1987-11-24

Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 1011 have the honour to present to the House the Fifth Report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union, the report of the official delegation which represented Canada at the Seventy-eighth Interparliamentary Conference in Bangkok, Thailand on October 12 to 17, 1987. The report is tabled in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STRIKING
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-fourth report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain) moved:: That this House condemn the government for its signing of a trade
agreement with the United States that, amongst other things:
(a)	fails to consider the disproportionate effect on women, and especially the loss of jobs in the service sector where women are concentrated;
(b)	will give up provincial control over energy resources in a continental energy market; and
(c)	fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians in all provinces and territories before committing us to profound changes not only in our economy, but our political sovereignty, cultural distinctiveness and generally, our ability to run our own affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is not with very much pleasure that I rise to speak to this motion this morning. As a matter of fact, it is with lament and concern about what is the future of my country.
When we talk about any type of economic strategy for Canada, we must talk about an economic strategy for women. Sixty per cent of the jobs in textiles, shoes, and leather are held by women. We recognize that this will take massive readjustment.
The whole debate that has taken place on the accord is something that is of great concern because of the direction that it has taken. Often we say that this is a great new way for Canada to open up its doors, but what we are really looking at is a massive change in direction socially, economically, and politically in our country. I do not think that this Government has the mandate to do that without any discussion with the Canadian people.
The whole episode of the hearings yesterday in Vancouver demonstrated that a province as large as British Columbia, with as many resources as Vancouver, was treated as if it did not count. It was calculated that one group received 10 seconds to be heard. That is not the way that we have conducted business in this country. It is not the way that Canadians wish to be heard. We do not like our participation being treated as an insult to our intelligence, that we cannot understand it and are not capable of participating for more than 10 seconds.

November 24, 1987
Supply
One thing at which we must look very seriously is that we have always displayed a great deal of participation when it comes to some kind of new direction. When we talk about participation-and we do not even have the final text in front of us-we know that hundreds of thousands of women's jobs are threatened. At the same time we do not even have time to critique it in detail, because the Government refuses to give us that detail.
It is very interesting that the Macdonald Commission travelled across the country and spent many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars looking in depth at what would be the future economy of the country. It heard repeatedly that the main issue in Canada was employment. It wanted to know that jobs were possible, that employment was possible. The Government chose to ignore it, and the Macdonald Commission came out with a recommendation to go for some kind of an agreement with the United States which would tie us more heavily to the direction the United States was taking. This morning I would like to look particularly this morning at what are the implications of the studies which have been done and, more importantly, the studies which have not been done, on the effects of the whole agreement. We feel very strongly about an agreement in the service sector. I think it is important to recognize that there has never been any kind of free trade agreement in the service sector with any other country.


John Horton McDermid: You are absolutely right.


Marion Dewar: Of course I am right. When the Economic Council of Canada did its study, it did not take the service sector into account, because it said that there was no way that that would be a component of it.


John Horton McDermid: It has it on its agenda.


Marion Dewar: Yes, it has it on its agenda because the Government put it on the agenda. We know what are the implications of that.
I am always very interested to hear members of the Government talking about the service sector. They say that hairdressers or schoolteachers are not going to move from one country to another.


John Horton McDermid: Who said that?


Marion Dewar: I have heard many members of the Conservative Party say that.


John Horton McDermid: Name one.


Marion Dewar: As a matter of fact, the very same thing was said at the committee last week. Perhaps members of the Government do not understand what is the service sector. It includes data processing, data collection, and banking. Some of the things at which we look in the service sector not only implicate a lot of jobs for women, but they also implicate a lot of jobs and flow of information in Canadian security.
We must recognize that as early as 1976 the Canadian Government was beginning to sense that the free flow of information across borders could be a threat to our sovereignty. We also know that under the Bank Act we have insisted that that information be collected on Canadian grounds. It is very important from a privacy of information point of view, as well as the need of our own economy, to have some kind of dependence. It has been well established that free flow of information increases dependence on another country instead of increasing our interdependence, and there is a big difference in those two approaches.
[ Translation]
It is very important, when considering the outcome of free trade, that we should review the impact free trade will have on women. We already know that the industries where jobs are most threatened are those which employ mostly women. In such industries as textile, clothing, leathergoods and footwear, where jobs are held mostly by women a massive job loss is to be expected.
According to a study carried out in Ontario, this province alone will lose over 100,000 jobs now held by women. But it is quite clear that this phenomenon will not be limited to Ontario. In the province of Quebec, the textile industry is a major employer of women. By signing the free trade agreement now before the House, the Conservative Government is depriving these women of their means of existence and permanently reducing their standard of living.
These women will not be easily retrained and returned to the labour market. Most of the women working in manufacturing industries are older women. What will the Conservative Government say to these Canadian women who, unfortunately, do not have the flexibility expected of them? Does the Government seriously think that these women, having worked for many years in a plant and acquired only the skills connected with their jobs, will gladly accept to lose their jobs as a show of support for this free trade deal!
What will the Government say to all the immigrant women working in industries which are being threatened by the Reagan-Mulroney Agreement? These women are often at a disavantage because of linguistic problems which will have a negative effect on their retraining. Because of their generally lower level of education they will not have access to many fields of activity in the labour market. These women have families to support; they cannot afford to remain unemployed for very long. Up against such insurmontable odds how will they be able to get into a retraining program?
This Government must consider the retraining issue as irrelevant, because it has failed to include in the agreement any guarantees for women who are likely to lose their jobs. We are still waiting for retraining programs which are supposed to help the Canadian men and women who will be the losers as a result of the Reagan-Mulroney Agreement. How long will these women have to wait before they can again support their families?
November 24, 1987



It really is quite a shock when they talk about readjustment programs and when I have heard Mr. Lipsey say that of course there will be higher paid jobs and ask why women are worried about lower paid ones.
Single parents are looking at the future implications on their families. Some are using all their energies today to survive. They recognize that with just some signatures and a lot of fanfare suddenly their ability to earn a living, to feed their children, and to live in their communities with some dignity, is gone. That is the kind of thing the Government is doing to the people of Canada.
More than that, we are talking about something which is very ethical-the ethics of participation in terms of allowing the people of Canada to know what is their future. It is all very well for members of the Government to say that there has never been a free trade agreement in the service industry. However, they have not bothered to study it. Nor have they bothered to say what are the implications for the people in that industry.
The flow of information going from Canada to the United States is higher than that flowing from the United States into Canada. We also know that American corporations made a decision last year to do all their production scheduling and evaluations out of their American headquarters. We also know that in one little office in Brantford the jobs were reduced from 23 to 5. That is the implication for company after company. Those are the kinds of things which need to be looked at, but government Members do not talk about them.
I am a little tired of hearing about the effects of the free trade agreement on Ontario. I cannot believe that government Members really do not understand what is the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact involves protection for equal partners in an agreement. There is no suggestion that that kind of fairness will take place in the service industry. There is no suggestion that the jobs and lives of women implicated in this regard will have any kind of protection; nor have they bothered to study it. That in itself is unethical and wrong. It really says that they do not count.
If we listen closely to the debate, we hear them saying that the market forces will be the ones to direct it. We all know what the market forces can do and how vulnerable people become in that regard. However, what worries me more than that is that when we talk about market forces and supply and demand, we are really talking about people's lives and their futures as commodities, and that if they do not fit into it we will just dispense with them.
What do we come to, Madam Speaker? We come to the survival of the fittest. It means that competitiveness is the first priority. Then you dispose of any human being who does not fit into that category. It means profit only for multinationals.
Supply
That is basically what we are talking about, but that is not the character or the direction of the country.
In the 120 years of our history we have said very clearly that there is a potential for us to do something different. We are smaller than our neighbours south of the border. We want to be good friends with them but we want to do things our way with our ethic and value system. Because we want to do it our way with our own ethic and value system, it helps the Americans to be different from us and it helps us to be different from them. With that we are both strengthened.
This new foolish, foolish agreement before us-at least what we have of it because all we have is a "no-review", and we have no detail-is saying that the only way Canadians will survive economically is to tie ourselves firmly and strongly in one direction and that is south of the border.
Just think for a minute or two about data flow, information flow. If that starts to flow back and forth north and south with no regulation, and that seems to be the implication here, it means that data processing and computer people will be setting up their offices in the United States to serve companies in Canada. If that is not foolish, Madam Speaker, I do not know what is.
It seems to me that that kind of thing has not been looked at very closely. We seem to be hearing that that will be dealt with later. We have to think what transfer of information means today and what data flow is all about. It is communication across the country which has been built with a lot of subsidies and a lot of people saying "Yes, we want to build a country". We did it with the railway. We have done it with the airlines. We can do it with information flow with the technology of the 20th and 21st centuries but not if we give it all away which is what can happen with this agreement.
I heard that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) had spoken to Conservative women a year ago saying that she wanted women to get involved in data processing and the new technology so that in 20 years from now they will be able to contribute as equal partners in the economic society. They will not be able to do that if we lose all our high technology data processing, a threat that is very real.
Before we implement this kind of an agreement, studies better be done. Will we lose control over our own information? We have so often allowed that to happen in the past. We allowed the Americans to go through our waters and we had to put up a Canadian flag to let them know that they belonged to us. Will we be in that kind of a situation when we transfer all our data flow and information north to south instead of east to west?
This morning I said that it was with great concern and lament that I rose to speak. My lament is that we are debating this matter in the House of Commons when Canada is looking at who it is and what its identity is. Abruptly we hear, "You better hurry up, Canada, if you want to retain that identity and you better get involved because the Government will not

November 24, 1987
Supply
let you". The Government will give 10 seconds to people to present briefs. What about the final text, if it ever comes out while the hearings are on? We hear that it is delayed again.
How can any Government of this country treat its citizens with such condescension and such lack of respect? We have a history of saying that people are important, that we respect the dignity of individuals and groups, but we are no longer saying that. We are saying that the only thing important is multinational profits.
When you look at the briefs coming into the committee, Madam Speaker, and you see the kinds of people supporting free trade, it is clear that this Tory Reagan agreement will help the multinationals. There will be no respect for the dignity of the worker, the culture and the social futures of our country.
The things that we care about and that we have been able to build collectively have been very precious to us. When we criticize the agreement we also have to say what are we going to do. Some people have asked whether we are going to stay with the status quo. 1 do not think anyone has said that the status quo is what we want. If you look at the great free market, what happens is ad hoc short-term business decisions. There is no ability for long-term planning. We have seen what France and Sweden have been able to do. Canada itself can get into some-long term planning with diversification of trade. Canada will never do that if we tie ourselves to only one goal and only one trading partner, that of the U.S.
It seems to me that we are on the edge of some great opportunity. Let us not blow it. Let us go ahead with the kind of vision and future of our country that our 120 years history has given us. Let us not change direction now.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will be taking part in the debate later on and will refute a number of assertions which the Hon. Member has made in her speech. I want to congratulate her and thank her for bringing this motion to the floor of the House of Commons. We are finding that the more the facts are laid on the table, presented and explained to the people, the more they understand and support the agreement. We thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) very much for the opportunity given us today in the House of Commons.
In 1945 the average tariff rates were 45 per cent. The average tariff rates today are 9 per cent. There has been a liberalized trade movement going on for quite some time. In that period of time, have we become less Canadian or have we become more Canadian? Have we become a weaker country or have we become more proud of our country and stronger because of that? Has prosperity followed the reduction of tariffs or has poverty set in with the result that our country is going to hell in a hand basket as some of the socialists would have us believe? I ask that of the Hon. Member because the trade agreement is following a pattern that has been going on for years.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Not so.


Ms. Mitchell:: You don't know your own Bill.


John Horton McDermid: In the last 40 years that these tariffs have been coming down, what is the Member's vision of Canada in that period of time? Why is she so afraid of the future?


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. It is very important that we clarify the information coming out.
Certainly tariff rates have been reduced. We have had a better country for it and we have had better exchange for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gustafson:: You are a free trader.


Marion Dewar: Therefore, I think we would like to continue doing that instead of what is in this very foolish agreement. We have said that we will allow the countervails to continue and allow the non-tariff barriers to be there. We also say that we want the U.S. to decide with its laws how we will trade with them. That makes us much less Canadian.
We need to start looking at what we do well, plan and take a direction that is positive that can make Canada second to none in the world. I have great confidence in Canada and in Canadian workers. We do not have to give our country away to trade with others. The Hon. Member will recognize that the reduction of the tariffs has been something with which GATT has agreed, as well as the United States and Canada. We know the fishing complaint against Canada was lodged by the United States. The decision against our fish processing came out in the last week and that is something that was caused by the Americans complaining about Canada, because we were able to compete so well.
This agreement has not changed anything. The countervails can still exist. There is no dispute mechanism. There is a phoney five-person board set up to advise-


John Horton McDermid: Be honest.


Marion Dewar: I am being honest and I am really upset that the Government would even put before the Canadian people the claim that that is a dispute settlement mechanism. There is no dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement. We have really just asked the Americans what they want. We have said, "Uncle Ronnie, I guess what you really want is all our energy, so come and get it. Maybe you would like to buy a little more than you have been able to buy in the past so come on in and buy it all".


John Horton McDermid: Be sensible, Marion. You are being absolutely untruthful.
November 24, 1987


Marion Dewar: I am not, I am being very honest. That is not untrue. The Hon. Member would know that if he read the overview I read. I like handing it out to people in my office because the Conservative package is the best propaganda package for people to read. When people read it, they say, "They wouldn't dare do that to us," and I say, "Yes, they did it to you. They are trying very hard to do it to you".


Ms. Copps:: Madam Speaker, I would like to address one of the areas of the motion that I believe is a statement in which all Canadians believe. We heard government Members saying that they want a full debate and all kinds of consultation. We know that in fact they are ramming this thing through by travelling only to provincial capitals.
I know the Hon. Member also represents Hamilton and I am sure she would agree with me that in Canada's industrial heartland, in Red Deer and in Estevan, the people deserve to have a say. I would like to see the trade committee come to Hamilton to hear firsthand what happened to the workers at Firestone.
The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) has been railing and ranting. The fact is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is setting his timetable and the Canadian agenda because he wants to have his picture taken with the President of the United States on January 2.
Does the Hon. Member not think that it is outrageous that the Canadian people who live in places other than capitals of provinces will not have a chance to participate in this debate? I am not referring only to the effect of the trade agreement on women or to the continental energy plan. In particular, if the Government really wants a debate, why is it trying to ram it through before January 2 just so that the Prime Minister can have his picture taken with the President?


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for her question. It is so true that the area of the country we represent is a highly industrialized area. If one reads only what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and government Members have been saying, one would think that the people there all support the agreement. There have been all sorts of recommendations made to stop this agreement quickly because the workers are feeling-


John Horton McDermid: How about the steelworkers' union?


Marion Dewar: The steelworkers are saying that they do not want to be a part of this. The Firestone workers know what it is like to have decisions made outside Canada when 1,300 jobs are involved.
Government Members are talking about participation in a major new direction for Canada. However, what is really happening is that government Members are dropping off for a day here and day there waving the Tory flag and saying: "You have just participated, now I will take this down to Washington and plant it there". It seems as though government Members are terrified to hear from the Canadian people
Supply
because they know that our roots are deep, our culture is strong and we are sick and tired of getting sold out.
I hear that the committee even has to travel on an inefficient aeroplane. The Government does not think it is even worth it to give committee members decent transportation. Government Members want to say that the committee flew across the country, listened to certain groups for 10 seconds and that is the end of it. That makes a real farce of citizen participation. It makes a real farce of them saying that they have any sense of what is happening and of how Canadians feel.


Mr. St. Germain:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) began her speech by speaking of the Macdonald Commission. She praised the Macdonald Commission and said that it advocated jobs for Canadians. That is correct, it did advocate jobs for Canadians, but it also advocated very strongly a free trade initiative with the Americans.
Donald Macdonald who headed the commission is one of the greatest proponents and supporters of this initiative. He knows what is going on in Canada. He went across Canada and studied the situation and established the needs of Canadians.
That remark of the Hon. Member is in itself contradictory. The Hon. Member comes from the central part of Canada. We westerners have faced unfair tariffs because we have not had an agreement that would deal with things like the shakes and shingles situation. Those very Members with whom the Hon. Member is sitting waved goodbye when we ran into the problem of an unfair tariff on shakes and shingles. It was NDP and Liberal Members who said that we could not resolve the problem.
When the agreement was signed, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) dealt with this very issue in a way that is satisfactory to the industry. If an agreement had been in place to deal with this situation, there would not have been that unfair tariff on shakes and shingles. This has been clearly stated by the industry.
Would the Hon. Member tear up the agreement if she was put into a position by her Party to do so?


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Obviously he does not know that the countervail on shakes and shingles still exists. Countervails can be put against any other industry as well. This agreement does not protect us from that.
I did not compliment the Macdonald Commission. I stated for a fact that the Macdonald Commission spent $10 million travelling across the country looking at the economy and consistently heard that the first priority was jobs. It commissioned 72 research papers and not one of those papers dealt with the service industry.
The Hon. Member should do his homework if he wants to ask those kinds of questions. This issue is too deep for us to be

November 24, 1987
Supply
superficial about it. I think it is important that we get a sense of it.


John Horton McDermid: Would you tear it up?


Marion Dewar: No, we have not seen it. Could I tear up the air? The final-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall).


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Madam Speaker, in keeping with this debate, I am also the Minister responsible for the status of women.
Let me begin by saying that I am very interested in the fact that the Hon. Member made a 20-minute speech and did not refer to women very much. She spoke a lot about consultation. Let us just put this to bed. There was no consultation on the Auto Pact, there was no consultation on the Tokyo Round, there was no consultation on the Kennedy Round whatsoever. The Macdonald Commission did a lot of work on free trade which is part of-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What are women saying about it?


Barbara Jean McDougall: I will get to that because it is really important. I will talk about women and I will talk about opportunities for all Canadian men and women. This Party and the women of Canada believe in opportunity. That is something in which the NDP does not believe.
This agreement is designed to prepare Canada for the next century, to ensure that our industries can grow from their Canadian base, to encourage new investment in world-scale Canadian enterprise, including Canadian investment as well as foreign, to create a framework for co-operative relations between Canada and our most important trading partner and to set up a bilateral precedent for further multilateral trade negotiations. That is good for women.

Recognition of the fact that trade between Canada and the U.S. should be governed by a set of regulations, not by politics, is the cornerstone of this Agreement. A joint Canada-U.S. committee that will act as a compulsory court of appeal in settling trade disputes, and a commitment to negotiating new trade legislation over the next five years should provide adequate assurances for investors and business people in both countries until the end of this century and throughout the next.
Although the Agreement acknowledges a certain form of economic interdependance, it respects our social and political differences. From the outset, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) defined a set of important principles as guidelines for the agreement. Our political sovereignty, our network of social programs, our efforts to deal with regional disparity, our
distinct cultural identity and our specific linguistic character, which together make up the very essence of this country, would not be negotiable.
Those commitments were made by the Prime Minister before the talks started, and they were met. The conclusions of the Agreement show that despite the unfounded fears of some of its opponents who maintained that free trade would be a threat to institutions and programs that help define our Canadian identity, none of these programs was ever on the table for discussion or changes prior to reaching an agreement on free trade.
[DOT] (M40)
[English)
Since the agreement was signed the Opposition has subjected Canadians to all sorts of conflicting myths concerning what the agreement is all about. It is only 11:40 a.m. and we have heard all sorts of that this morning. We have been hearing alarmist talk about the devastating impact on ordinary Canadians, women in particular. That is absolute nonsense and 1 am going to set the record straight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Canada is a trading nation, has been since before it was founded, and fully 80 per cent of all our exports go to our neighbour to the south. Part of this growth in trade with the Americans took place while the Party opposite was trying to expand our multilateral trade. With not much success, I might add. We are continuing to pursue that option.
Hundreds of thousands of women's jobs directly or indirectly depend upon our access to the U.S. market. Secure and permanent access will mean increased opportunity for economic growth in Canada and additional jobs. That is what we talk about. Jobs for Canadian women as well as men. Our productivity will rise because of increased economies of scale since we will have unimpeded access to a market of 270 million people. Wages should also rise under that scenario. It has always happened when there has been an expansion of trading opportunities, and women will benefit from increased earnings.
Let me go into one particular myth coming from the Province of Ontario. That Government released a study entitled "The Free Trade Agreement and Women". A day before that study was released one of the Toronto dailies ran a front-page story saying that the Ontario report predicted 100,000 women would lose their jobs because of free trade. That is pretty scary stuff, I agree. It is also incorrect. One should take the time to look at what that report says and how the conclusion was reached. We have examined it pretty closely and the study does not support the conclusion. Remember when you took high school geometry and you had to have a conclusion. This report goes from hypothesis to conclusion with nothing in between.
The report did not say that 100,000 women would lose their jobs because of free trade. It said 100,000 women were
November 24, 1987

employed in Ontario manufacturing industries which are sensitive to a reduction in tariff barriers. The study focuses on footwear, textiles and clothing because they have high tariff protection. Right! What it does not say is that tariffs are not being dropped against low-wage countries which are the main source of import competition for Canadian firms. That is very important because our competition comes from offshore suppliers rather than the U.S.
It does not state, vis-a-vis the U.S., that Canadian producers have been holding their own, expanding sales in the U.S., and are looking for more opportunities to do so. It does not say that the Ontario study was based on a one-time rather than phased-in removal of tariff barriers.

No mention is made of the fact that another report, prepared at that time for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women by Katie Macmillan of the C.D. Howe Institute, reached conclusions that were the exact opposite: Female workers, especially in the services industries, will see a major increase in job opportunities as result of free trade-the kinds of manufacturing jobs that are threatened by free trade are those that have been known for some time as offering the lowest salaries, difficult working conditions and very limited career opportunities.

The Ontario study also does not say that the textile industry, those who make the investment and employ these people, is very confident in its ability to compete given the phase-in period.
Let me just say that women tend to feel disadvantaged in labour markets. Not just in Canada but in most places. They are very concerned with possible adjustments arising from free trade. However, there are two kinds of adjustment. Let us deal with the first, because our Government takes women and their concerns very seriously and we have a record second to none in that respect.
Unlike the former Government, which did put labour adjustment in the Auto Pact and there is no question about that, although it had nothing else, we already have programs in place to help workers make the necessary adjustment, whether it be through language training, skills upgrading, or whatever. There is a transitional period of 10 years in many industries to allow businesses and workers to make the necessary adjustment.
The second kind of adjustment is opportunity, and that is a major outcome of free trade and something the NDP never mentions. Most women who may be affected will likely move to equivalent or better jobs in those industries which will be expanding because of free trade. Free trade will provide new opportunities for women rather than locking them into low-paying work ghettos.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Opposition never thought these jobs were so great before. They used to talk about the same kind of thing, the low-paying job ghettos. I am concerned that trying to preserve the status quo in certain industries will merely preserve those low-paying work ghetto jobs. It is short-sighted and serves to shield women from the potential benefits of economic growth by burying them in occupations where their incomes will continue to lag behind those of men. The best thing that can happen to women is prosperity, growth and opportunity. What they are talking about over there is not my idea of equality and progress.
Many critics of the agreement have failed to recognize that there will be strong growth in the service sector. The Hon. Member gave us her whole misery piece on the service sector. Let me just tell her what some people in the service industry are saying. These are not big multinational corporations, these are local Canadian businesses. Chris Gee, President of the Canadian Association of Management Consultant said, "I'm very, very excited. With our world class expertise and our Canadian structures, I think it can have a blockbuster impact on our clients and our profession."
Sandra Besserer, Vice-President-that is a woman, by the way-of the Machinery and Equipment Manufacturers Association of Canada said, "Our members were complaining-" these are her words, not mine, "-like hell about the problem of service people crossing the border." That will be corrected with free trade.

Raymond Lafontaine, President of LGS, a computer and office automation consulting firm, said: "The Agreement in principle on free trade is a positive one. It will make it easier for Canadians in the services industry to work in United States. . .

Forget about all us politicians in the little hothouse we run here in Ottawa. Canadian men and women out there doing the work see this as the key to the future of their industry and their employees, many of whom are women.
The service sector has been the most rapidly-growing sector in the Canadian economy, creating eight of 10 new jobs over the past 10 years. This sector will continue to create opportunity for the employment of women in a wide range of jobs demanding a variety of skills. Many women are now employed not only in the retail and personal services industry but also in telecommunications, health, computer services, and financial services.
In 1986 Canada's service sector accounted for 76 per cent of all employment. That is a phenomenal increase. At the end of World War II it was 40 per cent. This is an exciting opportunity for Canada and Canadians because all indicators point to the continued growth of this sector in Canada as in other

November 24, 1987
Supply
developed and developing countries. However, Canada has a good lead.
Services growth, particularly commercial, tradable services, are expected to outpace growth in the goods-producing sector. A free trade agreement is expected to accentuate the service sector growth thus increasing job opportunities, particularly for women who make up more than half the labour force in that industry.

Flexible working conditions in teaching, retail sales and the health industry are particularly attractive to women who are re-entering the labour marker or who are trying to strike the right balance between a career and their family commitments.
The number of women on the labour market has increased 42 percent between 1976 and 1984, while most of the new jobs created were in the service sector. Women now make up 43 percent of Canada's labour force. Their labour market entry rate is one of the highest in the world, and there is every indication this trend will continue.

The average salary for women in the services industry is higher than it is in the manufacturing industry. Therefore, those jobs will be good for women. Do not forget either that women now own one-third of Canada's small businesses. They could not do that under an NDP government. This figure represents a 100 per cent increase over the past 10 years. Not only are the numbers increasing, but the success rate of women, as could only be expected, is almost twice that of men.
Simply put, women are half the talent and half the human resources of this country. It makes economic sense for them to be able to utilize their economic capacity and to have choices and opportunities. When women do not receive a fair return on their labour they do not participate equally in all sectors of society and all of us, men as well as women, are losers. There is no room for that in the Canada which we envisage for the future.
Yes, we do need training to take advantage of those opportunities. We need education and training systems and we are providing them to expand the occupation and career options of women. The Canadian Job Strategy is the first program which provides non-traditional help and skill enhancement to ensure that women have not only keyboard skills for the service industry but have accounting and management training so that they can turn those keyboard skills into something else. There are, of course, women in low paying jobs. The Government will ensure, as it has from the beginning, that they are looked after.
All Canadians, men and women, are ready to face the 1990s and the new century. Every time a key is turned in the door of a new home or in a factory that confidence is shown. Every time a kid passes an exam, goes into a post-graduate course, or takes an apprenticeship course, and every time a young couple gets married, Canada is helped and we become more confident
in our future and reflect that confidence. Every time a new family chooses Canada as its home that confidence grows.
As a country our future is what we make it. We want to create the opportunities, co-operation, and regional development that is so important to us as a nation. It makes me so angry that the two opposition Parties always treat women as though they are down-trodden and victims. Women are contributors to this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: They are participants and contributors and must have an equal opportunity to contribute to our future development as well as to share in our prosperity. It is to Canada's benefit that they succeed. I respect their ability to do so and I will help those who cannot.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allmand:: Madam Speaker, in her remarks the Minister accused the Opposition of putting on the floor in this debate conflicting myths, I believe that is the term she used. I would like her to explain some of the conflicting myths put forward by Ministers and government Members in this debate.
On October 5, in a speech to the Export Association of Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we would have massive retraining programs because of the job losses resulting from this agreement. The next day in the House the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said that there would be no new retraining programs as a result of this deal.
The following day the Minister of Employment and Immigration said outside the House that there was a potential loss of 500,000 jobs as a result of this agreement. That was recorded by the press but when he came into the House the next day he refused to explain his remarks made outside the House. As a matter of fact, he said there would be no job losses as a result of this agreement and that we could wait until January 1, 1989 to do anything about it.
In fact, in this debate Ministers have said all kinds of things with regard to job losses and job gains. They have been all over the lot. I would like the Minister to explain that conflicting testimony and evidence put forward to the Canadian people and to this House on this subject. Who is right?
The Minister has dismissed out of hand studies raised by the Opposition. Rather she is asking us to take a leap of faith in favour of this agreement, or to engage in wishful thinking of the jobs that will be created, what impact studies does the Minister have which she can put on the table for everyone to see to show that there will be job increases and in what sectors?
She does not have such a study. No one has produced it so far. The Government is proposing the agreement and the burden is on the Government to bring such a study forward but it has not done so.
November 24, 1987


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that there would be massive adjustments if necessary, but no one expects there to be a need for massive adjustments. Let us get the facts on the table.
We have in place right now programs such as the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will provide adjustment, regardless of what the source of the need for adjustment may be. In this country there have always been series of economic changes which our economy has absorbed very well. That was shown in the Royal Bank study which came out only this week.
The Hon. Member asks for studies. I quoted from the Katie Macmillan report which talks about women. All the third-party, independent studies which have been done by people in the business community who deal with this kind of thing all the time have all talked about an increase in jobs in Canada as a result of this agreement. That is what we are basing our certainty on.
All the trade agreements which have been signed in modern society have led to an increase in jobs. Countries have ended up better off as a result of trading agreements. Agreements have been reached between groups in Africa, South and Central America, and between New Zealand and Australia. They are better off as a result of trade. I am not saying that they will be perfectly even over time, but if you compare where they started and where they are today you will see that they are better off now.
With regard to the European Economic Community, someone pointed out the other day that they have had more economic problems in the last couple of years than have we. It is partly because this Government has created a good economic environment in Canada. If one considers that agreement back in the 1960s and 1970s, they have done extraordinary well.
It does not mean that free trade is a panacea, but it does mean that there will be opportunities and growth in the future as a result of this agreement. It will be beneficial to people in this country, particularly women.


Mr. Harris:: Madam Speaker, will the Minister comment on the current debate in the United States as expressed in the newspaper U.S.A. Today's. On November 5, that paper devoted a full editorial page to the debate in the United States as to whether there ought to be compulsory unpaid maternity leave granted to companies with 15 employees or more. The great opposition to this comes from the United States Chamber of Commerce, which is the most vocal opponent to the family and medical leave bill being proposed in the United States House of Representatives. The bill would only require firms of 15 or more employees to give new parents up to 18 weeks unpaid leave with the guarantee of a job on return.
The Chamber of Commerce predicted economic catastrophe if the bill is passed. They also expressed their view in this
Supply
paper that maternity leave is only one of a number of many different alternative types of benefits that could be offered to employees, including pension coverage, dental benefits, flex time, health insurance and so on. They went on to discuss how companies could face competition in the domestic or international field.
I raise this question because we are talking about the Government's suggestion that we should really integrate our economies. In view of the Neanderthal attitudes that exist in the United States with respect to these issues, and our approach in Canada toward legal protection and programs to protect women and other workers, does the Minister of State not recognize that the atmosphere created by this agreement will result in intense pressure on this country against advancing the rights of women in the workplace?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement about integrating our economies absolutely takes my breath away. The fact is that no other trade agreement in the history of the entire universe has integrated economies. Let us get it straight. This is a trade agreement, it is not an economic union or a political union.
Two years ago Members opposite said that our social programs were on the table and would be eliminated. We have an agreement and our social programs are not eliminated. It is certainly not our credibility that is at stake in predicting the future because we made a commitment to our social programs today and our ability to have social programs in the future.
The Opposition seems to frequently overlook the fact that in order to have the type of social and regional programs, in which, I am sure, the Hon. Member has some interest, we need additional prosperity. We must look ahead in order to determine how we will grow, not only in order to afford the kind of programs we have now but the kind of programs we would like to have in the future. That will only occur in a growing Canada that is creating jobs and wealth, and spreading that wealth a little better than we have in the past, which is another major objective of the Government.
This agreement will not only help women in southern Ontario, it will help women across Canada, including those in the Hon. Member's riding in Newfoundland.
Those are the very important considerations for us: First, that we create more jobs; second, that we create more capital; and third, that we invest that capital into more job creation in Canada and the kinds of social programs that this country has come to expect of this Government.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, the resolution before the House asks us to consider three aspects of this free trade agreement, the first being the impact of this particular free trade agreement on jobs, particularly jobs held by women. Second, we are asked to consider the impact of the agreement on our energy resources and our ability to control our own energy resources. Third, the resolution states that the process by which we are

November 24, 1987
Supply
dealing with this free trade agreement fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians in all provinces and territories before committing us to profound changes, not only in our economy but in our political sovereignty, cultural distinctiveness and, generally, our ability to run our own affairs.
I want to deal with the third part of the resolution first. In all the 22 years I have spent in this Parliament I have never seen a measure so important as this dealt with in such a summary, cavalier or inadequate way. This free trade agreement will impact not only on every part of our economic life, including resources, agriculture, the Auto Pact, service industries, the food processing industries and so on, but will also impact on our social and political life.
The Hon. Minister who just spoke said that there is nothing in the agreement relating to social programs. That is correct. However, she does not say that because of this agreement there will be increasing pressure to harmonize social programs in Canada with social programs in the United States. Businessmen will say that they will not be able to compete with U.S. industries if we continue to have our unemployment insurance at a higher level than that in the United States. They will say that they are unable to compete with the United States because of our marketing boards, which give a fair deal to Canadian farmers. Canadian businessmen will continue to say that they will not be able to compete if we have a rich medicare program such as we have, and will probably propose user fees and such things.
It is true that social programs are not in the agreement. But the agreement has been set up in such a way that it develops pressure to harmonize and eliminate the social programs we already have.
Let us consider the example we have had in the House in the last couple of months. The pharmaceutical industries in this country were telling us that we either pass Bill C-22 or they would not increase their investment in Canada, do research and development in Canada or increase jobs in Canada. If such industries are trying to apply that pressure now, without the free trade agreement, how much stronger will that pressure be with the free trade deal?
When we propose measures that are in the interests of Canadians socially and politically, they will make the argument that if this has any cost they will not be able to compete with American companies that have free access to Canadian markets. There will be this pressure to harmonize these programs.
Let us consider the process to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks. We are being asked to deal with a measure that will impact on every part of our economic, social and political life. The agreement was signed on October 5 and we are being asked to dispose of it by December 18, when the House adjourns for Christmas. A committee has been set up to hold hearings in only one city of every Canadian province, with only eight witnesses a day.
Yesterday, in Vancouver when the Opposition made a motion to permit additional time to hear individuals who were in the room and wanted to raise their concerns, Government Members voted that down. They only want eight witnesses per day per province on this most important deal, and in only one city. In British Columbia it is just in Vancouver. We are not going into the interior, or to Vancouver Island. In Quebec the committee will just go to Montreal. There will be eight witnesses for all of the Province of Quebec. We are not going to Quebec City, or to Abitibi, to the Gaspe Peninsula or Lac-Saint-Jean where there are very strong interests and concerns about this agreement.
The process is a farce. The committee on unemployment insurance spent more than six months on that legislation. I remember we spent over a year on the proposed changes to the Crow's Nest Agreement. In the committee on freedom of information I spent nearly a year. Although those matters are important, they are not nearly as important as this proposed agreement, yet we are asked to deal with it in this very summary and quick fashion.
It is probably true that Government representatives will say that "before October 5 we had consultations for over a year with various people". Yes, they did that but it was mostly with business and mostly in secret. By the way, Madam Speaker, at that time the discussions were with respect to a free trade agreement in principle. We did not have any specific agreement before us and the negotiations which were carried on were carried on in secret. Perhaps that is necessary, but the fact is that the Canadian public was not involved in the debate.
Government representatives, when they stand up to answer, will probably say that this debate will not end on December 15, that in the new year, as a result of the signing of this agreement, there will be all sorts of legislation that will have to come before Parliament dealing with this matter and we will have a chance to debate that legislation. That is correct, there will be Bills to amend our Customs Tariff Act, our agricultural legislation, our transportation legislation, even the Post Office Act. There will be all kinds of Bills to amend legislation resulting from this free trade agreement, not only at the federal level but at the provincial level. The point is that it will be too late then to turn this whole matter back. I should not say it will be too late, but it will be very, very difficult to turn this around once they sign the agreement on January 2.
There will be Bills in the provincial legislatures and many Bills here in the federal Parliament. I suppose they will be dealt with in various committees, with one committee not quite sure what the other is doing, as is usual around here. One committee comes out with a report sometimes that is contrary to a report coming out of another committee, both prepared in good faith.
The point is that we should have more time to deal with this agreement right now before it is signed by the Prime Minister
November 24, 1987

(Mr. Mulroney). He is trying to meet a timetable laid down by the American authorities, its fast-track system. He is trying to meet that timetable when the impact of this agreement will be much higher in Canada than in the United States. Some estimates I have read indicate that only 10 per cent of American foreign trade is in Canada. Of our foreign trade, 60 per cent of it is with the United States.
The impact in this country will be much greater than in the United States, yet we will not even have the same amount of time in our Parliament and parliamentary committees to examine this deal as will the American Congress. For example, the American Congress will have 90 days to examine the agreement after the signing by the President and the Prime Minister on January 2. It will have 90 days, until April 1, yet our Government is asking us to complete our examination of this matter by December 15, after two weeks of committee hearings in Ottawa and two weeks of committee hearings on the road, with one day in each province.
We do not even have the legal text. All we have at this time is a 35 page text which is called "Elements of the Agreement". We are told that this 35 page "Elements of Agreement" text will grow to anywhere between 900 to 1,200 pages of legal text. The Government is asking Canadian unions, Canadian businesses, Canadian academics, experts and Parliamentarians, to examine these elements and make a decision without ever seeing the fine print, the legal terminology. That is completely unacceptable. That is not the sort of thing that is usually done in this country. It is not our tradition.
As a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, in the short time we have dealt with this matter, each day with a new witness, I find that new insights are presented to us with respect to this agreement. Things no one has raised before are being raised by witnesses when they appear before us. That is what happens when we have a good debate. The more one looks at an agreement or a Bill, the more one understands it and sees implications one did not see before. When I read something for the second, third and fourth time, I see things I did not see before. Unfortunately, we are being cut off, not being allowed to give attention to this matter as we should, particularly since we do not have the legal text.
When the Prime Minister tabled these "Elements of Agreement"-35 pages-on October 5, he told us, and it also states right in the accord, that the legal text would be before us in three weeks. It has now been seven weeks and we still do not have the legal text. The Premiers of the provinces are meeting this week. They do not have the legal text either. I guess we will be left with one week or two weeks to look at a 1,200 or 1,000 page legal text and have to come up with a yes or no answer on whether it is a good or bad thing, even though it will touch on every aspect of our lives.
Some of the things being raised in a serious way are how the competition policy of the two countries will impact or be affected by this agreement, including the anti-trust policy and
Supply
policies relating to monopolistic practices. With this agreement more emphasis is placed on the so-called free market-place, but there are many experts who dispute whether the market is really a free one due to concentration, monopolistic practices, predatory pricing and all of those things. We have one type of competition law in the United States and another type of competition law in Canada, and one wonders whether we will have the ability to amend that competition law to prevent takeovers, concentration and actions by businesses to restrain trade, and not have fair prices. One wonders about all these things which have not been looked at at all.
I spoke about the process because I think the process is terrible. This is a complex, complicated matter. It has raised many concerns with Canadians. We do not have enough time to deal with it in a serious way.
I want to move now to the question of jobs, especially jobs that are held by women. As I tried to point out in my question to the Minister when she was in the House, we have had all kinds of estimates, studies and speculation on the jobs that might be lost or gained as a result of this agreement. The Economic Council first said there was a possible gain of 350,000 jobs, but that study was done before this agreement was made public. It was based on an assumed increase in productivity of 5 per cent per year as well as total access to the American market, including access to defence contracts. In the last few days we have had reports that the estimate of the Economic Council was way out of whack, especially when we look at this particular agreement.
There was a study done by Infometrica, released this week, which said the latest predictions contained in analysis prepared this week contradict previous forecasts of the Economic Council of Canada in a controversial study released in September.


John Horton McDermid: How many jobs does it say will be created now?


William Warren Allmand: It says 110,000, more or less. The point is that there have been studies on all sides of this question. There was a study done by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which said that 228,000 jobs could be lost in 17 industries. There was a previous study done by Infometrica which said that 300,000 jobs could be lost. The auto parts industry has said it could lose 20,000 jobs. The wine industry has said it could lose 10,000 jobs. A study done by the City of Montreal said that 100,000 jobs could be lost in Montreal.
The fact is that because of these conflicting studies and no real serious impact study done by the Government, Canadians have very serious concerns. A Canadian who has a job now, and who has had a good job for 20 years, is concerned whether his job is in jeopardy. He is not satisfied by the rhetoric of the Government that there will be all kinds of new jobs. He does not know whether he will be able to adapt to a new job. If he or she is a person of 45 years or 50 years of age, will there be massive retraining programs? Will the individuals have to

November 24, 1987
Supply
move from the place where they lose their job to a place where the new job is located? There is no information on this.
I put it to the Government that it has the burden of proof. If it wishes to sell this deal it should have the studies and the specific information assuring Canadians that those new jobs will be there, what type of jobs there will be, and that there will be retraining and readjustment programs to relocate and readjust those people from the old jobs that they lose into the new jobs that might be there. The Government has not done that, so the concern of Canadians is justifiable.
Women are particularly vulnerable, because a very high percentage work in industries which are principally threatened by this deal, for example, textiles, footwear, clerical industry, service industry, food processing. When I speak about the service industries I mean telecommunications, travel, transportation, and so on, which can be done from the United States rather than Canada with deregulation and privatization.
To a very high degree, women work in those industries which are most threatened. In the textile and clothing industry 80 per cent of the employees are women. That industry is seriously threatened. For the first time in 15 years, last year the wage gap between men and women started to widen. It had been closing for 15 consecutive years, and now it is starting to widen again.
The Minister referred to the great Canadian Jobs Strategy. I wish to point out that, under the Canadian Jobs Strategy, women are unrepresented in the retraining programs right now. They have far from 50 per cent of the seats. They have a very low percentage of the seats.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy has been cut back in funding since 1984. In that year we were spending $2.2 billion on retraining and job creation. As of this year, that has been cut by 32 per cent from $2.2 billion to $1.6 billion. Yet the Government states that that type of program will be adequate if there is a massive loss of jobs as a result of free trade.
The other day the Minister and the Prime Minister pooh-poohed the study from Ontario which reported that 100,000 jobs in Ontario held by women were vulnerable or at risk as a result of this agreement. The report did not state that those jobs would be lost, but that they were at risk. That raises concern. The Minister's answer to that was that they are at risk, but they should have faith and believe in the Government. Why should they believe in the Government? Only 23 per cent of Canadians believe in the Government. The faith of Canadians in the Government has plummeted from 50 per cent in 1984 to 23 per cent across this country. The people do not have faith in the Government. It is up to the Government to put specific measures on the table to show that those jobs will not be lost. But, as I pointed out yesterday, if the jobs are lost the agreement should be changed with respect to food processing.
In the two minutes that I have remaining I wish to state that this debate is like everything else connected to the free trade deal. It is being rushed through without touching on many matters. I am sure that tomorrow I will receive calls asking why I did not deal with the impact of free trade on agriculture, the food industries, cultural industries, national sovereignty, the dispute mechanism, or on the Auto Pact. The reason is that we do not have time because it is being rushed through.


John Horton McDermid: You have the same time as we had.


William Warren Allmand: You had a lot more time. Look back at the record. That is nonsense what you are talking about.
This is the most important economic, social, and political deal affecting Canada since the Second World War. It is being rushed through in an obscene manner.
This agreement gives the United States assured access to Canadian energy resources. I could quote the text, but the wording is contained in the "Elements of Agreement". More or less it will end the ability of any government to have any type of national energy policy in the future.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


William Warren Allmand: I know that the Government is quite pleased with the fact that it ended the National Energy Program. I can understand that some people would be opposed to that type of National Energy Program. But this deal will end any type of National Energy Program.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


William Warren Allmand: Even the type that Mr. Diefenbaker started back in the 1960s. The other day I attended a meeting with Mr. Lougheed, the former Premier of Alberta. He felt that that was true, but it was worthwhile, because his opinion was that the agreement gave more than it lost for Canada. But it also ends the ability for provinces to have two-price systems in energy; a lower price for the citizens in their own province, and perhaps a lower price to stimulate energy in their province.
In the Province of Quebec the aluminum industry was started with special low priced energy deals. In the future that will not be possible. According to the vague and simplistic wording in the "Elements of Agreement" it will not. We do not know what the legal text will state, but there is enough there now to raise serious concern.
One wonders if we cannot have any type of national energy policy where provinces will be able to sell all their energy south of the border because there is a good deal to be had down there and leave out their neighbours, for example, not sell to Prince Edward Island or to New Brunswick, or wherever-


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


William Warren Allmand: I have the signal, Madam Speaker.
November 24, 1987

1 wish to state that this is a bad deal for women. It is a bad deal for all Canadians. The process under which it is being handled is unacceptable and a farce.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member and I have been through many consultations and trips. I know his blustering style. Much of what he states is not factually correct. I wish that I had time to go through the points.
One area I wish to concentrate on is our social programs. For some reason, the Hon. Member states that they will become unfair trade practices because of this deal. If our social programs are unfair trade practices, then I ask the Hon. Member why have they not been countervailed already? The agreement with the United States does not change that one iota. So if it is an unfair trade practice after the agreement, why is it not an unfair trade practice before the agreement? Because it is not an unfair trade practice. Those social programs will not be touched.
As a matter of fact, I would submit to the House that with an improved economy our social safety net will improve. But it has to be paid for. It is not like the NDP suggests where, like magic, we pull money out of the sky. People have to pay taxes, and we have to pay for those social programs. If our economy is doing well, we will pay for them. But I cannot understand the Hon. Member's argument that after this agreement our social policies and programs become countervailable, while before they were not. Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain that one to me, please.


William Warren Allmand: I do not think that my hon. friend was listening to me closely. At no time in my speech did I state that our social programs would be considered unfair practices and, therefore, countervailable. I said with this agreement that our social programs will be at risk because there would be pressure to harmonize in Canada. I did not say that they would be considered as unfair trade practices. I said there would be pressure as a result of this agreement to harmonize. I tried to explain it in the following manner.
Since American companies will have free access to the Canadian market, Canadian companies will say that they have to compete with those American firms, they have to pay a higher minimum wage in Canada, and this makes it difficult for them to compete. Check-offs have to be paid for medicare and other social programs, and this makes it difficult to compete. In some provinces there are tougher environmental programs, and this makes it tougher to compete. What I am saying is that even though environmental programs, social programs, and marketing boards are not in the agreement, it is written in such a manner that it puts pressure on Canadian businesses to get rid of those programs in order that they will have the same basic costs as the American competitor who will come into the Canadian market. That is the problem.


John Horton McDermid: Why do they not do that now?
Supply


William Warren Allmand: Now we have a certain amount of protection. That is why it is not happening now. Unfortunately the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has not had the benefit of sitting in on the committee hearings as I have had and of listening to the testimony on both sides. I think it was wrong. I think he should come to the meetings and he would be able to participate more meaningfully in the debate.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have a short supplementary question. I just want the record to be clear that I have been at some of the meetings, albeit not the meetings the Hon. Member was at.
I have a list of a number of people to which I would like to refer. Stan Sager, President of Satexil, a Montreal woollen manufacturer, made the following comments:
I'm pleased that free trade is being considered, I'm happy but I would like to
see an acceleration of the tariff reduction. I don't know if we can survive in this
market. 1 hope that free trade opens opportunities fast enough.
Those were the comments of a textile manufacturer in Montreal.
I could go on to quote Andrew Hughes, Vice-President Finance of Monterey Textiles; Sandy Archibald, Chairman of the Textiles, Footwear and Leather SAGIT; Bernard Cowan, a Toronto-based apparel manufacturer; Gary Steiman of Gemini Fashions, Winnipeg; Louis Eisman, President of Mr. Jax Fashions; Betty Jones, a manufacturer's agent for Canadian designers; and the Canadian Textiles Institute.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Table the document.


John Horton McDermid: I could quote a number from the textiles industry who are supporting it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may want to use this material when he enters into the debate. However, he was recognized on what he himself called "a short supplementary question".


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You will note that the Minister was quoting from a document-


An Hon. Member:: He is not a Minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is a Parliamentary Secretary; he is just an aspiring Minister. According to the Standing Orders, of course he is required to table the document. I wonder whether Your Honour could make that request of him.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) knows that the Hon. Member is not a Minister and that he does not have to table the document from which he was quoting.

November 24, 1987
Supply


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary quoted a list of textile companies that are in favour of the agreement.
A number of textile companies are in favour of the agreement. For the most part they are companies dealing with higher cost textile products or specialized textile products. 1 would say that half the witnesses who appeared before the committee were in favour of the agreement and another half were against it. Perhaps there was an odd number who were neither for nor against it but wanted more information.
1 should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that, in general, entrepreneurs and employers favour the agreement because they are looking to new markets and they are better able to withstand shocks as a result of the agreement. The people who have less control over their economic lives are the workers, the unemployed, the old people, and so on. They are the people who are coming to the committee and opposing the agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: We are now hearing from a group of people who did not attend the committee meetings. What 1 am saying is that on balance employers and businessmen favour the agreement, whereas the employees in those industries are opposed to it.


Benno Friesen: What about the steelworkers in Hamilton?


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are opposed.


William Warren Allmand: We could give examples here and there on both sides. By the way, there is a steel company out west which opposes the agreement. The point is that the Government is rushing it through too quickly, and it gave away too much.
In concluding I want to say that we in this Party favour freer trade with the United States. When we were in power, tariffs were lowered over a 20-year to 30-year period. We are not in favour of an agreement which gives too much to the United States and too little to Canada.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member was complaining that there has not been enough parliamentary involvement to this point. I would like to ask him to make a comparison between the amount of parliamentary scrutiny there has been on this agreement and what was done by his Government on the Auto Pact.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I came here in 1965 and the Auto Pact was already passed. I cannot really answer his question. I do not know how much parliamentary time was given to it.
All I can tell the Hon. Member is that today there is universal support in the House for the Auto Pact. I do not know of any Party which would like to do away with it, although I think that what the Government is doing will in fact weaken it.
However, let me say that since I have been here-and that is 22 years-I have never seen an important measure of this nature given such short and summary treatment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Heap:: Madam Speaker-


John Horton McDermid: Wait a minute.


Benno Friesen: Who is next?


Sheila Maureen Copps: He got up and nobody else got up, so that is your problem.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order-


Benno Friesen: Quick Draw McGraw.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I was up.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, in the ordinary rotation of speakers I believe it is now the Government's turn to speak. We have heard from one government speaker and from two opposition speakers already. I believe that it is the Government's turn to speak.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No way.


John Horton McDermid: I was up on debate at the time Your Honour called for debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the government Member realizes, when the Chair calls for debate it is whoever stands up who is recognized, and in fact the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was recognized. Unfortunately, whether or not there may have been an error, the Speaker recognized the Hon. Member for Spadina and the Hon. Member for Spadina should now be heard. I was also standing.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I actually hesitated because I assumed that somebody from the government side would stand up.


John Horton McDermid: I was on my feet.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 1 looked directly across, and I do not know where the Member's mind was but his body was in his seat. Therefore I stood up and was recognized.


John Horton McDermid: On the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair saw the Hon. Parliamentary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid). Nevertheless I made a very normal mistake in thinking that he was still rising on questions or comments and not on debate.
With the permission of the Hon. Member for Spadina, I would like to go back to the normal rotation, if the Hon.
November 24, 1987

Member for Spadina will allow me. Tie will be recognized next. I would like to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary if I have the Hon. Member's approval.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I understand that the Government is in great difficulty to explain itself and I think that it should be given its full opportunity, so I thank you; let him proceed, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for forgiving my mistake. In the normal rotation, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that and I want to thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). I was on my feet on debate, but I must admit that I have been asking a number of questions today and I can understand that Your Honour thought that I was still asking questions.
I am very pleased to participate in the debate today. Once again I want to thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) for bringing this motion forward, because it gives the Government yet another opportunity to present the facts regarding the agreement which has been reached between Canada and the United States that 1 most genuinely believe will be very good for Canada, for all regions of Canada. It will make us a stronger, more confident, more vibrant country than we are today.
We have heard many scare tactics today. It was kind of interesting to listen to the two opposition Members who spoke today. Neither of them offered an alternative to the status quo. They think the status quo is fine.
The first point which should be made is that there is no such thing as the status quo in trade today. Trade is changing rapidly. Protectionist moods are growing throughout the world. We must seize the opportunity presented to us to negotiate such a very important agreement.
I want to touch on a couple of things and then I will talk about consultation and the type of dialogue that has gone on regarding this agreement over the last number of years. I want to make one thing very clear. The Hon. Member said that the agreement will contain between 1,000 and 1,200 pages, but 800 of those pages are tariff schedules. They are not the text of the agreement per se. These tariff schedules must be appended to the agreement. Although it sounds awesome when you hear of an agreement made up of 1,000 to 1,200 pages, one must realize that 800 of those are tariff schedules.
The Hon. Member talked about how his Government consulted, negotiated and passed things. Let me quote him. I think the quote is accurate. "I came to the House in 1965 and the Auto Pact was already passed". The Auto Pact never passed anything. It was negotiated entirely in secret. It was
Supply
announced that it had been signed and it was a fait accompli. There was no motion in the House and no referral to a committee. There was not one thing. There was not one bit of consultation with Canadians on the matter at all.
I might point out that the people who opposed the Auto Pact in 1965, my friends in the New Democratic Party, were extremely vocal at that time, and their arguments used 22 years ago are the same arguments they are using today about the present trade agreement. Today the New Democrats are protecting the Auto Pact with their lives. They were wrong 22 years ago and I believe they are wrong today. Twenty years from now, if they are still around, they will be standing up defending this agreement as one of the most progressive and forward looking agreements that has ever been negotiated on behalf of Canada and Canadians. The New Democrats will be defending this agreement 20 years from now just like they defend the Auto Pact.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) talked about his Government reducing tariffs over a number of years from 1945 to 1984. That is correct. Tariffs did come down. They came down from some 40 per cent to 9 per cent over that period of time through GATT negotiations, the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round and so on. As the tariffs have dropped, prosperity followed. When trade barriers drop, prosperity follows. We have seen it time and time again; for example, in the European Economic Community. I am not afraid of tariff reductions and I do not think Canadians should be afraid either because prosperity follows.
I want to ask the Hon. Member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East-although I do not expect an answer- where did the debates take place in the Kennedy Round when the Liberals reduced tariffs and signed the agreements with GATT? Did the Liberals bring those matters to the House, refer them to a standing committee to travel across the country and get opinions from Canadians? Did the Liberals do it with the Kennedy Round and the Tokyo Round? No, Madam Speaker, they did not. This is the first time there has been such extensive consultation on a trade agreement. History will prove me exactly right to this point. I will go through the consultative process that has taken place concerning this trade agreement.
The motion in part reads: "fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians". Let us examine the facts. First, the previous Liberal Government put together a Royal Commission on the economy. Its job was to look to the future-not just tomorrow, not just to the next election-and determine what direction Canada should be taking to ensure prosperity, increase job opportunities for our young people and to ensure that we maintain our standard and quality of life. One of the major recommendations of that commission was a free trade agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States. I think everyone in this House will admit that there were very capable and prominent people represented from all walks of life on that commission. They spent a

November 24, 1987
Supply
tremendous amount of time and the taxpayers' dollars consulting with Canadians for three years, I believe. That was the recommendation from that commission.
Following that there was the Special Joint Committee on Canada's External Relations that travelled across the country. I must say it was co-chaired by my hon. friend, the now Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Flockin). Its recommendation at that time was to enter into a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. There were dissenting opinions. The NDP did not agree with it, naturally, but the New Democrats do not agree with anything the Government does. The Liberals said that they would like to talk about it and that it might not be a bad idea. The Senate committee looked into this matter and made recommendations. That committee spent time consulting with Canadians recommending that we enter into a free trade agreement. Independent studies from the C. D. Howe Institute, the Economic Council of Canada, the Fraser Institute and so on all recommended that we enter into negotiations.
When we got that kind of input from Canadians over a three year period, our Government decided to look into the matter and enter negotiations. The United States and Canada agreed to enter negotiations under the fast-track provisions of the U.S. trade legislation. That schedule has been known for two and a half years now. So it is no surprise, but the Opposition makes it sound as though it is something new and different.
What did our Government do? We set up an unprecedented program of consultation with the people of Canada. I can assure you, had the Liberals set up a consultation program with the people of Canada on the National Energy Program alone, and had they listened to Canadians, the National Energy Program may never have been created, but the Liberals did not consult Canadians. The NEP was a the brainchild of a few bureaucrats, Mr. Lalonde and a few others, without consultation.
Our Government wanted to make sure that Canadians participated in the trade negotiations. From the beginning we have had a two-way dialogue with business, labour, consumers and the provinces. The core of the consultation system has been the International Trade Advisory Committee which has provided a two-way flow of information between the Government and the private sector.
Under the distinguished chairmanship of a very old friend of mine, Walter Light, former chairman and chief executive officer of Northern Telecom-a large portion of which is in my community-the Government brought together more than 40 leaders from business, labour, consumer groups and academia. ITAC, the International Trade Advisory Committee, concerned itself with broad matters relating to international trade access and marketing. It has made valuable recommendations regarding the free trade association negotiating process. Under the ITAC umbrella we had 15 sectoral advisory groups on international trade, SAGITS. SAGITS represent a broad cross-section of the Canadian economy.
I want to read into the record today, with your permission, Madam Speaker, the sectors represented because it is most important that Canadians understand the consultative process which is being attacked by the New Democratic Party in its motion today. The list includes agriculture, food and beverage, fish and fish products, minerals and metals, energy products and services, chemicals and petrochemicals, forest products, industrial, marine and rail equipment, automotive and aerospace, textiles, footwear and leather, apparel and fur, consumer and household products, communications, computer equipment and services, financial services, general services and arts and cultural industries.
All these sectoral advisory committees were selected in close co-operation and consultation with the various national trade groups, provincial Governments and labour. Both the ITAC and SAGITs provided invaluable support to the trade negotiation team. They were used as a sounding board as the negotiations took place. The negotiating team asked what certain negotiations would do to certain industries, what it could do and if the industries could compete. This process went on throughout and the SAGITs were kept informed while informing the Canadian Government.
As a matter of fact, 150 meetings of the SAGITs and their working groups were held over the last 18 months. We asked for advice, we got it and we listened to it.
Over and above the formal SAGIT consultations, there have been dozens of briefings and consultations by officials from the trade negotiations office with all segments of the private sector and with individuals interested in the negotiations.
Apart from consultations with the private sector, the Government undertook to work closely and co-operatively with the provinces. First Ministers were briefed and consulted regularly as the negotiations progressed. They received briefings with slide presentations on every detail of the agreement.
Typifying the co-operative spirit which this Government has fostered through the Meech Lake Accord and other federal-provincial co-operative endeavours, First Ministers were kept fully apprised of what was going on, both at First Ministers' meetings and through a detailed network of contacts at the senior official level.
In fact, since the negotiations began, there have been eight First Ministers' meetings at which the free trade agreement was the single agenda item, two First Ministers' conferences at which free trade was extensively discussed, 19 full-day meetings of the senior officials' forum, the continuing committee on trade negotiations and scores of working-group meetings on every subject of the free trade agreement.
No previous Government has involved the provinces so extensively in such a comprehensive process of consultation and information sharing. Even Premier Peterson has admitted
November 24, 1987

publicly many times that he greatly appreciates the consultative process this Government has put into place, not only on this subject but on all other subjects for which federal-provincial co-operation is so very important to ensuring that Canada continues to grow and prosper.
It is not just the private sector and the First Ministers who have debated this issue. We have had a number of debates in the House on free trade. I believe this is the fifth or sixth debate we have had on this matter. Of course, on March 16 there was a major debate on a motion and since then a number of opposition Party motions have been brought before the House. We have had a very thorough and, I believe, a very extensive debate on this matter.
Opposition Parties have a number of allotted days left. They can bring this issue forward each time. As a matter of fact, 1 welcome the opportunity to discuss this subject on the floor of the House of Commons as often as opposition Members wish. We really appreciate the opportunity to put the facts about the negotiations on the table.
Hon. Members have spoken of the standing committee which has held extensive hearings. It has worked very hard in Ottawa. Its work schedule is probably three times harder than that of a normal standing committee which is holding hearings. It has worked tremendously hard over more than two weeks, not only being briefed but listening to all kinds of representations from people from all walks of life. I think that representation has been very fair. It has not leaned toward the supporters of the agreement or toward those who oppose the agreement.
Committee members are now crossing Canada. They are going from one coast to the other meeting those who are interested in appearing before the committee to let their feelings be known. A committee on a free trade agreement has never before done this in the history of Canada.
For Hon. Members opposite, particularly those from the former governing Party, the Grits, to criticize us for our consultative process and to criticize the committee's timing is something I find to be absolutely amazing and somewhat hypocritical.
I am very excited about this agreement. I am excited about the opportunities it will provide. I am travelling around the country making speeches and holding question and answer periods. Last night I was in Brockville. On Sunday I was in Whitby, and I will be speaking to the textile association and the Canadian Automobile Association tomorrow. The more the people understand and learn about free trade and the more I talk to them about it, the more excited they get.
What I find to be the most fun is that it is the young people who are grabbing this opportunity and telling us how much they look forward to it. The other night on television I saw a young man who is going to university here in Ottawa, but is from Windsor. He took offence to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) saying that he could


*S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
not compete with the Americans. He said: "You are telling me that I cannot compete with those fellows across the border in Detroit? I am a lot better than they are, I can compete with them, no problem at all". Those are the ones who are excited, are grabbing this opportunity and are running with it.
Looking at the attitudes of some of the provinces toward this agreement, I am saddened that the premier of my province is opposing this agreement. The philosophy of the Liberal Party in Ontario was made obvious when Monte Kwinter said what is good for Ontario is good for Canada. That disappointed me because past Premiers of the Province of Ontario like Frost, Robarts and Davis had the attitude that what is good for Canada is good for Ontario. That was their philosophy. However, the David Peterson Government of Ontario says that what is good for Ontario is good for the rest of the country. That is not the way confederation works. That is not the way I want to see confederation working.
This agreement with the United States will offer untold opportunities. On Friday, we debated the fisheries and talked about the opportunities it will give to the fisheries. I see that my hon. friend from Egmont is here today. He brought that particular motion forward, and again I thank him for doing so. It allowed us to put the facts on the table. I plead with members of both opposition Parties to keep bringing these motions forward when oppositions days come along. We love debating them. We love putting the facts about the trade agreement before the House.
I could cite this agreement chapter and verse, as I am sure Hon. Members could appreciate, but with the limited time available to me I must stop now. I do wish to encourage opposition Members to maintain their tenacity and to continue to bring these motions forward so that we can discuss the facts and so that the Canadian public can be well and properly advised. The fearmongering of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party will be found not to be based on fact, and this will be proven here and around Canada in the days to come.
Mrs.   Duplessis@: Excellent speech! Excellent!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments following the speech by the parliamentary secretary will be provided after Oral Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1987


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization in the United States is an ecumenical foundation committed exclusively to the support of community organizing. For 20 years its members have been fighting for peace and justice. In that time they have contributed over $15 million to politically progressive organizing projects in the U.S., Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. In early December their twentieth anniversary program will be held in New York City. Among those participating are Mr. Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney-General; Bishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Jessie Jackson, and Mr. Harry Belafonte.
At their awards banquet to honour 10 of the most outstanding organizations in the struggle for social justice the honourees will include the U.S. Farm Labor Organizing Committee, the National Union of South African Mine Workers, the Nicaragua Baptist Convention, and, Sir, the Lubicon Lake Indian Band from northern Alberta. The unresolved land claim of the Lubicon Band is one of the great shames of this country and will continue to attract the attention of the world until the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta make a fair settlement of this claim a priority.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, once again there is good economic news for the Mulroney Government from Statistics Canada. The rate of family income has risen and poverty has declined for the second year in a row. Some 525,000 Canadians have risen above the poverty line. Since 1984 we have seen a substantial drop in the number of Canadians living under the poverty line. Average family income increased in real terms in 1986 for the second consecutive year. After adjustment for inflation, we are $471 or 1.9 per cent higher than in 1985, and 4.2 per cent higher than 1984.
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought out his economic statement, the Opposition cried that over 100,000 Canadians would be out of work. Instead, more than 1 million Canadians now have jobs who did not have them before, and over 525,000 are better paid and above the poverty line.
The free trade agreement will further reduce the number of Canadians living below the poverty line by increasing the
number of jobs, increasing real incomes, and reducing consumer prices.



TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, last year the federal Government, through CN, sold Route Canada, formally known as CN Express, to private interests in Toronto. Federal guarantees of former employees' wages, pensions and severance pay recently expired.
On November 5 Route Canada suddenly announced it was closing its terminals in Sydney and Stellarton, Nova Scotia, and Bathurst, New Brunswick. The employees in those terminals, who have worked most of their lives for CN, are eligible only for the legal minimum in severance pay despite anywhere from 15 to 46 years' seniority with that Crown corporation.
Families in these three hard-hit communities are paying the price of the Prime Minister's privatization policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should pay the price if he thinks privatization is such a good idea for Canada. Fair compensation from the federal Government is the least Route Canada's employees deserve after the sudden and unjustified shut-down of these terminals.
The increasing number of lay-offs in the trucking industry clearly shows that privatization and deregulation are costing us jobs now. More jobs will be lost in the trucking industry if the unpopular Tory Government has its way and forces our Prime Minister's and Ronald Reagan's trade scam through Parliament.



McGILL REDMEN'S VANIER CUP VICTORY-TRIBUTE TO PLAYERS AND COACH

Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, McGill University has earned a reputation for academic excellence not only across Canada and North America but right around the world. Its graduates have assumed leadership roles and responsibility in all spheres of endeavour. It continues to attract students simply for the opportunity to learn and develop.
However, this week the McGill undergraduates and graduates are celebrating the excellence and team-work of their athletes. Last Saturday's victory in Toronto in the Vanier Cup game, emblematic of the championship of Canada, for the first time ever by a university in Quebec, demonstrated that a total commitment by players and coaches with the will to win
November 24, 1987

assures success. My congratulations go to Michael Soles, Bryan Fuller, Coach Baillie, "the Crazy Dogs", and all their team-mates for a great achievement and for adding athletic excellence to McGill's great traditions.
"What's the matter with old McGill?", we all used to chant. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, nothing!

[DOT] (M05)



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the roe herring fishery in British Columbia needs some leadership from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon). At present there are approximately 250 seine licences and over 1,300 gillnet licences in this fishery. In recent years the fishery has become a nightmare for many fishermen.
It is generally recognized that fish companies now own a considerable number of seine licences and the companies have advertised in newspapers to purchase or lease other licences held by people who no longer want to use them. The annual fee for a seine licence is $2,000. Bona fide fishermen who want to fish are forced into a bidding war for these licences. Last year a seine licence was priced at $50,000 and upwards. Some boat owners have leased several seine licences, in effect slashing the number of jobs in the fishery.
The United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union estimates that 400 jobs were lost last year and that up to 300 jobs may be lost this year. In March of this year the Minister said, as reported in the Vancouver Sun: "Those who benefit should be those who are directly involved in the industry, not the people who sit in a chair somewhere".
The Minister has now sat in his chair for nearly a year and the patience of concerned fishermen is running out. I urge the Minister to take corrective measures now.

[Translation}



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the sound economic policies introduced by this Government and a renewed confidence in our Canadian economy, poverty has gone down in this country for the second consecutive year, while the average family income has increased. In 1986, the number of Canadians living below the poverty line dropped by 262,000, while the average family
income rose by $741. In 1986, 3,689,000 Canadians were living below the poverty line, which is 525,000 less than in 1984.
Family income increased in 1986 for the second consecutive year. After inflation, family income increased by $741, nearly 2 percent more than in 1985. The average family income increased by more than $ 636 in 1986, 4.2 percent more than in 1984.
In Quebec, we know that the percentage of families and single persons living below the poverty line dropped substantially.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say I am confident that the steps taken by our Government to promote free trade with the United States will help reduce poverty in this country even further, by creating more jobs, increasing income and reducing the price of consumer goods.

[English)



PETRO-CANADA FUTURE OF PORT MOODY REFINERY

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada proposes to stop the initial processing of crude oil which has been done with great efficiency at its five-star refinery in Port Moody, British Columbia, There are only two refineries in North America which have the safety and efficiency to get the five-star rating and Port Moody is one of them.


Gerry St. Germain: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My hon. friend will be happy to know that.
Edmonton will ship a tailored special stream of naptha distillate fractions of crude oil via the transmountain pipeline to Port Moody. This will mean the shutting down of part of the Port Moody refinery and the loss of jobs and money to the local community. It could be the beginning of the end of Petro-Canada's refineries in Port Moody and Fort St. John, British Columbia.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the recent tornado in Edmonton came within a block of refinery row. A natural or man-made disaster could have disastrous effects on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia if Petro-Canada concentrates all its refining in Edmonton. That would hurt our economy.
I therefore ask Petro-Canada to reconsider its decision with respect to the Port Moody refinery. If it cannot do that, can it at least give the workers and people of Port Moody a commitment that Petro-Canada will not close the refinery and will treat the workers fairly as it has in the past?

November 24, 1987



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as a Progressive Conservative Member representing northern Ontario I am disturbed and disgusted by the criticism I heard in the House yesterday from the opposition benches of the FEDNOR. My colleagues and myself in the northern Ontario caucus have worked hard to put together an economic program which will meet the challenges of the resource-based economy; a program which would allow for the special needs of the region, a program which would allow local input, a program which would draw from the strengths of the communities and individuals of northern Ontario.
I am proud to say that we have delivered an economic program. The Government recognizes northern Ontario as a unique region of the country with unique needs of each and every individual. Northern Ontario Members are proud of the Government's performance and commitment to northern Ontario.
The opposition Members who criticize should consider their own record. Who has helped the region of northern Ontario more than have we? The socialist Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said that they did not believe in flow-through shares which would benefit the resource industries of northern Ontario.
As for the Liberal Members, not once in the over 16 years of their Governments have they assisted the region of northern Ontario.
I repeat that I am shocked and dismayed by the criticism by the Opposition of FEDNOR, a program which will allow northern Ontarians the opportunities they deserve.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Marguerite Rondeau of Joseph-Renaud Boulevard in Ville d'Anjou recently got a postcard telling her where to go to pick up a registered letter. When she got there, there was no sign indicating there was a post office, and much to her surprise, when she entered the store-it was a convenience store-she found a young man who was weighing bananas, and when she showed him her card, the young man handed her the registered letter. Mrs. Rondeau was understandably surprised that her registered letter was in the same location as the bananas!
It has come to a pretty pass, Mr. Speaker, when we start mixing mail with bananas.
Many more Canadians are going through the same experience at premises that are not even identified as post offices. Even business people are starting to cancel their contracts with Canada Post because it does not pay. Customers are so upset about poor service that the Post Office is losing customers instead of getting more.
Mr. Speaker, every day I am asked: Why doesn't the Minister responsible for Canada Post scrap this poorly designed plan that fails to serve Canadians?

[DOT] (MIO)



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Stabilization Program assists producers when net income from grain and oilseed seeds falls below the average of the past five years. The Act was amended in February, 1985, to allow for interim payments so that farmers could have cash in their hands prior to spring seeding. A record interim payment of $705 million was made in April of this year.
Last Friday, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) announced a further final payment of $693 million under the WGSA for 1986-87. This brings the total WGSA benefit paid out to $1.4 billion, including $759 million to Saskatchewan, the largest pay-out ever issued and 63 per cent higher than last year.
As the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool President, Garf Stevenson, said: "It is a very substantial payment and it is very much needed. The payment demonstrates the commitment by the Government to support agriculture".



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's trade deal with the United States continues to unravel. Yesterday the Government of Ontario stated that it will not agree to the terms negotiated for its wine industry.
On Sunday the General Council of the Quebec Liberal Party refused to approve the agricultural terms of the deal. The council members know that the deal is so unpopular with rural Quebecers that supporting it is like "throwing oil on a fire".
November 24, 1987

Similarly, western Canadian farmers know full well that their marketing boards and supply management systems are at risk as processed food is imported, bypassing locally grown chickens, turkeys and eggs, for example.
They also see no stop to the continued U.S. drive for bigger shares in the international grain market despite this costing ever more in grain subsidies and ill will from countries such as Canada, which have much lower subsidy programs.
Does the Government really believe that statements such as "marketing boards remain in place' will mollify farmers as they see their markets swept away by heavily subsidized U.S. production? Guess again. Farmers do not like what they have been handed by the Government and they are making their objections heard.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Saint John Shipyard has assembled a world class naval construction team that is in place and producing first-class frigates. The yard's performance record is highly commendable. These two components alone are reason enough for the next six frigates to be built in Saint John, New Brunswick.
I am calling upon my colleagues in Cabinet to recognize the potential in high tech development and long term job creation that the awarding of the next six frigates would mean to the economy of Saint John, of New Brunswick, and of the Maritime Provinces.
Today in Saint John is the foundation of economic renewal for which all Maritimers are looking. The Government of Canada must recognize that another six frigates to the region will mean enduring skill diversification, economic prosperity, and affirming the renewal that the Government is committed to achieving.
I strongly urge the Government to award the frigate contract to a yard that is showing the world it can excel in frigate construction. If the key considerations in federal government contracting are cost, schedule, performance and industrial benefits, then the Saint John yard is the proper choice.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-GRAIN PRICES

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) free trade deal is a fraud, a deceit and a sham. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, the Americans are depressing grain prices and robbing Canada of its international grain sales. During the negotiating process, the United States adopted its controversial Farm Bill specifically designed to lower grain prices. Since then the prices of agricultural commodities have been in a free fall.
After the Prime Minister's preliminary trade deal was signed, the U.S. still utilized its Export Enhancement Program on at least three separate occasions with Russia, China, and Algeria. If that was not enough, we now learn that the United States is at it again, this time auctioning off 22 million tonnes of wheat to be sold at rock-bottom prices, creating further damage to Canadian agriculture.
It should be quite obvious to the Prime Minister and to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) that this trade deal is not worth the paper it is written on. The Minister for International Trade would have been better off forgetting about eating chicken that day because the deal is awful.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the socialists have decided to resort to a new financing system: they will hold a draw for tickets, but the tickerts will be free. I am not surprised. Who would spend money for the socialists except for labour unions, and it is not even their money, it is the money of the workers.
For this draw, the socialists will mail householders. I can hardly wait to see who will pay for the stamps, Mr. Speaker. The idea behind the draw is to urge people to write to the socialists because this adds names to their mailing lists, at least in Canada, because in Quebec things are different.
They will not have their small lottery in Quebec because they have not had time to understand the law in Quebec. This is why they have no roots in Quebec. As to other Canadians, if you want to go and see your distant cousins in Australia or New Zealand, do not hesitate, fill in the forms the socialists will be mailing to you. This way you will have an opportunity to dance along with other minor fringe socialists who can afford to live in this capitalist system which has the money to support you.

November 24, 1987
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Throughout the trade discussions, the Prime Minister insisted that medicare and social programs were not on the table. However, that is not what Canadians are saying. Last week we heard from the National Anti-Poverty Organization which says that existing and future social programs are threatened by this deal. Yesterday we heard the president of the British Columbia Business Council, a supporter of the deal, saying medicare could be eroded. How could the Prime Minister sign a deal which even his own supporters say could threaten medicare?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's question, of course, is that the Prime Minister did no such thing. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that involves social programs, as we have consistently told this House. I think what are being expressed are the fears which are being aroused by the Opposition by claiming something is in the free trade agreement which is not.


QUERY WHY SOCIAL PROGRAM GUARANTEE NOT WRITTEN INTO CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, although the Minister has given some explanations on this matter to the Canadian people, she has failed to mention any written safeguards to guarantee the future of Medicare, the Old Age Security pensions, as well as our social and daycare programs. Why did the Prime Minister sign an agreement which does not give any assurances in writing that these programs will not be included in any future agreement between Canada and the United States? Why did the government not get written guarantees in this agreement to protect these programs?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as I gave to the first question. Social programs are not in the free trade agreement in any way at all. It is only because of the Opposition's attempts to confuse Canadians by insisting that social programs are in the agreement that people are being misled.
The allegations are coming from the Opposition. The allegations are wrong, and the Opposition will have to account to Canadians for their fearmongering.


FUTURE OF SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like an answer from the Prime Minister if he feels-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I believe that the health care of Canadians is an issue that should be of concern to the Prime Minister.
1 wish to ask the Prime Minister specifically why there is absolutely nothing in these very glossy blue documents that are being sent out by his Party to guarantee the future of medicare in this country, the future of child care, the future of pregnancy leave, and the future of pay equity.
Why were senior citizens' pensions not protected by a specific written guarantee that they would never be subject to U.S. anti-dumping or U.S. countervail in the future?
Why did the Government not get written guarantees to help Canadians?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the reason that those programs are not in the free trade agreement is that the Prime Minister stated from day one that social programs would not be involved in any way in discussions over free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: That is not what the Medical Association is saying.


Pat Carney: In terms of the social concerns, may I point out that today the new statistics from Stats Canada show that there has been a further drop in the number of Canadians living below the poverty line. Since the Government came to power half a million Canadians have now been moved off the poverty line rolls, and the numbers in the senior citizen category are the lowest percentage ever on record.
That is the social performance of this Government.


SALES OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZED WHEAT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns a group in our society who have increasing numbers on the poverty line, and I am speaking of the farmers of Canada.
For the third time since the Prime Minister's trade deal was signed on October 4, Canadians have witnessed actions by the United States Government designed to steal our customers and to lower wheat prices in Canada.
According to the Wheat Board, the United States is now in the process of auctioning at a loss, subsidized by the taxpayers of the United States, some 22 million tonnes of wheat. What
November 24, 1987

specific action has the Prime Minister taken, or does he intend to take in order to protest this breach of his own trade deal?
Is this not proof that his trade deal is not worth the paper that it is written on?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that this is not a new program. It is something that the United States has been doing on an ongoing basis for the past two and a half years. It is one that we do not approve of, and one that we object to very strongly. All Members should know that this morning our Ambassador in Washington registered those objections with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
If he is interested, the Hon. Member should also know that last week the European Community released approximately 1 million tonnes of intervention wheat for sale to the Soviet Union. We object strongly to that. We think that the subsidy associated with that sale was something like $200 a tonne. We do not like it, and we are doing everything we can to protest, to let both the Europeans and the Americans know that we think it is counter-productive.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that is most reassuring, and the farmers will be quite pleased. That will bring them a lot more money today or tomorrow.


QUERY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE AGREEMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address again the Prime Minister to whom I directed my previous question. Considering that, as stated on page 36 of the Agreement, the Parties must be careful not to undermine the spirit of the Free Trade Agreement in the period prior to its entry into force; that the Americans have demonstrated on many occasions their unwillingness to respect the preliminary agreement, why should we believe that they intend to respect the final agreement and why does the Prime Minister not put an end to this farce as soon as possible by tearing up this agreement?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, possibly the Hon. Member would care to refer to the "Elements of the Agreement" and point out that it is the first time, in any trade agreement, that the two parties have agreed between themselves that there shall be no export subsidies in this area. That is a very important move forward in advancing agricultural trade reform.


REQUEST THAT DEADLINE FOR SIGNING BE EXTENDED
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. It has now been confirmed that the Canadian and American officials will
Oral Questions
not meet for one final time, presumably, until November 30, to get conclusive wording on the agreement.
Considering that this virtually guarantees that the committees of the House and the House itself will not have adequate time to consider this important document, which the Prime Minister has described as being the most significant deal in the history of the planet, if not the universe, will the Minister undertake to do the serious work that ought to be done in the circumstances and appeal directly to the United States for a minimum two-month extension in the deadline?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the negotiators have broken to honour the American Thanksgiving weekend. They will be back for the final cleaning up of the few remaining details at the beginning of the week, and we expect the report to be released shortly.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Americans have a lot to be thankful for from this Government under the circumstances. No one is questioning the appropriateness of the Americans having their Thanksgiving and that being a reason for the delay of the wording; that is totally understandable. However, what the people of Canada want-what British Columbians demonstrated for yesterday and what people in other provinces want-is the opportunity to study the agreement seriously. That is what ought to be done.
In that context I want to ask a question of the Minister. Given the importance that she has attached to this, and that the whole Government has attached to it, why is it unreasonable to ask for a minimum two-month extension so that the committee can do its job, so that Members of Parliament can do their job, and so that Canadians can understand what is involved?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we feel that there is ample time in the parliamentary process to continue the kind of debate that was started in the Macdonald Commission, with a $20 million, two-year discussion of the issue; in the Senate commissions; in consultation with the SAGITs; in all the consultative mechanisms which have been established and which will take place in the future.
May I add that Canadians have a lot to be thankful for from this Government, including the best performing economy in the entire western world.
If we do not get the benefits of a free trade agreement, it will be no thanks to those people on the other side of the House.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF AGREED PORTIONS OF TEXT
John Edward Broadbent: The Minister is her usual charming self. Mr. Speaker, we understand that something like 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the wording has been agreed upon, and that the Premiers will be meeting

November 24, 1987
Oral Questions
elsewhere in Canada this week and would like to have a look at what has been prepared. Will the Government at least show them the courtesy of taking the wording, which has been agreed upon on both sides, to that meeting so that they can have a look at it, and release it simultaneously to the committee so that other Canadians can at least have a look at what has been agreed upon? Will she do that?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been scrupulous in bringing all information before the First Ministers. Through seven or eight meetings for seven or eight hours a time he has presented state of the art reports on these negotiations, and he will be doing that at this First Ministers' meeting.
If I could just comment on the personal remark made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, 1 can say that charm isn't everything, and I cite as evidence the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. It arises out of an answer given in the House yesterday concerning the Northern Ontario Regional Development Program called FEDNOR.
According to the Minister's reply yesterday, there are still four more appointments to be made to the FEDNOR advisory board.


An Hon. Member:: None of your friends will make it.


B. Keith Penner: None of my friends will make it, says the Hon. Member. That is what I want to ask about exactly, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Friends in high places.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: I want to know whether among those four remaining positions there will be representatives on the board from the native community of northern Ontario, from organized labour and, if I may be so bold, will there be anybody at all from the constituency of Cochrane-Superior?
When the Minister answers, will he tell the House in order to be considered for one of these appointments is it absolutely necessary to be a card carrying PC? If that is so, it will be a very short list.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, that question was answered yesterday by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He said:
In filling the last four vacancies, we will ensure that we complete that
composition so that it truly reflects the social, ethnic and cultural realities of
northern Ontario.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, if that question had been answered yesterday, I would not have asked it again today. We did not get an answer yesterday. The answer we got was very vague and uncertain and that is why I ask the question again today.


PROGRAM APPLICANTS-POLITICAL AFFILIATION QUERY
B. Keith Penner: Let me ask
another question on the same theme, Mr. Speaker. Many people who are considering applying for this regional development program are asking the question: is it necessary that they belong to the Progressive Conservative Party in order to be considered by an advisory board made up almost exclusively of Tories?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I guess for anyone who cares to look at the facts he or she will see what the Hon. Member's preoccupation is. He talks about native economic development. In the Ontario region we have approved 49 projects worth $60 million. That was done under this Government under the Native Economic Development Program.
If the Member cares to check with those who have applied, he will find that none of them were asked about their political affiliation.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN VANCOUVER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who will know that hearings were held in Vancouver yesterday for a province representing three million people. By definition the people on Vancouver Island were shut out of the hearings. The people of northern British Columbia, central British Columbia, the Kootenay region and, indeed, the upper Fraser Valley were all shut out.
As a Member representing British Columbia, does the Minister feel that in a province of three million people, very diverse in its economy, that hearing a handful of representatives in one city is doing justice to the process of democracy?
November 24, 1987


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that there was an all-Party agreement on the representation of the people who appeared before the committee. I am told that they agreed to divide the time available evenly between the Government and the opposition Parties. Should the Member find this arrangement unsatisfactory, presumably he should take it up with his own people who did the organizing.


COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN ALBERTA
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. We want the Minister to know that this process is a sham and we opposed it from the very beginning. Each day as it progresses we are more convinced of that being the case.
My supplementary question is with regard to the hearings today in the Province of Alberta. At noon today we found out that a number of groups, including three women's groups, were told that they were not able to make presentations, that their views on the free trade deal would not be heard during the hearings in Alberta.
Considering the fact that the Government of Canada felt it was appropriate to take up to four weeks to hold hearings on the changes to the Crow rate, does the Minister not feel that on an important trade deal, which the Prime Minister has said is the most important trade deal in Canadian history, the Government should continue to take more than two weeks to hold hearings?


Pat Carney: I am
really surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member would consider four weeks as too much time to devote to the Crow rate when it was so important to the interests of western Canada. I just fail to understand why the Member does not understand the importance of this process to Canadians in general.
I have already said that there has been a lot of opportunity for Canadians to participate. There will be a lot of opportunity for Canadians to participate. The actual program that has been evolved for the committee hearings was arranged in consultation and in agreement with his own Party.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Task Force on Ground Fish for the Newfoundland Inshore Fishery, otherwise known as TGNIF, has presented its report to the Minister of Fisheries. It covers the cod stock in 2J3KL which is all the northern cod stock all along the coast of Newfoundland and the coastline of Labrador, a portion of
Oral Questions
which stock a consortium from the Prime Minister's riding stretching right down into northern New Brunswick wants, along with the Government of France.
Everybody wants to know what is in this report. Since the Deputy Ministers are meeting on the twenty-seventh of this month and the Atlantic Ground Fish Advisory Committee is meeting on the thirtieth of this month to make decisions based on this report, where is the report? Why is it so late? When will a copy be given to the Government of Newfoundland?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be very pleased to know that on or about November 19, I believe it was, the Minister of Fisheries had presented to him a summary of the findings of that report from Dr. Alverson, chairman of the task force, and two of the other four members attended on the Minister of Fisheries to give him a summary. There are well over 100 pages of technical writing. It is being translated into French on an aussitot que possible basis. For the Hon. Member's benefit I will translate. It means on "as fast as possible basis". I do not think the Hon. Member is as fluent as I am.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: In which language?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think he is fluent at all, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Alverson is going to present a summary of the task group's findings to a special meeting of the AGAC-one certainly has to know one's initials to be in this business-on November 30.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I believe the Deputy Ministers are meeting and they will be given a verbal report. I believe that the Minister of Fisheries himself will probably bump into the Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland during the First Ministers' Conference, and during that bumping occasion he will advise the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland in substance what is in the report. But the hon. gentleman will have to wait a few more days because, as I say, aussitot que possible.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, where is the Minister of Fisheries when this Government deserves to be fried?


TRANSLATION OF REPORT-PROTECTION OF COD STOCK
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, TGNIF does not just mean the Task Force on Ground Fish for the Newfoundland Inshore Fishery-


An Hon. Member:: What does it mean?


George Baker: It also stands for "Thank God it is not in French".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 24, 1987
Oral Questions


George Baker: Now they can stall it some more to cook up a translation, but they cannot cook up the facts.
Will the Minister verify that in this report it says that there should be no further catching effort of northern cod stock and that, furthermore, the projections of the scientists that have been used in setting the quotas were overly optimistic, over estimated and, in most cases, erroneous? Will the Minister now say "no" to these people who want to exploit the northern cod further, and "yes" to the inshore fishermen who have known all along that this stock needs to be protected?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, certainly Marlon Brando will not be missed while the hon. gentleman is around.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My response to the Member's statement about Translation is incroyable. It is incredible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is incredible that any Member of this House today, particularly a Member of the Liberal Party, would say "Thank God it is not in French".
I say on this side of the House that we are not going to present any report to any province or to this Parliament, or to any Member of Parliament, that is not in both official languages.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ouellet:: He is talking about the French from France.


John Carnell Crosbie: We say thank God, merci mon Dieu, it will be in both languages, English and French.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he really believe that by allowing the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade to hear eight witnesses six and a half million Quebec men and women, from Rouyn-Noranda, Rimouski, and the Saguenay will have ample opportunity to voice their views on the most important trade deal in the history of the world? Is he not making a mockery of the democratic process?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec men and women are already voicing their views on the free trade issue thanks to the Parliamentary Commissions set up by the Quebec and Federal Government, and they will continue to do so. The Hon. Member is certainly aware that Quebecers, from Mr. Bourassa to Mr. Parizeau, have made it known that they are in favour of free trade as an indispensable tool for the future development of Quebec. If my Hon. friend wants to be heard, either in Ontario or in Quebec, he will have every opportunity to do so before. The proper Parliamentary Committee of the Quebec Government or that of the Federal Government.


TIME SPENT ON CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think even the Prime Minister would agree that having the Premiers and Members of Parliament talk about what is supposed to be the greatest trade deal in the history of the world is quite different-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: If it is so great, history will tell. If it is so great, why fear the ordinary people? Does the Prime Minister want to have it recorded in the history books that the Canadian people and their representatives were allowed to spend less time than the average family spends determining whether or not to buy a car or even a pair of Guccis?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the time allocated for committee hearings, in conjunction with consultations that have gone on, including the many First Ministers' conferences, is infinitely more time than was ever made available by the previous Government for trade treaties such as the Auto Pact.
v *	*


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Development, I turn to the Prime Minister. The Government of Canada has recently terminated funding for the Richmond County Development Corporation in Nova Scotia, and now in industrial Cape Breton a decision is pending on the future of the industrial development division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Will the Prime Minister end the uncertainty and anguish and give a clear and unequivocal undertaking to the people of Cape Breton that the mandate of the industrial development division of Devco will be enlarged and not reduced, and that
November 24, 1987

sufficient monies will be put in place to implement needed and useful programs so that area of Canada will have an economic base upon which to grow and thrive?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I will take notice of the very specific question the Hon. Member has asked and I shall arrange for an answer to his question. I would like to point out, however, that in Cape Breton in the last three years there has been a drop in unemployment of a full 5 points. That means that many jobs have been created there.
The measures taken including the Cape Breton development plan, tax measures, and the Atlantic Opportunities Agency are all initiatives that have benefited the Cape Breton area immensely. I am sure the Hon. Member will acknowledge that.


QUERY CONCERNING CONSULTATIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Development has said publicly that a decision will be made before the end of January on the future of the industrial development division. One would assume that a consultation process would have been put in place. Will the Minister now place on the record the names of the individuals that Minister has consulted, the names of the groups he has consulted and the names of the groups and organizations he intends to consult in the future?
Will he also tell us whether any private sector consulting firm has been retained in order to do an assessment of the industrial development division of Devco? In essence, the people of Cape Breton wish to know who the sources of information are and the kinds of information that are going to the Minister on a vital part of their economy, namely, the industrial development division of Devco.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the many, many questions the Hon. Member has asked. We shall provide him with an answer as soon as the Minister returns.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. In view of the recent announcements, and considering the possibility of accepting Contras from Central America as refugees in Canada as part of the peace settlement in Central America, will the Government make a clear distinction between those Nicaraguans who simply oppose their Government on the one
Oral Questions
hand and, on the other hand, those who virtually have war criminal records? Will the Government ensure that the latter are not admitted to Canada?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the comment made by my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was purely hypothetical and in no way committed the Government. I would like to give the Hon. Member the assurance that our policy with regard to refugees is quite clear. We have never admitted terrorists or persons guilty of war crimes, and that policy will not change.


APPLICATION OF IMMIGRATION GUIDELINES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for her reply-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Hon. Minister of State for her reply, but I would like to ask a further question.
In view of the fact that events are moving very quickly in Central America and that what is hypothetical may shortly become actual, will the Minister assure the House that before decisions are made to bring any of the Contras to Canada, the Minister will report to the House the guidelines and methods the Minister and the Immigration Commission will use to ensure that no former Contras who have committed war crimes such as the willful murder of non-combatant men, women and children, will be brought to Canada?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I may add for the benefit of the Hon. Member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will certainly be advising Canadians when he returns about any arrangements that could be made in this kind of situation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Jack Scowen: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. I would like to know what is being done about the decision of the CBC to refuse to run ads sponsored by the Saskatchewan Government regarding free trade. Will the CBC ban all statements about free trade on all CBC stations in Canada in order to be fair?

November 24, 1987
Oral Questions


Miss Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the advertising standards of the CBC are determined by its board of directors, including the rules governing controversial broadcasting and controversial advertising. In fact those rules do not permit advertisers to buy time for the broadcast of controversial material.
1 would explain that controversial advertising is defined as "a matter of public interest about which there is significant difference of opinion and which is or is likely to be the subject of public debate". I am informed that the ads in question were reviewed according to CBC's controversial advertising policy and they were found to be unacceptable.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in Nicaragua our foreign Minister visited a Canadian aid project which has been attacked by the U.S. backed Contras three times in recent years, which attacks resulted in 11 deaths. However, the Minister failed once again to ask the American Government to stop funding military attacks on civilian aid projects. When will the Government publicly state its opposition to this ill-conceived American policy, or is it afraid it might upset the U.S. and thereby lose the free trade agreement?
Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I believe that on his visit to Central America, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave a clear demonstration of the Canadian Government's policy which is to try and find a way to bring peace to this region. I am convinced that the Secretary of State will do everything in his power to try and contribute to this peace operation.


AMOUNT OF CANADIAN AID TO HONDURAS AND NICARAGUA
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question but I will try another one.
Yesterday the Minister announced a $1 million aid program for Nicaragua. We are told that on Thursday he will announce an $18 million aid program for Honduras. Since Canada is already giving more to Honduras and that country is dragging
its feet on the peace plan, why did Canada not give at least the same amount to Nicaragua which has greater need due to the Contra war and the American blockade?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I do not have readily available the exact amount that the Canadian Government has provided to Nicaragua. That country is one of the largest recipients of Canadian aid in that area. It is something in the neighbourhood of $40 million over the last number of years. Some $4.5 million over and above that has gone to Nicaragua via NGOs. However, I would be happy to provide my hon. friend with specific information on such an important question.
Regarding the initiatives of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am sure my hon. friend will agree that this is an extremely difficult area and extremely complex climate. The Minister, because of his promotion of an increased aid policy over a number of years and a clear assertion that we espouse an approach to Central America different from some of our allies, and the very helpful initiatives he is taking in Central America this very day, I think deserves the congratulations of all Members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Leo Duguay (Saint-Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister is aware that I have been trying for a long time to get the Winter Games televised in French on the same basis as they will be in English. Could the Minister inform the House whether she has been able to conclude an agreement and so correct a situation that is unacceptable to Francophones outside Quebec?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in addition to measures we have already taken, I am happy to inform you that the French network of the CBC will broadcast coverage of the opening and closing ceremonies, as well as a daily one-hour summary. This was made possible thanks to the financial assistance of the CBC, the Olympic Committee and the Department of Communications, and the co-operation of TVA, CANCOM and CRTC.
I would like to give special thanks to all members of the Joint Committee on Official Languages for their suggestions in this regard.
November 24, 1987


STATUS OF WOMEN
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. This weekend 35 organizations endorsed a court challenge to the federal Government's discriminatory language policy. That challenge is based on the fact that many immigrant women are denied language training and this in turn increases their isolation and confines them to low-paying jobs that do not require communication skills.
In view of this court challenge, will the Minister see that the eligibility criteria are changed so that the language training necessary for women and their full integration into the economy is available, and thereby save us all these expensive legal costs?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the language program is designed to help new immigrants regardless of gender. Under the Canadian Jobs Strategy over $60 million is provided for labour training for those wishing to enter the labour force. Some 85 per cent of that was used by new immigrants in 1986 and 1987. Over the past five years we have provided language training for more than 90,000 new arrivals in the labour market.
The Secretary of State provides funding for language training for citizenship purposes. Immigrant non-working spouses not destined for the labour force can take advantage of these programs.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I think this House deserves more respect than just having the Minister read an answer. There is a court challenge to the discrimination against women in language training. Is the Minister willing or not to allow these people to become part of our daily workforce?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the language training under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is intended for those being prepared for the labour market. Employment and Immigration Canada has implemented a program called Settlement Language Training which has been very helpful to those not being prepared for the labour market, and we will continue that program across Canada again this year.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


INDIA-IMPRISONMENT OF CANADIAN CITIZEN WITHOUT BEING CHARGED
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr, Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. A Canadian citizen, Mr. Balkar Singh, has been imprisoned in India for the last month although he has not been charged with any offence. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government is taking to ensure that Mr. Singh is either released, if there is no evidence against him, or given a fair and quick trial?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, our High Commission in New Delhi did advise us that Indian foreign affairs representatives had confirmed that Mr. Singh has been arrested and is being kept in jail. Of course we-I mean departmental officials-have so advised the family members and they are being kept aware of the latest developments.
Our High Commissioner told us today that consular access has been authorized and that probably tomorrow a High Commission agent will be allowed to see Mr. Singh in jail.
I can assure my colleague that I will be pleased to keep her informed of new developments as we receive more information from our High Commission.


REQUEST THAT FAMILY BE INFORMED OF DEVELOPMENTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. May I also ask her if she will ensure that Mr. Singh's family is kept fully informed of developments? He has a wife and three young children in Toronto who were expecting him back from a visit to a sick relative.


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure my colleague and tell her that so far the family has been made aware of new developments by agents of the Department of External Affairs, and I personally will see to it that the agents continue to bring any new development to the attention of the family.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, whose announcement last Friday of the

November 24, 1987
Oral Questions
$693 million final payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Program was well received. The problem is that the fund is now something in the order of $1.5 billion in deficit. It is obvious that the present levies will not even pay the interest on that amount.
What are the Minister's plans relative to a possible increase in levies? Is he considering amending the legislation in order to allow those 15 per cent of producers who are not in the plan to get in? Is he also considering any extension of the plan to cover crops other than those presently covered?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are considering amendments to the legislation to encourage producers who are not now members to join. We are also looking at amendments to include some of the smaller crops, pulse crops, especially those not now part of the plan.
We are looking at two or three ways to get additional funding for the plan. We will be considering raising the levy. We will be considering the possibility of a government writedown. We will also be looking to the provinces to see if they are interested in participating in fulfilling their responsibility under the Constitution which names agriculture as a joint responsibility.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He has already been asked a question with regard to the offering to the market by the United States Government of their surplus wheat through auction. The Wheat Board has been warning that this will have a negative effect on the price of wheat in particular.
Can the Minister tell us what impact these sales will have on world wheat prices? Can he give us figures on what will happen to wheat prices?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. That is a very difficult question. The Hon. Member is a farmer and should know that all kinds of factors go into determining international wheat prices and that they are very difficult to predict. I think it is safe to say, however, that any effect it does have will be a negative effect on the market.
That is unfortunate because there is a reduction of over-all stocks of wheat in the world. We believe, that without the foolishness which is going on between the European Community and the Americans, there would be a chance for at least the start of a recovery in over-all international wheat prices.


INTERNATIONAL TALKS-CANADIAN POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, since the Mulroney-Reagan bilateral agreement has failed to stop this kind of action by the United States, what action is the Government proposing in talks with international groups to eliminate these practices? What sort of penalties is the Government proposing in these cases?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will be attending a GATT meeting on the weekend. We intend to let both the Europeans and the Americans know, in very strong words, of our displeasure with this. In the meantime the federal Government is very strongly supporting sales by the Canadian Wheat Board and other sales agencies. The Minister for International Trade will be pursuing some issues internationally.
With the leadership of the Prime Minister the Government has provided a record amount of financial assistance to Canadian grain and oilseeds producers during a very difficult time. An indication of that is the record final payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act which was announced last week. I am sure that the Member and his neighbours, who are farmers, are very well pleased with the size of that payment.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period. The Hon. Member for Papineau.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON CANADIAN MARINE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport who told me on Friday that he was disappointed that he could not persuade the U.S. to agree to change the protective provisions of the Jones Act. He said that the Government would not sign the transportation annex if it will undermine Canada's ability to protect and advance Canada's interests.
Can the Minister tell me if the negotiations are completed with regard to the maritime issue? If that is the case, what advances in Canada's interest does he foresee being contained in the transportation annex?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement is not yet complete and ready for signature. That includes, of course, any annex there might be on transportation matters. If transportation matters are included they will certainly be in the interests of Canada.
As I have already explained to the House, the issue of air transportation will not be included. It will be dealt with through bilateral agreements.
November 24, 1987

We attempted to persuade the Americans to change their protective cabotage approach in their own coasting trade. They would not do that. We would not change our position on culture. We would not change our position on farm marketing agreements. We would not change our position on regional development subsidization, and the Americans would not change their position on cabotage under the Jones Act. That is the position.


REQUEST FOR SPEEDY PASSAGE OF BILL C-52
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is repeating what he said the other day.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your question is the same.


André Ouellet: The Minister indicated clearly that we have no advantage because the airline industry has been excluded. Therefore, we will not win anything in this area. He is now telling us that we will get no advantage in the marine sector either because he has not done his job properly.
Since the final transportation annex will contain a section reserved for exceptions and exemptions, can the Minister assure the House that Canada's coasting trade, as laid out in Bill C-52, will in fact be exempted? Can he at least try to ensure this? If he cannot ensure this, is he now prepared to move quickly with Bill C-52 and have the proper amendments made immediately to protect this sector of our economy before the trade deal is signed with the Americans?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and so many of his Party get up every day and ask the same questions and then are amazed when they get the same answers. They get the same answers because the answers we give are the correct and solidly factual answers. Therefore, as long as he continues to ask me the same question I will continue to give him la meme chose.
Bill C-52 has received second reading and has been referred to a legislative committee. We will certainly proceed with that Bill. That Bill contains further protection, if any is needed, for the Canadian coasting trade. We certainly intend to proceed with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Valcourt).


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I provided some information during question period and I would not want to mislead the House.
When referring to the native people economic development program for the Ontario region, I quoted the wrong figures. In fact, under this program in the Ontario region, 67 projects have been approved for a total value of $22,268,006.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Minister for his correction to Hansard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Dewar:
That this House condemn the government for its signing of a trade
agreement with the United States that, amongst other things:
(a)	fails to consider the disproportionate effect on women, and especially the loss of jobs in the service sector where women are concentrated;
(b)	will give up provincial control over energy resources in a continental energy market; and
(c)	fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians in all provinces and territories before committing us to profound changes not only in our economy, but our political sovereignty, cultural distinctiveness and generally, our ability to run our own affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House took recess at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) had completed his remarks.

I will now recognize Members who wish to question the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) or comment on his speech.


Mr. Caldwell:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. The Liberal Party seems to have something against supply management marketing boards and sides with the processors who say that they will not be able to exist under the free trade agreement. Could the Hon. Member explain why they should not worry about that under this agreement? Why do the Liberals wish to protect the processors rather than the farmers of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, a commitment was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) at the outset of these negotiations that the marketing systems and their underpinnings which were in place in this country would not be in jeopardy in the free trade agreement. That is another commitment made by the Prime Minister which has been kept. Our supply management system remains intact.
W'e have helped the processors in this agreement as well by removing tariffs on products exported to the United States so that they can expand their production here. We are continually working with the food processors under their sectoral advisory committee which I discussed in my speech. We will continue to work very closely with them. There is a move toward one-price

November 24, 1987
Supply
wheat with compensation for the farmers. When that is accomplished it will also help our food processors.
Everyone wins under this agreement. I met with a milk producer the other night who asked me what good the milk marketing board and his quota for milk are when milk can flow freely across the border from the United States. I explained to him that that cannot happen. The quota systems and other underpinnings of the supply management system are still in place. As a matter of fact, under the agreement we have reserved the right, if it is the desire of the industries, to establish new marketing programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It is most difficult at this time for the Chair to hear the Hon. Member. I wonder how other Members can hear him. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may conclude his remarks.


Mr. Marchi:: Do we have to listen?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, people in the Opposition do not want to hear it anyway because they cannot stand to hear the truth, or the facts.
1 have essentially concluded my remarks to the Hon. Member on the supply management question. 1 simply want to assure him that it is in place in this country.


James Eber Caldwell: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for clearing up that matter. I am sure the people of Canada feel much better that at least our Party is standing up for the supply management marketing boards and marketing boards in general.
However, I noticed in a newspaper clipping last week that the Hon. Member who proposed this motion was at a meeting where they were talking about the Auto Pact. I am not sure that she completely understands how the Auto Pact will work under the free trade agreement because she did not point out at the meeting that the Canadian content remains at 60 per cent with the big three. She seemed to indicate to the audience that it would be 50 per cent North American for the big three as well. Will the Parliamentary Secretary clarify that?


John Horton McDermid: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question because I know he comes from an area that is deeply concerned about the auto industry, as is my community of Brampton.
First, only the big three will belong to the Auto Pact, according to this agreement. Second, we maintain the safeguards which demand that for every car they sell in Canada they must build a car in Canada. Let me point out that at this time they are 186 per cent over that requirement.
The requirement of 60 per cent Canadian content under the Auto Pact remains in place. As a matter of fact, the Canadian content in automobiles being manufactured here under the Auto Pact is at 70 per cent or 71 per cent.
In addition, we have said that if those automobile companies from offshore that are manufacturing either in the United States or Canada want duty-free access across the board between our two countries, they must have 50 per cent North American content in automobiles. That 50 per cent North American requirement pertains to labour and materials. The 60 per cent Canadian content under the Auto Pact not only refers to that, but also to advertising costs and many other things to make up the 60 per cent Canadian content. On the other hand, the foreign auto manufacturers here and in the United States have a true 50 per cent North American content requirement.
Our auto parts manufacturers in Canada can compete and have proven that. They have increased their share of auto parts in North America from 9 per cent to 14 per cent. They will be able to compete even more in the North American market with the duty removed. We believe that will expand jobs in the auto parts industry.
I know that the auto parts companies with whom I have discussed this in my particular community heartily support the agreement and look forward to selling parts, not only to the big three but to those manufacturers from other countries that are assembling and building cars here.


James Eber Caldwell: Madam Speaker, again I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for that answer. Could he explain why the American parts manufacturers seem to be opposing this deal?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to observe the various groups in the United States that are opposing the free trade agreement that has been reached between Canada and the United States. One of them is the auto parts manufacturers in the United States who are petitioning Congress not to pass the agreement because they believe Canada got the better of the deal. When 1 see that, together with the coalition of energy companies in the United States that are opposing the agreement because Canada got the better deal, I know that we are on the right track. I am absolutely positive of that when I see that the AFL and CIO said at their meeting in Miami that Canada got the better of the deal and will oppose the agreement in the United States.
It is interesting to note who is opposing this particular agreement and who is saying that Canada got the better of the deal. I believe we both got a good deal because it is a win-win situation. It will be important for both countries, but especially for Canada where it will create jobs and assure a better way of life in Canada by making stronger, more proud and more efficient Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on some aspects of the arrangement between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, which some people misrepresent as a free trade deal.
November 24, 1987

The motion by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) states:
That this House condemn the Government for its signing of a trade
agreement with the United States that, amongst other things:
(a)	fails to consider the disproportionate effect on women, and especially the loss of jobs in the service sector where women are concentrated;
(b)	will give up provincial control over energy resources in a continental energy market; and
(c)	fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians in all provinces and territories before committing us to profound changes not only in our economy, but our political sovereignty, cultural distinctiveness and generally, our ability to run our own affairs.
Since it is a very large subject, I wish to comment particularly on two aspects of it which have been referred to earlier today, especially by some Hon. Members opposite.
I represent Spadina, which has a vigorous apparel industry, sometimes referred to as the garment, clothing or fashion industry. I want to comment on some things that have been happening there, as well as on some thoughts that have occurred not only to the trade unionists but also to the manufacturers.
Previously, it appeared that this was one of the sectors that strongly supported what was supposed to be the deal worked out between Canada and the United States. However, I found last week and the week before that now that the facts are beginning to come out, the Government is losing some of its supporters. The most notable one is the very chairman of the Sectoral Advisory Group for International Trade for the garment industry, Mr. Peter Nygard. Mr. Nygard is one of the larger manufacturers of clothing in Canada and understandably chaired that SAGIT. He is furious with the results.
He has been quoted both privately and publicly as saying that when the preliminary trade deal was unveiled last month a provision for quotas on imported fabrics blatantly discriminates against Canadian apparel manufacturers. He makes the point that Canadian manufacturers will get a ceiling of 50 million square yards of cotton and synthetic material in finished apparel going to the United States, and imports of woollen goods will be restricted to six million square yards, about three million garments.
The point is that the Canadian garment industry has been successfully selling about $100 million worth of exports to the United States, based on the expertise worked out in places like Montreal, Toronto, Guelph, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
There are only about 10 effective Canadian textile mills. There are about 250 American textile mills. Many good fabrics come from offshore. The Canadian industry has been able to sell to the United States a combination of imported and North American fabrics with Canadian design and workmanship. The same fabrics are available to the American industry
Supply
but, nevertheless, Canada has been able to compete successfully. The effect of the free trade deal has been to face Canadian industrialists, the employers, with restrictions.
Mr. Nygard perceives that the Canadian manufacturers will lose 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the $100 million worth of garments now exported to the United States.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hear the Hon. Member opposite saying it is nonsense. I am not surprised he says that because apparently there was an attempt to muzzle Mr. Nygard. He is reported as saying that he and Mr. Oscar Rajsky of the Forsyth Trading Company were urged by federal officials to back off criticisms of the pact. He said: "We were told it was not in our best interest to go public. They, the feds, held out hope that they could negotiate around a very awkward situation".


John Horton McDermid: Read the quote by Rajsky where he denied that. Be honest.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have what the Sun provided. I do not answer for the quality of the Sun's reportage. I have the article and it does not quote Reisman.
It is not only Peter Nygard who is very dissatisfied, but Mr. Chris Kuzik the executive director of the Toronto Dress and Sports Wear Manufacturers' Guild, both in private conversation and his brief last week to the Ontario Government, has indicated he is very dissatisfied with the deal between our Prime Minister and the President of the United States.
For example, on page 2 of his brief to the Ontario Government he points out that wages and benefits of the employees within the guild are 40 per cent higher than they are in the southern United States. In the past, as has been pointed out, the main threat of imports to our industry has come from very low wage countries outside North America. This Government followed the pattern of the previous Government in allowing such a large amount of imports that the Canadian share of the market was reduced from about 70 per cent to about 50 per cent in a few years. However, the effect of this deal, according to Mr. Kuzik, would be to reduce the Canadian share further. He agrees with Mr. Nygard that 50 per cent of Canadian production will be affected or restricted by the deal which has been negotiated.
Mr. Kuzik particularly points out that, yes, the SAGIT was consulted. Mr. Nygard and his associates were consulted. They gave their recommendations. But he says:
Through our SAGIT the industry recommended to the Canadian negotiators that given our relative small size and other difficulties, an asymmetric tariff phase out be negotiated. This calls for: the phase out of tariffs in textiles before apparel; the phase out of U.S. apparel tariffs before Canadian tariffs. This was not accomplished.
This is a very serious problem and what is expected, according to Mr. Kuzik in conversation, is that a good many of the small plants in small towns across the country will lose out as well as some of the new, young and imaginative designers in

November 24, 1987
Supply
Toronto. He is also concerned about problems of labour adjustment. He knows his workers. There are about a dozen thousand workers in the industry and, as usual, about four-fifths of them are women. He points out that they are generally of a higher than average age for industrial work, with limited formal education and usually a lack of proficiency in any of Canada's official languages. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) referred to the defect in our language training programs as it regards housewives and many others who come in originally as spouses, even if they later enter the labour force.
Mr. Kuzik also adds that unfortunately there does not exist any general retraining capability in Ontario to assist the employees who will be affected. The federal Department of Manpower stopped supporting on-the-job training within companies and industry-wide training or retraining years ago. A major retraining school along Spadina Avenue in Toronto is long overdue. He further points out that in his observation, the adjustment is going to hurt a great many of the workers in the industry, and I quote:
The reality I deal with is that with a plant closure, most higher wage workers have to take reductions to secure alternative employment. Through personal experiences involving hundreds of workers over many years, trade adjustment means to me lower wages for higher wage unionized workers, the opposite of what economists promise with free trade.
He refers to the training program again:
In 1982, it was expanded to the Labour Adjustment Program, which last year helped about 5,700 clothing and textile workers generally over the age of 54 having a minimum of 10 years industry service. These workers, mostly women, were permitted to receive the equivalent of U.I.C. benefits until they reached age 65. This was a compassionate program-
He then points out that the program was cancelled August 17, 1986.
This brings me to points which have been made by one of the well known ethical teachers in our country, Bishop Remi De Roo. Several years ago he lead a group of Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church who made an important statement criticizing economic systems that generate unemployment, that is that they were going far beyond the "hand out" philosophy which some people imagined was the Christian approach to unemployment. He makes five specific ethical criticisms, that is, criticisms on the basis of the ethical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. In conclusion he makes this point:
In the final analysis, what is required is an intensive national search for alternative economic strategies.
This morning we heard someone call for alternative ideas. That is what Bishop Remi De Roo is proposing. He continues:
To be certain, the world we live in today has become highly competitive. Yet, the options before us are not simply free trade or increased protectionism or trade wars. As an alternative, I believe we need to mount a more selfreliant, less export dependent economy, with planned and diversified trade initiatives, not only with the United States, but particularly with certain Third World countries who are striving to reorganize their own economies to serve the basic needs of their people.
The point that Bishop De Roo has made repeatedly is that the first concern of our economy and the first concern of the
economies of those Third World countries should be to serve the people of the country rather than being, as he calls it, export driven. The submission further states:
For Canada, this involves a national economic strategy that puts priority on achieving full employment, new investment priorities and incentives, revitalized universal programs, new forms of community ownership of industries, a revitalized public sector, and a progressive tax system.
In the few moments remaining, I wish to mention a few of the particulars which Bishop De Roo raised in his brief to the committee on free trade. One of the points that he has asked for is what he calls the recognition of the proper status of human labour. This applies specifically to the Roman Catholic Church but it is also agreed to by other churches. The submission states:
The Church's social teachings emphasize the value and dignity in God's plan for Creation-Human labour, therefore, should not be treated as a commodity to be bought and sold in the market place ... It is through the activity of work that people are able to exercise their creative spirit, utilize their human dignity and participate in the development of their society-human labour and the basic rights of working people should take priority over the maximization of profits and the accumulation of capital.
Bishop De Roo points out that this is the "priority of labour" principle.
What we are getting in the free trade deal is too narrow an emphasis on the operation only of the employers and the salesmen; too narrow an emphasis that tends to underestimate the problems that will be faced by workers in the transitions that may be forced by the trade deal.
Bishop De Roo reminds us that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) offered the prediction that half a million or more Canadians could lose their jobs. He also points out that in Quebec a study shows that 30,000 people in the textile industry alone are faced with potential job losses. Yet the federal Government's job creation program does not seem to be gearing up to take this into account.
As has been pointed out, not only by workers but also by manufacturers in Spadina, the Canadian Jobs Strategy does not take account of this type of restructuring. Too many of its programs are open only to someone who has been unemployed for six months or more.
The women and men who work in the garment industry are not wealthy enough to take a six-month holiday while they wait for retraining. From the Government's point of view, if they make the mistake of taking a job in between, then they disqualify themselves for the retraining program because they have broken their period of unemployment which the Government wishes them to maintain.
There are also certain industries in Canada which are likely to be extremely vulnerable. It is not only a few out-of-date buggy-whipped industries. For example, the Bishop suggests that forestry, textiles, clothing, leather and shoes, furniture, electrical products, food processing, automobiles, and services such as health care, day care, and services for the elderly are
November 24, 1987

vulnerable to the changes that will flow from the proposed trade deal.
We have already had some suggestions of these events. The trade deal does not so much convert a situation from absolutely one thing to another, as to speed up certain tendencies. We have already seen tendencies, for example, American corporations taking over services such as child care, hospital services, and applying standards that are very different from the standards that have been built up by Canadians; standards of service and protection of the client whether it be the children in the day care or the patients in the hospitals; standards of services that are seen as a restriction on the profits of those corporations that come in to take over a hospital or a day care system in certain parts of the country.
We know that if we maintain or advance legislation that restricts the profit by protecting the standard of service to the service receiver, we stand in danger of being told that that is an unfair restriction on trade because it prevents the United States, or the American corporations, from making as much profit as they would expect to make in Canadian industry.
Therefore, the Bishop is also very much concerned with the question of social equality. The U.S. corporations generally consider that many of Canada's social programs such as medicare and unemployment insurance are a burden on the industry. In previous negotiations they have called them "unfair subsidies". We can expect that attitude to resurge and grow more aggressive under the free trade deal.
There is also the matter of regional development subsidies to one region. One American Government showed 55 Canadian Government programs, not all federal, which it considered unfair subsidies, which we considered appropriate regional assistance. There is probably only one type of regional assistance which the American corporations would approve of, and that would be the manufacture of military equipment. It may be suggested that the solution for unemployment in many parts of Canada will be to become part of the branch plant system for the American war industry. That is not acceptable to the majority of Canadians.
We also have the problems that have been previously referred to in agriculture, and perhaps it could even threaten the resolution of native land claims.
Those are only a few of the points that have been made both by industrialists in Toronto concerning the industry that they know intimately, and by Bishop Remi De Roo, one of the leading Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada. 1 hope that Hon. Members opposite will take warning from the information that those people have brought to us.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I can say very seriously that a great deal of what the Hon. Member has stated today is totally unfounded and, in some instances, is totally unfair. I especially wish to mention the Peter Nygard situation.
Supply
If the Hon. Member were honest and fair, he would have mentioned that there was an accusation made in that particular newspaper article from which he quoted that people were pressured not to appear before the committee. Mr. Nygard was not available for comment because at the time he was in Barbados. The other gentleman mentioned in that article stated that there was absolutely no pressure from the Government at any time. That is contained in that same article. If the Hon. Member were fair in his presentation, he would have read that quote into Hansard.
We must understand why Mr. Nygard is upset with the agreement. The agreement states that garment makers in Canada cannot bring in material from offshore, make it into clothes, and then ship it into the United States. There is a limit as to how much can be brought in from offshore, manufactured into garments, and shipped into the United States.
What we are doing here is helping the Canadian textile companies. If the Hon. Member is saying that what should happen in this agreement is that there should be unfettered access by the textile manufacturing companies around the world to Canada to manufacture clothes and then ship them to the United States duty free, and forget our textile manufacturers in Canada, then let him stand up and say so.
I might also remind the Hon. Member that the same holds true the other way. There are limits on American companies producing garments out of Third World material or fabric coming from other than the United States. It is a quid pro quo. The free trade agreement is not designed to be channeling things in from offshore, doing something with them, and then sending them down to the United States. That is not what it is about. I understand Mr. Nygard's concern. He would love to have unfettered availability of fabric from offshore; I understand that.
Once he understands what Mr. Nygard is concerned about, I think the Hon. Member, in all fairness, would have to admit that in the agreement we have protected textile purchasers in Canada and have allowed them to expand their operations, because they can compete very well with American textile operations.


Don Boudria: They cannot.


John Horton McDermid: Many people in the textile industry say that they can. The Hon. Member was in the House this morning when I quoted all the people in the textile industry who say that they can compete. In any event, that is one point upon which I would like the Hon. Member to comment.
Also the Hon. Member keeps quoting Bishop Remi De Roo as a great tsar with knowledge of everything. He is the same bishop who said, in 1984 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought in the economic direction of the Government of Canada, that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost.

November 24, 1987
Supply
He was the same one who said that the economic direction of the Government of Canada would lead us to disaster.
As everyone knows, over 1,000 jobs have been created per day since the Progressive Conservative Government was elected in 1984. Well over one million jobs have been created and over 570,000 people have been taken off the poverty roll. We admit that that is still not good enough, and we are working to get more off the poverty roll.
Bishop De Roo was wrong on that one, and Bishop De Roo is wrong on this one as well.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to comment on the remarks that the Hon. Member made. I was referring to Nygard's statement as recorded in The Star. I was also referring to the fact that he had made an earlier public statement in objection to the free trade deal with the United States. I was not referring to the question of whether they were appearing before the committee.
I agree with the Hon. Member that Mr. Rajsky says in his story that his decision not to appear before the committee did not have to do with that pressure. I am referring to previous statements in the general public sector, that are in public knowledge and that were referred to, particularly statements by Mr. Nygard printed in the daily papers.
As to Mr. Nygard's reasons and the possible argument that the Hon. Member has used to set his reasons aside, that is the sort of thing that ought to be brought out for public decision or public examination before things are settled rather than after things are settled and signed. There are many things to be said on that, and it is not reasonable to choose to accommodate certain American industrialists and perhaps certain Canadian industrialists, the much smaller number or the tiny fraction of Canadian industrialists that might benefit, without public examination and consultation.
As for the Hon. Member's dissatisfaction with Bishop Remi De Roo, Bishop De Roo is held in high regard in many parts of Canada. He does not happen to be from central Canada. Perhaps that is why the Hon. Member from Brampton does not like him. He happens to be from the West and in many matters he reflects the point of view of the West.


John Horton McDermid: I didn't say I didn't like him.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am sure the Hon. Member does not dislike him personally. He just dislikes what he knows of him, that is all. It is interesting that it is a voice from the West that the Hon. Member from Brampton is trying to put down in this manner.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to add a comment to the speech which was made by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). Earlier today in the House it has been said-and it was not by the Hon. Member for Spadina but I invite him to comment on it-that Canadian textile mills were just as able to compete with mills elsewhere.
I would like to put the following information before the Hon. Member for Spadina. Recently I received a letter from a mill in my constituency which employs 72 people, most of whom are women, and pays an average salary of $ 11 per hour. They may not be very high wages, but in the case of the textile industry they are relatively high compared with what some other employees are making as salaries working in that industry. All things being equal, the wages are not as low as they are in other textile mills. Nevertheless, the letter is from the Texturon mill, a smaller textile mill, and it reads as follows:
This letter is written objecting to the planned agreement on free trade with the U.S.A.
You are familiar with our operation on Cameron Street in Hawkesbury at which we produce textured polyester yarn in a modern plant with excellent high-speed equipment. Should total free trade with the U.S.A. be placed in effect, we beyond doubt will have to close our plant in Hawkesbury.
We could not possibly compete with firms in the U.S.A., one of which presently produces in excess of five million pounds weekly. Our production in Hawkesbury is approximately 200,000 pounds weekly.
The situation is that the plant in my riding produces a small amount compared with some very large U.S. plants. Indeed, some U.S. plants have so much excess capacity that by eliminating one coffee break they could probably produce more than the whole plant in my riding could produce in one day.
Does the Hon. Member agree with me when I say that the effect of free trade on situations like the one I have described in my constituency is indeed disastrous, and that it is not quite true to state, as has been stated earlier, that we can compete with textile mills in the United States?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising a point on the basis of very pertinent fact. I could only say, from the facts he has presented, that I think he has made his case very strongly. I would add that I think the management and owners of Dominion Textiles agree with him in a sense, since over several years they have been shutting down their plants in Canada and opening plants in the southern United States in order to get at the low-wage area in those anti-union states. Therefore it is clear, wherever the ownership of Dominion Textiles is, that they will prefer to shut down Canadian plants and to open American plants.
[Translation}


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madame Speaker, the Opposition motion on the Free Trade Agreement was negative and reactionary. One of the first defenders of free trade, Sir Wilfrid Laurier-a Liberal-would have added that it was no more and no less, and I quote:
-then a direct and unworthy appeal to passion and prejudice.

No aspect of the free trade debate better reveals the differences between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal-New Democratic alliance than the debate over the
November 24, 1987

energy aspects of the free trade agreement. It is in energy that the benefits we have achieved foreshadow the benefits we can expect from the broader trade agreement. It is in energy that I will recall that our record of success and co-operation stands in such stark relief to the bitter failures of previous Liberal-NDP policies. It is in energy policy that our different visions of Canada stand in clear contrast.

Since September 1984, we have rectified the previous Government's policies that had such a disastrous impact on the energy sector. We started by deregulating oil exports and went on to revamp the regulations on gas exports, and we are now looking at the changes that should be made in regulations for exporting electric power. Previously, we eliminated a number of arbitrary measures that were giving Canada a reputation for being against investment. And finally, we have improved our access to export markets.
Madam Speaker, did you know that as a result of the Conservative Government's policies, today more Canadians than ever before benefit from a wider range of energy products, thanks to a more competitive market? These same policies have made it possible to weather the ups and downs of oil prices by giving us access to an expanded North American market. We aimed for bigger markets and reinvested the resulting profits in exploration and development instead of leaving our resources untapped.
We have been working together with the provincial governments, making excellent progress in this respect, to analyze and understand the vital role of energy in Canada's economy, the importance of trade and especially the importance of energy security.
Most of these gains were possible as a result of changes in administrative policies and procedures on both sides of the border. The Free Trade Agreement will officially sanction these arrangements and provide additional assurances for exporters and importers, both in Canada and the United States.
The text of the motion before the House today condemns the Government for giving up "provincial control over energy resources in a continental energy market". This allegation, this accusation, unfounded though it is, is just a new way of formulating the same old alarmist cliches the Opposition has been mouthing since the beginning of this debate. I will list them one by one, concluding with the text of the motion itself.
The Opposition has said that we have undermined our sovereignty in reaching a free trade agreement with the United States. This is untrue, Madam Speaker. It also shows a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the ability of each nation to formulate its own laws and develop its own policies. Entering a free trade agreement involves accepting
Supply
some constraint on our behaviour. We have both agreed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, tariffs, for example. We have both agreed to refer disputes to binding arbitration where applicable. Without these types of restrictions, an agreement will be meaningless for both our countries. It would not achieve freer trade.

In the Free Trade Agreement we have not relinquished our ability to formulate or implement an energy policy that benefits Canadians nor our responsibility for doing so. The provinces will continue to set and collect royalties. We will design tax systems and provide incentives that will ensure resource development that is commensurate with the needs of Canadians. We will continue to set criteria for protecting the environment. We will also go on reviewing proposed takeovers in the downstream sector of the oil and gas industry. Madam Speaker, thanks to the mechanism for settling disputes, we have expanded the framework of our sovereignty by establishing rules to protect both countries from arbitrary actions on the part of either country. Our energy market will be North America, but our energy policy will be Canadian. Yes, we will have an expanded energy market, not a continental energy policy. That is the fundamental distinction the Opposition fails to make in its motion.

Our energy market will be North America, but our energy policies will be Canadian. We will have a broadened energy market but not a continental energy policy. The Opposition seems incapable of making this simple distinction.
On the issue of investment, I am pleased the Opposition has already recognized that a free trade agreement will improve the investment climate in Canada.


Mr. Prud'homme:: The Hon. Member is very good in English.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: With the additional assurance of access to U.S. markets, investors from Canada and many other countries will find Canada a more attractive place to do business. This is a necessity in a world where the international flow of investment increasingly ignores international boundaries. However, we have not changed our policy of reviewing proposed acquisitions. We do continue to reject proposals to acquire control of healthy Canadian oil and gas companies. In this way, we have maintained the careful balance we have achieved over the past three years between improving the investment climate and protecting the Canadian character of the upstream oil and gas sector.

Madam Speaker, the Opposition claims that the Free Trade Agreement does not provide adequate protection against U.S. restrictive trade laws. That is false. Canada as well as the United States has safeguarded its rights, its ability to take

November 24, 1987
Supply
action against unfair trade practices. The Agreement guarantees appropriate and impartial settlement of disputes, in accordance with the laws of each country, and contains a commitment to harmonize legislation governing bilateral trade over a period of five years. Furthermore, and this is just as important for the energy sector, both parties have agreed on a consultation process to examine regulatory measures that might have an impact on trade in energy products.
The Opposition also claimed that the Agreement was not balanced because it required excessive and unacceptable concessions by Canada and we woud get hardly anything in return. A cursory glance at the Agreement and at what has transpired in the last three years tells us that the opposite is true. Canada is benefiting already and will benefit even more from free trade, especially in the energy sector.
Since September 1984, we have broadly deregulated our energy exports, and we have done so in our own interests, not as a favour to our clients. We deregulated because we learned a lesson from the economic disaster we inherited from the previous Liberal Government. We realized that the energy sector would have to be developed through decisions by the private sector, on a more open and more competitive international market, and not through intervention by a Government that would turn a blind eye to economic reality.

Let us not forget the extent to which Canada's welfare programs depend on our energy exports to the United States. In 1986, despite low prices, they accounted for 11 per cent of all our merchandise exports, putting $9.9 billion in the pockets of Canadians. These exports are at the core of regional economies from coast to coast, whether oil and gas in the West, electricity in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick, or uranium from Saskatchewan and northern Ontario.
The free trade agreement eliminates existing tariff and nontariff barriers to this trade and will prevent new barriers in the future. For example, our petro-chemical industry is highly competitive by world standards. Its current exports are $1.77 billion a year, of which 57 per cent is exported to the United States. These producers now face tariffs ranging from about 12 per cent to 18 per cent on exports into the U.S., the world's largest petro-chemical market. Under the free trade agreement these tariffs will be phased out and petro-chemical producers have enthusiastically welcomed the agreement. In some other areas, our exports face significant potential threats. It is no secret that many U.S legislators are strong advocates of an oil-import levy of $5 or $10 per barrel. Should the U.S. ever adopt such a levy, Canada will have the right to be excluded from the levy and thus benefit from a huge windfall in higher prices for our oil exports.

Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement makes official the changes we had undertaken on this side of the border and in our own interest. In exchange we get guaranteed access to
the American market, unfettered by tariff or non-tariff barriers, and a dispute settlement mechanism.
We have agreed not to impose measures unfavourable to our American clients, while they agreed not to be unfair to Canadian suppliers, or vice versa.
Madam Speaker, may I add that American protectionist pressures are also very strong with respect to hydro power. The American coal industry lobby is generously financed by an association called the Ad Hoc Coalition on International Energy Trade. This association is leading an unrelenting campaign against Canadian hydro power exports and fully intends to torpedo the free trade agreement. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the leader of the socialist party (Mr. Broadbent) might be interested in joining the coalition? Be that as it may, the agreement will shelter us from this kind of threats and secure our exports of electricity.
All this seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me. We gain ready access to the American market. For its part, the United States wants to be treated equitably like any good customer who relies on a long-term supplier.
But the distorsions and demagogy of the Opposition show that they simply want to confuse the issue, discredit a reasonable trade deal, and make it sound like a threat against our security and sovereignty, while in fact it is the other way around.
The problem with the Opposition is its view of energy security which remains rooted in the disastrous and discredited National Energy Program which sought independence from world oil markets through oil self-sufficiency by 1990 and with it the ability to pretend that the price of Canada's energy resources could be made in Canada. This proved to be a costly illusion in every way, in lost economic opportunities, in unnecessary divisiveness between regions, and in a tarnished reputation as a trading partner and as a good place to invest.
Energy security under the free trade agreement is an important concern of many Canadians. Let me reassure Canadians that the agreement will not imperil energy security. In fact, it will increase it.
First, let us recall the undertakings entered into under previous Liberal and NDP policies. Even former Liberal Governments showed some recognition that any energy security was an international problem that could not be resolved by retreat from reality. Even former Liberal Governments realized that we had some obligations to our allies and our trading partners.
In 1974, along with 15 other original members of the International Energy Agency, Canada signed the agreement on an international energy program which committed us "to take common, effective measures to meet oil-supply emergency by . .. allocating available oil among their countries on an
November 24, 1987

equitable basis". This remains an important obligation for Canada. Because we are one of the few IEA countries which is a significant oil producer, our international obligation could actually compel us to increase our oil exports in an emergency. The free trade agreement, by contrast, merely protects the United States' proportional share of our supply so that it would permit a decrease in exports in an emergency.
Let it be absolutely, unequivocally clear that Canada's IEA commitment entered into by a Liberal Government would be far more onerous in an oil emergency than the much more modest commitments in the free trade agreement. The Government remains committed to the international energy program because we recognize that Canada is a trading nation and our energy security is ultimately linked to the economic security of our trading partners.

Madam Speaker, let me add another sensible note to this debate. Thanks to the changes already made by this Government, including deregulation, Canadian energy products can now compete for a larger part of the American market. The Free Trade Agreement will make this official without radically changing the existing situation.
The changes related to the Canadian share of the American market with their advantages and disadvantages will take place gradually and occur when the economic conditions allow. We also have to remember that the Opposition has an outdated notion of energy security. It hides behind a rather dark past which goes back to a time when energy security meant Canadian prices for Canadian energy resources. Saying that this "Made in Canada" pricing policy failed miserably would be quite an understatement. The fact is that it cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars, alienated Western Canada, resulted in exhaustive bilateral trade regulations and cost billions of dollars in lost opportunities.
What the opposition fails to understand is that our supplies were not threatened in the past and that our markets have never been as well served as they are now. Our production and management capabilities are of international level. What we need is access to the market and this is what the Free Trade Agreement will provide.

It would run counter to everything this Government stands for to bring, with the free trade treaty, prosperity to Canada at the expense of provincial rights. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put national reconciliation on our national agenda. This Government is the first to have signed a constitutional agreement with the full support of all provinces. I therefore find amusing the concern of the Hon. Member from the opposition Party that, through the free trade agreement, we could somehow have eroded the power of the provinces under the Constitution. Moreover, this agreement is about trade, not about jurisdictions or constitutional arrangements.
Supply

I have said many times that the rights and prerogatives of the provinces under the Constitution now are and will remain unchanged by the Free Trade Agreement. You will soon have an opportunity to read for yourself the final text of this Agreement and you will find that the fears of the Opposition are completely unfounded.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I can say that free trade will not mean that Canada has to give up its energy future. On the contrary, it will assure this future. Every barrel of oil, every cubic foot of gas, every kilowatt-hour of electricity will be sold by the producers at the best price on the market. Whether or not this produces increased profits for Canadians will depend largely on the capability and attitudes of Canadian producers and distributors. I sincerely believe in their talents, their dynamism and their success.
Madam Speaker, contrary to the Opposition parties, the Progressive Conservative Party believes in the Canadian people. While the Liberals and the socialists would like to restrict our liberties and to hide behind the apocalyptic vision of a future market influenced by external contingencies, the Conservative Party puts its confidence in the people of this country.


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, 1 listened to the Minister's speech with great care-


Don Boudria: Although it was hard.


George Roland Henderson: Yes, it was quite difficult to listen to it. However, I do have a couple of questions.
The Minister knows that I come from the Province of Prince Edward Island, the province which has the highest electricity costs in the country. He is well aware of that. He has visited the province on several occasions and has talked to the Prince Edward Island Minister of Energy and, I believe, to the Premier of Prince Edward Island when they were trying to get help from the federal Government to equalize energy costs. He knows what kind of problem that presents to our primary industries which are heavy users of energy. He knows that we rely on the processing industry, the potato plants, the chip plants and fish plants, for job creation. We have a great problem in competing simply because of our high energy costs.
The Minister explained to the House what a great thing this trade deal was because it gives us access to the American energy market. I want to ask the Minister about provincial control over energy and I will use his own province as an example. Hydro Quebec is a provincial Crown corporation. As I understand it, and I would ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, our access to the U.S. market for energy is at the going price. What if Quebec wanted to attract a new industry, say a food processor, and the going price of electricity was, to

November 24, 1987
Supply
use a figure, 10 cents a kilowatt; can Quebec subsidize a new industry and charge it a price of, say, 8 cents a kilowatt?
A second question concerns whether my province will be able to buy electricity at the same price as, say, Vermont, Maine or New Hampshire buys it from the Province of Quebec? I realize that the consumer has to pay wheeling charges. They are recoverable from the Americans and equally recoverable from my Province of Prince Edward Island.
What I am asking is if we will be able to get energy from Hydro Quebec, or for that matter from the New Brunswick Power Commission, at 10 cents a kilowatt if that is what they are charging the Americans?


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, I want to be very sure whether my colleague is asking me if Quebec or New Brunswick will subsidize electricity rates in Prince Edward Island. Is that the question?


George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, what I am saying is that if the state of Maine orders x amount of electricity from Quebec or New Brunswick, is there a provision that Prince Edward Island-or Nova Scotia, for that matter, which has the second highest energy cost in Canada-will be able to enjoy the same kind of deal? Would they be charged the same price?


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, it is really clear that the electricity is for sale and it is for sale to everybody. If Hydro Quebec has some surplus or if Prince Edward Island wants a long-term contract with Hydro Quebec, it will have to negotiate with that corporation. If the price is right, Hydro Quebec will be interested in signing a contract with the province. Nothing in the free trade agreement will prevent Canadian utilities from signing contracts with any province. The question is-


George Roland Henderson: Price.


Marcel Masse: Price? The price of electricity is always based on the cost of producing it. That is why you have different prices. The cost depends upon the distance from your market and things like that. You do not have a single price like, say, the price of a barrel of oil which has a so-called international price for a certain number of days or months. Electricity is not at all like that. It is sold either on a long-term contract or as surplus. If it is surplus, then it is a question of market price. The interest of the utility is to have the highest price possible. However, if it is electricity based on a new dam or new Candu reactor or new coal generator, the utilities have no interest in putting that on sale at other than the real price. Otherwise the utilities would be subsidizing someone. The basic rules are not changed in that sense. We should never forget that the electricity market is more complicated than that of gas and oil.
I am very sympathetic to the problems of Prince Edward Island. I would have to have been the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for years normally in order to make so many trips to the province. I have been there I do not know
how many times in the year and a half I have been the Minister. I met my provincial colleague many times here in Ottawa or in Charlottetown. I have visited different sites in the province with that Minister. I have a real interest in P.E.I. However, the province's problems will not be solved by one single decision in Ottawa. I can assure you that we will pursue our discussions and the actions we have taken. We have already invested millions of dollars in a conservation agreement dealing with alternate energy with his province. The Hon. Member can be sure this question will not slip my mind because it is part of my desire to make sure that the province is very fairly treated.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question which applies in particular to the people of Alberta. I was there last weekend and I think there is a growing concern among people looking at this deal in greater detail and its implications down the line. As I understand it, this deal will bring in a continental energy policy to replace a Canadian or Albertan energy policy. It means Albertans will not be able to use their very abundant energy resources to establish a provincial energy reserve. If at some future time they should want or need to favour their own consumers, they will be unable to do so. They will be unable to promote the use of Alberta oil and gas for Alberta industries at reduced prices, for example, in the petrochemical industry. They are really losing flexibility in diversifying their economy which is so important to resource-based economies.
It seems to me that this is not only a continental energy policy that we need to be concerned about, but it is pretty obvious that this is the first step towards Canada losing its sovereignty.


Marcel Masse: Madam Speaker, if we want to have a reasoned debate on the free trade issue I believe we would be well advised to define once and for all, in legal terms so recognized on the international scene, just what is a continental energy policy. The day we do that we will then be in a position to know whether or not it is a continetal policy. No matter what he calls it, I would suggest we must define what is meant by a continental energy policy. There is no continental energy policy in the sense that the two governments have a common policy. If we had a continental energy policy we would have a common policy, we would have common tariff rates applicable to third parties, we would have only one tax system, we would have only one environment protection system, and so on and so forth, and this is quite false. Such is not reality. What we do have is access to a larger market. Canada will define its energy policies, just as it has done in the past. Nothing in the agreement throws environmental protection issues in doubt. Nothing in the agreement involves tax matters, regulatory decisions we want to impose, calculations we would seek to impose with respect to our surpluses. Nothing in the agreement puts a question mark on these issues. What the agreement does is to open an additionasl market for energy producers. The agreement provides that both parties agree not to tax exports
November 24, 1987

or raise that kind of barriers. What the agreement gives Canada is one additional market.
Madam Speaker, I should think that our colleague will admit there is a difference between a continantal market, if you want to put it that way, and a continental policy. It is not a continental policy. It is an additional market which Canadians are opening for themselves.



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 Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Shipbuilding-Frigate construction program- Awarding of contract; the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet)-Free trade-Request that provisions of agreement dealing with railway transportation be amended/United States subsidiaries operating intraprovincially in Canada; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)- Financial institutions-Principal Savings and Trust bankrupt-cy/Reported transfer of funds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Dewar:
That this House condemn the government for its signing of a trade agreement with the United States that, amongst other things:
(a)	fails to consider the disproportionate effect on women, and especially the loss of jobs in the service sector where women are concentrated;
(b)	will give up provincial control over energy resources in a continental energy market; and
(c)	fails to allow for adequate consultation with Canadians in all provinces and territories before committing us to profound changes not only in our economy, but our political sovereignty, cultural distinctiveness and generally, our ability to run our own affairs.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon. I would like to tell you that I rejoice over the contents of the free trade agreement, but I cannot do so because the agreement is very bad, not only for the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, and it is, but also for Canadians generally,
Supply
and if there were an NDP Member in the House I would commend the Party for its motion, but since none of them is here I will have to wait.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has just taken the floor, he has been speaking for not even thirty seconds and already I see he is making comments about the presence or absence of his colleagues. I am sure he knows he is out of order and I would ask him to abide by the rules of the House.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I would never have named anybody, knowing that it is against the Standing Orders and I respect-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will allow me to repeat his own words and say that he has named, the way he said it, all Members one after another. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell	(Mr. Boudria).


George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


George Albert Proud: First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to say that I have much respect for the rulings of the Chair, but I would not want a principle or precedent to be set. Precedents are always dangerous in the British parliamentary system. As far as I can remember, Madam Speaker, we are allowed to say: I notice that there is nobody in the House, but that we are not allowed to say: I notice that such and such Hon. Member is not present in the House. But I suggest that our Standing Orders allow us to mention that a group of people, for instance a whole political party as is the case now, is absent from the House. If 1 emphasize this point, however, it is in case something similar happens in the future with more important subjects. I would not want a precedent to be established today which could be referred to later on, and you would be right to remember the precedent of today. I would not want a precedent to be established without indicating that I do not agree with the fact that we may mention that a whole political group is absent from the House, while we may not mention that such and such Hon. Member is absent from House, something of which you would be perfectly right to remind us.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, now that we have that settled I would like to continue with my remarks. I want particularly to address one element of the motion that was moved by the New Democratic Party which deals with the effect of the Prime Minister's trade deal on employment opportunities for women.

November 24, 1987
Supply
As I am sure you know, Madam Speaker, my constituency is largely dependent on the textile industry. There are some
3,000	jobs in the textile industry and approximately 500 jobs in the footwear industry in my riding. A good number of those jobs are located around the Town of Hawkesbury, a very beautiful community which I invite you, Madam Speaker, and all other Hon. Members of this House to visit. When you go there you will notice all the textile factories that we have there.
These textile factories are threatened by the Prime Minister and his free trade deal. They are threatened by the agreement before us. Earlier today the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) stated that Canadian textile mills are able to compete with their U.S. counterparts. That is easy to say, especially when it is not your job that is at stake.
However, the reality is that some of the plants in our country are much smaller than American plants. Many American plants are already working under capacity. If they want to increase their production they do not have to build new structures or spend new capital, all they need to do is to add a shift or a portion of a shift, and they can take away a lot of our business.
I would like to read a letter from which I read a few sentences earlier today. This letter is dated November 3, 1987, and is from Texturon Inc., a small factory in my riding. It has 72 employees, most of whom are women, and the salaries paid to workers there are in the order of $11 per hour. For a textile mill it is not bad. It is a lot better than some other textile mills which pay lesser salaries. However, many Canadians earn much higher salaries than that.
The letter is addressed to me and reads:
This letter is written objecting to the planned agreement on Free Trade with the U.S.A.
You are familiar with our operation on Cameron Street in Hawkesbury at which we produce textured polyester yarn in a modern plant with excellent high speed equipment. Should total Free Trade with the U.S.A. be placed in effect, we beyond doubt will have to close our plant in Hawkesbury. We could not possibly compete with firms in the U.S. A., one of which presently produces in excess of 5,000,000 pounds weekly. Our production in Hawkesbury is approximately 200,000 pounds weekly.
Many firms seemingly are taking the tactic of just going along with this Free Trade approach without seriously considering the consequences. Economists certainly predict a great gain for Canada over the long term but few are thinking about the businesses such as ours which will be forced to close.
The letter continues, saying that they have informed the union and their plant manager of a shutdown in the event that the Prime Minister's trade deal goes through.
This is a tangible example 50 miles from Parliament Hill, almost on our doorstep, of factories that will be shutting down as a result of the Prime Minister's ill-conceived, ill-though-out free trade deal.
In 1983, at a meeting in Sherbrooke, I believe, the person who is now our Prime Minister said to the people of Canada: "Don't talk to me about free trade. That issue was decided in 1911. Free trade is a danger to Canadian sovereignty. You will
hear none of it from me at election time or at any other time". Of course, that person is now the Member for Manicouagan, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is what he told Canadians. This conversion by the Prime Minister was provoked by a meeting he had with the President of the United States in Quebec City on March 17, 1985. Things have never been the same since that duet in Quebec City. I do not think the country has recovered.
The Prime Minister tells us that we need this trade deal for two reasons. First, we need a binding dispute settlement mechanism because, in his view, the Americans are using every tool in the book to prevent Canadians from shipping to the United States and selling our products there. He says that we need a binding dispute settlement mechanism so that in the future we will have a tailor-made mechanism to sort out the problem. That sounds good and I almost liked it.
The second reason that we need a free trade deal, according to the Prime Minister, is that we must guarantee our access to the United States. Therefore, we have guaranteed access and a binding dispute settlement mechanism.
The Premier of Ontario, the Hon. David Peterson, employed the services of a law firm, Blake, Cassels and Graydon, to do a study of the Prime Minister's free trade deal, particularly of the dispute settlement mechanism. The law firm studied four criteria of this dispute settlement mechanism and analysed how well it would work. The conclusion was that an application of these four criteria shows that the dispute settlement mechanism contained in the agreement is flawed in ways that are likely to result in a significant denial of Canadian access to the U.S. market.
In other words, according to this law firm's study, it will not work. Since the two main objectives of the Prime Minister have not been met, why do we have a free trade deal? The Prime Minister will have to answer that because we do not know.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned a while ago the number of jobs in the textile industry which exist in my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As you know, most employees in the textile industry are women. As a matter of fact, between 60 and 65 per cent of the workers employed in this industry are women and, as was mentioned earlier, the wages there are not very high. Some may say: If they are not really good jobs, why do you insist so much on keeping them? Madam Speaker, you are certainly aware that in a riding such as mine, where the unemployment rate can be as high as 10, 11, or even 12 per cent, such as in the Hawkesbury area, a low paying job is better than no job at all. Many of the women in these industries are single mothers and a great number of them hold positions which would make it difficult for them to be retrained for other jobs, if other jobs were available. As I have
November 24, 1987

already said, there are still many unemployed in the region I represent.
1 have here a Statistics Canada study based on the 1981 census. In this study published by the Ontario Women's Directorate, we find that the textile workers have yet another problem. The study mentions the level of education of the workers in the textile industry and in other industries which will be adversely affected by free trade. For instance, 25 per cent of leather and tannery workers did not reach grade 9.35 per cent have between nine and thirteen years of schooling without having graduated from high school and 12.3 per cent have an Ontario grade 13 diploma.
In the textile industry, 14 per cent of the workers have under nine years of schooling. In the clothing industry, 23.1 per cent of the workers did not reach the ninth grade. Free trade will therefore have a special impact on those who work in the clothing industry, and even in the textile industry as a whole. As I have just shown, Madam Speaker, this Free Trade Agreement will have particularly harmful effects on the workers of some of these industries, especially the textile industry.

There is a further problem with the textile industry. A number of the plants are in fact branch plants of U.S. corporations. The removal of tariffs will result in the export of jobs to the United States.


Leonard J. Gustafson: NDP line.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member can call it what he likes. I say to him that there is a plant in my riding which has been on strike for months now and the management has not met with the representatives of the employees at all. I suspect the reason for that is that it is a branch plant, with a head office located in the southern United States where employees who go on strike are simply replaced by others who fill their jobs. There is a different attitude about labour and management relations in some of the southern states of the United States. Perhaps those are the kind of labour conditions the Hon. Member opposite would like to have in this country. Perhaps that is the policy of his Party, but I do not think much of that kind of proposition. I do not think much of paying people $3 or $4 an hour and not giving them any kind of benefits at all.
There is a further pressure because these plants are located in a country that has a different outlook on social benefits for employees. I am not saying that the benefit package offered to employees in the textile industry in Canada is great, but usually it is better than what is offered to people in similar industries in the United States and elsewhere. The second thing that will happen is that because of competition from the United States, some of our industries will have to further rationalize and change their operations and put more people out of work.
Supply
With all this evidence, one would think that the parliamentary committee would be travelling everywhere in this country to find out from the average Canadian just how he or she feels about this. But we will not have the benefit of that kind of process. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) think that the applause they hear from the cheering trained seals in the background in the Conservative benches means that the people of Canada approve of this trade deal. They do not. The Prime Minister cannot equate the cheering applause of Tory backbenchers with the consent and support of the people of Canada.
The committee travelled out West yesterday but spent only one day in the Province of British Columbia. That is most inadequate. The same committee will be spending one day in Montreal and everyone interested is supposed to participate. The committee will be one day in each province of our country. That is all the time afforded to this deal. There are many, many pieces of legislation brought before this House which have had a more thorough hearing than that. The Prime Minister has called this a momentous deal, the most important trade deal ever signed.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Hear, hear!


Gerry St. Germain: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: That is the kind of utter nonsense for which we hear applause from the trained seals opposite. Even if I were to believe the Prime Minister for one moment-which, of course, I do not-if it is that great and important, surely it deserves to be viewed by the people of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I read today an article in the Ottawa daily newspaper Le Droit with the following title: "Our love of Canada will protect us, says Wilson." The Minister of Finance is telling us to have confidence, and that this will save us and bring out the best in our economy and our country.
Madam Speaker, if the Minister of Finance and his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) believe that that is all it takes to succeed in this country, I can tell you that they are neglecting their work and their duties as Ministers of the Crown. It is their duty to protect the interests of the Canadian people. It is the role of the Government. They received a mandate to do so. They were given a very large majority-unfortunately some would say, myself included-in the last elections. They were given the mandate of acting in the best interests of the Canadian people. They did not get a mandate to negociate a Free Trade Agreement. The Prime Minister could have received that mandate if he had so wished. But he did not want such a mandate. He told the Canadian people one year before the elections that he did not even want to hear about it. I quoted his words a short while ago.
As the Prime Minister did not want a mandate to negotiate such an agreement, I suggest that he now has no right to do so.

November 24, 1987
Supply
Two Prime Ministers before him have wanted a Free Trade Agreement, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mackenzie King. As I recall, Madam Speaker, both were defeated on this issue. I therefore invite the Prime Minister to also have the courage to go before the Canadian people with his agreement and to say: Here is what I have negotiated, do you want it or not?
For my part, Madam Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that the Canadian people will say no.


Gerry St. Germain: Madam Speaker, what we as politicians say, 1 am sure, has a high degree of credibility in the country. However, on an issue like this, where opposing views are carried forward as they are, I believe that those who have studied the issue and those who have gone into it in great depth, are much more credible, and I refer to the report of the royal commission which was chaired by the Honourable Donald Macdonald. He says he stands behind the support for the dispute settlement mechanisms which will no longer be subject to arbitrary U.S. actions. Had this procedure been in place, the outcome of softwood lumber would have been completely opposite.
In May of 1986, when the shakes and shingles unfair tariff arose, the Opposition waved goodbye to this side of the House instead of looking for a solution with our largest trading partner. I would like the Hon. Member's comment on the position taken by this known Liberal supporter in the past, and I say "in the past" because I am sure the hon. gentleman, given the arguments made by the Liberal Party at this time, would certainly have to make a reassessment. I would like the Hon. Member's opinion of the position taken by this gentleman after a $20 million study which was commissioned by the Hon. Member's Party. I would like the Hon. Member's comment as to how he can take such an opposing position without giving consideration to Mr. Macdonald's statement? Taking into consideration that the area the Hon. Member represents has not been affected by unfair tariffs such as the tariffs on potash, softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, just to name a few, I would like his reason for taking such an adamant position and, really, what I feel is an irresponsible position.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, that is barely worth responding to, but let me try. First, the Hon. Member opposite says my riding has not been affected by some of the United States' unfair trade practices of the past. Need I remind the Hon. Member that the unfair countervailing duty placed against Canadian pork products affected the constituency I represent? The U.S. Farm Bill, with some $70 billion worth of subsidies designed to displace Canadian markets, I raised today in Question Period, and there has been a protest sent to the Americans via our Ambassador. That has affected the constituency that I represent. It has depressed the price of corn, for instance, in the province I represent and in the very riding I represent here in the House of Commons. So my
riding has been affected by the unfair trade practices of the United States.
It is certainly not true to say that the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell does not know what it is to have to negotiate with Americans and lose out on the deal because our Government is so weak-kneed. That point is totally wrong and I thought I should bring it to the Hon. Member's attention.
Second, the Hon. Member says that Donald Macdonald is in favour of free trade and therefore I should like it. That is interesting coming from the Hon. Member opposite. I can probably find someone who voted for or supported the Conservative Party, if there is anyone who still admits to doing that, who is against this free trade deal. Does that mean that every Hon. Member opposite should be against it as well? There is probably someone, a New Democrat, perhaps, who likes it. I do not know. I have not tried to find one. Mr. Macdonald is a prominent Canadian, and his position has been well exposed. It is not my fault that he is prominent. There is no equivalent prominent Tory. I will grant you, Madam Speaker, that that is a fact, and I know that. That type of jealousy of the fact that Mr. Macdonald is prominent should not be used by Conservatives across the way in the degree that it is used.
The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) states that I should not be using something that is not thoroughly researched, because I should respect people who have done research on this issue. Need I remind the House that I have consulted with my electors, and for me that is more important than any other means of researching any material.
I wish to remind the Hon. Member across that he too should talk to the people whom he represents. In so doing, perhaps he would be better informed not about what one group thinks, not about what the corporate elite thinks-as Tories often do-but about what the Canadian people, our constituents, think about the deal and what we should be doing.
If the Hon. Member wishes to use a well informed, reasoned document, I will give him the study by Blake, Cassels & Graydon done for the Premier of the Province of Ontario, a duly elected Premier, elected with a vast majority of support, winning most of the seats in the Province of Ontario and defeating the Conservative candidate who wanted free trade. He was elected on that mandate, and that is a powerful mandate.
I have that study in hand. I have quoted a few sentences from it concluding that the binding disputes settlement mechanism will not work at all. With those facts, surely the Hon. Member across would have to agree with me that there is good reason to question such a bad deal.
November 24, 1987


Mr. Leblanc:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) was close to tears earlier when he talked about the women whose jobs were at risk as a result of the U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I feel differently, Madam Speaker. Recently, I had dinner with the President of the Textile Manufacturers Association who told me that he was anxious for the Free Trade Agreement to be signed, because he was convinced that Canadians and Canadian Textile Manufacturers are quite competitive with their American counterparts. The problem is not with the Americans, but with the other countries of the world, and in view of the fact the Agreement is stricly between Canada and the United States, our companies will be in a position to grow and manufacture textile more cheaply. Then, we will be able to take on the huge European market, as well as the Japanese and others. That is right. Canadian businesses will grow and create new jobs for women working in the textile industry.
As far as the garment industry is concerned, Canada has not been competitive for several years. It is competitive with the United States but not with the other countries. It would be completely wrong to think that, following the signing of the Free Trade Agreement with the Americans, the number of jobs will decrease. Quite the contrary! It will increase, because the true competition we face in the textile industry is not with the Americans. Members of the New Democratic Party who made that suggestion this morning were wrong, and so was the Hon. Member who has just spoken. What is most unfortunate is that he is such a good actor, he was almost in tears crying when talking about the possible loss of jobs for women. Imagine that! Madam Speaker, he knows perfectly well that women are not going to lose their jobs. In fact, we are very likely to see that number increase in the textile industry.


Mr. Rossi:: Have you met workers employed in the textile industry or any UPA representative?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A very brief comment. The time has almost run out. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I have here a document prepared by the Ontario Women's Commission, and I just want to quote a passage attributed to the Economic Council of Canada, and I quote:

The Economic Council of Canada concluded that "proportionately more job gains are received by male workers than by female workers", and that "Women suffer proportionately more from job losses-Greater female share in job losses stems from a larger decline in employment in textile, knitting mills and clothing industries, in which a large number of female workers are employed".
This study was done by a very professional group, and I bring it to the attention of the Hon. Member who asked the question.
Supply

I may add that I found this a very interesting question, coming from the Hon. Member who, I believe, represents the riding where the headquarters of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec is located.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I must say that I feel very strongly that this trade deal is perhaps one of the most critical issues facing Canada in this whole century.
When we discussed this inside our own caucus and Party, away from the audiences and the House of Commons, there has been deep depression. We honestly do feel that this is hitting at the very roots of Canadian sovereignty.
If the trade deal is carried to its conclusion, which is certainly what the Government intends to do, it will dramatically change the whole nature of Canada. Many of us conclude that by the year 2000 our economic and cultural ties will be north-south rather than east-west. Certainly, those of us on the West Coast know how strong that pull is already. With no means of protecting our economy, there is no question that this is the way that we will be going.
This deal is so serious that it seems that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave away the country because he was so anxious to reach an agreement and save political face.
Now Canadians and parliamentarians are being asked to agree to a pig in a poke. The public has not had an opportunity to learn about this deal. They have not received the basic facts, much less an idea of the significance of areas that are still pending, and I refer particularly to the seven-year provision for defining subsidies. This is a very ominous area that has many implications. There has been no final written legal text for the committee. The time frame under which we are all being asked to operate is absolutely ridiculous. Of course, now we have those one-day wonders, starting in my Province of British Columbia yesterday, which are a complete farce. In fact, they are an insult to the public and to Canadians who have the right to know about this deal and all its disastrous implications as far as their country and their jobs are concerned.
The Tories want us to trust them. A few minutes ago one of the Members was suggesting that we should leave this to people who have expertise in this area, have an act of faith and trust what the so-called experts are saying. The Prime Minister expects us to take a leap of faith and trust his Tory trade deal with the United States.
I would like to look at the record and remind Canadians once again how trustworthy the Government is, and how much we can bank on the statements made by the Prime Minister. Let me refer to 1983 when the Prime Minister was running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. At that time he referred to free trade and said, "We would be swamped. We have in many ways a branch plant economy in certain important sectors". He was certainly right. We agree

November 24, 1987
Supply
with him completely in that regard. Tie went on to say, "All that happened with that kind of concept is that the boys"-and I believe he was right there too-"would be cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It is bad enough as it it".
Certainly I would be interested in hearing from my colleagues on the other side of the House their reaction to that statement by their Leader in 1983. Apparently he has now changed his opinion and thinks that there is nothing like so-called free trade to save us from a disastrous future.
Why should Canadians, with this kind of record, trust the Prime Minister and his negotiators and his Government in this deal? Why should we be asked to take the deal on blind faith without knowing all the facts or having a final deal and without the public having a chance to assess it?
We must remember that the Prime Minister promised an increase in old age pensions. Of course he tried to deindex them and would have done so if there had not been a massive protest by senior citizens across the country. This is the Prime Minister who said to us several times, "our universality is sacred", and then he deindexed the family allowance. This is the same Prime Minister who promised us fair tax reforms, yet the proposed reforms again benefit the wealthy and do not tax corporations fairly. He also promised us a national child care program, and we have been awaiting one for over two years. There is no question that Canadians have a right to be skeptical about the trade deal with the United States which the Government has been promoting.
Again I should like to summarize what this trade deal means for Canada. First, it was supposed to give Canadians free access to U.S. markets, but the U.S. still retains all its countervail laws-the countervail laws which apply to shakes and shingles, softwood, potash, et cetera. It was supposed to have a very strong dispute settlement mechanism, but the dispute mechanism is just a token appeal body which will uphold U.S. laws including entrenched countervail provisions.
Also it was to bring in a continental energy plan. It was interesting that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) did not like me using that term this afternoon. Everything we read in the American press related to this deal, and in the papers which we had before we even got the Canadian documents, indicated that that was what the Americans were calling it. At last they have their continental energy deal. It is worth anything to them to have that deal. Only Mexico was smart enough not to sign that kind of arrangement.
In 1983, the Prime Minister said that we had a branch plant economy at that time. There will be even more control by American parent companies over Canadian industries under this deal. There will also be open and U.S. investment in Canada. It is not difficult to imagine that pretty soon, as certain Canadian businesses or industries are bought up, or as
Americans start their own industries in Canada, we will again be the source of raw resources, and that manufacturing and the lucrative labour-intensive parts of these industries will be in the United States.
There will be a loss of jobs. Even the Government had to admit it. In fact, government Members have been very inconsistent about it, which shows just how little study they have done. One Minister has said that there would be a loss of
800.000	jobs. I believe another said that there would be a loss of 600,000 jobs. The original assessment of the Economic Council of Canada projected, if I recall correctly, that some
300.000	jobs would be lost, but it was not even considering the service sector. Now it wants the final documents so that an assessment can be made.
It seems only fair to Canadians that this deal should not be signed until we have that information. Surely Canadians have the right to know what will be the impact on their own jobs. There is no question that jobs will be lost in agriculture and in very sensitive manufacturing industries, particularly those in the West to which I will refer in a minute. Also there will be jobs lost in the service sector where 80 per cent of the jobs are held by women. Of course the Auto Pact and the parts manufacturing industry have been gutted.
If we add the Conservative policies of privatization and deregulation which were a lead-up to this deal, and then add on top of that the free trade deal, it is no wonder that Canadian trade unions are up in arms. The whole question of job security is threatened, particularly jobs at decent rates of pay.
I should like to comment on the implications for western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia. We have really been concerned about the attempts in the House, particularly by the Prime Minister, to stir up a sort of regional racism. We are all committed to Canada. Let us look at the West, particularly the resource provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. I realize that all western provinces are resource provinces, but I am dealing now with these two provinces where there are highly sensitive manufacturing industries. Some Governments have been trying to bring in secondary industry. They always talk about it, but it is difficult to accomplish. However, at this point in time, western manufacturing industries employ about 70,000 people in food processing, metal, machine fabricating, furniture, textile, clothing, printing, and publishing. DRIE's studies show that there will be an extremely negative impact on these industries.


John Horton McDermid: That is the NDP talking.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about DRIE? Does that not mean something else to the Hon. Member? Jobs in new industries are also at risk. We know that three out of four western jobs are in the service industries which are beginning to build. We know that these will be hard hit. As well, our growing links with the Pacific Rim will be affected. We are just beginning, in British Columbia and also in Alberta, to enhance greatly
November 24, 1987

our relationship with the Pacific Rim with a view to establishing a much better trading relationship which is favourable to Canada. There is no question that it will take second place to a continental trade arrangement with the United States.
The trade deal is a threat to the Canadian way of life. The section dealing with seven years to define subsidies worries me especially. We know that the United States has always considered our Canadian social programs as subsidies. Although government Members keep saying that they are not included in the deal, if they are not included, why was it not stated explicitly in the agreement? As far as the seven-year definition of subsidies is concerned, social programs such as medicare, unemployment insurance, child care, and other human services are still very much there. In the view of many it means that regional development programs and cultural programs are on the table.


John Horton McDermid: Just not true.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There is nothing at all to say that this is not true.
Supposedly Canadian culture was protected, but as experts in the field have said, it is very narrowly defined. I would be interested in what the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has to say on this matter.
I want to speak particularly about the impact of this deal on British Columbia. Even though the deal fails to reach the key objectives promised by the Prime Minister, B.C. has surrendered jobs in many key industries, our ability to expand and diversify our economy, and our autonomy to develop our own social and economic policies in the future. We particularly need to diversify our economy in the West.
The deal completely fails to resolve existing trade problems for B.C. industries. The export tax on softwood lumber is enshrined by the deal, while U.S. countervail duties on hogs and cedar shakes and shingles remain unscathed. Further, the deal offers no protection against future U.S. countervail duties on B.C. products.
In exchange, our manufacturing, farming, wine making-a new industry which has been making headway in British Columbia-and service sector industries are at great peril. We have surrendered any kind of effective control of U.S. investment in our resources or financial institutions, and we are compelled to share our energy resources with the United States.
Columnist Marjorie Nichols has noted, "What Canada has given away is its industrial future". Canada's chief competitive advantage among industrialized nations is our wealth of accessible energy supplies. Under the trade deal, the U.S. is guaranteed full access to these precious supplies at exactly the same price as they are available to Canadians. B.C.'s most precious asset is sacrificed and so is Alberta's. For what? A deal of so-called free trade that continues to allow U.S. protectionism against B.C. imports.
Supply
Former Premier Dave Barrett told reporters recently:
Complete resource access will leave us forever as hewers of wood and drawers of water. It's really an incredibly bad deal.


John Horton McDermid: Who are you quoting?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I hear snorts and sniffles across the House. The Member cannot sit and listen for five minutes without nattering. I hope he turns on a replay of the BCTV account of yesterday's hearings in British Columbia. He would have heard many groups saying that the whole process of hearings is a farce. The hearings are by invitation only. The public was not allowed to be heard. The TV cameras were not allowed to be present. There is an anti-free trade coalition comprised of 43 different groups, labour, church groups and community groups which, in effect, were given 20 seconds each to present their views through one presentation.
The shore workers and the workers in the fish plants-and I want to say that many are immigrant workers, many women working under difficult conditions, many from my riding-are very upset. Their spokesman said they were very upset at the GATT ruling which would disallow Canadian processing of raw fish which appears to be threatening some 4,000 jobs. They were upset because they are afraid that the free trade agreement, if signed, will bind Canada to the GATT ruling, a ruling initiated by the United States.
What about fruit and vegetables in British Columbia? The B.C. vegetable producers were given only three and a half minutes, an industry that will be destroyed in British Columbia. Consumers, I know, are sick and tired of having only imported fruit. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), I hope, will show some concern because it will affect some of the people, both growers and consumers, in his riding. There were also some very colourful statements, I might say, from Jack Munro of the IWA about the impact on woodworkers and their industry.
This is a bad deal, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about it. It is a threat to the Canadian way of life. I have mentioned subsidies, regional development and aspects of Canadian culture. We believe there is not enough proof that they are protected.
I would like to mention the impact from an Alberta point of view. I had the opportunity to be in Edmonton over the weekend meeting with people about free trade. I must say it was very educational because I learned a great deal. The Premier of Alberta and the past Premier of Alberta think this is a wonderful deal. As a matter of fact they think only wimps are opposed. I want to let you know, Mr. Speaker, that I joined the wimp protest meeting and I am proud of it. Under this deal the Premier and former Premier feel that Alberta will have nothing but benefits. I would like to ask, as I asked the Minister earlier, if this is a continental energy policy-which it is-

November 24, 1987
Supply


John Horton McDermid: Which it is not.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Alberta cannot use its abundant energy resources to establish provincial energy reserves if Alberta wanted to favour its own consumers if it wanted or needed to do so. Alberta cannot use Alberta gas at reduced prices for Alberta industries. I am thinking of the petro-chemicals in particular. Alberta will also lose its ability to process resources within the province. Processing resources is important to western provinces. We must diversify. We cannot be dependent only on non-renewable resources or we will have no future for our children.
This deal is definitely a first step toward losing our sovereignty. It prevents economic diversification in western provinces. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I believe, said that the petro-chemical industry would really benefit because Alberta now has access to U.S. markets. I wonder how the Alberta petro-chemical companies, still subject to the U.S. countervail prices, can compete in the same way. They will not be able to continue to have a favourable price for gas, which has been important to them in the development of secondary industries.
Mr. Lougheed told the parliamentary committee that the deal is not only positive but it is a must for western Canada. I wonder how many Albertans who have studied this agreement would agree. Is it better to sell our resources for a quick buck today or is it better to try to have control over your own future and diversify your economy?
What about the farming sector, Mr. Speaker? Certainly in British Columbia the fruit and vegetable producers are very concerned. The wine industry is very much threatened. I know that in Alberta and British Columbia the red meat industry had great hopes for this deal, yet they did not get the access to the U.S. markets they had hoped for. We find also that the two price system for grain has been eliminated. Incidentally, the western grain transportation which goes through the Port of Vancouver to the U.S. and the two price system, I am told-I am not an expert in this field-mean a loss of some $300 million for farmers. It will be very hard for poultry and dairy farmers to compete.
In summary, this is a bad deal for Canada and for westerners. It fails to open access to key U.S. markets. It makes unwarranted concessions to U.S. demands. It undermines economic plans to diversify resource economies. It gives the U.S. guaranteed access to our resources at market prices. It opens the door for more U.S. takeovers. It leaves the door wide open to economic forces which we will not be able to control. It entrenches U.S. protectionist measures which will be very difficult for any future Government to change. It changes the very nature of Canada. About the only benefit that I can see in this deal is that it protects Canadian beer.
Bishop Remi De Roo said to the committee that this trade deal locks Canada into a multinational theology of the marketplace where people are things and can be discarded. My
Leader has said that the Mulroney trade deal is a betrayal of Canadian interests. It goes to the heart of our sovereignty as a nation. I agree with both comments.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member. She is singing from the same song that was written for her by Bob White-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I haven't talked to Bob White for a couple of years.


John Horton McDermid: -and Shirley Carr. It is the same song sheet which the socialists have been singing across our country. I only wish that I had the same 20 minutes to refute everything that she has said. The Hon. Member is putting totally unfounded fear into the people of Canada. There is no basis of fact, none whatsoever, and the Member knows that. I do not know who prepared the cards for her from which she is reading-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It came from my head. This is my handwriting.


John Horton McDermid: -they are full of inaccuracies.
Let me start with the apparel industry. Everybody is talking about the apparel industry today-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I did not mention that.


John Horton McDermid: -including the Hon. Member and about womens' jobs. Let us take a look at the facts and at what has happened in the apparel industry. Canadian exports into the United States of textiles-that is what Hon. Members from all opposition Parties are talking about today-have increased from $120 million in 1980 to $377 million in 1987. As a matter of fact, in the last two years, there has been an increase of over $100 million in exports to the United States. At the same time, imports coming from the United States have remained relatively stable. The market for Canada in the United States is growing. When the tariffs are removed, some of which are as high as 45 per cent, I might add, Canadians will be able to compete there very well. We only have one-third of 1 per cent of the market in the United States now. What a fabulous opportunity this will be for us.
Let us see what the Canadian Textiles Institute said, not at hearings in Ottawa but to the Ontario Government blue-ribbon panel. Its submission reads as follows:
The status quo was a bleak prospect. The best available alternative appeared to be a free trade arrangement with the United States although it was not risk free and would present textile companies with some formidable challenges. On the plus side we had been steadily improving our exports to the U.S. and had invested heavily in new technology.
The Canadian Textiles Institute has accepted the challenge. It is going ahead to expand its exports into the United States. Its submission went on:
November 24, 1987

-A growing number of firms favoured free trade. They saw the opportunities and benefits and were prepared to accept the risk in preference to the status quo.
A growing majority of firms believed they could survive in a North American free trade situation provided the adjustment and transition conditions were adequate.
Eric Barry, President of the Canadian Textiles Institute, said:
It is my personal opinion that the Canadian textile and clothing industries faced a brighter future within a free-trade arrangement than without.
The evidence is there. I have just mentioned the increase in exports of textiles to the United States. Once those tariff barriers come down, they will be able to go to the United States with no problem at all.
The problem with the NDP, and we heard about it from the Hon. Member, is that it is an inward-looking Party. It is myopic. It hides behind barriers, barriers to protect this little Canada. NDP Members have no faith in Canadians. They do not believe that Canadians are productive or can compete. They do not have any faith in the Canadian people at all. That is the difference between the dinosaurs in the New Democratic Party and the very progressive attitudes and policies this Government is taking.
We believe in Canadians. We believe in our ability to compete and in our entrepreneurship. We believe we have one of the finest educational systems in the world. We have a workforce that is far more productive now than the American workforce, and that has been proven time and time again.
The Vice-President of IBM told me the other night that the most productive plant IBM has in the world is in Bromont, Quebec. The number two most productive plant for IBM is in Don Mills, Ontario. Is that not interesting? Do not tell us that Canadians cannot compete.
The other day, I participated in an opening of a Computerland store. Computerland is the largest Canadian computer company in Canada. It ranks third out of 52 computer companies over all in Canada. I asked a representative of Computerland if he was afraid of the free trade agreement and if he thought it would knock him out of the box. He said: "Are you kidding? This gives us more opportunities than you can imagine. We are number three in Canada now, the number one Canadian-owned computer company, but we will soon be number one over all". There were probably about 800 people at that opening. When we talked about free trade, the house came down. They were all so enthusiastic about it and were looking forward to those challenges.
Why are members of the NDP so frightened of something that is so good for Canada? I will answer one of the Hon. Member's questions. She asked why social programs are not included in this agreement. It is because this is not a social document, it is a trade document. We are dealing with trade, not social policy. Social policy is totally outside this agreement and has absolutely nothing, zip, zero to do with this agreement.
Supply


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to see the Hon. Member smiling for a change. I am glad he was enjoying himself. I must say that this is not the expression we see very often as we watch him in the House these days.
The Hon. Member can say what he likes about the New Democratic Party. That is his option. However, if he wants some facts, I think he had better look at the polls to see what Canadians think about his Party and what they think about the New Democratic Party.


John Horton McDermid: You just dropped five points, be careful.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is quite all right. I have not noticed that his Party has had any great ripping success in recent times.
The Hon. Member talks about unfounded confidence. Of course he has unfounded confidence in his position, just as I have confidence in my position. The only thing is that he is a member of the Government and he has the means of demanding special studies that would document some of these things like job losses. Instead of doing that, he is speculating as well.
We want more time so that all of us on both sides of the House can have more hard evidence and more real projections of the implications and effects of this deal. That is what the Government is so afraid of doing. It does not even want Canadians to hear about the deal, much less to have any input into it. I think the kind of token process that is going on is absolutely disgraceful.
I am glad that the committee has gone out on tour because that will show Canadians in a way that would never have happened if it had stayed in Ottawa just how farcical and what a sham these hearings are. I think I have given enough time to that question.
[ Translation]


Nic Leblanc: Madam Speaker, once again, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the issue of free trade and to answer the Hon. Member's questions.
She said earlier that Canadians were not educated enough, that Canada was not rich enough, that Canadians were too cautious. That is more or less what she said.
Well, all I can say is that our country has enough human and natural resources to face up to the tremedous challenge of free trade.
If Canadians seem to be afraid of this great challenge, it is just because the Opposition is spreading a lot of false rumours about the Free Trade Agreement.
I am convinced that once Canadians have heard the truth about this great challenge of free trade, this grand design, the majority will support this plan, because I have met them several times in the course of my travels in recent weeks, and I can assure you that when you carefully explain what this great plan is all about, Canadians are willing to take up the challenge. Afraid? The two previous Governments stepped back from this challenge and it looks like they would have lost the

November 24, 1987
Supply
election if they had come before the House with this great plan for free trade with United States. Of course we knew this plan would be practically suicide on the part of the Government, because the Opposition would use it to spread a lot of false allegations and take the 5 or 10 percent of our industry that would be affected and make a mountain out of a molehill, and then load the dice against the 85 or 90 percent of our economy that would gain from this great plan.
That is why it takes a Government that has the guts to do it. We decided to follow through. And 1 can say that when we take the trouble to explain frankly what this free trade project will give Canadians, people are quick to understand and find the plan very acceptable. If this great free trade challenge was good for Ontario at the time of the Auto Pact, why wouldn't it be good for Quebec? Why wouldn't it also be good for Western Canada and Eastern Canada? After talking to a lot of entrepreneurs, I think 95 or even as much as 100 percent of the people I talked to, people who invest money in the private sector, agreed with me. How come the people who risk their capital agree with free trade and the people who don't are against it? I just don't understand, and it may be too late to find out why. But maybe we can answer the last question, and that is, why the people who risk their money are prepared to go along with the Agreement and those who do not are against the plan.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, l do not understand why the Conservatives keep on misinterpreting the Auto Pact. My understanding is that it was a negotiated settlement in one sector. It is not free trade. Yet the Conservatives continue to make them synonymous.
As to the statement that Canadians are not audacious enough, I think it is an insult for Members on that side to challenge the deep patriotic and personal feelings we on this side have for our country and fellow Canadians. Canadians have great capacity in many areas and we have proven this. We have built a very diversified country and achieved economic success. That is why we have a favourable trade balance right now. The evidence is that we are doing better than the U.S. Why do we need this trade deal? We do not have to give away our resources or allow U.S. takeovers. We do not have to entrench countervailing duties in our laws and we do not have to accept a threat to Canadian culture and social programs.
Why should we be doing those things in this trade deal? We are giving everything to the other side and we do not have to. We are doing very well in trade and we should proceed in an orderly way, sector by sector, where it is needed, in an international context.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate for several reasons. First, because it
provides me and the Government with an opportunity to tell Canadians about the importance of this very historic agreement and the benefits it will bring to the majority of Canadians. I for one will not pretend that the agreement will be well received by all Canadians or that it is good only for Canada and not for the U.S. If that were the case, there would be no agreement. However, I firmly believe this agreement is good for the majority of Canadians.
As I have sat here listening today I have been disappointed by the fact that the Opposition, both Parties, offer no alternatives when they address this subject. There seems to be a surprising, disappointing, and perhaps even naive assumption that somehow or other the maintenance of the status quo, without any effort whatsoever on our part, is in itself a policy. As you know, evidence of protectionism in many parts of the world, particularly in the U.S., is very much before us. We have to respond in one way or another and we believe very strongly that this is a positive response which will work to the benefit of the majority of Canadians. Quite frankly, we are afraid that what the opposition Parties advocate, which is essentially to do nothing, would in the long run mean the destruction of the Canadian economy as we know it today.
I am also struck by the fact that there seems to be so much criticism of this agreement from those who say it does not specifically address this or that and does not protect us from their fears, whatever they might be. As one who grew up on the Prairies I learned that there were two things we had to fear. One was drought and the other was grasshoppers. Naturally the free trade agreement does not protect us from either of those. They can occur in the future because, while they are very real threats to the western economy, they have nothing to do with trade. I suggest that many of the criticisms of this agreement have, by the same token, nothing to do with trade.
With respect to the motion before the House today, I want to say that I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) is sincere and serious in her efforts. I know she believes in the ideology and policy positions of her Party. For example, she believes that Canada must protect its sovereignty. We all believe that. Yet at the same time, she and her colleagues believe we should withdraw from NORAD and NATO. We should spend as little as possible on defence and the instruments we need to protect the sovereignty which is of concern to all Canadians.
As a good New Democrat, she believes we should keep interest rates as low as possible. Unfortunately, at the same time she believes that the Government should spend as much as it can and not worry about the size of the national debt or the budgetary deficits plaguing our country. It is those very same deficits which lead, of course, to the high interest rates that crippled our economy in years past.
As a good New Democrat, the Hon. Member believes we should not negotiate a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with our largest trading partner, and that our interests
November 24, 1987

are best served in multilateral trade negotiations under GATT. That is what they have been telling us over and over for several weeks. Unfortunately, as a serious and sincere New Democrat, she and her colleagues also believe that we should refuse to accept any decision from GATT which does not agree entirely with Canadian policies or practices. The Hon. Member is serious and sincere but, in my opinion, seriously mistaken and misguided on this issue.
Is it any wonder, then, that the motion before us is such a mishmash of slogans and forebodings? Consider the NDP spawning ground. Never in the history of our country have we seen such a fertile source of contradiction and incoherence. They have failed to mount any effective criticism of the free trade agreement on economic grounds and are now unfortunately relying on the old slogans we have heard in Canada before. "You are selling out the country", they allege. "You are giving up our sovereignty". What a pathetic sight. What a desperate line of argument.
When the negotiations began, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, and I think all of us remember this well, that: "Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character, these are the essence of Canada and these are not at issue in these negotiations". The fact is that the Government has honoured every one of those commitments. On culture we had Bill C-58, which is the principal economic support for our cultural industries and it remains intact. The special status of cultural investment in this country has been confirmed.
What about regional development? Our sovereign right to pursue initiatives in that area has been recognized. The western diversification fund is so important and so much appreciated in western Canada. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Northern Ontario Development Agency will all continue to assist those regions to diversify and develop their economy. Let us not forget who introduced these programs. It was this Government under this Prime Minister.
What about social policies which the Hon. Member spoke of? Medicare, unemployment insurance and all the other social policies to which all Canadians of all political stripes are committed remain intact. Furthermore, our sovereign right to meet the needs and wishes of Canadians is fully intact. In fact, we shall soon be exercising that sovereign right again when we introduce in the next few days, according to my understanding for the first time in the history of this country, a national day care policy. Is this the kind of policy initiative taken by a Government that wants to give up its sovereignty? No, of course not. This is the kind of initiative taken by a Government that knows how to exercise our national sovereignty in the interests of all Canadians.
Under the free trade agreement Canada is free to apply and introduce the economic, social, cultural and constitutional policies it chooses to introduce. That is exactly what we as a Government have done and what we will continue to do.
Supply
We undertook bilateral negotiations with the U.S. in the same spirit that we participate in the multilateral negotiations under GATT. Our objective is to make Canada's economy stronger and more internationally competitive through trade liberalization. If I may say so, I firmly believe that much of the prosperity we in the western world have enjoyed in the 40 years since World War II is a result of the trade liberalization policies we and others have agreed to.
We believe that a stronger, more competitive Canadian economy means a stronger, more independent sovereign Canada. The free trade agreement represents a new vision of Canada, a vision of a strong dynamic country with a leading role to play in the world. We see a bold, confident Canada in the future.
What is the vision of those who introduced the motion today and those who support it? In two words, it seems to me that that vision is one of myopia and insecurity. In my opinion, they regretfully see a smaller Canada, a Canada which seems to be threatened on all sides, and a Canada which is regretfully lacking in self-confidence. That is very tragic because I, as a western Canadian, understand very clearly that western Canada was peopled by those who arrived there perhaps some 100 years ago and believed in themselves, their region, and the potential of their region to become a very productive world trading community.
We have done that in the past because we believed in ourselves. We must have that type of vision going into the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, it seems that today there are all too many Canadians-and this, of course, is expressed most clearly by those in the opposition Parties-who lack that type of vision for the future. Instead, they have a disappointing and, I would suggest, incomplete vision of what this country can be.
Quoted in Maclean's recently, Paul Reichmann said, "Americans work hard. Canadians work better. We will prosper in a free trade deal".
We share this view because we believe it is a testimony to the confidence and faith of Canadians and in the ability, the drive, and the capacity to work hard which we have demonstrated in the past and which I believe we are anxious to continue in the future. We believe it is time that the Government of Canada demonstrated that it has the same faith in Canadians as Canadians have in this country and in their ability to perform and compete in the world community.
Unfortunately, not all Canadians share that view. It is evident from the motion before the House today that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain (Ms. Dewar) and her colleagues in the federal House, and I include as well some of their provincial colleagues in the Province of Manitoba, do not have that same faith in Canadians and in the future of this country. They seem to believe that the bigger government gets, the better it is. They seem to believe that Canadians must be

November 24, 1987
Supply
led by the nose by the bureaucracy and the state from the womb to the tomb.
However, I can say as a historian that history has taught us over and over again that the womb of the state is sometimes not unlike a tomb. What is meant to shelter often instead suffocates. History has also taught us that relying on the policies of the past to meet the challenges of the present is an approach which is often doomed to failure.
Curiously enough, today's critics of free trade harken back to the slogans and fear mongering of yesteryear at the turn of the century, the campaigns of 1891 and 1911. It is important that we not in any way confuse the patriotism of the past with what was, in many ways, a devotion to the British Empire. The issue today is not what was appropriate in 1891 or 1911, but what is needed in 1987, 1989, and into the 21st century.
Some have noted that the positions of Parties change with the passage of time. As an historian I remember very clearly the positions of the various political Parties in 1891 and 1911. However, it seems to me that what we must remember, what is often forgotten, is that the circumstances of the moment have changed as well. Those policies which were appropriate in 1891 or 1911 are not automatically appropriate in 1987 or 1997, as many in this House would have us believe.
I am very proud to be a Canadian. I say that as someone who was born in western Canada and received much of my education in western Canada but continued that education in the United States and lived outside my country for a while. I always knew I would come back to Canada. Quite frankly, I am pleased that I did, even though there have been, on occasion, economic reasons for remaining outside the country.
One of the reasons I ran for office some four years ago in a by-election is that I believe in this country, I believe in the potential of the country, and I believe in the people who reside in it. I believe in our values, I believe in our institutions, and I believe in what I think is our unique way of bringing fair solutions to the challenges we face as a country and a people.
I believe that we are very capable of responding to the challenges and, in this case, opportunities, to a greater extent than many people, and unfortunately even some Canadians, appreciate today. There may well be explanations which I am not party to, but I am disturbed by the fact that there are some Canadians today who seem to be losing confidence in themselves. There are some Canadians who seem to be losing confidence in the future. There are some Canadians today who are overcome by fear of the unknown, if you will.
In this agreement and the Government is asking Canadians to continue in our traditions of the past of having confidence in ourselves and of being willing to take some risks to try to develop the potential which is ours as we go into the future. As we do that, we must remember that we no longer live in an isolationist world. We no longer live as an island unto ourselves. We are very much a part of a global economy and depend very much on trade within that global economy.
My special interest, as you know, is agriculture. Some farmers have asked me on phone-in programs why we worry about trade, why we do not concentrate instead on the Canadian domestic market. We could do that, and I dare say there are some in the House who would advocate that, but it would be at an incredible price to ourselves.
As many of us who represent agricultural constituencies know, 50 per cent of agricultural income comes from exports. To give up that opportunity to trade, to say no to the opportunities which are before us in the free trade agreement and in the GATT, is to say no to our future, to say no to the 50 per cent of income which comes from exports and, quite frankly, to say no to the future of at least half of the Canadians who could no longer find employment in that industry.
In a global economy you either face the competition or you are out of competition. To be able to compete any industrialized country needs guaranteed access to at least 100 million people. Unfortunately, Canada and Australia do not have that guarantee within ourselves. Therefore, we look to a free trade agreement with the United States as a solution to that lack of guarantee. This free trade agreement will give us that guarantee, it will give us that market which is at least 10 times the size of the Canadian domestic market. It is vital to every sector of our economy; the resource industry, the manufacturing industry, and the service industry.
Canadian industry, large and small, has faced this fact. That is why virtually all industrial associations in this country, representing the large and the small, are now supporting the free trade agreement. They not only want to compete, they are begging for a chance to compete. These enterprising Canadians are committed to our unique social, economic, and cultural institutions. They know that these Canadian institutions can only be as strong as the Canadian economy. Of course, we are willing to pay a certain price to be Canadians, but we need the wealth which is generated by trade and we need the economic growth that results from trade in order to be in a position to do that.
Sovereignty is not something that is given to a nation. Sovereignty is something that a nation earns every day. For Canada, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, trade is the key to that sovereignty.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by my hon. friend. They were thoughtful comments and, while I have some disagreement with a good deal of what he had to say, I appreciate that they were presented in the way in which they were.
I want to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions. Nearly 80 per cent of our trade is now with the United States. I do not think another country in the world has 80 per cent of its trade with one other country. If there are such countries, I am not aware of them. In the European Economic Community, for example, once a country is doing over 20 per cent of its trade with one the partners it begins to get very concerned and limits
November 24, 1987

any increase in trade with that country. They believe that 20 to 25 per cent is the maximum allowable because once it gets beyond that point the other country has a certain amount of control over your economy.
At this time 80 per cent of our trade is with the United States, and that is increasing in spite of some initiative over the last number of years to divert trade into other areas.
Would the Hon. Member like, as an ultimate goal, to have 95 per cent or all of our trade with the United States? How does the Member respond to questions which I and others on a recent parliamentary delegation to Singapore, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Hong Kong were asked at every stage? People in the business and international trading world were asking why Canada does not do more trade in that part of the world. They asked why Canadians do not aggressively pursue new trade options in their part of Asia.
There was a feeling that the amount of initiative in this north-south trade has been somewhat at the expense of pursuing aggressively trade in new areas, particularly the Pacific Rim in this case. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on both those issues.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, both questions are very appropriate and thoughtful. Canada is very much a product of its geography. Those of us who have taught Canadian history and have observed Canadian politics have sometimes said that indeed there is too much geography in Canada. There are many theories that Canada is one of the most difficult countries in the world to govern because of that geography. Without a doubt, the very presence of the Canadian Shield represents an immense barrier which the Government must very consciously work at to overcome. That geography has meant that we have developed more of a trade relationship with the United States as opposed to the relationship between countries in many other parts of the world where there are alternatives.
The Hon. Member mentioned Europe, where virtually any European country is surrounded by neighbours on two or three boundaries as opposed to the one boundary we have.
Smaller countries which have entered into the European Economic Community probably share some of the fears that I hear Canadians expressing today. For example, I hear people ask how a nation of 25 million can exist with a nation of 250 million. While that is a legitimate question, I suggest the answer first lies within our own country. That ratio has existed throughout our history and we are proud of the continuing peaceful relationship we have with the United States.
There are also examples in Europe where the very small countries are as comfortable with a free trade agreement as are the large countries. As a matter of fact, countries are
Supply
begging for admission into the European Economic Community. Greece, Portugal and Spain recently joined the Community and Turkey wishes to do so. Luxembourg is an example of a small country that is still comfortable with the experience of co-existing with larger ones.
It does not automatically follow that the small in any way are jeopardized by a relationship with the large, unless the small countries have no confidence in themselves.
Some of us watched the football games on the weekend. Football teams that were not expected to win did indeed win. If they had gone into the football game with the same sense of insecurity which I hear some Canadians express today, they probably would have been defeated before the game began.
The point is that the essence of the agreement is that we must believe in ourselves. In a perfect world, I would certainly prefer that we had less trade with the United States. While I am uncomfortable with the fact that 77 per cent of our trade is with the United States, I do know that many attempts in the past to redress that have been unsuccessful, despite the intervention of Government in many cases, because it has, quite frankly, been to the economic advantage of producers and consumers in Canada to maintain that trading relationship.
I do not believe we have put all our eggs in one basket. This Government is very much committed to developing trade with the Pacific Rim, as is Canadian industry. For example, when I advised the President of the Canadian Pork Council of my inability to reach him, he told me that he was going to Tokyo to develop markets there for Canadian fresh pork.
We should also stress that the free trade agreement is built within the comprehensive framework of the GATT. The agreement is part of the whole and not meant to stand alone. By working toward both a freer trade agreement with the United States and an improved GATT agreement, the interests of Canadian consumers and producers will be very definitely protected.


Mr. Gottselig:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) on the excellent presentation he made this afternoon. Since the free trade debate began, we have seen the sides clearly drawn, mainly on political philosophies. This has been evident in the daily newspapers in western Canada, eastern Canada, in the farm papers and in the positions put forward by the spokespersons on free trade.
The political debate that is ranging in Canada over this issue should be more confined to this Chamber and possibly to provincial legislatures throughout Canada, rather than to the degree to which it is engaged in by some of the participants.
There is no doubt that the issue of free trade is a very complex one. However, I think it deserves to be studied carefully by examining the real issues and not participating

November 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
only in rhetoric, particularly when it is purely political in nature.
The Member did an excellent job of putting forward the position the Government has taken since this debate began.
Of the two or three key issues that I hear raised in discussions about free trade, one is the fact that people do not seem to be totally convinced that we have provided protection, particularly for the supply managed commodities. Perhaps the Hon. Member could comment on the protection that has been put in place for the feather industries and the dairy industries. Perhaps he could also comment on the two-price wheat system that is certainly questioned in western Canada by growers to whom I speak, who want to know the Government's intention with respect to the removal of two-priced wheat.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a number of important questions. I will try to address them as briefly as possible.
First, 1 believe most Members in the House are aware that the supply management programs remain intact. Furthermore, we have a continuing right to establish new supply management programs in the future. It is important to stress that fact because there are many who feared that they would be destroyed by the agreement. That is not the case.
Second, the quota system for imports in all those supply managed programs remains intact. The Hon. Member referred to the feather industry. In some cases there is an increase in quota, with a maximum of 1.5 per cent which is permitted under the freer trade agreement. 1 believe that is an increase with which most of the industry is comfortable.
The Hon. Member asked me to comment on two-priced wheat. I think the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) and others have made it very clear that whenever that program should be phased out in the future, adequate compensation would be provided to producers, if necessary. However, we believe that it is quite possible that by the time this happens the price will be rising and hopefully the export price will be closer to the domestic price.
Most of the western grain farm community, at least, has responded fairly well to this because domestic wheat constitutes about 8 per cent of our market, and it is the 80 per cent of our wheat which we sell in the world community that is very important to us. That is where we must concentrate our efforts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the adjournment debate this evening on a matter that is indeed very cherished in the part of the world 1 come from, primarily the constituencies of Saint John and Fundy-Royal. I am delighted that we have such an eminent Parliamentary Secretary with us tonight. I understand he is going to answer on behalf of the Government. I hold him in great esteem. 1 consider him to be one of the most respected, if not the most respected, Parliamentary Secretaries. 1 know he will be fair. 1 know he will be charitable, and I do not say that just because he happens to pay half the rent.
I raised my question regarding the awarding of the next six frigates because of the apparent struggle between Quebec and New Brunswick which 1 consider to be not only degrading but somewhat unpleasant. I fear, as do many New Brunswickers, that an opportunity to build the frigates in a yard that has the expertise and the best offer will be lost as Cabinet participates in a regional struggle which, as most people are aware, has delayed the awarding of the contract.
The case supporting the awarding of the frigate contract to the Saint John shipyard is indeed very strong. The company wants to build all six ships in its yard. It feels it can do so for a package of $1,976 billion, which is a considerable saving of $80 million per ship. I want to point out to you, Madam Speaker, and to all Canadians that this is about $700 million less than the original estimates for this package.
The Saint John yard is the prime contractor of the first batch of frigates. It has developed the technology and has assembled the personnel necessary to construct this class of frigate. In place today is a world class, top notch complement of designers, engineers, program managers and construction workers, all ready and willing to undertake the challenge of constructing the next six frigates. The record of the Saint John yard is excellent. The frigate program now under way is commendable. It is on schedule and within budget. The lead ship should be delivered by October 1989. In an era where we should have no waste contributing to the spiralling deficit we were exposed to because of the previous administration, this is a refreshing revelation.
I want to say that the first phase of the frigate program has been successful in creating jobs in southern New Brunswick and in Saint John. It has injected millions of dollars into the local economy of Atlantic Canada and has stimulated industry and job creation. You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that
November 24, 1987

the shipbuilding industry in southern New Brunswick is critical to the employment and economic expansion of our region. A decline in the shipbuilding industry always hits the local and regional economies very hard and has repercussions throughout every sector.
Defence procurement programs appear to be distributed fairly across Canada. British Columbia is a leading bidder for the half billion dollar ice-breaker contract. The West won the contract to improve the CF-5 fighter jet. Quebec received the CF-18 contract. I am seriously concerned by reports about the confusion surrounding the awarding of the contract. Ministers are reported to be making statements and then retracting them. 1 am concerned about the delay and the apparent regional confrontation within Cabinet. Almost every media account of this issue draws parallels between the awarding of this contract and the awarding of the CF-18 contract. I know Members of Parliament from Quebec are concerned about unemployed shipbuilders and economic opportunities, job creation and high-tech development.
However, a great deal has already been done by the Government to stimulate economic growth in Quebec. I think that we should square up to that fact. For instance, a $55 million grant was provided to improve petrochemical facilities. Under a $100 million federal-provincial agreement Quebec will receive more than 40 per cent of Canada's tourism development budget. A $100 million interest free loan was made available to General Motors. A three-year agreement generating $278 million in federal funds will be used for the purchase of training courses. Close to 3,000 jobs have been created in the aerospace sector which has received almost $200 million in federal contributions.
It may not be well recognized by the majority of Canadians, but Quebec has already handsomely benefited by the lion's share of the 1983 frigate contract. Although Saint John was a prime contractor, some $972 million will be spent in Quebec providing 12,180 man-years of work compared to $650 million to be spent in the Atlantic region providing 8,100 man-years of work.
The Saint John yard has calculated that splitting the work between Saint John and Quebec will cost an extra $480 million. As Canadians, this is something that we do not look forward to. We could almost purchase another frigate with the money that would be saved.
The Saint John yard has established itself as Canada's centre for the design and construction of navy vessels. It has created a centre of excellence. I strongly urge the Government to make a decision as soon as possible and award a six frigate contract to the yard that offers both the expertise and the best deal, the Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company. Canadians do not want to see Cabinet bend to political pressures and replay the CF-18 scenario.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to respond not only to my colleague, but one of my dearest friends, someone who represents so ably the constituents of Fundy-Royal. I might point out that the Hon. Member is equally at home on the range, and always shares in pulling his weight in all endeavours, whether they be for frigates, or for his constituents in any way, shape, or form.
I understand the concerns of the Hon. Member, and I do not think there is anyone who could have put the problem more loquaciously. I will attempt to sum up the current situation relative to the awarding of the contract for construction of the second batch of patrol frigates.
As mentioned previously in the House by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Cote), I will repeat again for those still unaware that the decision has not yet been taken by the Government.
I would like to clarify for the House the importance of this contract. As has been pointed out, we are talking about billions of dollars. It is a total expenditure of $3.5 billion. I think that the Government has every reason to insist on carefully weighing all aspects of a defence expenditure of this magnitude. I can assure my hon. colleague that such an important decision will not be made in haste. When it is made, it will be a decision that will prove beneficial for all Canadians.
As in all decisions on the awarding of contracts, Phase II of the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program will be based on clear criteria: the responsiveness of defence requirements, the expertise and technical capacity of the contractor, and the costs and regional and economic benefits associated with the project.
As the Minister of Supply and Services and others have stated in the House, and as a means of calming the anxieties of my colleague from Fundy-Royal, I repeat that the contract for the second phase of frigates will be made according to operational requirements, the best value against the cost, the efficiency of the contractor, the time frame proposed, and the industrial spin-offs.
Of all people, I can well appreciate the strong belief of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal that the contract should be awarded to Saint John Shipbuilding. Even though my fellow Member represents the interests of Atlantic Canada, he must also realize that the role of the Government is to respond in the best interests of the country as a whole, and to determine the best way to ensure regional development.
FREE TRADE-REQUEST THAT PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT DEALING WITH RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION BE AMENDED/UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES OPERATING INTRAPROVINCIALLY IN CANADA


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I wish to follow up on the question that yesterday I directed to the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina). She was asked questions not only by me, but by my colleague, the Hon.

November 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud). The Hon. Minister has been unable to answer any of the four specific questions that have been put forward by either my colleague from Westmorland-Kent, or myself.
These questions concerned the transport industry in relation to the free trade agreement which Canada will sign and enter into with the Americans. I sympathize with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on his bad luck in selecting a competent Minister of State for Transport. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is a great joker, but he has failed to come to grips with the complex issue of transportation. The terrible thing about it is that we have had a succession of Ministers of State for Transport, one after another, who have shown irresponsibility or incompetence. That is the situation exactly, when we look at the answers given by the Minister of State for Transport yesterday.
The only bright spot in the Department is the Parliamentary Secretary who has shown some understanding of the problems and a willingness to listen to representations in all meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport and in answering questions in the House yesterday and today.
In reality, the deal with the Americans will be terrible for the trucking industry. While the Government tried to make people believe that it was a marvellous deal, the reality is that it will be a terrible one for the trucking industry.
Raymond Cope, President of the Ontario Trucking Association says that 100,000 jobs in the province's trucking industry are at stake. He went on to say: "We see the potential to devastate the Ontario trucking industry". Mr. Ron Downey, President of the Manitoba Trucking Association says that the Canadian and U.S. trucking industries are not playing on a level playing field. He went on to say:
Certain tax and immigration changes should have been put in place before
the trade accord.
Mr. Don Norquay, Chairman of the Manitoba Motor Transport Board, said the following:
The draft agreement would not allow Canada to take any action to prevent
complete domination of our highway transport industry by Americans.
These people represent the industry and they are absolutely furious at the lack of appropriate responsibility and initiative on the part of the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Vezina) to tell us whether the Canadian provinces will be able to refuse license applications made by United States truckers based in states that do not give Canadian truckers a fair deal. This was a very simple question calling for a yes or no. The Minister was not even able to tell me whether such would be the case. This matter is very important for the workers in the Canadian trucking industry, for 43 American states continue to regulate the trucking industry within their own respective
jurisdictions. Under their regulations, Canadian trucking firms cannot transport merchandise or goods from one point to another within the same state: Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania, three major border states, are part of this group. Because of these regulations, for instance, in the State of New York, a Canadian firm cannot transport goods from New York City to Rochester. On the other hand, a firm based in the United States will be able to transport goods, say, from Toronto to Windsor because of the deregulation of the trucking transport industry which the Conservative government will impose on Ontario and the other Canadian provinces through Bill C-19. This right provides access to extremely profitable trucking services and will mean enormous profits for the American companies which take over contracts from the Canadian trucking industry. This is a far cry from fair competition, one of the basic principles and objectives of the so-called Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
The truckers would like the provincial transport commissions to keep their other regulatory powers, as this would give them some reciprocity as far as regulations are concerned when the American truckers ask for authorization to move goods from one province to another. The commission would be able to verify whether Canadian carriers have been refused a similar operating permit in the state or region of origin of the American trucker submitting an application to transport goods in Canada.
This is what I asked the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Vezina) yesterday, and she was unable to give me an answer. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clarify the situation this evening because, and I shall close with this, the Canadian Trucking Association has suggested, to correct this situation which could be extremely unfair to the Canadian trucking industry, that the final text of the schedule on transport in this agreement between Canada and the United States give at the very least the same status to the reciprocity provisions as to the principle of national treatment. This is the minimum required, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an affirmative answer.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in spite of the nice words from the Member opposite I must challenge his allegations against the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). As my friend opposite knows, Ministers are worked to death in this country and the Minister of Transport has handled his portfolio with great aplomb and also with enormous hard work and dedication. Absolute major Bills, Bill C-18, C-19 and C-21 changing the public policy of this nation were rammed through this House under the tutelage of the present Minister of Transport.


André Ouellet: By the Parliamentary Secretary.
November 24, 1987


Blaine Allen Thacker: With respect to Ontario trucking, there is no doubt some Ontario truckers are worried about the free trade agreement but not all Ontario truckers are. As well, let me say to my hon. friend that in Alberta that industry has been deregulated and subject to the market-place for many years and has thrived. There is no reason at all why Ontario truckers with their entrepreneurship and ingenuity cannot go into the United States and compete, and compete with anyone in the world.
My friend has pointed out that some 43 states in the U.S.A. have refused licences to subsidiaries of Canadian trucking firms which want to carry freight only within those specific states. He also points out that some of our provinces as a result of Bill C-19 will for at least five years come under the reverse onus clause, and after that it will be a fit, willing and able test which anyone can meet. Even at that time, U.S. truckers will not be able to operate here interprovincially at will. They would, as now, have to establish themselves as Canadian companies, engage Canadian citizens, have a subsidiary corporation or at least a Canadian corporation, pay income tax here and compete within the competition milieu of Canada. I think we can whip them as Alberta truckers have in the U.S. They have done well so I am not quite as worried as my friend opposite, although he raises the point very well.
If discrimination of restrictive practices by states against Canadian carriers can be proven, the Government could invoke that clause in Bill C-19, which my friend talked about eloquently when the Bill was going through, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which permits retaliation if remedial action is not taken through consultation. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government under the Minister of Transport or, indeed, any Government will retaliate if the Americans do not treat our truckers fairly.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS-PRINCIPAL SAVINGS AND TRUST BANKRUPTCY/REPORTED TRANSFER OF FUNDS


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, on August 12, I put a question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) concerning the Principal Savings and Trust Company. At that time, two corporations in the Province of Alberta had claimed bankruptcy; namely, First Investors and Associated Investors. It should be stated clearly that those companies fell under the jurisdiction of provincial regulation and not federal regulation. However, they were part and parcel of a corporate network or web of companies operating that type of business.
In fact, the Principal Savings and Trust Company, which is interlinked with those two provincially-regulated companies, is regulated federally under the auspices of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. At that time, I was hoping that the Minister could provide to Members of the House information which would shed light on some of the obvious questions that had been put and are still wanting for answers.
Adjournment Debate
We have learned in recent weeks and indeed in recent months of investigations that have been launched by provincial administrations. We have also learned to our dismay that a great number of Canadians from across Canada have been affected negatively by the operations of Principal Savings and Trust and the other companies to which it was linked. In fact, 50,000 to 60,000 of those Canadians have lost many personal investments.
The point here is that Canadians in my own Province of Nova Scotia and indeed my own constituency as well as people from Alberta, parts of British Columbia and all across Canada have lost a great deal of money. The Government's claim is that this falls under the jurisdiction of the provincial Government and not the federal Government, therefore its responsibility has been met. However, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that audits were done by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation of Principal Savings and Trust. The Minister, under the guise of confidentiality, has refused to table those audits.
I realize the importance of confidentiality within the business sector, but what ought to be of paramount importance, not only to the Government but indeed to the managers and business leaders in that sector of the economy is that we must know and know clearly all the facts and all the details surrounding the collapse of Principal Savings and Trust and the associated companies. It is only through that knowledge that Canadians as well as business people involved in that business can have confidence that the system we have in place is in fact serving and meeting the needs and objectives about which Canadians feel very strongly. The Government has persistently and consistently said no to making that information available.
Government Members are also aware that some very misleading practices have taken place. We would like to know what the Government has communicated to the Province of Alberta with regard to those practices. Has it given the file to the Minister responsible in the Province of Alberta? Has it given the file to the commercial fraud section of the RCMP? Has it done an investigation under Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
I think that Canadians are losing thousands upon thousands of dollars because of mismanagement and that the Government is attempting to protect, under the guise of confidentiality, what took place weeks, months and maybe even years ago in those companies.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is able to inform not only Canadians in general but those 60,000 Canadians who have lost money in Principal Savings and Trust about whether or not it is prepared to co-operate with provincial Governments in fully reimbursing those people. I hope he is able to tell us that the Government will provide all of the details and remove

November 24, 1987
Adjournment Debate
the guise of confidentiality in order to protect the system and give it integrity not only for today but for the future as well.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin). As the Hon. Member and all other Hon. Members know, these have been very difficult times for the financial industry in general. We have all been saddened to see the failure of several banks and trust companies. Those failures have naturally raised questions as to the adequacy of the regulatory framework. I very much appreciate the concerns of the Hon. Member which he has raised before in this House as well as tonight.
From his remarks the Hon. Member recognizes that the Principal Group and its affiliated companies, except for an inactive federally-incorporated insurance company, were under the supervision of the Alberta Government. The federal Government's only involvement was through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation insuring Principal Savings and Trust Company. As a result of that role, depositors in that trust company will be completely protected up to the insurance ceiling of $60,000.
As Hon. Members are all too painfully aware, many investment contract holders claim misrepresentations were made to them by representatives of First Investors Corporation and Associated Investors Corporation in the sale of investment contract certificates. I note, as the Hon. Member did, that the Province of Alberta announced certain measures to bring the affairs of the two investment companies under the control and scrutiny of the courts and the two companies' creditors. It is my understanding that Government has since expanded its inquiry to include a complete review of all inter-company transactions among the Principal Group of companies.
As Hon. Members know, the federal Government has placed a very high priority on addressing the problems of federally-regulated financial institutions. The Hon. Minister of State for Finance, on December 18, 1986, released a policy paper entitled "New Directions for the Financial Sector". The Government has already completed the first two stages of the process with the recent passage of Bill C-42 and Bill C-56.
The third stage of the reform package will introduce legislative amendments which should help prevent circumstances of the type currently causing investment contract holders in the uninsured affiliates of the Principal Group so much concerned. In this regard, federally-regulated institutions will, with limited exceptions, be prohibited from engaging in transactions with their affiliated companies. In addition, the actions of corporate officers and directors will be subject to stringent performance requirements to control conflict of interest and other insider activity. I would also note that the federal proposals contain a directors' policy which will ensure that one-third of the directors are unaffiliated and no more than 15 per cent of the directors on the boards of federally-regulated financial institutions are insiders.
I believe we have made considerable progress with Bill C-42 and Bill C-56 and that the third phase of this program will address the majority of concerns presented this evening by the Hon. Member.


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 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, November 25, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers