should not be signing that free trade agreement. Not only is it not good for the majority of Canadians, a fact which is already established, but it is not good for the Canadian farming industry. It is not good for agriculture. The agreement is bad for Canada. It is bad for agriculture, and the farmers of my riding will not forgive the Tories opposite. They have breached a solemn promise they made to the people of my riding and to all Canadians. Canadians will not forget. They will remember the Tories in the next election. If there are any Tories left in the constituency I represent after the next election, I am sure they will be called upon to answer to the people of Canada. They will be asked to explain why they have betrayed the mandate that was given to them.
The Prime Minister keeps talking about his sacred trust and those commitments he has made, and so on. Well, he has breached a solemn commitment he made in 1983, and many times there after. If I were the Prime Minister, I would change my mind right now, because it is not too late for him to repent. It is not too late for him to tell the people of Canada that he goofed, that he is sorry for what he did. We are willing to give him a second chance. We are willing to do that. It is up to him now to apologize to the people of Canada for having done what he did. He should start over, and this time he should do it right. I am willing to give him a chance. Let us see him do it.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the commitments he made to agriculture, but he did not tell us specifically which commitments the Prime Minister has not kept. I have been waiting to hear what they are. The Hon. Member talks about his farmers and the problems he is having with the free trade agreement. Can he specifically tell me what is going on with the dairy farmers in his riding? Is there a problem there? The Hon. Member was not specific. We pledged that the marketing and supply system of this country would not be altered. Is the Hon. Member telling us that that has been done? I would like to hear the answer to that in specific terms. Exactly what is the Hon. Member's problem with our commitment to the marketing and supply systems for agriculture in this country and how they are potentially going to be dealt with in the agreement?
I want to know specifically what it is he is communicating to his constituents. I believe it is the job of all Members of Parliament to communicate and to give information, certainly to tell the truth to the primary producers. I do not think that has been very clear in the dialogue so far.
October 27, 1987


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that is certainly an interesting question. I never thought that there would ever be a Tory with the nerve to ask me to recite into the record how many promises the Prime Minister has breached. However, when given the chance 1 will try to do that. I am willing to give it a try. I have here the book of 338 Tory promises. I just happen to have a copy here. I may have referred to this document before. Let me start here under "A" as in agriculture. No. 1:
Abolish the capital gains tax on the sale of farm property for continued agricultural purposes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: That promise was only half breached, of course, because the Tories put in place a maximum. Promise No. 3:
Allow the Farm Credit Corporation to offer agri-bonds so farmers will have access to reasonably-priced funds.


Mr. Thacker:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 just want to ask the Hon. Member this. Was it not the Liberal Government in Ontario that, the minute it was elected, imposed capital gains tax on its farmers?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I recall in the mid-1970s when the Conservative Government in Ontario imposed a speculation tax which also applied to farmland. Let me continue. Another breached promise is here: "Revise Section 31 of the Income Tax Act"-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Have you read the tax reform paper? You do not read well.


James Eber Caldwell: I rise on a point of order because the Hon. Member has indicated he was going to read some of the promises that we made during the election. I notice that he started out with the first one and then went to the third. Could it be that the second promise is with respect to the elimination of federal sales tax on gasoline products and fuel oils?


Charles James Mayer: That the Liberals put in place.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Let me continue, Madam Speaker. Another promise is here. It states that it will reduce cheese imports by 20 per cent. Is that not a cute promise? We have just signed a treaty that will have the effect of increasing imports of certain dairy products from other countries. Cheese imports have not been reduced by 20 per cent. They are still at exactly the same amount. That is another breached promise.
The Member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Clifford) asked me specifically what the problems were in regard to the dairy sector as they pertain to the Prime Minister's trade deal with his friend Ronnie Reagan. Here are the problems as they affect supply management in the dairy industry.
Supply
There are two products which were under the protection of tariffs for which the tariffs have been eliminated. I see the Hon. Member is not paying attention. We will be asking questions later, Madam Speaker, so you should tell him to sharpen up. What we have is that these tariffs have been eliminated. This could cause an influx of yogurt and ice cream from the United States. If the Hon. Member says that not much milk is used for that, 4.6 million hectolitres are used annually in the production of ice cream and 4.5 million hectolitres are used in the production of yogurt. That is considerable potential damage to the industry.
I say to the Hon. Member across the way that one of the three fundamental underpinnings of supply management has been damaged by the Prime Minister. He has breached a promise to the dairy producers of Canada. He owes them an apology.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Read more of the book.


Mr. Brightwell:: Madam Speaker, I have sat here and 1 have heard the statements made by the Hon. Member. I agree they had some basis in fact, but a great many simply did not. For instance, he mentions the fact that this trade agreement will increase the amount of cheese that will come into Canada. That is simply a fabrication. This gentleman has made it up in his mind, probably because he does not understand what is going on. We maintained our promise. We protected the supply management group in the dairy industry and the poultry industry. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not think in modern times because he talks about milking cows with a three-legged stool. In modern days they put a machine on the cows and milk them that way. 1 think his thinking is in about the same category as that of the people who milked cows with three-legged stools many years ago.
The Hon. Member would know if he looked at his information that about 10 per cent of Canadian dairy products go into yogurt and ice cream, these near-milk products. The reduction of tariffs in those areas, which will occur not now, as the Hon. Member suggests, or not tomorrow, as the Hon. Member suggests, but will begin to go into effect on January 1, 1989, and gradually over the 10 years after that, amounts to about 15 per cent to 16 per cent of that cost. So in fact what will happen is not an influx of material from the United States but, indeed, there could be a reduced price of the material by 10 per cent.
So perhaps the dairy industry has been affected, too, but 1.5 per cent of its gross income is on this part of the agreement. But with respect to the other part of the agreement, the Hon. Member has forgotten the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs have been protected. He has forgotten the fact that these people will have money to buy dairy products. He has forgotten the fact that the people who will be working will have more money to spend on dairy products and that input costs will be less than they were before. The American market could be open, if there are any areas for Canadian ingenuity to enter that particular market.
COMMONS DEBATES_________________October 27, 1987
Supply
How can the Hon. Member, when he has not assessed the whole picture, stand and talk in the way he has against a trade agreement that is for the future of Canada, for a growing Canada, for a strong Canada, for a Canada that is already great but will be greater because of this agreement?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I believe my time is close to expiring. The Hon. Member has asked how I can be against the agreement. Very easily. It is a bad agreement. It is an awful agreement. It is not good, not only for the dairy producers but for agriculture generally. It is certainly not good for the dairy producers.
It is certainly not as bad as it could have been had all of supply management been eliminated. I will recognize that. I will give them a bit of credit. The agreement could have been worse, if that is complimenting the Tories. That is as far as I will go because it is certainly not good for the agriculture sector. The dairy industry was promised that it would be totally protected and was not totally protected. There was a breach of that promise.
The Hon. Member knows that there are three fundamental underpinnings of supply management. One has been damaged. The Prime Minister breached a solemn promise that he made.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, the Province of Manitoba, a part which I have the honour to represent, over quite a number of years has experienced slow, steady growth. We have not had the booms of a province such as Alberta which experienced tremendous growth when the price of energy was high. We have not had the busts which the Province of Alberta saw when the price of energy collapsed. We have not had the booms which the Province of British Columbia had when the price of lumber and pulp and paper products were high. Nor have we had the decline which it has had.
The reason that we have had a slow and steady growth is that we have had, and have, a very diversified economy. We have a mining industry. We have a manufacturing industry. We have a food processing industry which is based on a very diversified agricultural community. It is because I know that so many of the people I represent work on jobs which are dependent upon a successful farming community in our province that I am very concerned about what this agreement between the United States and Canada will do for the farming community and for the farmers of my province.
The people that I represent work for the railways, the trucking industry, the farm equipment plants, the food processing plants, all of which are dependent upon the farming community of Manitoba. It saddens me when I see this Conservative Government turning its back on farmers in much the same way as the former Liberal Government did when it
forced through Parliament the Bill to change the Crow rate from a guarantee to Canadian farmers to a progressively diminishing subsidy for the movement of grain.
The signs of abandonment of our farming community are there for anybody who wishes to see. Branch lines are being torn up, farm incomes are collapsing, to a large extent because of the type of programs for U.S. farmers implemented by those so-called friends of ours in the United States. At the same time we are supposedly negotiating an agreement with them in good faith, and at a time when one would assume that if we are dealing in good faith there would be a continuation of the status quo between the two countries. The United States has used its grain export enhancement program in order that it can sell grain with the aid of tremendous subsidies to countries which have traditionally been customers for Canadian grain.
I see that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) has come into the House. The other day he boasted about the fact that despite all our problems, our share of the sales of grain for export in the world market is still are at 20 per cent.


Charles James Mayer: It is higher.


David Orlikow: It is at 20 per cent because we had to subsidize at an increasing cost the sale of that grain to meet the subsidy programs of the United States and the European Economic Community. I say to the Minister that we could have 40 per cent of the world grain market if we gave the grain away for free.


Charles James Mayer: No, we could not, because we do not produce that much.


David Orlikow: The point is that we can sell all the grain that we have for export if we are prepared to reduce the price that we charge.
We see this Government downgrading rural life by cutting back on services such as postal service which our farmers have had for many years. We see what is happening in our province to the farm community. We know how they feel about the situation when we look at reports that the number of students attending extension courses at the agricultural college are down in the last five years by 40 per cent. They have gone down because the sons and daughters of farmers who have farmed for generations in Manitoba-and the same is happening in the Province of Saskatchewan and other provinces-see that the future for farmers in Canada is bleak and that it would pay them to look elsewhere, to go away and to leave the farm.
This withering away of rural Canada is speeded up by the Government. We should realize that the rural decline in population that we have seen in Canada is accelerating at an ever-faster rate. In 1951, there were 2,800,000 people living on Canadian farms. That was over 19 per cent of our population. In 1981, this number had shrunk to 1 million or 4.1 per cent. The urban population, which in 1951 was 7.9 million, and by
October 27, 1987

1981 had increased to 18.4 million. In other words, it has gone from 56 per cent to over 75 per cent. That decline will continue and accelerate because of the effect of the clauses on agriculture that are contained in this free trade agreement with the United States.
It is, to say the least, odd that a Party which traditionally had so much support in rural Canada now seems set to abandon the farm community entirely. To back up what I am saying, we need only examine what will happen to rural Canada under the terms of this proposed U.S.-Canada trade pact. Rural Manitoba, an area which the two Ministers from Manitoba who are in the House at the present time know, is represented almost exclusively by Conservative Members of Parliament. I do not believe this situation will happen again after the next election. Here is what will happen to Manitoba farm producers with the cost estimates of the losses which they will suffer as a result of this agreement, as calculated by the Government of Manitoba. I will put those figures on the record. I checked them with a senior professor of economics at the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba who agreed with these estimates. The Government of Manitoba has estimated that, because of the increase in the global quotas for imports for supply management products such as chickens, turkeys, and eggs, this will cost Manitoba farmers $9 million. We have heard a great deal of the argument that supply management and marketing boards are not mentioned and are not dealt with in this agreement.
When the tariffs are taken off on processed foods, products such as chicken pot-pies, TV dinners, and chicken fingers, products which are increasing in sales and use very rapidly, of course it will be possible for the American producers of chickens, turkeys, and eggs, who do not benefit from supply management prices for their product, to export into Manitoba and other provinces their processed foods and sell them cheaper than the Canadian producer and processors will be able to.
This agreement provides for a loss of the premium price which has been paid by the Wheat Board for the brewing of malt, barley, and milling oats. According to the Manitoba Government, the loss of this two-price system will cost Manitoba farmers $16 million. The loss of seasonal tariffs for fresh vegetables produced in Manitoba has been estimated to cost farmers of Manitoba $8 million a year.
The loss of the 17 per cent tariff on processed products going into canned goods is estimated at $17 million a year. I am sorry that the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds is not present, because the Campbell Soup Co. plant is located in his constituency in Portage La Prairie. Many of the farmers who grow the vegetables that go into those products processed and canned in that plant live and grow their products in the constituency of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds.
Supply
Increased transportation costs of mill feeds going to the United States without the transportation subsidy, which subsidy is given away under the terms of the agreement, will cost Manitoba farmers $1 million. The loss of the two-price wheat for Canadian millers in Manitoba has been estimated to cost $8 million. We have a total of $55 million a year, which will be taken from the rural economy of Manitoba under the terms of the agreement. This is a very small part of the total rural economy of Canada. Apparently the Ontario Government estimated that under the terms of the agreement its farmers will lose $100 million a year.
There has been a great deal of debate in the House on whether or not farm groups support the trade deal. In answering questions today, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) listed a number of farm organizations which he claimed endorsed the agreement enthusiastically.
I should like to quote from a recent article which appeared in The Toronto Star a few days ago. It quoted Jack Penner, President of Keystone Agricultural Producers, which organization initially greeted the agreement enthusiastically. In part the article reads:
-Jack Penner questions the implications of the deal's provision to allow U.S. farmers to sell grain in Canada as soon as the level of government subsidies is equal in the two countries for each type of grain.
"I think we in the farm community owe it to ourselves to question that one," says Penner. ''It might be detrimental to our orderly marketing of grains because individual American producers can access our market virtually unrestrained."
Elmer Platt, a representative of the Manitoba Chicken Broiler Producers Marketing Board, said the following, according to the same article:
The major concern for poultry producers, and one that spills over to primary (slaughtering) and processing (fast foods), is that under the pact supplemental tariffs-additional quotas- will be easier to get.
He went on to say:
-we think it is likely that price will dictate. Our industry-could be wiped out.
I would also like to refer to an article which appeared in the October 12 edition of Financial Times, which is hardly a radical publication. It refers to Zaven Kurdian, a spokesperson for the Ontario Poultry Council, who noted the following:
-that McCain Foods Ltd. of Florenceville, N.B., "has been negotiating for a whole year to start such a project (a frozen food plant) in New Brunswick.
With tariffs eliminated there is no way they will proceed."
Brigid Pike, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is quoted as saying the following in the same article:
"Processing in Niagara will be the first to come under the gun. This will cause a contraction in the entire industry, cutting into economy of scale."
I direct the attention of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds to the Western Report of October 19, another journal which is noted for its free market espousal. It quoted Nelson Coyle of the Canadian Chicken Marketing Board who said the following:

October 27, 1987
Supply
-the pact does allow U.S. imports to increase. That could steal away much of the fast food and processed chicken market from domestic producers .. . Injury can occur very quickly,. .. We doubt investors will be willing to get into this area when they know the business could be lost.
In the same article, Gerald Green, President of the B.C. Fruit Growers Association, is reported as saying:
"It is the West's fruit and vegetable growers, especially in B.C., who will swallow the largest loss. American producers, industry spokesmen note, benefit from lower wages and favourable climate. It's most apparent in processing, where B.C. labour costs are 65 per cent higher than those of competitors in Washington State,"-
To say the least, there is a great deal of concern and skepticism in the agricultural community. By no means is it as solid in support of the deal in terms of agriculture as we are led to believe by spokespersons for the Government. Very grave reservations are held by members of the farming community and the processing industry.
Further, we deplore the Government's lack of action while seeing the spirit and the letter of the pact breached by the United States, before it has even been considered by the two countries, in the sales in traditional Canadian markets made under the U.S. Export Enhancement Program, to which I have already referred.
Our agricultural critic has already pointed out that the program has been entrenched in the U.S. Commodity Export Program with an unlimited budget. Instead of it being a temporary program, it is going to continue and expand.
How does the Government reconcile the activities of this kind of subsidized grain sales with the language of the agreement on the use of export markets to other subsidies? It does so simply by saying that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will discuss it with U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, and by saying, "Never mind that it means either loss of markets or lower returns or both to Canadian grain producers". Of course these are just the obvious subsidies to U.S. agricultural exports.
The agreement does not take into account the other subsidies in U.S. agriculture. How can the agreement, for example, take into account the billions of dollars of improvements which have been spent on upgrading the Missouri-Mississippi River system? It is a toll-free system, of course, but what about the money spent to make it a major graingathering right-of-way? How is that ever to be accounted for? Even if the continuing U.S. subsidies to agriculture are reduced-and they are several times the subsidies which Canadian agriculture receives-it will be over many years and only after an international agreement is reached. This possibility is very uncertain, given the legacy of many subsidies and capital improvements to agricultural infrastructure put in place by the Americans which will remain to our competitive disadvantage.
The Government will continue to blather about the level playing field reached with the United States while the Canadian agricultural industry is hit by loss after loss. No
wonder the agricultural and processing industries are becoming more skeptical the more they learn about the deal.
Let me conclude by listing some of the actions the Americans have taken since we began the negotiations. If there was good faith in trying to reach an agreement, I would assume that we would have had a continuation of the status quo while the discussions and negotiations were going on. That is how honest people who are serious would deal.
While the negotiations have been going on, the Americans have put countervail duties on softwood, shakes and shingles, steel pipe, potash, fish, specialized steel, and at least three farm products-hogs, strawberries, and grain. All of this was done while they were supposedly negotiating in good faith with us to reach an agreement which would be fair to both parties.
The Government has given away the store, and we certainly have no intention of supporting the proposal.


John Kenneth Gormley: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I will preface with a brief preamble. If one were to have watched the debate today one would have seen the unbelievable spectacle of western Members of the New Democratic Party criticizing the Government both on agriculture and on how free trade relates to agriculture, and people would have to ask several questions. First, are western Canadian farmers, the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, cynical, slow and gullible? Of course not.
There are those of us who really represent the aspirations of western farmers. Unlike the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who authored this outrageous motion today, and unlike the Manitoba Members, it is interesting to note the commitment of the New Democratic Party to agriculture.
In our Province of Saskatchewan, we clearly repudiated the NDP in two provincial elections. The NDP won one rural seat. In the Province of Manitoba where our Government of Canada has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, the provincial Government of Manitoba has spent $83 million to support farmers. No federal or provincial Government has done so little to assist prairie agriculture.
While the Rome of agriculture burns, the fiddling is being done by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) holding the violin and Bob White fiddling the bow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Kenneth Gormley: If we assess carefully the question of agriculture as it pertains to free trade, it is clear from the major agricultural spokesmen and those of us who live in western Canada that there are considerable benefits to be directly derived from the free trade agreement. To have the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, who does not even live in his constituency or in the Province of Saskatchewan, stand up in this House and talk about prairie farmers and free trade is so
October 27, 1987

shocking as to be unbelievable. In fact, I find myself outraged as a western Canadian to hear this kind of conduct from the New Democratic Party.
My question, after that very brief preamble, is, when one considers that 40 per cent of New Democrats in Saskatchewan favour free trade, and the sensible people who do not vote New Democrat, a significant number of whom also favour free trade, where do western New Democratic Members of Parliament get their data, their input, their contribution to stand up in the House of Commons and fly in the face of common sense? I would like that question answered, Madam Speaker.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, a poll recorded in The Globe and Mail today reported that in western Canada-


John Kenneth Gormley: In rural seats.


David Orlikow: -the NDP was in first place with 38 per cent support.


John Kenneth Gormley: What about Manitoba? You are third.


David Orlikow: The Conservatives were in third place with 24 per cent of support.
I am told, and I am subject to correction, that provincial polls taken in the Province of Saskatchewan show the NDP running 30 per cent ahead of the Conservatives. I say to the Hon. Member that if the Prime Minister had not listened to that SOS from the Premier of Saskatchewan during the last Saskatchewan election and had not come through with that supposed billion dollars for grain farmers, the Conservatives would have been defeated. Where is this year's support program? The Member asked me where I got my facts. I gave him the figures as to what will happen to farmers and agriculture in Manitoba calculated by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. As I indicated to him, they were substantiated for me by a senior economist at the University of Manitoba.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that before he accepts all the propaganda he gets from his Prime Minister, it would be useful for him and the farmers he represents to check with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other farm commodity organizations in Saskatchewan to see what estimates they have made of the effects of this agreement on their farmers. He should do that before he makes blanket statements in his endorsement of this agreement.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago I had the pleasure of meeting with some members of the European Economic Community who had been elected to the European Parliament. I asked them questions about when the market was formed a number of years ago. I asked if any of the 13 countries lost their culture, sovereignty, heritage or identity. They said no, not one country lost any of those things. They said they knew exactly what we are going through. When the EEC was formed a number of years ago, all the socialists and the labour unions opposed it. They fought it violently. However, the Governments carried on and trade is expanding between those countries. They are all flourishing. It has created thousands of jobs. They keep removing tariffs, and
Supply
they have not heard another word about it from the socialists and the labour unions.
They said they knew exactly what we are going through, and that is exactly why we are not going to back off. We realize that the NDP made its position perfectly clear from day one. It is against free trade talks. It is against free trade. Members of the NDP certainly did not mince their words. They are totally opposed to it. That is what they said publicly. However, it is interesting to read their policy papers, which policy was agreed to in March of this year.
Referring to agriculture, the NDP says we should increase activities in promoting trade. That is what we are doing. They also say we should pursue mature state-to-state relationships and cease to deal with the U.S. on an issue-by-issue basis. We agree with that and that is what we are doing.
The Hon. Member referred to countervailing duties. The U.S. still has its laws in place until we finalize the trade agreement. The U.S. cannot ignore those laws. If someone files a complaint down there under the existing laws, they have to act on it. They will do so until we have the final deal.
Another policy of the NDP is to explore sectorial free trade with the U.S. That is what we are doing. The same thing is to be done with other countries. We have trade missions all over the world. They want production safeguards similar to the Auto Pact. We agree with that and that is what we are doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that I interrupt the Hon. Member, but the period for questions and comments is over.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, we do not have a lot of time but perhaps I can make two brief points.
First, there are a lot of us in this House directly connected with agriculture, either hands-on as farmers or because we have lived on farms. Anyone who is part of that process and directly connected with it will know that Canadian farmers are very good at what they do. We have the best quality grain in the world. I say that not in smugness but because of Canada's reputation around the world for producing a very high quality product. We have as good cattle herds, both beef and dairy, as there are in the world. I could refer to other commodities as well, but the point is that we are very good at what we do.
Canadian farmers are also good at using the resources available to them. Farmers have a lot of pride in their work. We are often asked why we farm. We put up with all kinds of uncertainties. Some of us know what it is like to spend six months living with a herd of cows trying to calve them. Some of us know what it is like to worry that it is too dry for the crop in the spring, or that we are unable to seed because it is too wet. We know what it is to be concerned about wind storms when we hear the wind howling in the middle of the night. We know what it is like to watch clouds build up and worry about hail storms.
We also know the joy of seeing a newborn calf and know that there is nothing sadder than seeing a dead calf and seeing

October 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
a cow return to the spot where she delivered her dead calf and bawl. We feel for that kind of thing.
We have heard it said in the House today that we are going to sell out the family farm and such things. Do you think that any of us who are that committed and directly involved in agriculture, who take that much pride in what we do and know firsthand the sacrifices that go into it and are willing to make them because of the joy that comes with production, would do anything that would hurt Canadian agriculture?
I find that very difficult to take. The Opposition should take us on if they think we have done a bad job, but they should not stand up and say "sell out" and impugn our motives, because we are good at what we do and we only want a chance to show that to the rest of the world.
Canada is comprised of over 25 million people. We are the biggest trading nation per capita in the world on a relative basis. We have more natural resources than any other country in the world. There is no question that it is difficult for a young farmer to start up in Canada today, but it is probably easier in Canada than in any other place in the world.
Producers must never forget that we produce for consumption, which means markets and access to markets. The United States is a big market for us. As an example, pork production is a big industry in every province with the exception of Newfoundland. We export $800 million worth of pork, and three-quarters of that goes to the United States. This is about access to that market.
The Americans have on their books the Agriculture Adjustment Act, Section 22 of which allows the Americans to close their border on 24 hours' notice. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) is a farmer, and I suspect a pretty good one. He produces as good quality oil seeds and cereal grains as anyone in the world. We are talking about access for his product and that of his neighbours to the largest and richest market in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: The blocks are still there.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, this is the true small "c" conservative Party, the true reactionaries. There are no alternatives. I am reminded of Edmund Burke, who said that a conservative is somebody who believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time. They are the old democrats. They are looking to the past. We will have a great future in Canadian agriculture if we can knock down some of these trade barriers. Our first step is to deal with the United States.
Let me tell you how important the United States hog market is to Manitoba producers. About 38 per cent of the total production in Manitoba has to be exported. Of that, three-quarters goes to the United States. This is about helping Manitoba farmers gain secure access to that market. The hog and the pork business would be absolutely devastated if it did not have that market. We look forward very much to being able to promote the product of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre in the United States without fear of having the border closed.
This deal is about the future of our country. It is about the future of our farmers. It is a very good deal and I look forward to having an opportunity to debate it more fully.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), the debate on the motion has now ended.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, on September 23 I rose in the House to ask a question of the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). It concerned his Department's intention to consolidate services of the food production and inspection branch by moving its seed laboratories from Edmonton, basically to Saskatoon.
It will be a two-pronged move, with the germination portion to be closed in January, 1988, and the purity laboratory to be phased out within three years' time. I am here to request that the Minister reconsider his position. The seed laboratory has been a decided and tremendous asset to the Government complex located in my riding of Edmonton East, and provides a very essential service to seed growers in the area, including most of Alberta and parts of Saskatchewan, as well as growers from British Columbia and the United States.
It is the only facility in Alberta authorized to issue the orange international certificate which must accompany all overseas shipments of creeping red fescue. As you know,
October 27, 1987

creeping red fescue is a rare, high grade grass seed for which Alberta is widely known. We produce much of it.
I appreciate the Minister's efforts in downsizing his Department in accordance with the Government's initiatives toward a deficit reduction. He has done a wonderful job in a portfolio that I do not for a minute think is an easy one. In this instance, though, I think he may have received some ill-begotten advice from officials believing that the end justifies the means and damn the practicality.
Edmonton is fortunate to serve as Alberta's capital city and appropriately so, since 60 per cent of the province's population lies within a 100 kilometre radius of Edmonton. Over 1,000 local growers avail themselves of the service offered by these facilities. I submit, then, that the laboratory facilities should be expanded rather than closed or moved.
To this point I have spoken only of the excellent facilities, and not of the people who run them. In short, they are a knowledgeable and efficient group who offer outstanding service to domestic and international growers. Twelve people will lose their jobs, or they will be transferred. Like the facilities, these people too are assets not easily replaced. I would think that the social costs of maintaining them far outweigh the cost of keeping them on the job, in Edmonton.
If I might quote Ms. Alycia Grayson, who, on September 24, wrote to the Minister:
As a clerk who works closely with both the germination and purity laboratories, I am speaking on behalf of those analysts who stand to lose their jobs. We can see no valid reason for closing this lab. (Various) reports. .. indicate that some federal employees are close to retirement age; but that is not true in this case. Most of the older staff have at least eight years to work before they can collect their pensions. Where can an analyst find a job if all he/she is trained to do is analyse seed?
I am concerned, too, of a growing perception in my riding and in the West generally that the Government has one rule for the West and yet another for central Canada. I say that this is a growing perception. The fact is much different. We have three Ministers from Alberta who wield great influence in Government. Yet they are also fair to all regions. This is not a truth, it is a perception, but only a perception.
The West has never been so well represented as it is at this time. However, I want to give a case in point about this perception. About three years ago this Government phased out another federal research facility when it closed the environment laboratory. I remember objecting strenuously that such a move would imperil the quality of Alberta's land, air and water, and it was not only Alberta, it was all of western Canada and the Northwest Territories as well. This previous laboratory did the laboratory work for all of the western provinces and the Northwest Territories.
Centralization reeks of redundancy and if you will allow me, Madam Speaker, I will say socialism. To close a laboratory in Edmonton only to increase the facilities in Calgary and
Adjournment Debate
Lethbridge seems illogical to me. In closing, I would ask the Hon. Minister to reconsider his position with respect to the closing of the laboratory and consider the plight of the workers affected before making any further moves involving federal government employees in Edmonton.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say that it is a pleasure and honour to be here in my capacity to speak on behalf of the Minister this evening. I would also like to commend the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) for his diligence in continuing to represent the best interests of his constituents, as he has done since his election to this House some three years ago. I would also like to commend him for his sensitivity to the well-being of those who would be affected by the proposed move.
As the Hon. Member knows, however, when this Government came to office some three years ago, it inherited a rather immense and, in some ways, cruel legacy. That, of course, was the legacy of a national debt which was somewhere in the vicinity of $200 billion. The present Government must spend nearly $29 billion each year on interest alone on that national debt. Because of that, the Government does not have the flexibility it would wish to have in dealing with many of the problems which exist in all of our communities.
The Government, of course, has made a commitment to reduce the size of the civil service throughout the nation in order to reduce the costs which all of us as taxpayers must bear. Unfortunately, when that happens, it means that individuals and constituencies are inevitably going to be affected. So it is exceedingly important that we hear from Hon. Members such as the Hon. Member for Edmonton East because they play a role in ensuring that the Government acts with over-all consideration, first, for the well-being of the individuals and, second, for the services which are provided.
I want to ensure that the Hon. Member, and those whom he represents, understands that the reorganization which is proposed in this instance is designed to save those necessary tax dollars and to increase the efficiency which I think all of us are committed to as individuals. The service which has been ably provided by those represented in the laboratory in the Hon. Member's riding will now be provided by those who reside in Saskatoon, not in eastern Canada. I think there has been a misconception about that fact. As the Hon. Member knows, but perhaps some of his constituents do not, there is a comparable lab in Montreal which is also being phased out. That service will be provided in future by a facility in Toronto.
I know the Hon. Member will be pleased to be able to convey to his constituents that the plan is a five-year plan, and we hope that because it is a five-year plan there will be adequate time for change and for the kind of adjustments which are necessary.
I know the Hon. Member would also want to convey to his constituents the assurance of the Government that those

October 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
individuals affected will be provided with alternative employment and that there will continue to exist in Edmonton, the Hon. Member's home city, some 208 person-years within the Department of Agriculture which will provide an important service to agriculture and I think will have a very important presence in Edmonton as well. The federal Government continues to accept the mandate of providing a service in as decentralized a manner as possible. We understand the points which the Hon. Member is making.
1 want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that certainly the Government thanks him very much and continues to be aware of his concerns. His voice will always be heard by the Government.
CANADA POST CORPORATION-MEETING PROTESTING PLANS FOR FUTURE SERVICE/WOMEN-POSITION OF MINISTER


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, a number of days ago, on September 28, 1987, I raised a question in the House about Canada Post. The basic message that 1 was bringing to the Government was a message on behalf of ordinary Canadians who had held a press conference that day indicating to the Government that in their view the Government's plans for the Post Office meant reductions in service and that what the Government was doing to the Post Office was putting in place a skeleton service.
What quite surprised me was the reaction of the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Rather than dealing with the issue and rather than responding to the views of Canadians he attempted to side-step the issue by saying that, well, the only person who was at the press conference was Jean-Claude Parrot and myself, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, and my colleagues. That was a complete distortion of the reality.
I want to start out by saying this, and I hope that the government Member who speaks will answer it. What the Minister was doing in that case was putting forward the proposition that just because a union was a part of a group that was telling the Government that it was reducing service, that somehow the whole exercise was illegitimate. I think that that is a dangerous distortion. It is a dangerous procedure.
One of the basic fundamentals that allows us to have a democratic society is the right of collective bargaining, the right of associating collectively. That is a right that is fundamental to a democratic society. So for the Minister to side-step the issue by trying to say: "These people are involved in a very unpopular union, therefore, I do not have to respond to their concerns about service", is wrong.
The unions in this case have something to offer. They work at the Post Office. They know what is going on so they have information that they can offer to Canadians. It was not only the union that was involved. There were other groups representing ordinary Canadians at this press conference.
For example, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was represented. Its representatives were concerned about the salary levels that are involved in the Government's plan for the Post Office, poverty-level salaries. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women speaks for women and their concerns. Women constitute some 50 per cent of the population. This was an important group that attended.
In addition, there was the the National Anti-Poverty Organization. It speaks out for the poor of the country. The poor in Canada represent at least one-fifth if not one-third of the population. So this was another group that represented a good proportion of ordinary Canadians.
Not only were there representatives present saying to the Government that its plans for the Post Office meant a reduction in service, but we had postcards that had been signed by ordinary Canadians-11 mail-bags of postcards. Can you imagine what a sight that would be if I could have brought those mail-bags into this Chamber, Madam Speaker? They would have taken up three or four desks.
There are a great many ordinary Canadians who are seeking to tell the Government that in their view the Government's plans for the Post Office means a reduction in service. They do not find that acceptable. They want the Government to change direction in that regard.
I know that the Minister said to me: "Well, we have to act in a fiscally responsible manner". We would not argue with that. That is essential. But the Government does have an option. It could pursue a policy of cross-subsidization in order to handle the financial needs of the Post Office. It could allow the Post Office to be involved in areas in which it could earn a revenue and use that revenue to cross-subsidize those aspects of the Post Office that lose money.
The question that Canadians were asking the Government that day was this. In order to be fiscally responsible, in order to balance the books of the Post Office, why do people who live in suburban locations have to be treated in an unfair fashion? Why is there door-to-door delivery down one street, and not down the next street? Why this unfairness? Why is it that rural post offices have to be closed? Why is it that the delivery dates for letters have been watered down in order to maintain the statistical standards?
I wish to make it clear to the government side today that, when 1 put that question, I was seeking to remind them that ordinary Canadians are saying, "From our point of view, your plans for the Post Office mean the reduction in service. We find that unacceptable". That has been highlighted over the last few days in regard to the whole question of rural post offices. In the news we have heard of the community of Wilno, Ontario.
The postmistress there has refused to accept the plan of the Government to cut her wage down to one-fifth of what it has
October 27, 1987

been up until now. That plan is a type of blackmail. The Government is saying to this woman that unless your wage is cut to one-fifth of what it was before, the post office will be taken out of your community. Right now it is a Mexican stand-off in that the woman has stated that she will not accept that type of wage, and the Post Office is delaying its decision to cut off her salary on a day-by-day basis. That is not a satisfactory situation. We want to have a commitment for service at the Post Office. We want a commitment to rural Canadian life. Rural Canadians are fed up with services being cut because of policies of centralization, whether it involves schools, municipalities, or health and social services. They do not wish this to happen with the Post Office. They do not wish the nail in the coffin of rural Canada to be driven in by the Conservative Government.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, tonight I am making my maiden speech as the recently appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; I take this opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister for having such confidence in me and I assure my Minister of my full support.
Madam Speaker, I should like to answer to my friend the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) by saying that few observers dispute the need for Canada Post Corporation to change its course in order to offer Canadians the quality service they have every right to expect. For that matter, Canada Post Corporation is assuming this responsibility very seriously.
Madam Speaker, the nature of these changes has been stated by Canadians several times, from the tabling of the Marchment Report to the most recent public opinion polls. Consequently, Canada Post Corporation has developed a plan to provide Canadians with the improved services which they have every right to expect both as customers and as taxpayers. Contrary to my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, I suggest this is not beating about the bush but getting straight to the point.
Many changes are being planned. Their purpose is to offer more reliable services, so that Canadians may have their mail delivered according to well-defined standards, to adapt to the delivery requirements in the new suburbs by adopting methods similar to those currently used in other countries, to facilitate the transactions between Canadians and Canada Post Corporation by increasing the number of sales outlets operated by its private sector partners, while ensuring that the postal rates increases do not exceed the inflation rate and by putting an end to the Government subsidies paid to an already profitable organization.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the difference in costs between the Corporation and the private sector is one of the main reasons which warrant franchising as a solution for
Adjournment Debate
offering Canadians a greater number of sales outlets where they can purchase stamps and obtain other goods and services.
Canada Post Corporation, however, understands quite well that changes such as the increased involvement of the private sector through franchising must come in a way which protects the interests of its employees.
That is why it has been proposed that this change, which by the way will increase the number of sales outlets by 50 per cent, will come about over a ten year period.
That is also why Canada Post did accept in principle the job security provisions recommended by Commissioner-Conciliator Claude Foisy in his report on the dispute between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Pursuant to these recommendations, not a single postal worker would lose his job as a result of the opening of a franchised or sub post office, provided he would be prepared to accept alternate employment within the corporation.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, franchising is the logical way to improve postal services and make them more readily accessible to Canadians. In fact it is the outcome of ongoing co-operation with the private sector which is far from being new. It has been decades now since Canada Post has been working in co-operation with the private sector, and this association has always proved to be most rewarding.


NUCLEAR ENERGY-REPORTED DESIGN FLAWS IN UNITED STATES PERRY NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, ever since the accident last year at the Chernobyl nuclear generating station in the Soviet Union, our world has changed. That particular accident was not the first accident there has ever been at a nuclear generating station; there have been others. For instance, I think of the Seven Islands incident in the United States. However, at the same time Chernobyl was different from anything that came before it.
We are well aware that the fall-out from the accident at Chernobyl obviously affected the health of all those who worked at the plant. It affected the health of all neighbours who lived near the Chernobyl generating station. Of course it affected the health of the clean-up crews. It had a potential effect on the health of visitors in the area including many, many Canadians. In addition, it had a potential impact on the health of people around the world because of the fall-out from the accident at the Chernobyl generating station.
All of that has caused great changes in our thinking and in the way we approach our concerns about nuclear energy and nuclear generating stations. I think, for instance, of the change in the thinking of military strategists. I am told by some that the Chernobyl incident had an enormous impact on their thinking.

October 27, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Before Chernobyl we thought in terms of the possibilities of fighting a nuclear war or of fighting a conventional war. However, now with Chernobyl we realize that, with all the nuclear generating stations which represent potential obstacles spread throughout Europe and America, even a conventional war could create a nuclear war if something happened to one of the stations as it did with Chernobyl.
Given this situation it is understandable that Canadians should be most concerned about safety at nuclear generating stations, whether they are located in Canada or whether they are located anywhere else in the world, particularly if they are located outside Canada but nearby in the United States.
Recently, about four months ago, there were reports in the press of problems which were cropping up at a number of nuclear generating stations in the United States, particularly at the Perry I plant at North Perry, Ohio; at the Fermi II plant at Munroe, Michigan; and at the Davis-Besse generating station at Oak Harbour, Ohio. All these stations reported several unusual events during 1986 and 1987 which included failures or breakdowns of plant systems or procedures.
At the same time we had reassuring reports from the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission which indicated that everything was under control. They said that they had two inspectors on a full-time basis at every nuclear generating plant in the United States. Apparently there are about 109 of these nuclear generating stations.
However, in reality there were reports of problems with the inspection of the three plants in particular which caused concern among Canadians. There were reports that an official of the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission had warned the operators of a Louisiana nuclear plant that there would be a surprise inspection at the plant before it took place. There were reports as well that problems which were brought to the attention of the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission went uncorrected and undealt with. Indeed, there were reports and there is what has been described as a cosy relationship between the American Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the operators of these various nuclear generating stations.
All of this has caused great concern among Canadians. Organizations, including Energy Probe from Toronto, the Nuclear Awareness Project of Toronto, the Durham Nuclear Awareness of Oshawa and concerned citizens of Manitoba have all got together for the express purpose of trying to close down a number of these nuclear generating stations in the United States, 49 to be exact. They recognize, and Canadians recognize, that our Government has no control over these generating stations in the United States. At the same time, because they are so close to us and impact, on Canadians from where they draw their drinking water, particularly in the Great Lakes basin, there is a very serious concern about safety at those stations.
Some four months ago I asked the Parliamentary Secretary in this House if Canada had raised concerns with the United States Government and had made inquiries. The Parliamentary Secretary assured me at that time that Canada had expressed concern to the United States and was expecting reports concerning the situation. Four months have passed.
The Parliamentary Secretary is here tonight and 1 am looking forward to hearing from him that Canada is continuing to monitor the situation. I am looking forward to hearing what the results of the reports that we have received are, and I am looking forward to having him reassure me and all Canadians that our Government is doing everything possible within its power to ensure that the health and safety of Canadians in Canada is being protected by the Government.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, on June 15, 1987, actually, I answered the question put by my friend from York-East (Mr. Redway) dealing with his concern about the overhauling of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant in Ohio.
At that time I commended him for his stand and especially for his concern because, as I stated at the time, after the Chernobyl incident the world would never be the same again.
I wish to commend him once again for his stand and especially for his concern, and that concern is widely shared by all Canadians. I stated at the time that the Department was very closely monitoring the situation and that he would be kept informed of the various developments with respect to that particular problem.
Every time that the Commission-the so-called Nuclear Regulatory Commission-has considered the problem over the last ten years, steps and corrections were taken.
But I understand my colleague's concern, because if there were measures, commissions, inquiries, perhaps it is because inevitably there are problems.
Therefore, the Hon. Member's concerns were made known to the Americans and very often, and I must add that at some point every week, there are discussions with our American colleagues about putting the Perry Station back into commission in the fall, and because of the proximity of the American border-hardly 50 kilometers away from the Canadian border-this is an urgent matter for all Canadian men and women.
External Affairs officials have discussed the problem and are monitoring the situation very closely. They have been assured that the Perry station will be given the green light only if it meets the safety standards established by the commission.
My colleague from York East (Mr. Redway) said a moment ago that it is true that we do not have any control. But in fact we do have some form of control. As long as Canadians like
October 27, 1987

yourself continue to raise the issue and advocate a prudent approach, and especially as long as the Department of External Affairs remains fully aware of the existence of this very serious problem, I think that is our form of control. This may not be the kind of control which has a direct impact on operations, but the Americans are conscious of our reaction and even they are concerned. The Hon. Member referred to
Adjournment Debate
the many demonstrations which took place, and I think this is quite legitimate.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 28, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers