1987-10-26

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this is the first day of Small Business Week 1987, a very important event in Canada.
Small Business Week gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to Canadian entrepreneurs. After all, the entrepreneur provides the spark that starts small businesses. An entrepreneur is someone who takes risks, works, worries and finally creates something that did not exist before.
The theme of Small Business Week 1987, the creative power of entrepreneurship, is therefore very apt.

The facts speak eloquently of the importance of small business to our national economy. There are more than three quarters of a million small businesses in Canada. Some
155,000	new ones are started each year. They employ 40 per cent of the workers and are creating 67 per cent of all the new jobs our economy produces, 100 per cent in some regions of the country. Local entrepreneurs, therefore, form the cornerstones of the Government's regional development policies.
Close to a third of all small businesses are owned by women and small businesses provide well over three million jobs for yotng men and women in Canada, an impressive 50 per cent more than big businesses provide. Small businesses are increasingly the mainstay of developed economies world-wide. They are turning more and more to small enterprise, to information-based, high technology, service-oriented activities, and away from megaprojects.

I think the Government, educational institutions and the private sector have a duty to encourage and support entrepreneurship.
Governments must first of all do everything they can to create an environment that is conducive to the development of entrepreneurship. Our Government has always tried to provide an economic climate in which people with ideas would be encouraged and supported.
The results are conclusive. For the first time in eight years, the prime rate, the inflation rate and the unemployment rate are all below the 10 per cent line. Interestingly, for the entrepreneur these lower rates mean an annual savings of $1,000 on every $33,000 of debt.
All observers have acknowledged our budgets were favourable to small businesses.
We have also implemented a plan to reduce the paper burden, and we have started to deal with regulatory and tax reform. And we are now liberalizing our trade relations with United States.

Canada's small business community welcomes freer trade. A survey of 22,528 business people conducted by the CFIB in 1986 proved that those who foresaw positive results and new opportunities from freer trade outnumbered those who saw a negative impact by nearly three to one. Now that we have a deal, Canada's entrepreneurs can and will seize the new opportunities of this historic free trade agreement and they will have far greater access to the largest, richest and closest market in the world.
Small business persons in this country are not afraid to compete because they have confidence in their abilities and so does the Government. Our efforts cannot stop there. We must all. Government, education and the private sector, turn our efforts toward stimulating new entrepreneurship across our country.

Increasingly, our education system will have to include entrepreneurship as a career choice for students. One is not born an entrepreneur, one becomes one. We can and we must teach entrepreneurship and consider it on the same level as medicine, law or engineering.
We must make Canadians understand the importance of entrepreneurship. We must encourage Canadians, especially


Statements by Minister
our young people, to become entrepreneurs, and we should support them.

I want to thank the organizers of Small Business Week 1987, the Chamber of Commerce of Canada and the Federal Business Development Bank, to commend them for their efforts and to wish them the utmost success. Let us hope that Small Business Week will contribute not only to a greater understanding and appreciation of Canada's entrepreneurs but, most importantly, to the development of new entrepreneurs upon whom so much of our future depends.

I call on all Members of this Flouse and on Canadians from coast to coast to join me in paying tribute to Canadian entrepreneurs and promoting entrepreneurship during Small Business Week 1987.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism), who gave us prior notice of his statement. Speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition and the Liberal Party of Canada, I too wish to pay tribute to the men and women who, with perseverance, creativity and courage, have started many small businesses, some of which have later become full scale enterprises. These men and women, as the Minister pointed out, are responsible for 70 per cent of the jobs in this country. During the recession in the first part of this decade, when big companies were closing and jobs were being lost, small businesses were still creating jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit 1 am somewhat disappointed today. I expected the Minister would take advantage of this opportunity to announce new programs that would help develop small businesses and promote their growth, and thus create even more jobs.
Looking at the statistics, if every small business could create one more job, we would have about 800,000 new jobs, which would reduce unemployment considerably in this country. However, the Minister just went on mouthing the usual phrases, that it was a good thing this sector creates so many jobs and that there was so much development in this sector. Where are the programs?
Of course, the Minister referred to reduced tax rates. Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to remind the Minister that in its tax reform, the Government reduced general corporate taxes from 36 to 28 per cent-a total of 8 per cent, and reduced the manufacturing tax for large companies from 30 per cent to 23 per cent-another 7 per cent. However, the tax rate for small businesses was reduced from 15 to 12 per cent, a meager 3 per cent. In fact, he increased the tax rate for small manufacturers by 2 per cent, raising the tax from the present 10 per cent to 12 per cent, effective next year if the tax reform becomes effective on January 1, 1988, as promised by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this Governement has done for small business. Today, the Government is paying tribute to this sector, to all these men and women who have contributed so much to the economic development of our country, and at the same time, the Government has proposed measures to discourage this development.
The tax reform also includes the $500,000 capital gains reduction. We agree with the principle, but on closer inspection, it is just window dressing. It does not really do anything for small businesses because, as we all know, 50 per cent of small businesses are not incorporated, and the measure only applies to the sale of shares. Among the other 50 per cent who are incorporated, Mr. Speaker, the majority do not sell their shares, only their assets. So until this measure also applies to the assets of small businesses, our small Canadian entrepreneurs will not be able to take advantage of this exemption.
In the past few months, the Minister has been congratulating himself on having created an advisory committee to cut paper burden. I may remind him that in 1983, the Liberal Government set up a similar advisory committee to deal with all these problems that were impeding the economic development of small businesses. In the fall of 1984, when the Conservative Government came to power, the advisory committee, which included representatives from various small business groups, was abolished outright, and it was not until 1986 that the Government acknowledged its mistake and reinstated the advisory council. What the Conservative Government has done for small businesses in the last three years boils down to a great big zero.
I am very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister could have taken this opportunity to unveil really new programs.
I should like to recall that in 1985 the former Minister of State (Small Businesses) had undertaken to consult all Canadians precisely to learn what small businesses are all about. The Government spent a small fortune, Mr. Speaker, but we never did get the report because apparently it was printed but not distributed mainly because it did not have anything new to say. After three years I would have hoped that since the new Minister has held this portfolio for a year now, I would have hoped . . .
When I learned Friday that the Minister would be making a statement in the House today to mark the opening of Small Business Week 1 was hoping he would announce new programs, but no such luck. All we got are still more pious wishes, but small business has no use for pious wishes, it wants action, it wants to create jobs and help the community. But the Government has failed to respond, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on behalf of my Party. Small- and medium-sized businesses are a major component of our society. They create a lot more jobs than the big multinationals ever do, and the small business international fund will remain


the major source of new jobs for Canadian men and women. Small businesses now employ 42 per cent of Canada's paid labour. As emphasized recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, small businesses with fewer than 19 employees accounted for 86 per cent of employment between 1975 and 1982, while companies with more than 100 employees reported a 6 per cent employment drop.
Mr. Speaker, that is how important small-and medium-sized businesses are here in Canada.
Recently we in the NDP organized a task force concerning the creation of jobs. One important area we identified was the need to do more for small business. We recommended the following nine points and 1 want to put them very quickly on the record.
First, ensure that banks provide more loans to small businesses at rates given to big businesses.
Second, establish a more aggressive "buy Canadian" program which includes government contracts and is targeted to small business and community enterprises. That of course becomes more difficult with the free trade agreement if it indeed goes through.
Third, provide risk and venture capital for small businesses.
Fourth, provide greater opportunities for women to establish small businesses, including a commitment by the banks to treat women in an equal manner. Recently it has been women more than men who have been successful in establishing small businesses.
Fifth, identify areas in which small businesses could expand to meet consumer demand now covered by imports. Again I have concerns about this area when it comes to free trade.
Sixth, provide small businesses with relevant financial, marketing and management assistance through federal "one-stop shopping centres" to be organized in conjunction with local business communities.
Seventh, reform the Federal Business Development Bank to refocus its activities on small businesses, especially those most in need.
Eighth, direct the Canada Patent Development Corporation to work with small business to help them patent new innovations and market those patents world-wide.
Ninth, change the tax system to make severance pay tax exempt and allow the tax-free use of RRSPs to start up new small businesses.
Those are some of the recommendations our Party made as a result of its special task force on jobs two years ago.
Petitions

The payment is very important in this country and we have to go to great lengths to emphasize the major role of this business in the creation of jobs for Canadians, both men and women.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (period of residence).


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-TENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report is a summary of the work of the committee in the past year and is an attempt to highlight some ongoing problems we think need to be addressed.
The committee is greatly impressed with the dedication, hard work, and competence of public servants in general who come before us insofar as their commitment to delivering the programs of their departments. However, we are finding that public servants still are not cost-conscious and that opportunities are lost to improve the Government's revenues. There is not sufficient attention paid to safeguarding the Crown against liability and financial loss.
We have gone through a number of reports on different departments to highlight some of these problems and our proposed solutions which have already been addressed in other reports before the House. This report is a compendium of those.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling my twenty-fourth petition, which of course conforms to Standing Order 106. This petition deals with the eventuality of a tax on food and was signed by most of the residents of the Cooperative de LaSalle in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier.


Questions on the Order Paper
It read as follows:
whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks;
whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food;
whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life and the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, unemployed, low-income taxpayers and youth;
wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present petitions from residents of the Yukon Territory who wish to take this opportunity, having neither been consulted nor signatories to the Meech Lake constitutional amendment, to register their concern about the unanimity provision for the creation of new provinces. They humbly ask this House to consider further conferences on aboriginal rights and self-government.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a great many petitions from residents of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands in British Columbia. They are concerned about the dangers posed by the presence of nuclear-powered and/or nuclear-armed vessels in Canadian ports to both the environment and Canadian citizens. They call upon the Government not to proceed with the purchase of nuclear submarines.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106,1 have the honour of tabling a petition signed by 1,721 constituents of my riding of Laval-des-Rapides and by other residents of the Montreal area who object to the Government's tax reform proposal to introduce a tax on food.
The petition notes that since 1984, the Government has already introduced twenty-five new taxes and tax increases.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to reject the Government's proposal to make Canadians pay a tax on food.
This democratic protest is an expression of the dissatisfaction Canadians feel with the Government's policies.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its inept negotiation of a trade agreement with the United States that undermines Canadian sovereignty and requires excessive and unacceptable concessions by Canada but gains virtually nothing in return, that still fails to provide protection for Canadian industries from restrictive United States trade laws and that caves in to all United States demands in key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, automobiles, financial services and investment while threatening hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs without the Canadian Government's providing any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who is in the House to participate in this debate has said that there ought to be a Leader's debate on this issue. He and I are here today. We are willing to take on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in a debate on this issue at any place and at any time. We believe that Parliament is the right place and that this is the right time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I recall the secret Government free trade communication strategy document that was leaked over two years ago. It said:
The strategy should rely less on educating the general public than on getting across the message that the trade initiative is a good idea. In other words a selling job.


From the outset of these negotiations the Government of Canada has deliberately kept Canadians in the dark, deliberately kept the facts from Parliament, and deliberately refused to give us the parameters of the authority of the negotiating team. That has been the Government's strategy from the beginning and continues to be its strategy. It is a cynical, manipulative and misleading tactic. There is one thing wrong with it; Canadians are not stupid, Canadians will not be fooled, and Canadians will not buy this trade deal.
Some Flon. Members: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada went into this trade negotiation under three naive assumptions. The first was that obtaining an agreement with the United States would somehow magically exempt Canada from protectionist sentiment in the United States, particularly in the U.S. Congress. That was naive from the outset.
Leading members of the Congress, the U.S. Senate, and the House of Representatives told us publicly and privately on trips to Ottawa that there was no way Canada would gain an exemption from U.S. trade remedy law as set forth in the 1974 trade law of the United States or, indeed, in the Omnibus Bill currently before the Senate and House of Representatives. We were warned that there was no way that would happen. Yet the Government laboured under the naive assumption that a signed agreement would somehow exempt us from that.
We can see from the agreement that we have not been exempted. American trade law and practice, present and future, will continue to apply to Canadian exports. We have not gained secure access to the American market.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The second naive assumption was that we could get a quick fix. Instead of dealing multilaterally and internationally through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as we did so successfully during the Kennedy Round and the Tokyo Round, the Government tried to get a quick fix to our trade problems by dealing bilaterally and directly with the United States. Going head-to-head, face-to-face, one-on-one with the strongest economic power in the world, which is ten times stronger than we are, when our Government wanted to deal politically more than their Congress wanted to, we were bound to get a lousy deal. That is what happened. We got a lousy deal.
Of course, the third naive assumption was that the United States really wanted free trade with Canada. The United States does not want free trade. It is clear now that they have always wanted fair trade according to their definition as it is set out in the 1974 congressional law and as it is set out in the Omnibus bill.
Supply
Fair trade means trade in reciprocal terms, trade on their terms. They used the level playing field but it is their playing field, with their rules, their linesmen, their goalposts, their ball and their uniforms. That is what the United States always wanted in a trade agreement and that is what they have received in this particular deal.
The timing could not be worse for Canada. The United States and the Reagan administration has been pulling world demand into their market. The American market has kept the world economy going, but it became evident over the last number of months that a trade deficit of the proportions being run by the United States and the extent of the budgetary deficit, financed by Japan and Germany, could not continue forever and that the United States could no longer fuel world demand.
It has become evident that it will have to convert itself into a neutral and surplus position, which will be at the expense of every other country in the world. There is no way that the United States Congress and the United States administration, particularly in light of last week's events on the stock market, can afford not to take control of their trading position. Therefore, nothing could be worse in terms of timing and nothing will reflect congressional sentiment more acutely.

But the Government was naive. They presumed that by simply sitting down with the United States and negotiating a trade deal we would, as if by magic, be exempted from the American protectionist legislation and guaranteed free access to the U.S. market. But there is no magic in international trade. There is no miracle and no ready-made solution either, and it is clear that the results are not there for Canada.
To achieve his objectives, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) needed to convince the Americans of two things: first, to write down specifically in the agreement that Canada would no longer be subjected to any American protectionist legislation and, second, to set in place a binding dispute settlement mechanism to settle any dispute between the two countries. These conditions were essential. Well, the Mulroney Accord does not meet either of these conditions. The Accord does not guarantee free access to the American market. It does not protect us from protectionist legislation.

What does the dispute mechanism say? It is still to be determined whether it is constitutional under American law. The dispute mechanism is only a review panel. It applies American law and American practice to our exports. Nothing is changed. Its only leverage under the American administrative tribunal is to analyse whether those tribunals have applied correctly American law and American rules according to their practice. It does not change the law to which Canada is subject regarding the American market. It changes a judge and prolongs the process.


Supply
When we consider the softwood lumber case, it prolongs the process probably by another litigious year. That softwood lumber case would have been decided under the same law and rules. Furthermore, that 15 per cent tax for our softwood lumber going into the American market has been grandfathered and made part of the treaty.
In March, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said that the objective of any trade agreement would be the elimination of countervail in both countries. In April, the Prime Minister said that the U.S. trade remedy law cannot apply to Canada. That seemed quite clear and sensible. The only reason to attempt to seek an agreement would be to get an exemption from U.S. trade law. The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister understood it then, but last week the chief negotiator for Canada, Simon Reisman, said that it is "just plain dumb" to think "that this agreement should provide us with an exemption from American trade remedy laws, is just the silliest proposition I have ever heard."
That flies right in the face of the Prime Minister's remarks, and right in the face of the instructions obviously given to him by the Minister for International Trade when she went public on that very important issue. She was right then and the Prime Minister was right then; without an exemption of U.S. trade law an agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. That is the reason we oppose it.
Why does the Prime Minister continue to tell us that that is what he achieved in this agreement, when his chief negotiator says that it is just not so. In his revised summary of the agreement, Mr. Yeutter says:
The U.S. countervailing duty and anti-dumping laws-defined as U.S. statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative practice, and court decisions-will remain intact and unchanged. Hence, U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under existing U.S. law, just as Canadian industries will keep their rights under Canadian law.
We are back to where we started. We do not have that secure access to the American market that the Prime Minister promised and which he himself recognized as essential for any deal.
Let us also get rid of some of the philosophical baggage. This is not a free trade arrangement. This is a selective trade arrangement and Members of Parliament and Canadians are entitled to look at this deal on its merits. Some industries are in; some industries are out. The British Columbia wine industry and the Ontario wine industry are in; the breweries are somehow out. Apparently communications are out while textiles are in.

Flow does one explain that to textile workers who are vulnerable, while brewery workers are protected? How does one explain that to the footwear and clothing industry workers who are vulnerable, while the television community is protected? How does one explain that to the electronic industry workers in Quebec and Ontario who are vulnerable, while the Dow, Labatt, and Molson brewery workers are protected? We
must therefore scrutinize the agreement and realize that we have gained very little while giving up a lot.

We did not get that secure access to the American market. Yet we have opened our investment to the Americans, opened our culture, opened our capital markets, and our agriculture. We changed the Auto Pact and have become a storehouse in a continental energy policy.
We have lost control over investment because the thresholds have risen dramatically. I said in the House some three weeks ago that takeovers will be unlimited and it will be open season for the Americans.
Our service sectors, particularly our financial markets, are now open and we will have lost control over those markets as an element in determining Canadian economic policy.
No one could have predicted that a continental energy policy would be in this agreement. There was never any sense that we were not only negotiating a trade agreement but that we were selling the resource base of this country or, to put it in more realistic terms, giving away the resource base of this country.
Since Confederation we have always resisted American pressure by building a country east and west and north. We built a railway, we built an airline, we built a broadcasting system and we built a pipeline. We moved against those natural forces that would have brought us into the American orbit. Yet the Government, in one fell swoop, and with one signature, has thrown that away. Our oil, gas and coal are now directed into a continental resource basket and we have become a resource storehouse for the United States. We no longer control our own energy policy.
How many times were we told that our cultural industries were not on the table? Yet Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. Trade Representative, told us in his summary: "Canada has agreed that cultural measures it takes will not impair the benefits the U.S. would otherwise expect from the provisions of the agreement". Just to make sure that we got the point, he revised his summary and stated:
The U.S. retains the right to redress any adverse commercial effects of any
future cultural measures enacted by Canada.
The Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is here and she may want to speak about that.
The warning is clear. If a future government of Canada decides to support Canadian art and culture in a way that the Americans consider has an adverse commercial effect on them, then they will retaliate. That is the interpretation the U.S. puts on this agreement. So much for culture not being included.
How many times did the Prime Minister and his Ministers tell us that agriculture was not on the table? We do not have much time to go into that this morning but I will say that the


whole supply management structure of this country is vulnerable because the seasonal import protection is lifted.

U.S. multinational corporations now will be able to make an onslaught on our markets with their fruits, vegetables, dairy products and even their TV-dinners. In that area, Canadians cannot compete with the Americans, for no fault of their own. Our season is too short. Our winters are cold here in Canada. There is no way farmers here with a three-month growing season can compete with farmers down South who enjoy a twelve-month growing season. If in order to please the Americans we sacrifice our farmers, and our fishermen, we will end up depending on them, even for the food we eat.

How many times did the Prime Minister tell us that the Auto Pact was not on the table? But there it is in the agreement, changed, perhaps gutted, and we will have to wait for the final print to see exactly how much it has been gutted. Our auto parts manufacturers, Frank Stronach in the lead, the largest in the country, and the second largest, from Belleville, Ontario, have said that as a result of this agreement they are going to move their plants into the United States. That is what they said.
How many times did the Prime Minister tell us that the agreement would create thousands and thousands of jobs? Yet after the deal was signed, on his first pronouncement, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) announced that up to 500,000 jobs could be lost.
I might say, and not in any way peripherally, that two-thirds of the jobs which are vulnerable under this trade agreement with the United States are filled by women, jobs in the textile industry and in the service industries, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will have more to say on that particular subject as this debate proceeds.
The whole history of these negotiations before, during and now that we see the principles of agreement, has been that the Government has thrown away our cards, our sovereignty and the tools we need for political and economic independence. Even before the Government sat down at the bargaining table the Foreign Investment Review Act had been changed and the National Energy Program had been scuttled. During the course of the negotiations it was book publishing, then during the course of the negotiations, it was our drug manufacturing situation; then potash; and then softwood lumber. Now we have added to that list the auto pact, agriculture, energy, financial institutions, the wine industry, textiles, and capital markets. It amounts to the most massive sell-out in Canadian history, and I and my Party will never accept it. Neither, we believe, will the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's trade agreement will mean deep changes for this country. Never was that option discussed during the last election campaign. The Prime
Supply
Minister has no mandate to trade away our sovereignty. I will fight that agreement. I will fight it to the point of running the next election on it. You have my word for it. That is a promise.
And if Canadians give us their confidence, if they make us their government, never will I feel bound politically by that agreement signed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade, under orders from this Prime Minister. We never signed that Agreement. We will not live with it.

We did not negotiate the deal, we are not bound by the deal, we will not live with this deal, and if the deal and the final contract reflects the principles and the general terms of agreement we have seen, we are going to tear the deal up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I happen to believe that Canadians can compete with anyone, including the Americans. I believe we can compete without sacrificing our sovereignty and political independence. The exclusive focus on the American market, our most vital market and one that is absolutely essential for us, has cost us markets in the Pacific Rim and markets in Europe, and I went into those figures the last time I had the honour to stand in the House on this issue.
We need a global multilateral approach. We have always had greater leverage with the United States using the international negotiations to cut the deals we have cut from the Tokyo Round to the Kennedy Round. Using those international negotiations we have achieved our present situation where 85 per cent of everything we move across the border already goes in free of duty. The mistake the Government made was to go head-to-head with the United States for political purposes when it was drooling for a deal, sacrificing our principles, our citizens, our businesses and control over our economy.
It comes down to a simple question. Do we have faith enough in our fellow citizens and in ourselves to compete with the world and win? Or do we need an exclusive deal with the United States and hope it will do it for us? That is a prospect, by the way, which looks less and less likely as the United States finally has to come to terms with its own trade deficit and its own economy as a result of the cataclysm of last week. Are we willing to yield to the Americans that style of control over our economic and political decision-making process? I do not believe we are and I do not believe we should.
I have faith in this country. I have faith in Canadians and I have faith that we are mature enough, talented enough, confident enough and tough enough to make our own choices in our own way for our own future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), I believe it is a real sad day for British Columbians, that he would reject an agreement supported by British Columbians.


Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerry St. Germain: On Saturday, in a forum-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will have noticed that during the right hon. gentleman's lead-off speech he was extended every courtesy by all Members of the House. I think we would want to have the same courtesies extended to other Members.


Gerry St. Germain: I would like to ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition a question. The entire lumber industry has taken a position in favour of this agreement. It has said that had a dispute settling mechanism been in place, as proposed in the agreement, it would have been able to deal successfully with the softwood lumber issue and the shakes and shingles issue would not have surfaced as it has. We also look today at the potash industry in Saskatchewan. But let us stick to British Columbia because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition represents a riding in British Columbia.
How about the Bentleys, the Bensons, the Clarkes and all the people in these industries who are advocating that we support this initiative. How can the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in the face of this support, oppose something that would benefit western Canadians so vastly and so greatly, especially our province, the Province of British Columbia? I ask him to respond to that question because he cited in his delivery the adjustment factor.
I would like to tell the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, if he does not know, that with respect to shakes and shingles, on Friday, October 23 last, the federal Government lived up to its promise. It made a promise to assist and adjust for the unfair tariff imposed on shakes and shingles and delivered a $9.4 million program to the areas most affected by shakes and shingles. I ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition how in the face of this support he can stand here and oppose such a positive initiative?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the first public meeting 1 held after this agreement was announced happened to be in my own riding of Vancouver Quadra. There were about 800 or so people there at Point Grey Secondary School where the support and the questions reflected a deep concern on behalf of the citizens of my riding, that in exchange for precious little their Government had given away a good deal. On the hot-line show Jack Webster came out of retirement. We had the hot-line all over the Province of British Columbia. The first 14 out of 15 questions were to this effect, "John, hang in there. Do not let Brian sell us out".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Chairman of the Canadian Council of Forest Industries, Adam Zimmerman, has so far refused to take a position on the agreement until he
sees the final document. So what the hon. gentleman says does not reflect the official view of the forest industry.
I say to the forest industry of British Columbia what has happened is that the 15 per cent export tax forced on us by the Americans because our Government did not have the guts to take it through the courts and on to the American system-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: -that 15 per cent tax has now been grandfathered. If it is moved into stumpage, as the Province of British Columbia is negotiating to do, that moves the threshold of tax against our industry from $600 million up to $1 billion at the stumpage level. That would affect not only our ability to penetrate the American market but the Japanese market and the world market.
I am saying also that in terms of the forest industry it ought to be recognized that that type of penalty made permanent and grandfathered under this agreement penalizes into perpetuity the industry unless the Canadian people wake up and this Government yields to the opposition I believe will be mounted.
Let me state one further thing. In terms of whether the softwood lumber issue would have been decided any differently, the same law would apply. The same regulations would apply. We have no new definition of subsidy that might relieve stumpage from under that classification. The same law would apply. The same regulations would apply. All we have now is a new review tribunal which is bound to apply that law and whose only jurisdiction is to see whether American law and American trade practice has been fairly administered and applied by American tribunals-a very narrow jurisdiction.
I am saying to the hon. gentleman that the forestry industry in British Columbia, indeed in the country, is no better off. Indeed, it is worse off because that 15 per cent tax has now been grandfathered and made permanent under the agreement.


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


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and came to the conclusion that in politics-

It is easier to sell fear than hope.

-it is easier to sell fear than hope, it is easier to resort to scare tactics than to do anything else. And at long last, after three and a half years, the Leader of the Opposition has found a cause.
Mr. Speaker, what I fail to understand is to see someone who was once the staunch defender of Quebec interests-I am referring to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau)-be party to this.


An Hon. Member:: You do not know anything!


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind that Premier Robert Bourassa is also a Liberal at the provincial level, I wonder how any Quebecer can stand still when hearing arguments which fly in the face of those made by our new federal scarecrow. Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to recall that in outlying regions such as mine which heavily depend on better trade with the United States with respect to pulp and paper industries, forestry and lumber, we who inhabit these outlying regions have had to live with unemployment rates ranging from 20 per cent all the way to 90 per cent, the so-called Canadian nationalism notwithstanding. You never did find other solutions. We have taken a fresh approach towards the United States and the rest of the world, and we hope that this new historic accord will benefit all regions of Canada, not only Toronto and Bay Street-


Ms. Copps:: Sept-Iles is doing fine!


Charles-André Hamelin: Precisely, the situation on the north shore might even be better if we had an opportunity to expand our trading horizons, if we were protected from the vagaries of the marketplace. Mr. Speaker, why should all our resources, all our markets and all our opportunities always invariably benefit the select few in certain regions of Canada?
I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition how he can explain to Quebec Hydro management that his position does not jibe at all with that of his close friend Robert Bourassa, who happens to be a strong supporter of free trade. That is my question to the Leader of the Official Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have a hope in this country, but it is a Canadian hope, not an American hope, not a hope-
When he goes back to the Province of Quebec I suggest he should discuss the matter with labour unions, workers and agricultural producers. Saturday afternoon I met a few UPA representatives-that is the Union des producteurs agricoles- who are against the agreement with the United States. He ought to debate the issue with textile workers, footwear and clothing workers, and I believe he will be much wiser next time, if he rises in the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the 10 minute question and comment period has expired.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It better be a point of order because I know he can bootleg anything in. Watch him.


Jean J. Charest: I believe they are nervous today, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Supply


Jean J. Charest: They have reason to be. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I would seek unanimous consent of the House so that I may ask a question of the Right Hon.-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Go get Mulroney and we will answer questions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent).


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the absence of our House Leader and Deputy House Leader, I do understand that it was agreed in discussions between the Parties today that after the initial speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) the next speech would be by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) on behalf of the Government, and following that the Leader of the New Democratic Party would speak.
I assume that the Government members intend to stick by the agreement that they made in private this morning.


Miss Carney:: Mr. Speaker, I was advised by the Deputy House Leader that because this is an Opposition Day, I speak for the Government of Canada third in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty here. There may or may not have been an arrangement among the Parties. I should advise Hon. Members that the Chair was under the impression that there had been some arrangement. But, if there has not been, then the Chair is in the position of recognizing the next Member who rises.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, as was stated a moment ago by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), we had clearly been told that the Government had decided to speak second. It has this right in this type of procedure as the governing Party. But if the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) is unprepared to defend the indefensible, we on this side of the House can well understand that. I will willingly speak at this point to add to what has been said on behalf of my Party.
The people of Canada at no point since the Second World War have had the occasion to witness such an incredible sellout of Canadian interests as we have seen presented by the Government of Canada in the last two weeks to the people of Canada on this subject.
I wish to begin my comments with a quote from an early speech made in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) after he formed the Government. The Prime Minister stated on November 7, 1984, and I quote:


Supply
-we have only been in power for two months, but I can tell you this: Give
us 20 years, and it is coming, and you will not recognize this country.
This was stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons two months into office.
I have a quote from Ambassador Yeutter, the principal person involved in these negotiations from the American side. Ambassador Yeutter stated last week, with the same 20-year time span in mind, "The Canadians don't understand what they have signed. In 20 years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy".
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I wish the Prime Minister, when he made his comments, had told the people then that he had this 20-year scenario in mind. I can tell the Prime Minister that the New Democratic Party and Canadians from coast to coast do not accept the premise of Mr. Yeutter's conclusion. They do not accept these trade talks. They do not accept the Tory view of Canada that the only way of becoming a confident Canadian is to become an American. We believe that confident Canadians will stand up in this historic debate to fight to preserve an independent Canada, whatever the Tories may wish to do.

Mr. Speaker, we have reached a turning point in our history. As an independent country, we must answer the most important question we ever had to deal with in the latter half of the twentieth century. The Trade Agreement has raised a profound concern from coast to coast about the future of our country.
As a Canadian, I firmly believe that our country's survival is at stake. Canada's survival as a sovereign and independent nation is threatened. It is as serious as that. The Mulroney Government has made all the concessions in its negotiations with the Americans: concessions in the service sector, in the agricultural sector, in the cultural sector, in the energy sector, and even concessions on investment control and regional development.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Government's negotiations is clear. Mr. Mulroney and the Conservatives want to give Canada away piecemeal. However, Mr. Mulroney may be the Prime Minister but he does not own Canada. It is our Canada, it belongs to all Canadians and he has no right to give it away.
Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised more equity and honesty. He has done the exact opposite since that time, and I am referring to pensioners and tax reforms and especially the various regions in our country. We keep hearing the same thing, time and time again. The Prime Minister says one thing and does the exact opposite. Instead of honesty, openness and equity, Canadians have had broken promises, deceit and no equity. Once again, what the Prime Minister promised and what he did were two different things.
Before the election, the Prime Minister said that free trade would have an impact on our sovereignty and that he was opposed to it for that reason.

This was not only stated by the Prime Minister before the election, but by other present Ministers of the Crown who, when asked to give their opinion of the impact of this type of deal on the future of Canada, had extremely serious and negative things to say.
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), a former Prime Minister, stated that he opposed this type of agreement because jobs would be lost in critical sectors of the Canadian economy. He was correct in 1983 when he stated that, and it is correct today when he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He should be standing by that opinion today when he said it in 1983.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Before the last election, the present Secretary of State stated that such an agreement would make Canada the weak sister of the United States. He opposed it at that time, and I say to him that if he had integrity and if his Government had integrity, instead of bringing this preposterous proposal before the people of Canada, he should be standing up and saying in 1987 what he said in 1983.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Finally, Mr. Speaker, in this regard I add the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who rises in a rather condescending way from time to time and likes to lecture members of the Opposition on the so-called real world out there in the economy. We think that we have an understanding of the real world, particularly in North America, and particularly in terms of our relationship with the United States. Before he became Minister of Finance, in 1983 he stated that such an arrangement with the United States, and these are his words, "would be simplistic and naive".
The words uttered by the Prime Minister before this agreement came into place in 1983, the words of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the words of the Minister of Finance, all of whom stated that we would lose critical jobs, we would lose our sovereignty, we would become a weak sister, that such an agreement was naive and simplistic, were correct, and Canadians believe that they are correct now.
Canadians are sick and tired of the Government which is now in control with its large majority that has systematically stated one thing and done the opposite, whether it is about pensioners, tax reform, or commitments to the region, and now about the very fate of our nation being in doubt. We are fed up with this duplicity, Mr. Speaker, and so are the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We have had occasion in the House and outside the House to call into question a number of the important details of this agreement. I wish to add to that, what I say with care, the duplicity in the whole process that the Government has involved us in. Let us look at some key elements. What the Government has been telling us here in the House is one thing, and what we find in the documents, and what the Americans themselves say are in the documents time after time turns out to be something different.
For example, the U.S. version says that the matter of Bill C-22 was in fact part of the deal. It is in the Yeutter briefing documents. It has been said publicly in statements outside of Washington in the United States. We have read it. The Americans have read it. However, once again the Government denies it. It signs one document on October 4, thinks about its implications, and then takes steps to get another document arranged for October 5 for release to the people of Canada.
We opposed that drug legislation before it was associated with this deal, and we oppose it now. We say that the Government is wrong to sell out our interests in general in this deal and in particular in the drug industry. We also say that the right to make laws in the pharmaceutical field, which would bring low prices and good benefits to the people of Canada, and sovereignty in this field should reside in Canada for Canadians, not be shifted to the United States of America.
The Government has insisted that Canadian culture is not a hostage in this deal. It has said that before the deal, and it has said it since. If we read the briefing documents prepared for Mr. Yeutter-and again we see statements made by American officials since then-another picture emerges.
In the document prepared for the American ambassador it was said categorically that the Government of Canada within a matter of weeks would give Americans in this industry exactly what they wanted. A film mogul in Hollywood yells, "pay attention to us" and the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government say, "right; how soon can we do it?". We believe that the film industry has been dominated too long in terms of its distribution by an American set of companies serving their interests. We believe that the cultural interests of Canadians should be served by making changes which are long overdue. Again we criticize the Government not only for the bad deal in general but for selling out that cultural interest in particular.
Let me refer to another example. The Prime Minister says that we now have secure access to the American market-he has said this since the deal-and that we have protection from unfair and punitive U.S. action with the so-called wonderful dispute settlement mechanism which has been put in place.
While the Government is saying that, what do the Americans say? They are saying quite the opposite. If we look at the briefing notes prepared for Mr. Yeutter we see that he was asked to deal with the specific question and we see the
Supply
proposed answer from the highest U.S. officials. The question was this. "If these provisions had been in effect when we took our actions on shakes and shingles and on specialty steel, what would the outcome have been?" It was a hypothetical question for Mr. Yeutter to respond to after the so-called fair dispute settlement mechanism had been put in place. What was he told to reply? It was; "We believe there would be no major difference whatsoever".
The Canadian Government has boasted that it has something wonderful. The Americans who are more direct and honest have described the dispute settlement mechanism for the phoney thing that it is. I say to the Minister that it is time the Government was frank with the people of Canada. I also say to the Minister that she may think a deal is acceptable which will not change circumstances for the workers in her province in the shakes and shingles industry, but we say that it is much more important that Canadians, whether they be in shakes and shingles or tubular steel, who are affected get something fair instead of the hypocrisy which the Government is trying to pass off on them.
Not only has there been hypocrisy and misleading information given at different times about what they got in this deal, having listened to government spokespersons, I ask the House to consider how even their language has begun to shift since the deal has come down. I quote what the Prime Minister said on April 2 of this year before the deal was announced. With reference to the unfair remedy laws so frequently passed in the United States, he said, "The trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada, period". That is what the Prime Minister said. He said that what the Government was after was getting exemption from these unfair laws. They are his words; not mine.
Now that we have the sham before us, about which the whole country knows, how is Mr. Reisman describing the same situation? The other day he was quoted in The Ottawa Citizen as saying, "That this agreement should provide us with an exemption from American trade remedy laws is just the silliest proposition I ever heard". He should have told that to the Prime Minister last April when he said that that is what he would get for us.
I have a couple of gems from the Minister herself upon which I hope she will comment when she gets to her feet. With reference to U.S. trade laws, she said the following before the deal came down: "They are not fair. If things were working smoothly, neither side would need a change. The simple fact is that the present laws are not working".


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


John Edward Broadbent: The Hon. Minister for International Trade said that on March 16. Those were her words; not mine.
The next example upon which I hope she will comment is even better. She said: "That is why we are seeking to negotiate a new trade treaty with the U.S.-to change these rules so that we avoid these kinds of border disputes".


Supply


John Napier Turner: Who said that?


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister for International Trade said that. Now, after they have negotiated something which does not change the law one bit and which still leaves the American Government with all the authority to impose unfair trade remedy legislation, what does the Minister say? She seems to have changed her tune, because she no longer says that these laws were wicked or bad or had to be done away with. What she says is: "Our problem is not the law". Suddenly it is not the law. In fact, she goes on to say-and I hope she says this all over British Columbia as well as elsewhere in Canada "the Americans have good laws in this area". She also said that our problem is that we believe they are unfairly applied. They are not bad laws; they are just being applied badly.
Our problem is that we have a Government of Canada which does not understand what the real interests of Canada are all about. That is our problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: That's enough.


John Edward Broadbent: Conservatives on the other side are saying "That's enough". I can understand why they are saying "That's enough". If there is anything a Conservative Cabinet Minister cannot stand it is the truth. Since there will be a Cabinet Minister speaking, he will not have that inflicted upon him, I am sure, in the next 20 minutes or so.
Before I conclude I want to say that there are many other aspects of this deal. Whether we talk about the betrayal in the automotive sector where they said that the Auto Pact was not affected, whether we look at the results for the Big Three or the automotive parts sector which are profoundly affected, whether we consider our agricultural interests in western Canada who thought that they were to be protected from unfair subsidies-again if we read the document the wording on the surface looks good-however, we learn that the Government is prepared to accept subsidies in the agricultural sector continuing from the United States as long as they were put in place before the agreement came into force.
We thought and western farmers thought that the whole point of the agreement was to get rid of such subsidies. Once again the Government has let down western Canadians, I say to the Minister.
I think my time has nearly expired, but perhaps I could ask for permission to continue for a few more minutes. I would like to ask for the permission of the House to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has asked for permission to continue his comments for a few minutes. Is there such permission?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: allowed to fall and they are persistently allowed to fall beyond it. We say, and I repeat, that there are certain values beyond the market and that is why we have made a commitment to medicare as a part of our notion of citizenship, and we believe in that profoundly.
I could go on to indicate three or four other distinctly important values, and on another occasion I would like to do that, but 1 do not want to abuse the time that has been given to me by other Hon. Members. I simply want to say that the Canada we are now defending is a different Canada from the Canada of 1911 when we last had this great national debate. We have improved qualitatively. We have matured. We have a great nation from coast to coast made up of many different kinds of people, a nation different from that of 1911. We have traditions that have grown and are different from those of that period. We in this Party are saying that we are not prepared to sacrifice these traditions, this Canadian heritage, to become part of one simple, global North America. That is our commitment. We want to remain an independent Canada within North America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end of the
paragraph to a comma, and adding the following:
"And for these reasons, this House urges the Canadian Government to
abrogate the trade agreement with the United States at the earliest possible
opportunity".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Leader of the NDP is very simple. He represents the riding of Oshawa which has virtually zero unemployment. That is good for the people of Oshawa and we are pleased about that too. The entire corridor from Windsor right through to the Quebec border also has virtually zero unemployment.
Given that this situation does exist, and this is good for this area, and the reason that this is in place is because of the auto pact that exists for this particular area, why is it that the vicepresident of the Canadian Auto Workers, Mr. Bob White, and the Leader of the NDP are so opposed to this free trade agreement? It is synonymous with the free trade that exists in the Auto Pact. Why is it that he preaches fear of foreign investment while his own riding is controlled by General Motors, a foreign company? The entire Auto Pact is made up of foreign companies including Chrysler, Ford, American Motors, Honda and the rest of them.
Why is it okay for that area to have a free trade arrangement and zero unemployment but it is not right for the rest of the country to enjoy the prosperity that the people of that area are enjoying? Why can Newfoundlanders, British Columbians and those in the rest of the country not enjoy the same prosperity as that which free trade and foreign investment has brought to the riding of Oshawa and other parts of Ontario?
Supply


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the question and I want to assure all Hon. Members that I did not pay him to ask me that question. In answering the question I will put a challenge to the Hon. Member. If he will agree to pay half, I will pay the other half of the cost of a full page advertisement, say, in the Vancouver Province that will put his question in toto and my answer in toto.
The Hon. Member asked a serious question and I want to give a serious answer. He said that unemployment in the Windsor-Oshawa belt is zero. It is not quite zero but I will accept the essential argument that unemployment, compared with many other parts of the country, is indeed low. However, the key point he makes is just false. He says this happened because of a free tfade agreement in automotive trade. With respect, that is not so. The Americans wanted completely free trade in 1965. The Government of the day said no, we cannot have free trade. The industry is overwhelmingly owned in the U.S. and they would simply sell all their cars and parts in Canada and keep the plants in Michigan or, subsequently, Georgia, California and other states. The Government then negotiated the Auto Pact which had a requirement for a certain level of investment in Canada.


Mr. Hopkins:: A Liberal Government.


John Edward Broadbent: A Liberal Government. The NDP Leader of the day, unlike what the Conservatives have been saying, was not opposed to the principle of the deal, if you read his speeches. Quite the contrary. Our Party asked that it be improved, that we take steps to provide supplementary unemployment benefits for workers displaced when the industry was rationalized. We suggested steps to be taken to increase benefits for Canadian consumers. I am pleased to say the Government responded with a special supplementary unemployment benefit program for those workers. I hope the Government learns from that if it should ever be able to go ahead with this deal, which I hope it is not.
The key point I want to make is that the Auto Pact required the Americans to make investment in Canada on a continuing basis roughly in proportion to their sales in Canada. That is not free trade but it gave employment opportunities to Canadian workers. If they did not make that investment, there was a mechanism which would come into effect and force the Americans to pay thousands of dollars in tariffs to get their cars in here. That was put in place to encourage them to make investment in Canada. It is the Conservative Government today, in this free trade pact, that wants to remove that mechanism, and we are opposed to that proposal for that reason.


Mr. Stewart:: That is balderdash.


John Edward Broadbent: We in this Party have said that wherever we can duplicate this arrangement with foreign investment in


Supply
Canada, we favour it. If we can bring American investment into British Columbia, Alberta or other parts of Canada with a net benefit to Canada, not just profit maximization for the U.S., we want that kind of arrangement.
If the Hon. Member can say his Government is prepared to leave the Auto Pact alone and it will pursue for all of Canada, not just Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) or Windsor, the kind of framework which exists in the Auto Pact, he will have the support of every New Democrat from coast to coast.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the Hon. Member for Oshawa and was struck by his comments regarding the duplicity of the Government with respect to what it was saying before the free trade deal became public and what it is saying now. Time and time again the Government said agriculture was not on the table. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said that. Yet it is clear that most areas of agriculture are in the agreement. What we have been trying to pin down is the actual impact of the agreement on, for example, the two-price system for wheat.
1 asked the Minister responsible for grains and oilseeds on October 5 about what impact the removal of the licensing power of the Canadian Wheat Board over wheat, oats and barley would have. This will occur as soon as the support levels in both countries are equal. This will apparently occur for oats and barley by January 1, 1989, and for wheat perhaps in the next year or so when the current U.S. program runs out of funds. The Minister said absolutely nothing of the sort would occur.
Two days later, in the Saskatchewan Legislature, we had a comment by the provincial Premier, who also happens to be the provincial Minister of Agriculture, saying that the two-price wheat system would have to go under the free trade agreement. He went on to say that the federal Government had promised to provide compensation of $280 million.
When I asked the Minister last week if the two-price system would be destroyed she gave a kind of gobbledygook answer. Her response was that she would prefer to deal with the substance of the issue, which is that the two-price treatment of wheat will be assessed in light of the free trade agreement and decisions pertaining to it will be taken at the appropriate time.
We have the Premier of Saskatchewan saying one thing. We have the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board saying something else. We have the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) saying something else again. People just do not know-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 very much regret that the question and comment period has expired.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have just heard from the 19th century!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss MacDonald:: The Luddites.


Pat Carney: It is the Conservative Government which seeks to lead Canadians through the end of the 20th century and into the 21st. It is the Opposition which is leading Canadians backward into the future. That is the only alternative they offer Canadians. That is no alternative at all. They offer myths and misleading statements, that is all. However, Canadians will not be conned by cowards in this debate. That is what the Opposition is doing in this case. Canadians have confidence in themselves, their country and their ability to compete. That is why a majority of Canadians favour a free trade agreement.
When I say the Opposition has no alternative, I want you to look at what they said. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who is not here-I suppose it is time for tennis-is not giving me the courtesy of listening to my speech as I listened to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


Pat Carney: Tennis is a sensitive subject for them. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says he will tear up the trade agreement. That is his alternative. That is no alternative. It is nothing but protectionism. He is going to tear it up! What is more likely is that the voters of Vancouver Quadra will tear up his nomination papers because being against free trade is betraying their interests.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister referred to the absence of certain Members from this House. We on this side of the House did not make any reference to all the Ministers who were not in the House this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been some mention from both sides of the House as to whether Ministers or other Members were in their places. Hon. Members know, of course, that Hon. Members have many obligations. That is, of course, why we refrain from commenting in the Chamber. I ask for the cooperation of all Hon. Members. The point raised by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) is, of course, in accordance with the rules. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP have a very simple position. They are against free trade. They do not suggest anything else. My colleague, the Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), made an interesting point. The Leader of the NDP, the Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), is against foreign investment except when it is in his riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Did you hear my answer two minutes ago? Mr. Nystrom: Be honest, Pat.


Pat Carney: The Vice President of the NDP is Bob White. Bob White, head of the auto workers and Vice President of the NDP, is against free trade except when it involves his union members.
I would like to quote John Crispo, the professor at the University of Toronto who pointed out that Bob White's position represented "an indefensible double standard". Professor Crispo said:
Here he is representing the group of Canadian workers who have had by far the most access to the American market under the Auto Pact and he's got the gall to wander around the country and lead the opposition to free trade which would give other workers-"brothers and sisters'' he has the nerve to call them-something of the same degree of access.


John Edward Broadbent: That's a big lie.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Tell the truth for once, Pat.


Pat Carney: Those are the battle lines in this debate-the future versus the past.
I would like to quote a person who is not a Conservative, a well-known Liberal, Donald Macdonald of the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities. He said the following which is central to this debate:
The battle will be between two different perceptions of Canada. I don't see Canada as a sort of sheltered workshop for the inefficient, the incompetent or the less than capable. 1 see our country as one with a very considerable capacity, a very considerable record of success, and with an agreement of this kind-and others to come-the ability to use these talents out in a broader world market.
That is our vision of Canada, that is the Conservative vision of Canada, and that is Canadians' vision of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Opposition has ignored the agreement itself in its remarks today. I would like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the requirements and objectives which the Prime Minister set out to Canadians as the criteria on which this agreement should be judged.
First and foremost was the proposal to pursue a new trade agreement "involving the broadest possible package of mutually beneficial reductions in barriers to trade in goods and services". That is what the Prime Minister promised and that is what we delivered.
The Right Hon. Member who speaks for the Opposition says that that is virtually worthless, that it is virtually nothing. He cannot be thinking of his own constituents in Vancouver who, through the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers under this agreement, will have at their disposal a market of about 35 million within a two-day truck haul.
Supply


Mr. Waddell:: Providing the Americans don't countervail.


Pat Carney: The hypocrisy of the Opposition is worth noting.


Mr. Fulton:: We tell the truth. There is a little difference.


Pat Carney: His constituents will have access to a market of 35 million within a two-day truck haul. The people from Kingston, instead of being lake-bound and forced out of the U.S. market by many tariff barriers, will now have access to it. 1 do not think that the elimination of tariffs is "virtually nothing" as the Opposition says.
Furthermore, we achieved our objective of a more predictable set of rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on a point of order.


Mr. Tobin:: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the word is "hypocrisy" not "high-pocrisy". In either case, it is not allowed in this House.


Mr. Kaplan:: It's unparliamentary however you pronounce it.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the word. The word was not directed at a particular Hon. Member. The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, they are obviously worried about any debate on the merits of the free trade agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Any time, any place. You name the network.


Pat Carney: We achieved our second objective of better rules and a dispute settlement mechanism. We have given ourselves five years plus two more to deal with the rules which apply to a free trade agreement. That is a major accomplishment. It has never been achieved anywhere else in the world in any kind of agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: We initiated these negotiations with the United States in order to enhance the largest two-way trade in the world. Canadians have always traded to prosper. We export one-third of all the goods and services we produce. We compete with the best in the world. Today three million Canadians depend on trade for their pay cheques. Like it or not, nearly 80 per cent of our exports are sold to the United States. That figure rose to that level under the previous Liberal administration.
Faced with American protectionism we had two choices; to withdraw into Canadian protectionism and isolation and watch our standard of living decline, or attempt a bold move on behalf of all Canadians.


Supply


Michael Morris Cassidy: A sell-out.


Pat Carney: The first was irresponsible. The second secures our future.


John Edward Broadbent: Tories can only have two thoughts at one time.


Pat Carney: We did not enter into free trade negotiations only to get the best possible economic deal. If that had been our goal, we would have joined the United States years ago. We are not interested only in the best economic deal. The Prime Minister conducted these negotiations with a strong sense of requirement for our political and economic selfdetermination. That is why he gave specific commitments to the Canadian people at the very outset. They were very well defined.
He promised that the agreement would maintain our political sovereignty, and it does; that it would maintain our social programs, and it does. The attempts of the Opposition to say that medicare and unemployment insurance are at risk by this agreement show how pitiful their arguments are and the depths to which they will go.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: This agreement preserves our commitment to regional development, our unique cultural identity, and our agricultural marketing systems. We have delivered on each of these commitments to Canadians.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You have capitulated.


Pat Carney: Far from threatening our political sovereignty, this deal will strengthen it for it is far easier for an economically strong and united country to stand in dependent and sovereign than one weak and divided.
It is interesting to reflect on a comment which Premier Bourassa made to me. He said that the single most important act of a Prime Minister in achieving nationhood was the signing of an international treaty, the Treaty of Versailles, by Robert Borden on behalf of Canada. A strong Canada is enhanced by a strong economy and market opportunities abroad.
I would like to tell the House about the good luck charm that Simon Reisman carried with him during these negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Get serious.


Some Hon. Members:: Tell us about it.


Pat Carney: The Opposition says "tell us about it".


Lloyd Axworthy: A great big albatross.


Pat Carney: I am delighted to tell them about it. His good luck charm was an 1857 Prince Edward Island penny from the time when P.E.I. was still a colony. On the penny was
inscribed the slogan: "Free Trade and Self-government". He carried that talisman with him because it rings as true today as it did then. Free trade and self-government are mutually reinforcing. A strong economy is the best bulwark for sovereign independence.
Canadians will always remain proud Canadians and with this agreement we will continue to make our own determinations on how we live, on our social policies, on medicare, unemployment insurance and pensions. Anyone who believes otherwise has not read the agreement and is irresponsible to suggest it.
Since the Opposition spends its time saying what is not in the agreement, let me tell the House what is contained in the agreement. We have agreed to phase out all tariffs between the two countries within 10 years. The only exception is a snap back for horticulture, which has an extra 10 years of protection.
We have agreed to eliminate most of the technical and health standards which have often been used as non-tariff barriers at the border. Farmers were aware that this item was keeping them out of some of their markets.
We have agreed to set rules for trade and services, an unprecedented provision in international law. Trade in services is the fastest growing sector in world trade. For the first time there will be rules between the two countries for trade in services. We have also included provisions that will allow workers to go to the United States to deal with the goods and services they sell there.
We have provided greater access to each country for investors.
We have secured markets for Canadian energy, such as British Columbia natural gas, Alberta oil, Saskatchewan uranium, and Ontario and Quebec electrical power, by enshrining this Government's energy policy.
The Opposition ignores the fact that this Government dismantled the National Energy Program. They want the freedom to put it back. We opened the borders in energy and we are saying that if the Americans do not put up barriers at the border, we will not turn off the tap. That is a fair agreement between two countries. We have secured our markets and by doing so we have secured the investment for the energy resources that Canadians need.
We have given agricultural producers new markets across the border to help cattlemen, hog producers and potato growers, among others.
We have improved the potential of the auto industry by giving Canadian parts and after-market parts makers the opportunity to compete in a much bigger market, under tougher rules of origin and by keeping in place the very safeguards to which the Member for Oshawa has alluded.


have expanded the opportunities to compete for Government purchases in the other country. We have created effective procedures and institutions for the joint administration of the agreement and the binding resolution of disputes over the application of countervail and anti-dumping actions, and have been given time to adapt those laws to emerging market conditions. We have laid the foundation for future cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the agreement.
Let me explain some of the implications for Canadians. There will be lower prices for consumers as tariffs come down and there is more competition. Preliminary estimates show that it could cost $8,000 less to set up a new home in Canada by the time this agreement is in place. A Canadian earning $23,000 a year will have an extra $850 a year to spend.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Where are your facts?


Pat Carney: They laugh! They do not like these facts. 1 will tell you where 1 get these facts. I am quoting Andrew Cohen, Director of The Consumers' Association of Canada, who says, "There is something in free trade for all consumers". Let me quote other Canadians. Jack Carr, Chairman of the University of Toronto's Economics Department predicts that, "There will be more employment, wages will be higher, there will be more benefits". We will be exporting goods and services to the United States, not jobs. David Culver, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Alcan, says: "We do not have to say to ourselves perhaps we better build the plant in the United States in order to be sure we are inside the barriers . . . We can now invest in a bigger plant in Canada, secure in the knowledge that the plant will have access to the U.S. market". Multiply that many times, and the result is more jobs in Canada, some 350,000 more jobs according to the Economic Council.
I have already indicated that Canadian professionals and service industries will have better access to the U.S. market since they will be able to travel there to work on jobs or service what they have sold. Chris Gree, President of the Canadian Association of Management Consultants, says: "I am 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".
The Canadian auto industry will have growth potential with changes in the rules of origin and continued Auto Pact safeguards. The President of the Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association, Norman Clark, says: "It is a reasonable basis for liberalizing trade". Larry Buganto, Chairman of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association calls it a step in the right direction. Dean Wilson, President of the Automotive Industries Association, describes it as: "A tremendous opportunity for the automotive after-market industry". He also said: "We know already that our workers and our plants are just as efficient as those in the United States, if not more
Supply
so, so I look forward to a healthy increase in export sales". He has the kind of confidence we are looking for.
You are indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired. I would ask permission of the House to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Minister would want a minute or two to finish her remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pat Carney: I anticipate that I will take about as much time as the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I want to deal with the Canadian agricultural producers because they will have greater access to the U.S. market, with less harassment. The President of the Canadian Pork Council and Chairman of the Alberta Hog Producers Marketing Board supports the agreement. He said: "I am extremely pleased, hogs being a commodity that was hard-hit by the American protectionist mood". Charles Gracey of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association says: "This is a great day for Canada". Don Jarvis, Vice-President of the Grocery Products Manufacturers says: "We will gain access to a huge market in the United States". Paul Sim of the Canadian Wheat Growers says that the agreement: "Removes the big club that is being held over our head as far as U.S. protectionism is concerned".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Let them laugh at the wheat growers of Canada.
Canadian fishermen and fish processors get far more access.
Secure markets for Canadian energy will attract investment. Bob Lamond, President of Czar Resources, said: "Investor confidence in the Canadian energy industry was destroyed by the NEP and we are now seeing it rebuilt".
In closing, I want to talk about the dispute settlement mechanism. It gives us an umpire which we did not have. It provides confidence in the knowledge that unfair applications of U.S. trade laws or Canadian trade laws will be less likely with an umpire. The Opposition says that we are playing with American baseball uniforms and using American bats. We would like to have an impartial umpire who can use a binding dispute settlement mechanism.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Oshawa that we have embarked upon an historic undertaking. It is understandable that there should be this kind of debate but I know that Canadians are world class traders and world class competitors. Whether they are the fishermen of Newfoundland, the potato growers of Prince Edward Island, the auto workers of Ontario, or workers in research and development in the west, I know they welcome the opportunity this Government has given them to show how good they can be.


Supply
It is Canadians who will make this agreement work. It is Canadians who will build a stronger and more vibrant Canada by rising to the challenge of the world competition rather than withdrawing, as the Opposition suggests, into the 19th Century. I firmly believe Canadians will choose our vision of the future. Protectionism leads to depression and liberalized trade leads to prosperity. Those are the lessons of history. That is the choice facing us all. There is no other. This Government and the people of Canada know that the Opposition offers no alternatives. We know that the free trade choice is in the best interests of us all.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She started her speech today by saying that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is opposed to foreign investment, is opposed to free trade, and has never given a single alternative to free trade. I want to deal with two points; first, the Minister saying our Leader was opposed to foreign investment and, second, that he did not give any alternatives.
I want to ask the Minister why she says this, in light of the fact that when the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) posed a question to my Leader on that very point a few moments before she rose to speak, my Leader said very clearly that we support the principles in the Auto Pact, but they are not free trade? It is a trade agreement. He said on behalf of our Party that if we could have Auto Pact type principles, sector by sector, our Party would support that kind of approach.
Our Leader also said to the Hon. Member for Mission- Port Moody that we do not oppose foreign investment if we have an arrangement where foreign investment works for Canada, where we have guarantees, where we have an accord. He made that very, very clear. Our Leader as well as other people have also spoken many times in this House about an economic strategy, an industrial strategy, particularly where it concerns foreign investment.
I want to ask the Minister of International Trade why she cannot be more honest and truthful in this House and tell the Canadian people that the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, does propose some alternatives to this free trade negotiations, that he did point out that the Auto Pact is the kind of agreement we in this Party support, and we would support that kind of agreement, sector by sector, where there are built-in guarantees for the people of Canada?
It is the time to be honest with the people of Canada. It is the time to tell the people the truth, and I want to know why the Minister of International Trade will not be forthright rather than trying to distort the position of the New Democratic Party? Please answer that question.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, let me go to my notes for what the Hon. Member for Oshawa said. He said it is a massive sellout.


Some Hon. Members:: It is.


Pat Carney: It is not a massive sell-out. We have dismantled the investment barriers that create the kind of vibrant economy the Hon. Member enjoys in Oshawa. He is the one who is suggesting that it should not be opened up to foreign investment.
He also said-and I hope he campaigns on this-that Americans are more honest than Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: I never said they were more honest than Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer the question, Pat.


John Edward Broadbent: They are more honest than you.


Pat Carney: That is what he said, that Americans are more honest than Canadians. I hope he goes to an election on it.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not true. You are at it again.


Pat Carney: Those are exactly the words. If he is in favour of the Auto Pact, as he has not been in the past, but as he says he is now, may I point out that he should be in favour of this agreement because it protects the Auto Pact, it makes rules of origin tougher, which benefits Canadian auto makers and workers. I have already quoted the chairman of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. I have quoted the Automotive Industries Association. I have quoted other people in the industry. If the Hon. Member were being honest, and if he was putting the interests of his voters ahead of his own, he would be for the free trade agreement because it improves the Auto Pact.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You didn't answer the question, Pat.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). In the trade agreement the Government of Canada seems to be saying "Me, too" to any international negotiations with regard to trade, that when it goes to the MTN, the Uruguay Round, Canada is going to backing up the United States in the elimination of agriculture subsidies.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us precisely whether the Government of Canada will be supporting the United States with regard to Section 11 of the GATT, which would remove the power of countries like Canada to have supply management systems and to have border controls? Clearly it is the position of the United States that that section of the GATT should be removed. It is crucial to Canada as to whether or not the United States succeeds in that regard. The United States has made it clear. It has published its position and proposals to the GATT. The Canadian Government has filed its position secretly. The Minister will not make them available to the farmers of Canada and to Canadian citizens generally.
Since this document says we are going to support the United States in the removal of all agriculture subsidy programs, I


wonder if the Minister can tell us if the Government will be maintaining, and fighting and opposing, the removal of Section 11 which provides for supply management systems such as we have in dairy and poultry products? Or will she knuckle under and agree to the United States' support for the removal of that section of the GATT?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was not in the House last week when 1 rose and in a Ministerial statement outlined our Canadian proposal for the MTN Round on agriculture.
I would first like to point out that the bilateral agreement we have signed with the United States is considered a major achievement by our international trading partners who feared that if the world's two largest trading partners could not sign an agreement, the MTN would fail. That was their concern. That is why our international trading partners are so pleased we have achieved this. That is why 49 countries of the Commonwealth last week in Vancouver signed the Vancouver Declaration on Trade, urging trade liberalization.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Will you please answer my question?


Pat Carney: It is funny, the Hon. Member takes forever to put the question but I am not allowed to answer it.
I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that in my statement in the House I pointed out that our Canadian position is that we expect to get credit, as I have said, for the fact that our programs in Canada are consistent with Article XI in the GATT. It is the programs of other countries which are inconsistent with Article 11.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Such as?


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member does not want me to take the time to answer that. He is already urging me to adjust his question. I am pointing out very clearly that I said in this House that Canadians will be seeking credit for the fact that our programs are consistent with Article XI. I would be interested to know whether he quarrels with that. I also outlined the role we had taken in the Cairn's Group, with Australia, leading the 14 nations of the world to account for 25 per cent of agriculture trade, and the efforts we have made consistently for trade liberalization in agriculture. If he is not familiar with the position, I would be very glad to send him copies of the speeches I have given in this House on the subject.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Would the Minister table the GATT documents?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister. I am not sure if it is a question or a question of privilege. First, if I can be direct, she did not have the decency to answer the question put by the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who pointed out that I had said something totally different to what she attributed to me. She did not deal with the question.
Supply
Beyond that, she went on to make two important misstatements of fact that I would like her now to correct. First she said I opposed the Auto Pact in the past. I have been a Member for 19 years and I challenge the Minister to produce one statement in 19 years to back up the outrageous accusation she just made. If she does not, will she have the honesty to withdraw it?
Second, she said that I said in my speech that Americans were more honest than Canadians. Again, if she can show that in a speech, then she can stand by it. Otherwise, I ask her to withdraw it. I made no such claim.


Pat Carney: You did so.


John Edward Broadbent: I may well have said, if she checks the record, that the American officials, the Americans are more honest than this Government. That I would stand by. Would she please produce the facts to support her outrageous allegations, or at least have the integrity to withdraw them immediately?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this House many times quoting the Hon. Member for Oshawa, quoting his own words about how the Auto Pact is to be renegotiated-


John Edward Broadbent: Improved, yes.


Pat Carney: -but changes have to be made in the Auto Pact. I will present those pages from Hansard shortly after today's debate, shortly after the lunch hour. I will ask my staff to get it.
Second, in terms of his speech about Americans being more honest than Canadians, that is my personal note of what he said. I ask you to check the "blues", Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Check the "blues"!


Pat Carney: If he is wrong, I expect him to apologize. If I am wrong, I will withdraw the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the House that the 10 minute question and comment period has expired.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has the floor. I might indicate to Hon. Members that in view of Statements by Ministers there was a 14-minute extension into the noon hour. It might very well be that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry would like to have the Chair call it 1.14 p.m.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if you would call it 1.14.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have the floor at 3
p.m.
The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
At 1.12 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, last week representatives of Canada's First Nations gathered on Parliament Hill to protest cutbacks in funding for Indian education. Petitions with more than
6,000	signatures were sent to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) office rejecting the current policies and demanding that the Government live up to, first, the spirit and intent of the 1973 policy on Indian control of Indian education; and second, its trust responsibility to provide adequate resources for an Indian education system that is of high quality, and provides for the economic and social advancement of Indian people.
If Indians, like all Canadians, are to be self-sufficient and fully productive then education is essential. I ask the Government to withdraw this shameful funding formula and to live up to its moral and political obligations.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the programs initiated and carried out by the Progressive Conservative Government are to be commended and encouraged. They have been a tremendous help in balancing the ill effects of the EEC and U.S. Farm Bill's subsidization programs.
In spite of those excellent efforts, a number of farmers have been left out and adversely affected, even although indirectly in some cases, by the said subsidy programs and certainly by the high interest rates of the early 1980s.
For instance, the pulse farmers, who harvest very important alternate crops such as mustard, sunflower, lentils, peas, corn, buckwheat, sugar-beets, and soya beans have seen the prices decline drastically because of the subsidy wars, plus the subsidies on some of the pulse crops by other countries. Also the hay and alfalfa farmers, and irrigation farmers, were left out of the SCG programs.
Every branch of agriculture is important and no farmer should be left to carry the burden alone because of economic conditions over which he or she has no control. I urge that either new programs be introduced, or the present ones
revamped to show all Canadians engaged in agriculture that this Progressive Conservative Government does care.



WINE INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian grape and wine industry has been sold out by the Government of Canada in its free trade agreement with the United States.
"The wine industry has bottled its last Canadian vintage if the federal government approves the proposed Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement", an industry spokesmen said Tuesday.
Without the competitive advantages the industry now enjoys, the wine industry cannot afford to purchase grapes from Canadian producers next year, said Jan Westcott, President of the Canadian Wine Institute.
He said Canadian grape growers stand to lose $20 million to $22 million in annual sales to wineries, and face the potential loss of 16,000 full and part-time jobs in Ontario and B.C.
On August 14 the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) stated that there would be a 10-year adjustment. Yet before the agreement even comes into effect, the Canadian grape producers will not be able to sell their grapes because of the free trade agreement.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the destruction of the wine and grape industry will be complete and immediate within this year. It was requested by President Reagan; it was ordered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney); it was carried out in a merciless manner by the Minister for International Trade. It is one of the most shameful acts in Canadian agricultural history.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, "Let him who desires peace, prepare for war".
Those words, first spoken hundreds of years ago, were quoted again last week to the members of the Standing Committee on National Defence during a fact finding tour of several West European countries.
The committee met with the troops in the field during their fall exercise in north eastern Bavaria, and visited the NATO base at Geilenkirchen, Germany, home of the airborne early warning force, unique, Mr. Speaker, in that the E-3A aircraft



SMALL BUSINESS WEEK

[Stage Direction]
they fly are manned by multinational air crews from 11 of NATO's 16 nations, including Canada.
We were able to study and compare the military reserve system of Germany and Switzerland with our own. We also received briefings on defence operations at our Canadian Forces Europe headquarters in Lahr, and at our NATO and SHAPE headquarters in Belgium.
We were duly impressed with the professionalism of our men and women serving in Europe; impressed with the enthusiasm and leadership of all ranks. We departed convinced that the policy and direction of the White Paper with respect to our European commitment is valid, meaningful, and will contribute to world peace.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, speaking on Canada-U.S. acid rain relations, Assistant Secretary of State John Negroponte told the U.S. Foreign Relations Committee that "emission reductions cannot be defined at the present time", and that the administration's analysis of the NAPAP report shows that the administration's understanding of the scientific issues continues to support its policies. "To act now", that is to impose acid rain controls, "could have serious and unnecessary socio-economic consequences".
Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admit now that despite all claims made so far by the Government of Canada, President Reagan will not deliver on acid rain? Will he admit now that Canadian expectations, whipped to a high last April in Ottawa by the Prime Minister on the occasion of President Reagan's visit, have been shattered?
Assistant Secretary of State Negroponte's statement reveals that the administration's position on acid rain pollution controls has not changed.
When he accepted the acid rain Envoys' Report, the Prime Minister gave the President an excuse for inaction for five years or more. Clearly and unfortunately the Government's acid rain policy with the United States is in shambles.



TRIBUTE TO DYNAMIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP OF SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the theme of Small Business Week, 1987 which runs from October 25 to October 31 is "Entrepreneurship: Creating Opportunities". It is a most appropriate theme. The men and women who own and operate small businesses in Canada create employment, investrhent, and economic development opportunities in every region of the country. Over the last two years they have created more than 70 per cent of the new jobs in this country and contributed 25 per cent of our Gross National Product.
The federal Government recognizes and appreciates the economic importance of small businesses in Canada. We are committed to supporting and encouraging the creation of small businesses, the development of skills to ensure their successful operation, the acquisition of technological innovation, and improved access to financing and to domestic and international market opportunities.
In addition, we want to encourage more young people to choose entrepreneurship as a viable and rewarding career option. The hard work, creativity, and dynamism of Canada's small business community should serve as an example which will encourage our young Canadians to seize the opportunities afforded them by entrepreneurship.
I invite all Canadians to join with me, the Federal Business Development Bank, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in saluting Canada's entrepreneurs during Small Business Week, 1987.



THE CONSTITUTION


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to express my outrage at yet another example of the Government's reprehensible attitude toward the northern Territories.
1 have learned that a pamphlet put out by the Government promoting the Meech Lake Accord does not even mention our northern Territories. The pamphlet talks about how the Accord strengthens the Canadian federation as well as celebrates the diversity of Canada. Diversity, Mr. Speaker, yet the diversity of the North, a third of Canada's land mass, is not even mentioned.
On the front of the pamphlet we see the flags of all provinces and the Canadian flag. By the way, the pamphlet was paid for by Canadian taxpayers including those from the


northern Territories. Nowhere on the pamphlet do we see the flags of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.
How can the Government put out a pamphlet saying that it strengthens the Canadian federation when two of the Territories are not even represented?
This exclusion is a complete insult to northerners. We always suspected that the Government felt that we were second- class citizens. Now we have the proof.
On this historic day when the House will vote on the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord we find that this neglect in not even mentioning the Northwest Territories and Yukon is insulting and unfair.
1 received the pamphlet from a constituent who asked me to return it to the sender. I will do so with this message: We in the North are fed up with our treatment by the Government. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not take this lying down.
* *
*



VOLUME OF ONTARIO INDUSTRIAL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in an excellent article yesterday, columnist Doug Fisher said in part:
Ontario is producing over half our total merchandise export to both the world and the United States and almost half of the latter is in automotive products.
He went on:
Can you see the unbelievable irony implicit in those latter totals? Tie them to the blistering attack on the free trade deal by Bob White and the automotive unions.
Such high production and export is a direct consequence of the main accord we already have with the U.S., the automotive agreement negotiated two decades ago by Simon Reisman, today's villain and traitor to White and Broadbent.
Want more irony? Back when this marvellous deal was made, who was dead set against it? Yes, the Canadian head of White's union, and the federal NDP.
When one analyses the historic trade trends and interdependence with the U.S., where would we replace a large loss of exports if the strong protectionist mood succeeds in the Ll.S.? "The Common Market? Japan? China? The U.S.S.R.?" asks Fisher. "John Diefenbaker and Pierre Trudeau failed in finding significant alternatives".
In closing, Fisher states:
What do you think we will get from the Bob and Ed show and from David Peterson if, as they clamour, we reject the treaty and the Americans, as is likely, dismantle the Auto Pact?
They should stop the dishonest hype and hypocrisy. It is time the opposition Leaders were honest with Canadians about
the tremendous benefits which will accrue to our citizens from this historic free trade initiative.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker,
following many representations from individuals, organizations and municipal councils in my constituency, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Canada Post to tell us officially what his true intentions are as concerns the rural postal service.
Rumours are going around in certain municipalities and certain businessmen having been asked, before any consultations take place, whether they would be interested in taking over services now provided by local post office.
Mr. Speaker, this climate of uncertainty is a cause of major concern among the public. It is abnormal for the municipalities involved not to be aware of the true intentions of the Minister.
Has the Minister asked the Canada Post Corporation to make changes in existing delivery services or in the location of the post office in certain municipalities? If so, what will happen to the level of service in rural regions? Will there be a service reduction in certain municipalities? Will Canada Post install collective mail boxes or superboxes?
Some municipal councils object to any change or reduction in service and to the closing of post offices in rural regions. Customers in these municipalities are worried. It is important for Canada Post and the Minister to consult the representatives of the municipalities involved and to take their views into account when developing new policies. Canadians must be better informed about the objectives and projects of Canada Post and the Minister responsible, and it is the duty of the Minister to see to it that they are.



FINANCE


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the credit card companies have done it again; that is, they have failed to do it.
When the Bank of Canada discount rate rose in midsummer, credit card issuers could not wait to increase their charges on unpaid balances, but last week the bank rate was cut by a record amount and all chartered banks reduced their


prime rates. Credit card rates have not come down 1/100th of 1 per cent.
Once again most credit card issuers have shown their forked-tongue policy. It is to increase rates quickly if the cost of money goes up, but to leave them at their highest when the cost of money comes down.
These companies still have a chance to keep faith with their customers by making an appropriate adjustment in the near future. If they do not do this, it will be clear to us all that they need legislation to keep them honest, and the House and the Government should support Bill C-266 with its proposal for a floating rate.



EXTERNAL AID


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, once again African drought and famine take their tragic toll of human misery. The failure of summer rains in parts of Ethiopia resulted in a 100 per cent crop failure in some areas. The early warning system has given the world community notice so that if we take prompt action we can avoid a cataclysmic tragedy on the scale of the one of 1984.
Between five million and seven million people are at risk, and approximately one million tonnes of emergency food aid costing $200 million will be needed by December and January when the famine will be at its worst. Canada has already indicated that we will be giving an additional $10 million for Ethiopian aid, a commendable first step.
The tragedies of drought and famine are compounded by those of civil war. For 26 years Eritrea has been fighting Ethiopia for independence, and this past weekend we were shocked to hear that Eritrean guerrillas blew up a food convoy bound for starving Tigre Province. In addition to providing emergency food aid, we know that Canada will work with other nations to encourage a peaceful and just solution to the Eritrean conflict.



CITIZENSHIP


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on September 11 I rose in the House to ask the Secretary of State, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), to exercise his statutory authority to grant citizenship to the family of Iris Mason. That family was the victim of torture in Chile.
They came to Canada as refugees and were given landed immigrant status. When they applied for Canadian citizenship an adverse security ruling was made and they were denied citizenship. They appealed to the Security Intelligence Review Committee which examined the evidence, found it to be without merit, and urged they be awarded citizenship. I asked the Minister to give them citizenship. He said he would look into it over the weekend. Weeks have gone by. Recently he told me it was before the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I checked with his office and they know nothing about it.
It is time for the Government to stop stalling with this Kafkaesque-type of excuse, take this application seriously, give them Canadian citizenship, and finally bring an end to the troubled course of the Mason family in Canada.



AN IMAGINARY CONVERSATION

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend a discussion between Howard Pawley and Mr. Big of Oshawa was overheard by a fly on the wall. "But, but, but, Mr. Big," said Howard, "do you really think we can convince western Canada to oppose free trade?"
"Shirley says we can," said Mr. Big between puffs on his Havana cigar, "and Mr. White thinks we can, too."
"But, but, but, Mr. Big," said Howard, "they tell me that Oshawa already has free trade, and that Oshawa is doing well by it."
"You just leave Oshawa to me", said Mr. Big. "What is good for Oshawa is not necessarily good for Manitoba. Besides, Mr. White likes Oshawa just the way it is."
"But, but, but, Mr. Big, has Oshawa's free trade really resulted in billions of dollars invested in Oshawa?"
"Now, Howard," said Mr. Big, "you really would not want that kind of money in Manitoba. You westerners are rich in natural resources, why do you want manufacturing, too? Besides, Shirley will send you hundreds of campaign workers for your next election. You would not want to have to rely on your own people, would you?"
"No, no", replied Howard. "But, but, but, Mr. Big, what will I do with all of my hydro and my hogs and potash if I can't sell them to the Americans?"
"Don't worry, Howard," puffed Mr. Big. "Shirley and Mr. White have the perfect solution. They will help us run a national campaign to convince workers to eat more pork and leave their lights burning all night."
"Even in Oshawa, Mr. Big?"


Oral Questions
"Don't be silly, in Oshawa we prefer steak and New England lobster by candle-light. And, Howard, remember to buy your Ministers a new car every year."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister sold out Canadian interests to American interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: Oh, sit down!


John Napier Turner: What I want to know today is why the Minister for International Trade, who is from British Columbia, sold out British Columbia interests to California.
On August 14 the Minister wrote to the chairman of the B.C. Grape Marketing Board and these were her words:
I am very much aware that the grape industry has some unique characteristics .. . If policy changes affecting the grape industry do result from the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, they will only occur slowly and after full consultation with all segments of the industry.
The Minister broke her word. Under this Conservative sellout, 50 per cent of the protection accorded to the B.C. wine industry will expire within the first year. In the words of the grape growers, this will cause the premature death of a Canadian industry.
Why did the Minister break her word to the British Columbia grape growers? Why did she break her word to the British Columbia wine industry? Why did she break her word to the people of the Okanagan Valley?
* (1420)


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker. 1 deny the allegations made by the Right Hon. Member about breaking my word. If anyone has broken anything, it is he who has broken faith with the Canadian people through his tactics in opposition to free trade. What the Hon. Member is doing on this issue is scandalous.
With regard to the wine industry, several spokesmen for that industry have said that they are looking forward to an opportunity to compete in the U.S. market. They believe that they make good Canadian wine and that those good Canadian wine products will find markets in the United States.
Secondly, I wish to point out to him that our other trading partners have taken Canada to the GATT on the issue of discriminatory price mark-ups that this issue has been protected behind and the case is currently before the GATT.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that reply certainly does not indicate that the Minister is any advocate of the British Columbia wine industry.


MINISTER S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when the Minister politically responsible for British Columbia sells out British Columbia in order to keep the Prime Minister happy. The B.C. Grape Marketing Board and the Association of B.C. Grape Growers have told their members in a recent communication:
All of our segment of the industry is now at risk of disappearing almost
immediately.
What does the Minister now say to the British Columbia grape growers, the British Columbia farmers, and the British Columbia vineyard workers since she did not have the guts to stand up for their interests?
Will the Minister explain to the people of the Okanagan Valley why the wine industry was sacrificed while the beer industry was protected?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, rather than being non-supportive of this industry we used British Columbia wines at the Commonwealth Conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: I know that the Opposition objects to the practice of supporting the wine industry. People in the wine industry have said that they believe that their good wines will sell well. We have faith in the Canadian product on international markets.
The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that everything necessary will be done to assist those grape growers who cannot adjust. However, it is too early to write an obituary for that industry.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know whether the British Columbia wine industry would like to be the sport for the last supper of the Conservative Party in British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OKANAGAN VALLEY WORKERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not recognize that over 20,000 Canadians work in the grape-growing and wine industry? I have recently received submissions from and had meetings


with members of the Ontario Grape Growers Association and the Wine Institute of Ontario who feel the same way as their counterparts in British Columbia. They feel betrayed by their own Members of Parliament and by the Government.
Will the Minister from British Columbia explain why the single largest losers in this trade deal with the United States are the grape growers and the people who work in the wine industry? Why has she singled out for attack the 6,000 families in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia who depend for their livelihood on the vineyards, fruit growing, and the wine industry of the province?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the families to which the Hon. Member refers are aware that the price discrimination practices against offshore wine, California wine, were so high that we have been taken by our trading partners to the GATT to account for them. The Member is always talking about the GATT. However, when we are called before the GATT because of extraordinary discriminatory pricing measures he does not even want to talk about it.
I repeat that we have heard from members of the wine industry that they are looking forward to an opportunity to have access to the North American wine market.
They believe that Canadian wines can compete.
Our best products can compete. We make good wine. We believe that that good wine will be marketed. I am sorry if the Hon. Member does not have any faith at all in the Canadian wine industry.


GATT HEARING ON WINE PRICING PROCESS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Considering the answer she just gave in the House, what side is she on in this dispute? If in fact there is still a case pending where the Government of Canada is supposed to be defending the interests of the grape growers and wine producers of Canada, is it not true that the statement she just made in the House is a clear concession that the Government of Canada is not supporting those producers or those grape growers, that she has already surrendered, just as she surrendered on every other trade case this country has had before us in the last three years?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the only surrender here is the failure of the Opposition to deal with the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that we have been taken to the GATT, hauled before the GATT by our trading partners on this pricing process. We are waiting for the decision. He will have to explain to Canadians how he believes that acknowledging that fact, which is well known, is somehow surrendering.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR INDUSTRY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it was not members of the Opposition who just stood in their places, as the Minister just did, and said that that case in the GATT is justified.


Pat Carney: I did not say that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Those are exactly the words she used.


Pat Carney: I did not.


Lloyd Axworthy: When will she begin standing up for this country? When will she stop giving in every time a trade case is before us? Why does she not stand up and say that the grape growers and wine producers have a legitimate right for the kind of support they have because they create in this country a valuable industry that employs 20,000 people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has stated something that is not the case. I did not say that the case was justified. I said that the case was before the GATT, which is a fact. The people in the industry understand and know that. I have said that we are awaiting the results of that and we will inform the House at the time.
Let me return to the facts of the matter. We believe that Canadian wineries which make good products, which people on both sides of the border would want to buy, will do well. That is an advantage to them, which some of their own spokesmen have acknowledged.


OKANAGAN VALLEY WINE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and concerns the same subject. A month ago when I met with the wine producers and other fruit growers in the Okanagan Valley, they told me that they had been assured by the Minister that their interests would be looked after in these important free trade negotiations. Coming from British Columbia and knowing the importance of this industry to the people of British Columbia, particularly in the Okanagan Valley, why did the Minister let them down completely?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have the advantage on the Hon. Member because my family comes from the Okanagan. I know it very well. I know that the advantages of this free trade agreement to the Okanagan far outweigh the kind of disaster that he is trying to point out.
May I point out again that this industry will have seven years to adjust under the free trade agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No way.


Lloyd Axworthy: They have one year.


Oral Questions


Pat Carney: They have seven years to adjust because it will take that long to get rid of the discriminatory price mark-ups. Other rights that that industry enjoys, in terms of estate wineries and boutique wineries, all have been grandfathered in the agreement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that she is from the Okanagan. She knows that people in the industry, management and workers, know that they will be hit right now. She knows they will lose 50 per cent of their tariff protection not in 10 years but next year. That is the reality and the Minister should know it.
The Minister has made promises to the working people and the industrial people there. Given the impact on the Niagara Fruit Belt in the Province of Ontario as well, what does the Minister say to these workers? Is she saying to the wine producers of Canada: "Let them drink beer"? Is that her answer?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker. I am saying to Canadians, including Hon. Members, let them continue to drink good wine and let them export it to the United States.


SITUATION OF WORKERS IN WINE INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that for climatic reasons, as well as many others, the industry in Canada is not in the position to accept the onslaught it is going to get now from American imports. Just for once, instead of just taking shots, would the Minister tell us in straightforward language what the Government plans to do for the 20,000 workers and their families who are going to be affected? Give us an answer.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think by far the best job protection for people in the wine industry is to have expanded markets, not restricted markets. I think that is something which those in the industry recognize.
I would like to point out, because of the doom and gloom the Hon. Member is spreading, how often he has been incorrect in the past. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, in 1984, in response to our Budget, he said: "This will destroy thousands of jobs."


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Pat Carney: "The effect of this program will be a net increase in unemployment."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: More!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Minister for International Trade admit that she forgot to defend the interests of her constituents. 1 suppose she learned that from the Prime Minister.
In fact, I may remind the Prime Minister that in 1984, he ran for election-


Mr. Speaker:: The question, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: The question is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. In 1984, when the Prime Minister ran for election in the riding of Manicouagan, his slogan was: "Hope has a name: Brian Mulroney".
In 1987, the authorities of Sept-lies are saying, and I quote: "Sept-Iles does not have a Member in Ottawa to defend its interests, because for some reason, the Member for Manicouagan has remained silent during the last three years." This was signed by the mayor and others.
My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: Saturday, these people will have to take to the streets and organize a demonstration to make him understand that they are in need, that they are unemployed. Could the Prime Minister make it unnecessary for them to go to such lengths and give us an immediate answer on the investment tax credit?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Manicouagan, I deeply appreciate the Liberal Member's interest, and my constituents would have appreciated it even more if we had received the same support when the Canadian Government decided to build a penitentiary at Port Cartier. We would have appreciated that very much. That is the hypocrisy of a Liberal Party that gave us its temporary support. Something has been done. For instance, on the weekend, $10 million was invested in the fisheries sector in the riding of Manicouagan, which was greatly appreciated by the people. Thanks to a major highway project, we have been able to improve communications for many of our constituents on the middle and lower North Shore. The same applies to the 138. We have plans for an airport in the North. We have a huge riding, about 1,200 kilometres long and 900 kilometres wide, almost a country in itself, which requires a lot of action on the part of the Government. I hope I can count on the support of all Members of this House whenever I intervene in the future.


QUERY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WISHES TO SETTLE ISSUE
[Stage Direction]
Eton. Jean Lapierre (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to measure the impact of his last week announcement, I invite him to come with me, next Saturday, and meet his constituents so that he will realize what they think of his total disregard for their concerns. For the last 20 months, people from Sept-Iles have been asking for government action on the investment tax credit. You did absolutely nothing for them. Will you have the courage to tell your Finance Minister and his colleague the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion, who is not looking after his responsibilities, to settle this issue once for all, instead of procrastinating as he has been doing for the last 20 months?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Manicouagan have very sound judgment. The last time they saw a Liberal Member in my riding was in 1984, when the former Member came to welcome me at the airport. He lost his deposit, and the same thing will happen to you.


THE ECONOMY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that the stock prices on the Wall Street Exchange are down by about 8 per cent so far today, and a similar drop of some 230 points, or 7.4 per cent, has taken place on the Toronto Exchange, unfortunately resuming the sharp drops that began in the beginning of last week. Can the Minister report on the situation? Can he say what actions the Government or the Bank of Canada will be taking with respect to the continuing problems on the exchanges? And in view of international concerns, is Canada now seeking a meeting of the G-7 Finance Ministers to take concerted action on a matter which clearly is not going to go away in a week?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, i can confirm to the House that the stock markets are off again today. We have stability, though, in the exchange markets and bond markets. The interest rates are quite stable today which, 1 am pleased to say, is the result of a good degree of cooperation between the G-7 Finance Ministers and central banks. I have been in touch, as I have reported to the House, with my colleagues. I have been in touch with some of them over the weekend as well. We will continue to do this.
I think it is clear that the activity that is going on in the United States, and the conversations and discussions between the administration and Congress, are quite helpful, and we will watch the outcome of that before we take any further steps.
Oral Questions


QUERY WHETHER MINISTER WILL ACCEPT FINANCE COMMITTEE INVITATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. Considering that the collapse of the stock markets continues to be very serious, that the upwards move of last week did not last, that stock prices are down again today, and that the Minister promised last week to consider the possibility to meet with the Parliamentary Finance Committee in order to explain the investment and economic situation in a forum maybe quieter and wider than the House of Commons, is the Minister ready to confirm that he will accept the invitation of the Finance Committee to appear before its Members and explain them the problem and the remedy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed with the Chairman of the Committee on Finance the invitation of the committee. I have indicated to him that at an appropriate time I would be quite prepared to meet with the committee, and we will discuss it further with the chairman of the committee before making a final decision on that.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM PAKISTAN
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw Members' attention to the presence in our gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Senate of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, led by Lieutenant General Jamal Syed Mian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Post Office. Since he is not here, I will ask the Prime Minister. Communities like Wilno, Glenbumie, Oakland, in Ontario; Bloomfield Station, New Brunswick; head of St. Margaret Bay, Nova Scotia; Candiac, Saskatchewan; War-spite, Alberta; St. Georges de Champlain, St. Mathieu de Parc, and St. Jean des Piles in Quebec, are living with the fear of losing their local post offices. Will the Minister, now that he is in the House, stop any closing of local post offices until


Oral Questions
Canada Post implements a meaningful consultation with the community? Will the Government stop those closures now?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member is giving me advice contrary to that offered by his colleague, the former Postmaster General, the Hon. Member for Papineau, who says it is important that there not be political interference in the operation of the Post Office.
The intent of the passage of the Canada Post Corporations Act in 1981 was that the corporation should act free of the kind of political interference now being encouraged by the Hon. Member. Without taking the Hon. Member's list as fact at all, 1 will certainly pass the Hon. Member's representation on to Canada Post.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I should like to know whether he will take his responsibilities as Minister responsible for Canada Post, and I should like to know when Canada Post will implement the recommendation of the House committee which reads as follows, and 1 quote:
(a) that no closure of a rural post office, or change in postal service, be undertaken without meaningful consultation and the consent of the community affected;
When will you implement this policy?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member was out of the House at the time or perhaps he has not checked the records. That particular committee report was responded to in full. The report was tabled in the House. 1 suggest that the Hon. Member look it up.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know, I am sure, that many Canadians are dismayed that Canada continues to test the Cruise missile, and more dismayed at the short notice which is given of these testings. The next one is to take place tomorrow.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Why does Canada continue to test the Cruise missile, given that there has been progress? When will the Government return to the view that it formerly held that if there was progress in the talks with
respect to disarmament that Canada would cease testing the Cruise missile?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the testing of the Cruise missile has never been tied to the achievement of the INF reduction in Europe. That point has been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I also want to point out that the test that is taking place is fully in compliance with the agreement.


POSSIBLE HALT OF TESTING-GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, that is not the view that the Government once held. It is not what it led Canadians to believe.
So 1 have to ask the Government this, and I hope that the Prime Minister will respond. Under what conditions will the Canadian Government agree to stop the Cruise testing? Or will it be forever moving the goal post back with respect to the conditions under which Canada will stop testing the Cruise?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, first, the testing that is being carried out is fully consistent and represents no change in government policy between this Government and the former one.
To respond to the Hon. Member's question 1 would like to repeat the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last week when he said that one of the reasons we were able to get the Soviets to the table was that they knew it was not going to be possible to split the Alliance. It is important, in our judgment, that commitments made by the Alliance be kept by the Alliance if we want to continue to make progress on arms control. That is the Government's position.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT CANCEL INVOLVEMENT IN TESTS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's decision to allow further testing of the Cruise missile in Canada tomorrow by the U.S. Government. Yesterday, in Brussels, the U.S. Foreign Secretary said that, summit or no summit, an INF agreement will be signed by the two superpowers.
Given the fact that there was a linkage between Canada's decision in 1983 to test Cruise and our solidarity with the NATO Alliance to get the Russians to take away the SS-20s from eastern Europe, why does the Government continue to deny that linkage? Why does it not simply tell the Government of the United States that it no longer wishes to be involved in Cruise missile testing in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a strange observation


coming from that side of the House, since we are proceeding under an agreement signed by a Liberal Government.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REFUSE PERMISSION FOR FURTHER TESTS
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, clearly, when that agreement was signed by the previous Liberal Government there was a linkage between an INF agreement and Cruise missile testing in Canada. 1 ask the Minister again, given the fact that the U.S. Foreign Secretary said yesterday in Brussels that summit or no summit an INF agreement will be signed, why does the Government not therefore do the proper thing and refuse to allow the United States to test the Cruise missile further in Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we applaud the projected signing of an INF agreement. We agree that we do not need a summit to do that.
I wish to make the point that we have never linked the two efforts. For the Hon. Member to say that the former Government took an opposing view is not substantiated by the facts.


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZED GRAIN EXPORTS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of grains. In the dying days of our trade negotiations with the Americans their trade enhancement program for grains was switched from being a temporary program to end next summer to being instead one that is an integral part of their Commodity Export Program which will have an additional four years and, apparently, no limit on financing.
Can the Minister tell us what the result was of the discussions between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the American Secretary of State over the weekend with regard to that matter which was raised in the House several times last week? Have the Americans now agreed to abide by both the spirit and the intent of the clause on page 14 which was much discussed in the House last week?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the first part of that question. The Hon. Member may wish to ask a second question of my colleague.
We have a statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs which states, and I will quote it for the House: "I have discussed with Mr. Shultz. I have done three things: One, discussed it with him; two, handed him a letter on the matter; three, just for his absolute identification given him the transcript of answer covering the Question Period of, I
Oral Questions
believe, it was Wednesday in the House of Commons". He went on to say-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: "The discussion is not over but he certainly knows our concern about the use of that program".


NEGOTIATIONS TO END GRAIN SUBSIDIES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to either Minister. If the Americans persist in treating this particular program as a permanent program, can either Minister tell us how we are going to negotiate the Americans out of it? Will this now be part of a series of programs of subsidies which the Americans have which, before this program was included, included some $50 a tonne more subsidy of grain than what we have? Will we now be negotiating these out on a prorated basis? Or will we be snookered into negotiating dollar for dollar so that when the negotiations are all over they will still have $50 more subsidy than we have?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House 1 tabled the Canadian approach to the agriculture trade negotiations that are taking place in Geneva. We have followed the first player to the field, just as the Americans have done. We have made our proposal in Geneva. It will be followed shortly by members of the Cairns Group and our trading partners such as Australia. It is our firm intention to get rid of all of the elements of the subsidy wars that are taking place and which are victimizing Canadians and Canadian farmers. I am sure that the Hon. Member will receive much more information on this subject as the next few weeks progress.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Can we have a copy of that proposal?


USE OF GRAIN-DERIVED ETHANOL AS GASOLINE ADDITIVE
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last May 1 asked the Minister of Energy about the use of grain-derived ethanol as an octane-enhancing additive for gasoline. The Minister advised that consultations were being carried out and he expected that a decision could be made about the end of May.
Will the Hon. Minister advise what progress is being made toward establishing this new vital industry in western Canada?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is very aware of the importance of ethanol, particularly in western Canada. My


Oral Questions
Department made a study, and we are now drafting recommendations for Cabinet. In order to do that we will have meetings next week with the western provinces, Agriculture Canada, and the farmers to ensure that our recommendations to Cabinet will be in line with where the farmers want the Government to be.


FINANCE
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The House will remember that following the difficulties that disturbed stock exchange operations in the late 1920's, the Government stepped in to control financial institutions. In the United States, there was the Glass-Steagall Act. In Canada, several pieces of legislation were passed to identify and divide the various functions into the so-called four pillars of the financial system, namely, the banks, the insurance companies, the trust companies, and the real estate brokers. All of this was designed to control the companies and the financial industry, as well as rebuild market confidence. As we are moving into the 21st century, Mr. Speaker, we realize that financial institutions have at their disposal all sorts of sophisticated instruments, computers, etc. Would the Minister review the financial institution de-regulation policy and show international leadership in trying to develop new regulations to deal with the technological tools which are used and bring about a higher degree of confidence in the financial places which are now opened 24 hours a day?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member.
I do not think, at this stage in any event, that there is any suggestion that, because of the structure of the financial services industry, the events of last week were brought upon by any possible weaknesses, with one exception. That is the question of the so-called program trading through computerized programs.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, certainly has made that observation. He has been in touch with our colleagues in the provincial Governments to raise the question. It is more within their jurisdiction to review, but we wished to raise the question with them.
In the event that we see something worth pursuing, I may well wish to raise this at the G-7 meeting. It is a little early at this stage to draw any conclusions.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONDUCT STUDY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister that it is not easy to link deregulation with the crash that we experienced. One thing is sure: we had the "Big Bang" in London last year, and now in Canada we are engaged in the deregulation process.
I ask the Minister if he will lead the way with the other industrialized countries to study that question, and ensure, as we did after 1929, that we have regulation to better control the system that is now open 24 hours a day and which uses very sophisticated computers. The Minister should take that opportunity to discuss that on the international scene.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to reject the suggestion of the Hon. Member. I do wish to caution him in suggesting that there is some weakness in the financial structure, or some weakness in the regulation of the financial system today that has led to the events of last week.
That certainly has not been the case in any of the discussions that I have had with participants in the industry. Further, I have had some discussions with regulators in my Department, as well as with the Bank of Canada.
The integrity and the solvency of the financial system appear to be quite strong after the events of last week. Some of the conclusions drawn by the Hon. Member I do not think are warranted.
However, his comment on reviewing the state of deregulation to see whether there are any moves that may be made is a valid one, and certainly I will take that to heart.


FISHING INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. It concerns the requirements by certain provinces, including Newfoundland, for the further processing of fish landed in that province before being shipped out of the province.
In view of the concern expressed by the Premier of Newfoundland that processing jobs will be lost in the fishing industry if these regulations are eliminated, can the Minister assure the House that the agreement signed by her Government will not prevent the Government of Newfoundland, and other provinces, from insisting on further processing of fish products?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is asking if the rights which


existed before the free trade agreement are protected in the free trade agreement, the answer is yes.


PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the agreement states, "Both parties have agreed they will not maintain or introduce import or export restrictions except in accordance with the GATT, or as modified by the Agreement".
Can the Minister show us where in this agreement there is a modification that looks after this problem?


Pat Carney: The
situation is unchanged. If we attempted to put in the agreement all of the situations which are not changed, I would suggest that we could not accommodate the Member's request for that type of information.
The situation that existed before the agreement is the same as the situation which exists after the agreement.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FOR FISHERMEN
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade on the subject of fish.
There is nothing in the trade deal to militate in any way against the omnibus Trade Bill which is now being considered in the United States. We understand that, under that omnibus Trade Bill, the definition of subsidy will be broadened to include unemployment insurance for fishermen. If that is the case, then the Government has sold out what is essential to the survival of East Coast fishermen.
I wish to ask the Minister for International Trade how she can have the face to go to the Atlantic and attempt to sell this deal which so clearly lets down a fundamental and essential interest of East Coast fishermen?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the tables on the Hon. Member and ask him how can he go to see the fishermen of Newfoundland, other Newfoundlanders, and other Canadians, and attempt to convince them of such an obviously phoney issue?
Medicare, social programs, and unemployment insurance are not on the table. There is nothing in the trade agreement that would lead to them being on the table.


DEFINITION OF &quot;SUBSIDY&quot;
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any protection in this against the omnibus Trade Bill.


Mr. Mazankowski:: That is nonsense.


Bill Rompkey: It is quite clear that the definition of "subsidy" will be broad. There is no question about that.
Oral Questions
How can the Minister give an assurance, and where is the evidence that there is unemployment insurance protection for fishermen? Where is the evidence?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is in the elements of the free trade agreement that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I signed in Washington. That is the evidence.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
I am wondering when the interest rates that farmers pay to the Farm Credit Corporation will come down.
Could the Minister explain why the bank rate dropped only 1 per cent when the Bank of Canada rate dropped 1.5 per cent? This affects the farmers' ability to pay back.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anyone in the House who would not agree that the events of last week were quite precipitous.
The drop in the Bank of Canada rate and the drop in the market rates were quite substantial, 1.5 percentage points. I do not think that we have seen anything like that in many, many years, if ever.
The drop in the prime rate by the chartered banks was probably more cautionary than anything else. It possibly reflects their expectations that there might have been some reversal. As time progresses and we understand where rates will stabilize, I expect that the chartered banks would reflect the prevailing market circumstances at that time.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have been waiting for him since Friday to come into the House, because I wish to put this question to him.
The Prime Minister came into the House in 1983 through a by-election in Central Nova. He has not been back to Central Nova since 1983, in spite of the fact that he promised to do so.
When does he intend to keep that promise and go back to visit the people of Central Nova?


Questions of Privilege


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been working with the Hon. Member for Central Nova, the Minister of National Revenue, on some important concerns, namely, Hawker Siddely which has now been moved into a position where it can be saved. Some 400 to 450 employees are in the process of being called back to work in Central Nova right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The second phase of Hawker Siddely, which will guarantee long-term durable employment in the heart of Central Nova, in Pictou County, is well in train and will be resolved within the time frame set out of six months. That will guarantee the future of that industry in Central Nova.
We have brought forward a S10 million Pictou County development fund to attract smaller industry to Pictou County. A $40 million highways agreement has finally been concluded to ensure that tourism comes to Central Nova.
We have lots more that 1 will announce when 1 go down there in three weeks time on November 17.


PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO HALIFAX
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. On Friday the Prime Minister had a choice between meeting the people of Central Nova, the unemployed of Central Nova, and the well-heeled Tories of the 500 Club. You had an option, Mr. Prime Minister; the Prime Minister had an option-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt will put his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Why did the Prime Minister pick the option of meeting with the well-heeled 500 Club Tory aristocrats rather than the unemployed workers of Central Nova who were there demonstrating?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, indeed my hon. friend is quite wrong. There were some protestors outside the hotel and I went to meet them. I did not shy away from them. I went to meet with them.
Anybody with a brain in his head knows that this is not representative of Pictou County or of Central Nova but I went to see them anyway. I also went in to see ordinary Canadians who support the Progressive Conservative Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Ordinary Canadians!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, most of whom have not given, as has the Canadian Autoworkers Education Centre, $26,000 to the NDP. These are small Canadians.
Let me tell him that I will never apologize for meeting with ordinary Canadians who want to support democratically a Canadian political Party.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of the House that the Hon. Member for Terrebonne wishes to rise on a question of personal privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I came to politics with a great deal of idealism and a concern for justice and the common good. 1 admit that my way is not an easy one. I am a progressive social democrat who will fight for his principles to the very end and who will feel indebted only to his fellow citizens. When I see that injustice, inequity or danger of any kind threatens my fellow citizens or the democracy and freedom we have in this country, no political party is going to make me remain silent, under threat of expulsion from the party.
I have been publicly and privately repudiated by my Leader for having criticized an ultra leftist group that is a threat to the democratic values of this country, and for having said out loud that the group uses undemocratic methods and is, in fact, opposed to the recognition of Quebec's distinct character and to Bill 101. I shall go on saying this as loud as I can, and 1 want to warn the citizens of Quebec and Canada. My repudiation leaves me no choice. I must draw my own conclusions and accept the consequences of my actions.
However, 1 have two questions for my Leader. Why did he let me become a member of his Party? Did he think I was too naive to notice what was going on in his Party?
Mr. Speaker, it is with feelings of profound relief that I announce here in the House that I am leaving the ranks of the New Democratic Party.
As an Independent Member, I shall go on fighting for social and fiscal justice, in accordance with the principles of social democracy and political humanism. I shall continue to tell my fellow citizens the facts. And finally, I want to make it clear here in the House that I am and always will be a Quebecer first and a Canadian second.



Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. No, I do not intend to resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Questions of Privilege
I would submit that my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached on two fronts. First, with regard to my ability to deal with my constituents in an unfettered fashion, my privileges were breached in that the conversation was intercepted or listened to. Second, in my role as the opposition critic for the Solicitor General I would submit that I ought to have unfettered access to inmates and to have conversations with them in privacy, without having the Correctional Service of Canada, which is responsible to the Solicitor General, listening in on the conversations.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know what else the Hon. Member has to say, but I would be pleased to hear him.


John V. Nunziata: My question of privilege relates to a conversation which my office had with an inmate at Joyceville medium penitentiary last Tuesday. I would submit that my privileges as a Member of Parliament have been breached in that the Correctional Service of Canada intercepted a telephone conversation last Tuesday between my office and an inmate who happens to be a constituent as well.
Mr. David Pratt, my executive assistant, happened to receive a call in my office from the wife of an inmate who is also the head of the inmates committee at Joyceville. She indicated that her husband wanted to speak to me, and my assistant, Mr. Pratt, proceeded to contact the inmate in question at 4.10 p.m. on Tuesday.
My assistant relayed the contents of that conversation to me. 1 asked him to call the inmate again and to advise him to meet with the warden to express and indicate what were his concerns.
At 4.10 p.m. on Wednesday my office contacted the inmate, and the inmate relayed a list of concerns with regard to the situation at Joyceville. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a riot there a short time ago, and these concerns related to the riot and other matters.
As a result of this conversation the inmate was transferred to the maximum security penitentiary at Millhaven and put in segregation.
I tried to make contact with the warden late Friday. I have yet to receive a call from the warden. I indicated my concerns to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) after Question Period on Thursday. My office also contacted the office of the Solicitor General on Thursday and, to date, we have not received a reply.
This morning there was a general lock-up at Joyceville. The situation at Joyceville penitentiary is serious. As a result of the actions of the warden there is extreme concern. The inmates have been locked up.
One of the reasons for the inmates taking the action they took this morning was because the head of the inmates committee, my constituent, was fired and transferred to a maximum security penitentiary.
I would ask that you investigate the circumstances of this particular matter, Mr. Speaker. If you find that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I would be prepared to move the necessary motion.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to my colleague's comments and his question of privilege. I am not sure if he is suggesting that it was a wiretap or that there was a guard listening to the conversation on the other end. In any event, my colleague indicates that he has contacted the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) who unfortunately is not here today. I will undertake to contact the Solicitor General and endeavour to discover exactly what the situation is. I think we would be in a position to report to the House some time in the very near future.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the issue here is not whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) can or should offer an explanation for the intervention. The issue, in my opinion, is that this House has been held in contempt by someone who has attempted to interfere with a communication of a Member of Parliament.
Just as it would be contemptuous for anyone to prevent a Member of Parliament from having access to the precincts of this House, similarly in modern terms, for a Member of Parliament, from his office on Parliament Hill or from elsewhere, to be impeded or listened to while attempting to speak to a constituent is in my view an offence, not only against the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) but indeed against all Hon. Members of the House and the House itself.
Beauchesne's definition of parliamentary privilege clearly states that parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament by Members of each House individually. The next part is very important; it states that without this privilege they could not discharge their functions, and it exceeds those possessed by other bodies of individuals.
I submit that a Member of Parliament cannot exercise his or her functions as a Member of the House if there are any attempts to interfere with a communication to or from a Member of Parliament.


Questions of Privilege
1 want to refer you further, Mr. Speaker, to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. In the definition in Chapter 5, page 70 of Volume 20 of Erskine May, it gives the following definition of what constitutes privilege:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each
House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament-
The particular privileges of the Commons have been defined as: 'The sum of
the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual Members as against
the prerogatives of the Crown-
Let us not forget that the person about whom we are talking in terms of interfering with a Member of Parliament is not just a citizen attempting to interfere with Parliament. That of course would be an offence in itself, but the fact that an employee representing the Crown, the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), has made this attempt creates a further offence, according to the definition in Erskine May.
I would submit further that in other definitions of what constitutes contempt against this House, contempt has been defined as an offence against the House or an insult or injury against the House, which is, indeed, or can be constituted as contempt. It further says in Maingot for instance, that contempt is whatever the House deems to be contempt.
1 would submit that any kind of interference or attempted interference with a Member of Parliament attempting to have access to a constituent is indeed an action that I believe would warrant your very thorough investigation. I know the Hon. Member has indicated that he feels that this affects his privileges in this House, but I would submit that it indeed affects the privileges or could affect the privileges of all Hon. Members and of Parliament itself.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party, 1 think this is a very serious allegation that has been made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) who is the Solicitor General critic for his Party. Like any critic, indeed any Member, he should have untrammelled access to his constituents, and especially in the role of Solicitor General's critic to people who are imprisoned, without anybody listening in. He claims in the House today that indeed people did listen in, one way or the other.
I think this is a matter, therefore, that should be referred to the committee because that is what the committee is for. Rather than waiting for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to reply, or waiting for further explanations, surely we could refer these matters to the committee and let the committee look into them. That seems to me to be what the committee is for. It is a serious allegation and it should be referred to the committee as a prima facie case of privilege.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support the request made by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). If you find that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege on the grounds that he has stated, he has made it very clear that he will be prepared
to move the appropriate and required motion referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.
I have not had the opportunity to research all possible precedents in this regard but I do notice that on page 22 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation No. 69 reads:
A question of alleged wiretapping of telephones was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1972, but the Member making the allegation refused to appear before the Committee and therefore no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered.
The citation is based on Journals, May 24, 1972, pages 321 to 326.
I would say that what we have here may well be very similar to what led the Speaker of the day to refer the question of alleged wiretapping of telephones to the Committee on Elections and Privileges. We have here what 1 submit is an improper interception of a telephone conversation between a Member of Parliament and a constituent. I do not think it really matters whether the interception of the conversation was by what would amount to wiretapping or simple listening in by a guard or other official. In either case, I would say that there was an improper interference with the rights of communication between a Member of Parliament and a constituent, a right which I think is reinforced by the fact that the Hon. Member is the Official Opposition critic for the Department of the Solicitor General and in that capacity, his executive assistant was talking to the constituent in question.
It would seem to me that there are actually two likely breaches of privilege here. One arises out of the interception of the telephone conversation, but I would submit that there is a second one and that is the alleged and apparent retribution by officials against the Hon. Member's constituent for raising the concerns and question with the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston has reported to the House and to you, Sir, that after the conversation in question the constituent was removed as head of the prisoners' committee at Joyceville, was sent to a maximum security prison and was put into what used to be called solitary confinement. If this is the case, I suggest that it is a breach of an Hon. Member's privileges to take action against a citizen who was using the rights of access to an Hon. Member, which every citizen including someone incarcerated in a penal institution ought to have. I submit we have two breaches of privilege. One is the improper interception of a telephone conversation. The other is the retribution by officials of the Solicitor General's department against the Member's constituent for raising the concerns in question.
Therefore I submit, not only because of the comments I have made but because of the other worthy comments of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), that it is well open to you, Sir, to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because 1 appreciate that this is an opposition day and 1 do not want to impinge on their time.
I have listened to the comments of my friends across the way and 1 must admit that 1 appreciate there is no question, there must be free and unfettered access by a constituent to his or her Member of Parliament. I do not think that is in issue.
The issue here is complicated somewhat by the fact that my hon. friend's constituent is incarcerated and there are preventive measures normally taken in institutions with respect to communications with those incarcerated. I suggest that we will be further enlightened on this matter by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher).
However, it might be instructive if I were to advise the House that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General has advised me that his committee will be touring penitentiaries in the very near future. 1 think the subject matter of what communication can take place between an incarcerated constituent and his or her Member of Parliament would be a subject matter worthy of some further investigation on a general basis. In any event, I will take it up with the Solicitor General and get back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard an intervention by way of an application concerning a question of privilege by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Other Members have contributed to the debate. I accept with some thanks the Hon. Minister's indication that he will be taking this matter up with the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and reporting back. In view of what the Chair sees as the serious nature of this case, perhaps the Hon. Member could discuss the matter further with the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) to see when the Solicitor General might be able to make a comment which might be helpful to the Chair.
I see the Hon. Member for York South-Weston nodding in agreement, and I take it he will speak with the Minister and between the two of them get back to the Chair to indicate when I could hear the Solicitor General on this matter.


John V. Nunziata: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I take it that you simply wish to solicit some information from the Solicitor General. However, if the facts as I have alleged them are accurate, my question of privilege remains and I would still request that the matter be referred to committee for investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair understands completely the position of the Hon. Member. It would be helpful to the Chair if I could hear from the Solicitor General, and I am indebted to the Hon. Member for co-operating in that regard.
Supply
I want to say something else, especially to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) with regard to a matter raised a few days ago. There has been some effort to try and get all the parties back in the Chamber to address the matter further. It had been my hope that that might be done this afternoon. However, in view of the fact that it is an Opposition Day the Chair is reluctant to use more time this afternoon so I again ask the co-operation of all Members and I will try and get the matter back on the floor of the House as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemns the Government for its inept negotiations of a trade agreement with the United States that undermines Canadian sovereignty and requires excessive and unacceptable concessions by Canada but gains virtually nothing in return, that still fails to provide protection for Canadian industries from restrictive United States trade laws and that caves in to all United States demands in key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, automobiles, financial services and investment while threatening hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs without the Canadian Government's providing any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
And the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 10365).
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to begin my remarks by reporting to the House on two very comparable experiences. Last Thursday, when I was in Alberta, 1 participated in a province-wide hotline show. We took some 15 or 20 calls on the question of free trade, about 80 per cent of which were either totally opposed to free trade or questioned the validity of the proposal. Last night in Toronto 1 was on a television hotline show which lasted for about two hours. We had over 6,000 responses, of which 76 per cent were against and 24 per cent for.
I am not saying those figures are definitive. I simply want to point out that Canadians view this matter as one of the most serious, indeed crucial decisions that they and this Parliament will have taken in our generation. No one should be under any illusion that this is simply another ordinary Government initiative such as putting a tax on dog food or something like that. This goes to the very heart, soul and mind of this country. Canadians are deeply concerned and they want to comprehend what it is all about.
It was in that spirit that we presented this resolution today. I want to note that this is the first time we have had the opportunity for any kind of extensive debate on this issue since the initiative was announced. I appreciate the initiative taken by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and


Supply
the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to present their positions on behalf of their Parties. I can only regret that the Leader of the Government was not in the House to present the Government's position. Obviously he was not meeting with his constituents in Sept-iles; that is quite clear from his answers in Question Period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has been here long enough to know that he should not reflect upon the presence or absence of any Member in the House.


Mr. Caccia:: Oh, come on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine. I do not intend to argue with any of his colleagues either. I just want to bring that to his attention.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I assume that you will not deduct the intervention from the time allotted for my speech.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are stooping awfully low now, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be looking to the political Parties to put forward their case, even though it is very clear, and has been right from the day this announcement was made over two years ago, that the Government does not want to put its case in front of the Canadian people. It may want to put propaganda in front of them but it is not prepared to put forward its argument justifying such a major uprooting of the entire Canadian system at this time.
The point of this debate should be to get down to the essentials. Let us ask why the Government undertook this incredibly momentous decision to fundamentally alter the entire fabric of Canada from an east-west relationship to a north-south relationship. I want to quote the advocates of the free trade proposal. These are not the people who oppose it, they are those who have been in favour. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) loves to point to the Economic Council of Canada. They said that any agreement should clearly define those subsidies which can be attacked with countervailing actions because they do not fit current definitions.
Tom D'Aquino, President of the Business Council on National Issues, the corporate spokesman for Canada, said that remedies must be based on a commonly established set of principles and mutually acceptable definitions of behaviour, a remedy process where both Americans and Canadians have equal access, and a dispute mechanism with teeth.
The Macdonald Royal Commission said there must be new rules applied to countervailing duties and subsidies.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said we must sign a deal that ensures there will no longer be countervailing duty powers. The result would be the elimination of countervailing duties by both countries, she said.
I could go on. The fact is that the bottom line, the unquestionable goal, the unalterable objective of the Government was to secure an exemption from U.S. trade law, to eliminate the use of countervail and anti-dumping, to find ways to move Canadians away from the harassment based upon those trade remedies. Has that been achieved through this agreement? Would anyone even try to suggest that U.S. trade law no longer applies, that there will not be countervail powers attached, that we have somehow been exempted from those trade laws?
We got a meaningless, Mickey Mouse mechanism which simply provides a review procedure to determine whether U.S. law has been applied. We already had that. We could already go to the International Court of Trade. We could already go to the GATT for such definitions.
I suggest further, Mr. Speaker, that not only did the Government not achieve anything of significance, it has taken a major step backward. The small print of the agreement says that if this country chooses to use the binational mechanism we forfeit our right to go to GATT. At least we could challenge the law under GATT. At least we can say that the definition of "subsidy" used in U.S. trade law is unfair. We could say, as we have in many previous cases, that the American attempts to dictate to this and other countries what their domestic programs should be is completely beyond the definition of what is fair or unfair in trade. Under this agreement the Government has abdicated our right to use GATT in order to challenge that law.
We saw the signs in the softwood lumber case. The Government refused to challenge that case under GATT and, therefore, set in train the precedent which we now see entrenched in the principles of the agreement.
I assert that not only did the Government not achieve that which it said it was going to achieve, but it has in fact retreated substantially from the defences that Canadian industry had against unfair trading practices applied by the Americans. Not only is it not an achievement, it is an absolute deficit. It is a withdrawal, a backward step. As soon as Canadians find out that the Government has achieved surrender, not victory, they will turn rapidly on this document.
By the very standards set by the Government itself and its allies the prime purpose was to get secure, guaranteed access. The Government has failed totally. It has achieved nothing close to that objective. In fact, the Government is an accomplice in further reducing the right of Canadians to try to achieve proper protection against unfair trade actions by the United States. That is very clear in this agreement.
The other side of the equation is also important, that being what we give up. I was in the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), Vegreville, Alberta, and after looking at the agreement someone commented that this deal was similar to the Edmonton Oilers trading Wayne Gretzky


and Mark Messier to the Los Angeles Kings for future consideration and a free trip to Disneyland. That about described the equation of this deal.
Not only did we not get what the Government said we would get, but what we put on the bargaining table and negotiated away for time immemorial is breathtaking. It is far beyond anything that one could have imagined when this began. 1 believe that we still do not know the half of it. 1 believe that we still do not know of all the secret nooks and crannies in this agreement. However, we know enough to know that the price we paid for this agreement far exceeds any benefit that we could achieve.
The agreement totally enfeebles the powers of the Canadian Government and the provincial Governments to pursue the public interest of Canada, to bring forward policies and initiatives to respond to the various interests of Canadians.
The Government talks about its new vision. 1 think we know what the new vision is. In his first public address on this agreement, which took place in New York of course, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that we are opening "a brave new world". We know what the brave new world of the Tories is. It is a world which uses jackboots on refugees because the Government does not want to defend their rights. The brave new world will increase drug prices by $200 million or $300 million. The brave new world of the Tories includes tax increases of $2,000 for average Canadian families.
However, that is simply a prelude to what we see in this agreement. This agreement is a total open sesame on foreign investment. According to this agreement, the Canadian Government will no longer have the right to require foreigners who invest in this country to produce jobs, to do research and development, or to produce export performance. We can no longer apply to them a test to learn whether their foreign investment is producing anything of economic value.
We need that test because we know that from 1984 until January of last year, $22 billion of foreign investment came into Canada, 95 per cent of which went for takeovers and acquisitions rather than new jobs or new enterprises. We know that those foreign-owned corporations do not produce jobs in this country. The jobs are produced by Canadian companies. Those are not Grit figures. They are Statistics Canada figures which show that for $5 billion worth of investment by a foreign company something like 17 new jobs are created.
It is ludicrous that we would surrender the right to require a foreign owner taking over a Canadian company to produce an equivalent number of jobs in Canada. The Government will wipe that right off the books.
Another example is procurement, and it is an interesting one. According to the statement made by Mr. Baker and Mr. Yeutter in the briefing to their own congressmen, under the procurement arrangement U.S. businesses will have exactly the same right to compete for government contracts worth over $25,000 as have Canadian companies. Furthermore, we cannot
Supply
impose upon them any requirement to invest in this country, to establish a factory in this country, or to provide jobs in this country.
Our good friends in Montreal stole the CF-18 contract from us in Manitoba, but they may not even be able to get that any more. It could go to someone in Hartford, Connecticut, and we would not see even a nickel's worth of production from it.
When I was Minister of Transport we initiated a major modernization of the radar systems in Canadian airports at a cost of $900 million. Several firms put forward bids, two of which were American and which we accepted. However, we set a standard. We said that if they wanted to do business with the Government of Canada they had to establish a factory here. They built one in Kitchener-Waterloo which now employs several hundred people. They had to provide subsidiaries in Halifax, Winnipeg and Saskatoon. They had to create thousands of jobs in this country because we were spending $900 million of taxpayers' money. Under this agreement they do not have to do that any more. It is incredible that we would give that away. It is absolutely beyond belief.
With regard to agriculture in the West, farmers have told me that we are surrendering the Canadian capacity for selfsufficiency in food. That will be eroded. The Canadian Wheat Board no longer has the right to provide licensing for the import of wheat, barley and oats. That breaks the generations-long tradition of a two-price wheat system which provided close to $300 million to the farmers of western Canada when they desperately needed it.
The Western Grain Transportation Act is now an unfair trade practice. We have always used freight rates as a way of compensating for our geography. We have always compensated producers for the necessity to transport their wheat, potash, minerals and forestry products over long distances by rail. We do not have a Mississippi water system. Most of our commodities are far from port. We have always had a subsidized freight rate system. For the first time, a government of Canada has acceded to another country's demands that those freight rates be considered an unfair trade practice.
Under this agreement, we acknowledge that anything moving to the United States is no longer eligible for freight assistance under the WGTA because it is an unfair trade practice. When all our competitors in the grain business and those others who enjoy subsidized freight rates see that precedent, they will hammer us with trade action cases until we go dizzy.
Today we saw the complete wipe-out of an industry in the area of tender fruits and vegetables and wine. No matter how the Minister tries to evade the issue, the fact is that removing the seasonal tariffs, even by some snap-back retaliation which will never work, we are putting the people in our fruit and vegetable industry in jeopardy.


Supply
I talked to the potato producers in Manitoba. They know full well that it is their marketing system that is under attack. I suggest that we are seeing duplicity in this House. Every time the Minister of Finance or the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) says that the supply management system has not been touched, I suggest that they do not know much about supply management. One of the essential ingredients is the use of tariffs to ensure that cheaper goods cannot be imported to undermine the supply of that product. It is nonsense for Members of the Government to say that supply management or marketing boards will not be touched. If they knew anything about it, they would at least admit that. They should at least have the honesty of their convictions, rather than trying to hide behind the foolish nonsense we hear every day.
Let us consider another so-called commitment the Government has made. The Government says that it will not touch regional development and that it is not in the agreement. Indeed, it is in the agreement in some very substantial ways.
As I said at the outset, the only thing that was not touched by this agreement was preventing the United States from taking countervail actions against Canadian goods, services or products. Let me refer to a recent decision by the ITC, to see what it considers is countervailable. According to this agreement, that so-called binational panel must take into account American precedents and American law. Let me read the American law and American precedents in the ITC decision, 1986. What is countervailable? Investment tax credits to industries, programs for export market development, regional development incentive programs, industrial and regional development programs, community-based industrial adjustment programs, agricultural rural development agreements, general development agreements and economic regional development agreements are all countervailable. All those regional programs that we have used in Canada to try to ensure a fair sharing of goods and services in this country are now subject to trade law and are being entrenched in this agreement.
It is no wonder that the Deputy Minister of Finance, who I presume advises his Minister from time to time, said to a committee that in fact we will have to do regional development very differently because this agreement no longer allows for those kinds of grants to Michelin or other companies as was possible under IRDA agreements or general development agreements.
Who is the Government trying to fool? What is its real agenda? Canadians know that this is simply a cosmetic agreement to cover up something else. I believe the cover-up is part of the Government's ideology, shared by the Reagan Administration, that they do not believe there should be regional development programs like these. They do not believe that there should be freight rates or that Governments can be used in a constructive, positive way to apply goals and standards for a market economy. They do not believe in a political economy, but have idolized the market economy.
They believe that a market economy will make the proper allocation of programs.
I suggest that the Government talk to the starving people in the inner cities of Canada and the people in the hinterlands of Canada who are without jobs because their research programs and regional development programs are being cut back. They know that they require government participation.
The most important fact to remember is that this country has been built into a distinctive society because we have been able to use Government in an effective way, by building proper transportation systems, communications systems and regional development programs.
Successive generations of Canadians and their Governments have known that one of the reasons that we have been able to stay on this northern part of the continent and establish our own identity and do things our way is that we have the power and ability to make our own decisions. The Government is abdicating the rights of Canadians to make those decisions. It is beginning to put a fence around our political institutions and slowly eviscerate the capacity of Canadians to decide for themselves who and what they want to be.
The point is that it was not necessary because there have been alternatives. Every Member of the House knows that in the past we have succeeded in opening trade around the world through international trade rules that limit the power of big nations. That is why 80 per cent of our goods now go to the United States tariff-free.
The most ironic statement of all was made by the Minister for International Trade this morning when she said: "We want Canada to be world traders". In the last three years our trade with the Pacific Rim declined 25 per cent. Our trade with the Middle East has gone down 20 per cent. The Government has cut back export development programs, other than to the United States. It has closed embassies and trade offices.
In other words, our trade with the rest of the world has shrunk under the Tory Government. It is far less than it was three years ago because the Government does not want to trade with the rest of the world. It wants to lock itself into a North American fortress, run by the ideological right wingers in the White House. That is what this agreement is all about. It has nothing to do with opening world opportunities. Its purpose is to serve that deliberate and diabolical attempt to frustrate the decision-making ability of the Government and serve that ideological goal.
That is why the Government has a fight on its hands, one that it will lose. The sooner it calls an election so that we can prove it, the better off we will all be.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend in the Liberal Party. Let me bring to his attention a statement which was made by his Leader.


First, I am sure that as a westerner he shared the agony and pain of the abandonment of businesses and the wholesale sellout of the petroleum industry when his Liberal Government introduced the National Energy Program. He knows as well as every other Canadian that Marc Lalonde openly admitted that it was an attempt to destroy the power base of Alberta and its economic strength.
The New Democratic Party has been accused of being partners to that program. While it says it had nothing to do with it, we know better. It supported that action in other ways because it very much fits in with its philosophy as a centralist Party in Ontario.
On October 5, as reported at page 9636 of Hansard, the Leader of the Liberal Party said:
We have already made a good many concessions... We have already
dropped the Foreign Investment Review Agency, our national energy policy-
He went on to say:
Before the negotiations, the Government gave away the Foreign Investment
Review Act. It really did a job on that one.
He went on to talk about the National Energy Program. Is the Liberal Party still wrapped up in the National Energy Program? Will the Liberals go out in the next election and tell Alberta, British Columbia, southern Saskatchewan, southern Manitoba, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and Dawson Creek that they support the National Energy Program? That is the first question I want to put to him.
My second question will be very brief. If the Hon. Member has done his homework as an energy critic at some point, he will know that British Columbia Hydro has a far greater capacity than it has customers. He will know that the blockade is from the Bonneville Power Administration. He will also know that this agreement will open up that Bonneville Power roadblock and allow B.C. Hydro to sell off power to California in order to pay off the debt to the benefit of the rate that consumers are paying today for their power. Let him answer that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I assume it was not a set-up and I will take it at value because it gives me the opportunity to talk about something I did not have time to talk about in my remarks.
First, let us talk about the Hon. Member's own riding of Kootenay West. What we have experienced there in the past year is that for the first time this country has allowed the sale of a public utility, an electrical power company. Investment Canada, in the dark of night last year, on December 22, at midnight, without any reliance upon documentation or evidence, allowed the sale of the Kootenay West Power and Light Company. We have never done that before. It is symbolic and indicative of exactly what I pointed out, that there is no understanding or comprehension on the part of
Supply
Conservative Members that Canada must maintain the right to manage its own resources, especially its important energy resources.
Of course, we support the sale of power, natural gas and oil, because under previous administrations that was permitted. However, we always wanted to ensure there were certain tests applied; first, its availability to Canadians, and, second, a fair return to Canadians. That is what we have given away. We have obliterated the right of a national energy board to set any standards whatsoever for the sale of our energy. What we have is the federal United States Regulatory Commission being able to set regulations on its side of the border, which it had retained the right to do under this agreement, but we have given up our right.
I guess that is what a Tory calls a good deal. If we give up something and they keep what they have, I suppose, under the Prime Minister's definition, that is a good deal. Somehow or other, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going to write a new text book which will say: "We give up. We surrender. You keep yours and we all go home happy". That is a kind of perversity of logic, and it is the reason there is such distrust of this agreement. That is why there is such distrust of the Prime Minister. Canadians realize he does not have the capacity to defend effectively Canadian economic interests and that includes our energy resources and our resources, generally.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Fort-Garry (Mr. Axworthy) said something interesting, something I have heard for the first time, in a speech that was extremely effective and informative. I heard for the first time the observation that if we as Canadians choose the binational mechanism to resolve a dispute, we would then abdicate our right to choose GATT as a mechanism for resolving that very same dispute. That comes as news to me. I would like to know whether I understood the Hon. Member correctly and, if so, whether he could elaborate on that point.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this has been a part of the deal about which the Government does not talk. Somehow it has forgotten to inform Canadians. I read its little colouring book it is sending around to the supermarkets, somewhere tucked between the National Enquirer and People magazine, explaining the trade deal. However, what the Government does not say is that we have given up a right we negotiated back in 1946-47 at Bretton Woods, under the GATT, which gives any country the right to request a panel of impartial people, drawn not from the two parties in the dispute, but from outside that dispute. We have surrendered on that point.
What does that mean? In the last 10 years we have taken about nine different cases to the GATT. We have been successful in seven of them. Back in 1972, when the Americans imposed a major duty on East Coast tuna fish, we challenged it in front of a GATT panel. The Americans settled even before the panel reached a decision because they knew they had a bad case. When the Americans challenged us on FIRA,


Supply
we took it to GATT and we won there as well. In other words, we had an impartial group, and we know full well that the Americans, or most other countries, take their decisions seriously because once they begin to run with impudence to those decisions, they know the international trade system breaks down. The Americans right now say their number one trade priority is improving the rules of GATT.
We had an opportunity. We saw it most clearly. What an opportunity we had in the softwood lumber case! That was a test case for Canada. The Americans were claiming that by their definition of a subsidy, our stumpage fees and other forms of support programs for our resource industries, were an unfair trade practice. That is a challenge not only to Canada but to every other country around the world which exports commodities.
If we had taken the case to GATT and won, we could have put to rest the American claim that its definition of "subsidy" must predominate. The Americans would have had to force back into their own administration and Congress the fact they had been ruled against. But what did she do, that wonderful Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), who fights on the beaches against all these trade practices? She decided not to go to GATT. Now we have compounded the problem. It is within the agreement that if one chooses to use the binational panel for review, one forgoes the right to go to GATT. We forgo the right to challenge the law itself, or the premise of the law. So what we have limited ourselves to is a panel that will review someone else's law, someone else's precedence and decisions, and we have given up the right to challenge the very premise and basis of those decisions. That is a definition of a retreat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the time for questions and comments is now terminated. Debate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on free trade. We all know that this type of debate is going to give rise to a good deal of partisan rhetoric and a good deal of emotion as well. However, I think it is too important a debate to have the type of excesses, the type of rhetoric and the type of distortions we heard from the previous speaker, be it on investment, be it on the effects on the wine industry, on grain transportation, or you name it. Those are excesses which should not be a part of this debate. We should be dealing in facts and in the precise nature of the agreement, and from there, draw the conclusions that will allow Canadians to judge the effectiveness and impact of this agreement on our future as a country.
This agreement is of vital concern to all Canadians. What I want to do in my time is to deal with some of these specifics of the agreement and then draw some conclusions from that.
Let me start, if I can, with the financial sector. This is the area of the agreement with which I have had the most involvement. There are two basic questions. What does the
agreement do for our financial sector? And what does it do for Canadians who make use of the services from the financial sector, be they regular customers of the banks and trust companies or investors or Canadian business?
Let us take a look at it. The agreement preserves the access of our banks, our trust companies and insurance companies in the very, very important United States market. It preserves the current status of Canadian institutions in the United States and, in some ways, that is actually better than the treatment of domestic United States banks. It addresses some of the problems that the American laws are beginning to cause for Canadian banks which want to take advantage of the substantial elements of financial reform that we brought in almost a year ago. It ensures that Canadian institutions will benefit from future easing of the restrictive U.S. laws that are in place now, and I want to come back to that point.
It also provides a new source of capital for our banking institutions. It will enliven competition. It can only help the millions of Canadian borrowers and savers. Finally, it affirms the directions that we took. I believe that was supported in a general way by all Members of this House, in terms of financial service reform, something that we commenced last December.
In short, we have achieved an agreement that permits healthy competition, greater access to the United States market, and a more secure position in the most important financial market of the world in the United States. We know that our financial institutions are strong. They have been described by many as being world class. The reform proposals that we put forward last December are intended to bring our Canadian financial sector right into the real world in a very competitive way. We want them to be better prepared for the changing circumstances in the international markets and better equipped to meet competition both at home and abroad.
So let us look at some of the specifics of the free trade agreement as it relates to this sector. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that our reform of the financial sector allows banks to engage in the securities industry through an affiliate. One of the specifics of the trade agreement is an undertaking by the Americans to amend the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act which would have caused problems for Canadian banks that are taking advantage of that reform. Right now, Glass-Steagall prevents our banks, as well as American banks, from engaging in the securities business in the United States, whether it is through an affiliate or through a direct operation of its own. As presently interpreted, it would mean that a Canadian securities dealer that is taken over by a Canadian bank would have to reduce its operations sharply. That is not desirable.

The Americans have agreed to give particular consideration to the case of Canadian brokers and to broaden the scope of


securities negotiable by Canadian brokers who are affiliated with banks so as to include government securities. This would therefore include securities issued by all administration levels in	Canada-federal,	provincial and municipal-which
amounts to a sizable sales figure.

It is not only only a healthy chunk of their business, it is about 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the business of some of the larger Canadian firms that are doing business in the United States. So the agreement means that Canadian securities dealers which are acquired by Canadian banks will be able to stay in business, and in most parts of its business, in all the United States.
It means that securities subsidiaries of Canadian banks can compete in the United States market in an area in which they have a clear competitive advantage. It will allow Canadian banks to take greater advantage of the increased powers that our regulatory changes of last year will bring about.
There is another important provision relating to Glass-Steagall. We have been guaranteed that any amendments to this Act in the future will apply to Canadian companies, Canadian banks, in the same way as they will apply to United States banks. This is not an idle promise. Glass-Steagall has been around for some 50 years, and there is every expectation and indication that the United States administration, many members of Congress, and certainly many members of the financial sector in the United States, want to see it changed. In fact, Senator Proxmire has started to hold hearings on the liberalization of the Glass-Steagall Act. So this assures us of the benefits of any liberalization that will come about.
Some have said we should have had a complete exemption from Glass-Steagall. I think that anybody who is following with any degree of sensitivity what is going on in the United States Congress will know that that is not realistic. In fact, it could even be described as being naive. But, needless to say, the moves that are in the free trade agreement are welcomed. They will certainly build a stronger future for our industry in that market.
The United States has also agreed to preserve existing Canadian privileges dating from the 1978 International Banking Act. These provisions ensure that Canadian banks operating in the United States can continue to provide services across state lines through their existing United States branch network. American banks, as I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, cannot do retail banking across state lines. So, together, these provisions preserve our existing access to the United States market. They open up some new opportunities for our banks.
One final observation is this. The health of the Canadian banks, the Canadian financial sector, depends on the health of the Canadian economy. It depends on the health of their clients. I want to read from The Toronto Star what the Chairman of the Royal Bank had to say. He said:
Supply
The Royal Bank is convinced that the proposed Canada-U.S. free trade agreement is a good one for Canada and Canadians; and that we could reject it only at grave peril to our future prosperity.
He goes on to state later in the article:
The Royal Bank services, and is intimately involved with, the fortunes of clients in practically every sector of the Canadian economy.
We realize full well that some of our customers will gain more, and others less from the agreement. In expressing Royal Bank support for the agreement, we have the best interests of all our customers in mind-
There is very good reason for that. It is because if the Royal Bank's customers do well, as Mr. Taylor expects from this agreement, then the Royal Bank will do well.
The second group of provisions works in the interests of our domestic rights and serves Canadian consumers and our domestic financial markets. We have agreed that the U.S. Schedule B banks will no longer be subject to the 16 per cent aggregate ceiling on foreign bank subsidiaries. Our experience has shown, since the Schedule B banks were first permitted in 1980, that Canadian banks can compete quite effectively with United States banks and other foreign banks. As a group, the Schedule B banks have not shown high levels of profitability. But they have been able to increase financial resources available in Canada to Canadians. They have brought new competition and new ideas which have clearly benefited Canadian businesses and individuals.
We have also agreed to exempt United States investors from the rule that prevents Canadian Schedule A banks from being more than 25 per cent owned by foreign interests. In practice, this rule is a redundancy. No investor or group of associated investors can own more than 10 per cent of one of our major banks. These banks are also so widely held that no one, foreign or Canadian, can even come close to controlling them.
Indeed, the agreement we signed with the Americans keeps the needs of our financial industry very much in mind. Since last December 18, when we issued the policy paper on financial institution reform, our policy has been based on the premise that large firms should not be able to acquire other large firms in the financial sector. It is also based on the premise that any financial institution with more than $750 million in capital must be publicly traded. This applies to all financial institutions in the country, whether they are Canadian, American, British, French, German, or any other nationality. In essence, we are distinguishing between two types of financial institutions, big ones and small ones. When one gets to be big two things happen. First, no single interest can buy one out; and, second, one must offer one's shares to the general public.
I would add one more point. The Government of Canada retains the power of review of the activities of all players in the financial sector that we regulate, Canadian and foreign alike. We will continue in the future, as we have in the past, to exercise our judgment about what is right for our financial system. We will continue to review each application for admission on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the best interests of Canada are served.


Supply
That brings us to the part of the agreement that relates to investment. Attracting foreign investment has been one of the goals of this Government. As one of the leading newspapers has pointed out recently, this is one of the goals of free trade. It is not one of the costs, as my colleague from Winnipeg- Fort Garry just said. Why do we say that as a Government, Mr. Speaker? Because investment creates jobs. It brings new technology, new production ideas, new management, new trade opportunities, regional development, all of which together lead to a healthier economy and an economy that will produce more job opportunities than would be the case without that investment.
This is one of the fundamental differences between the Progressive Conservative Government and the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties. We view investment as being positive. It is one of the key elements of our economic policy.
One of the first things that we did when we came into office was to improve Canada's chances of attracting foreign investment. We scrapped the Foreign Investment Review Agency and created Investment Canada. We told the world that Canada was open for business once again.
The world has responded. We have seen investment in Canada grow and almost double in portfolio investment, and slightly less than double in direct investment. That has been one of the principal factors that has created those 959,000 jobs that we have seen since September of 1984. That is one of the key results of our changed attitude toward foreign investment.
This free trade agreement continues that same direction. But it does not mean that foreign investors will have unbridled liberty to do whatever they wish to do. We maintain our powers to approve, to veto, or to set conditions on the acquisition by any foreign interests of any of the large companies in Canada. We have left in force the ownership restrictions in those sectors of our economy that define what we are as a nation, notably, energy, air transportation, banking, telecommunications, publishing, broadcasting, cinema, and all the cultural industries that are so important to our future as a country.
What the trade agreement does is to strengthen the policies on investment that we have in place. It has already aroused great interest among investors in Europe and Asia. They now see Canada as a very important base on which they can service the great American market. They see Canada as a stepping-stone into that North American market. The assured access that the free trade agreement gives to Canada will be a significant element in future investment decisions by both Canadian and foreign investors.
The trade deal works both ways, of course. The United States will accord Canadian investors the same rights as their own citizens. It will exempt Canadians from any legislation that puts restrictions on foreign investment. That, in an era in which the Congress is beginning to consider such restrictions,
is an important element of stability for the many Canadian enterprises that wish to expand beyond their Canadian base.
There are few areas in which foreign investment is as critical to Canada as is the automotive industry. Surely, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who represents an auto town, cannot oppose the fact that the American auto industry invests in Canada. Surely he cannot oppose the $2 billion in new investment that General Motors has recently put into his riding in Oshawa, creating jobs and ensuring that Oshawa will be a key participant in the North American auto industry for years to come. In fact, that Party does not oppose it. It has made the Auto Pact an article of faith, the same Auto Pact, I remind Hon. Members, that that Party so violently opposed when it was signed 22 years ago. Now the Auto Pact is living proof of the advantages of two of the elements of our trade agreement with the United States, investment and free trade. The question is, how can an article of faith in one industry be a threat and a sell-out in all of the rest?
The auto industry as a whole accounts for approximately one-half of Ontario's exports. It is taken very well care of by the Auto Pact. But what about the other half? Does it not deserve the same type of treatment, the same type of access to its closest and biggest market, and the same type of protection from the rampages and vicissitudes of United States protectionism?
When the NDP talks about sell-out, what in the name of sanity is it talking about anyhow? There has been no sell-out anywhere, certainly not in the Auto Pact. Let us not forget that our chief negotiator, Simon Reisman, is the same chief negotiator who negotiated the Auto Pact to the best interests of Canada some 22 years ago.
Since then our auto trade has been strengthened. It is strengthened further by this free trade agreement, not weakened. All the Auto Pact safeguards for the Canadian industry remain intact. We retained for the North American producers the right to import products duty free from third countries, and will do this only if they keep their one-to-one assembly to sales ratio.
The Auto Pact is subject to review and cancellation. By wrapping the free trade agreement around the Auto Pact we have preserved the Auto Pact. Indeed, the agreement will expand free trade to include new sectors of the industry, replacement parts and tires. Now, if this is a sell-out, why is it that American auto parts makers who sell to the Big Three are protesting that the agreement will send even more of their business to Canada?
In addition, the free trade agreement opens up the North American market to our auto parts manufacturers. This will lead to increasing business for them. Why do I feel confident of that, Mr. Speaker? Because the performance of this industry supports that fact.
Let us look at what has happened over the last four years. The percentage share of North American parts markets by the


Canadian auto parts manufacturers has gone from 7 per cent to 9 per cent. Their employment has gone from 41,000 to 63,000, up by approximately 50 per cent, while the United States has gone from 325,000 to 378,000, up by approximately 15 per cent. Total shipments by Canadian parts manufacturers has gone from $5.6 billion to $12.9 billion, again from 1982 to 1986. That is why we have confidence that this industry will be able to reap tremendous advantages from the free trade agreement.

Allow me to deal briefly with another facet of the free trade agreement, trade in services. There can be no doubt that services make up that sector of our economy which is the largest and fastest growing. Two-thirds of all Canadians are now working in the service sector, and that is where most of our future employment opportunities lie.

They are vital industries to Canada, and they are strong industries. They are one of the industries that we have been intent in getting on the table in the GATT round. They are an industry in which both we and the Americans have a vital stake in seeing traded freely throughout the world. We set the example by opening them up with this trade agreement in North America.
This brings us many advantages, not the least of which is easier access to some of the advance technology that our industries need. I wish to discuss one such advantage, which is a very interesting one. It deals with the provisions that cover the movement of Canadians across the border for business reasons. No longer will Canadian sales and service people be stopped at the border when they are on their way to sell new wares or service existing contracts. They will no longer have to prove that no American can do the job.
Let me move to one element of the trade agreement that bothers me in the manner that the debate has developed in the last couple of weeks. That relates to our sovereignty. The free trade agreement will do many things. But one thing it will not do is to result in any loss of our sovereignty, either political or cultural.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As the Leader of the New
Democratic Party has stated, it will not end up in the United States absorbing Canada in 25 years' time.
Let us look at the last trade debate. In 1911, Canada was only 44 years old, and searching for its identity. The United Kingdom still regarded us as a colony and not as a country. But look at what has changed in 1987. Our situation has become entirely different. We have developed as a strong country and as a world leader. We are the seventh largest industrialized country in the world. We have forged our identity over 120 years. We have distinguished ourselves in two world wars. Many Canadians died fighting for their freedom,
Supply
and were known around the world as being one of the key protectors of freedom in those two world wars.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have a very mature economy that is specialized and at the same time quite diversified. We are able to compete with the best. We have very mature social programs in health, a pension plan, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, just to mention four. We have our Constitution, our culture, whether it is ballet, art, or opera. We have our sports figures who are well known around the world. We have had Expo 67 and Expo 86. We have organized two Olympic Games. Why is it that opposition Members have doubts about our sovereignty or identity? Do they think that the United States will or can take this away from us? Do they not have any pride or confidence in our strength as a country?
Much of the development we have seen over the past 50 years has happened as we have developed closer and closer ties with the United States and away from the United Kingdom. We have been able to do this because during the whole period of time we have had a strong economy.
We have been leaders in the world in NATO, NORAD, GATT, IMF, and OECD. We are members of the G-7. We have been a leading member of the United Nations since its start. We are one of the two leading countries in the Commonwealth and the Francophonie.
We have participated in these organizations as a strong sovereign nation. We have done so, in the best interests of a more secure Canada. As we have done so we have earned greater respect from the nations of the world, and we have become more influential as a leading player in the international scene. The case is very clear to me. The free trade agreement is good for us economically. With confidence in ourselves, our abilities, and our achievements we can face the future with the conviction that the agreement can help us grow as a country and mature as an independent sovereign nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing Hon. Members on questions and comments, the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) has a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I just wish to put on record that tomorrow will be an allotted day.


Supply




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemns the Government for its inept negotiations of a trade agreement with the United States that undermines Canadian sovereignty and requires excessive and unacceptable concessions by Canada but gains virtually nothing in return, that still fails to provide protection for Canadian industries from restrictive United States trade laws and that caves in to all United States demands in key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, automobiles, financial services and investment while threatening hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs without the Canadian Government's providing any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers.
And the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 10365).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I was particularly struck with the strident and, 1 must say, quite sincere sounding statements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his appeal to confidence and in his appeal to the sense of moving ahead which the country has experienced in recent years. Of course it is not a sense of confidence which is limited to those who want to tie us more closely to the United States as the answer to our economic problems. It is equally strongly and, perhaps one might say, more strongly felt by those who feel that they would wish the country to do its own directing of its own future.
However, I want to ask specifically whether this lack of confidence, which is supposed to characterize those who oppose free trade, was also what lay behind the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on June 2, 1983, of course before he was Prime Minister. He said that "opening the floodgates to trade with the United States would endanger Canada's economic and political sovereignty". He went on to say:
I favour making a top priority of re-establishing an excellent and productive relationship with the U.S. That does not, however, include free trade.
1 would like to point out as well, quoting again from the same article, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made precisely the same point by indicating that he adamantly opposed free trade. He said that freer trade would be very dangerous for the economy because it would hit the industrial heartland of Ontario. "If we create havoc here", he went on to say, "we are going to be paying for it across the country".
How is it that it is possible for Conservatives to express those sentiments out of power and presumably to have confidence in the country, yet when opponents of the trade deal express sentiments of the same character, echoing precisely the same kinds of concerns and commitments to
Canada's independence, that is somehow an indication of lack of confidence in the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think we have an example again of the NDP living in the past. We have to look at what is going on in the world today and to set our paths and policies in relation to what is happening in the world today.
It is very clear-and I am sure the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would be the first to agree with me-that the protectionist pressures in Washington are enormous and far different from what they were back in 1983 or before.
During the same period of time we have also seen some major achievements by the Canadian economy which tell me that we can look with confidence at our ability to compete. At that time in 1983-and the NDP will be able to check the record-Canada was right at the end in most of the records of performance of Group of Seven countries. Since then we have proven ourselves to be number one in growth, number one in employment creation, and number one in productivity improvement.
That combination of factors gives me confidence that we can move ahead and take comfort or draw strength from the achievements we have been able to put behind us during the course of the past few years. We can look forward and see much more opportunity, much more growth, and a much higher standard of living for our people by entering into the agreement.


Mr. Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what will be the consequences of the free trade agreement with respect to sale prices, and will this benefit Canadian consumers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think this question is sometimes put aside when we look at the more precise implications of a free trade agreement.
The one person right across the country who benefits from free trade is the consumer. The consumer will get lower prices. The consumer will get a broader variety of products.


Jean-C. Lapierre: If he has a job.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear the Hon. Member opposite. Any of the economic studies which have any relevance to this debate will show that there will be more jobs created as a result of a free trade agreement than without a free trade agreement. There is no reason to expect that there would not be jobs for consumers. If the Hon. Member wants to discuss that with the Premier of the Province of Quebec, a Liberal who shares the same Party background, I think he will find that the views I have expressed are shared by that


Premier. The real winner in a free trade agreement will be the consumer.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for the very positive presentation he made, particularly in respect of the impact of free trade on financial services.
Just this past weekend I was told by a commercial realtor in Metro Toronto that one of our chartered banks is now negotiating for the rental of 75,000 square feet of space in New York City in anticipation of business growth in that area. The head of an insurance company told me within the past 10 days that he is awaiting a chance for access into the United States market. What the Minister has told the House is certainly corroborated and supported by representatives of the business community.
I want to put a question to the Minister. Such predictions as those I have cited have been based on the assumption that business would continue to prosper on both sides of the border. Since then, there has been a record stock market collapse and many alarms about the possibility of a recession. What impact does the Minister see the prospect for free trade having on business in light of the recent changes and upheavals in the investment industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very pertinent question at a time like this. One of the lessons we have learned from the past is that when we have seen substantial declines in stock markets, there has been a tendency for Governments to pull in their horns, to seek protectionist solutions. I think the timing of this agreement is particularly important to Canada in light of what we have seen in the equity markets over the past week and a bit.
If we are able to find approval for this agreement within Canada and the United States, then North America might be able to avoid the problems that entered into the economy in the 1930s when there was a tremendous increase in protectionist pressures, which aggravated the difficulties caused by the recession. In fact, that protectionism came at a time when it reinforced the natural forces of contraction that were developing within the economy.
I think it is very important for Canada, in looking ahead, to approve this agreement and get on with developing access to the United States market. We should allow ourselves the opportunity to avoid the problems of the past and some of the effects caused by the stock market which we have seen in the past by moving ahead with confidence today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow a short supplementary question.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question since the Minister has referred to these various studies. The
Supply
Minister has a reputation for honesty and I want to put this question to him very directly.
I am certain that the Minister has read the Economic Council's study very carefully or he has had staff briefings on it, and I would like him to tell the House quite clearly that assumptions made within that Economic Council study are contrary to the facts of the trade agreement with the United States, particularly with respect to services. The Economic Council assumed that services would not be included, but they are included in this agreement. One could go on to mention three or four other major assumptions which the Economic Council made which are not part of this agreement. I would like the Minister to indicate that fact to the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think any of the studies that have been done to date were not able to take into account the complete range of items included in the agreement itself. I would expect, though, that some of these organizations, whether they be the Economic Council or private organizations, will be revisiting the work they have done. I would expect that we will see, sometime in the fairly near future, new, updated studies based on the facts of the agreement as they came out in the final negotiations.
Having said that, I think we will see that there will still be a positive impact on job creation in Canada after the free trade agreement as compared to what it would be without the free trade agreement.
Let me make two comments that I think are important. One is that no economic model can calculate what the status quo would have been. I indicated in my remarks, and I think we all would agree, that the status quo would have involved a good deal more protectionism than is the case today, and that is clearly prevalent in the attitudes expressed daily in congressional debates.
The second point I would make is that no economic model is able to measure the so-called animal instincts to which Lord Keynes referred in his great work. The animal instincts, the investment attentions and confidence, the things that come from a greater degree of investment and consumer confidence, are very, very important elements in the future growth of an economy. We saw that very clearly, as I recalled in this House on a number of occasions, in 1984 and 1985.
When we came into office, there was not the sense of direction in the economic policies of the Government that we were able to introduce in the November 8 agenda paper and subsequent Budgets. As that confidence developed, as people saw that we did mean business, there was an increase in investment and an increase in consumer confidence. The Hon. Member's Leader said we would lose somewhere between
100,000	and 200,000 jobs, and that was the general assessment of Members on the other side of the House. In fact, as Hon. Members know, we have created 959,000 jobs during that period of time.


Supply
1 say "we" meaning Canadians, because Governments did not do it themselves. Governments provided the framework, the encouragement and the motivation for the private sector to get free from some of the shackles that existed before and get on with the job of creating opportunities in Canada. That is what brings about economic growth. It is a fundamental difference, I understand, between the Government and the opposition Parties on the other side of the House, but it has been proven time and time again in the last three years that the route we have taken works. This free trade agreement is a continuation and a reinforcement of those policies that have been so successful.
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think if you would check the roster, you would see that it was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who spoke before the Minister, and I had assumed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I noticed that, but there will still be time to recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), and 1 believe the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) will have the floor.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on Canada's future and to see that once again today the House of Commons is interested in the whole question of free trade. Earlier today I heard the Minister for International Trade say that the Opposition is seeking to go back to the situation of 20 years ago. To refresh her memory about our history I would point out to her that this debate on the possibility of forging closer links with the United States has been going on in Canada since 1878, ever since the reciprocity era. And, every generation or so, Canadians ask themselves this question. Historically, on each occasion since 1878, in 1891, in 1911, in 1947-48, each time, after considering the option to get closer to the United States, to become a new State, the Canadian people rejected it. On each occasion, the sense of being Canadians prevailed over the economic theory pursued by some people and in particular by the wealthy elements in our society.
We are now discussing that issue because of a Government initiative and, Mr. Speaker, it is very strange when you read again the statements made in June 1983 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He said about free trade:
It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it.

The same Prime Minister is now struggling to promote a trade agreement with the American administration which was signed in a rush, behind curtains, five minutes before midnight, which he signed on his knees; and Parliament, without any mandate from the population, is now debating a fundamental issue for our future as a country.
1 suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this debate is illegitimate since it doesn't have public support. It is not good enough for the Government to make such a commitment and to make such basic changes in our society without consulting the people who will be affected. During the last election campaign, none of the Conservative Members in this House has ever spoken about free trade. It was never on their agenda. And now, led by some interests of God knows where, they decided . . .


Mrs. Bourgault:: The Canadians' interests-


Jean-C. Lapierre: If the Hon. Member opposite could wait her turn-they tried to give Canadians the short end of the stick.
Mr. Speaker, we will fight against that agreement to make sure it will never be implemented. We will make sure that a Government who has betrayed the confidence of the Canadian public-and this is what I call the tyrany of the majority- who is presently trying to push through a measure that will have tremendous consequences on our future as a country-
Mr. Speaker, we are told about the protectionist trends in the United States and this agreement has been presented to us as the answer to all our problems. However, if you look at the last statistics, we have a trade surplus with the United States and it is on the rise. At the present time, Canada has, each year, a trade surplus of almost $20 billion. If you believe that the Americans sat at the negotiation table to maintain or increase that trade surplus, you must be dreaming.
I think that Government Members, who should take advantage of the positive trade balance of Canada, have opened the door to harmonizing our trade, which means dealing on an equal basis, and under such circumstances our trade surplus would not last very long.
Mr. Speaker, we saw how this agreement was negotiated. It was negotiated secretly and there was a series of denials and refutations. From time to time, the Government has leaked some information which often was contradictory. Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a right to be fully informed of what happened around that table. They have a right of access to the studies on the impact of free trade. Presently, the Government is trying to make us bite the bullet without putting all the facts on the table.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is acting cowardly and insiduously to keep the public in the dark in order to favor a few people. Look at the main proponents of this agreement. Have you seen small businessowners among them? Do they include ordinary people? Until now, only presidents of large multinationals have applauded this deal. No one else has done


it. Look at the president of Alcan. I am not at all worried for him. Lie was able to arrange some cozy deals for himself. The Prime Minister and his Ministers were not embarrassed at all to rise and tell us that the Bill on pharmaceutical products had nothing to do with free trade.
A few days later, however, we discovered the document initialed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) which included a paragraph on that very issue. Naturally, they did not remember what they had signed. It has been lies from the beginning.
Canadians are therefore entitled to ask certain questions. They are entitled to wonder whether their future is being compromised by a gang of amateurs, and I fear that is the case, Mr. Speaker.
As for the Americans, they have looked at all this, and from their reaction, they seem to think that they are the big winners in this deal. They are saying: "We have fooled them. In any case, the Canadien Government was determined to succeed and we had them where we wanted." They certainly had, and they obtained everything that they wanted.
The Prime Minister told us that there were two essential conditions, guaranteed access and a binding settlement mechanism. At our very great surprise and disappointment, in spite of all these nice speeches, at this very moment, all the American protectionist measures still apply to Canadian products. The protection measures provided in Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act still apply. The anti-dumping measures still apply. The compensatory rates provided in the 1930 Tariff Act still apply. The trade reprisals still apply. We were supposed to have a special status. We had been told not to worry, that there would no longer be any problem with a free trade agreement. All the problems are still there. As recently as today, another Bill was tabled in the American Congress, this time to restrict electricity imports. I am certain that this must also be in the spirit of free trade. What is even worse, the famous tribunal will not be a real tribunal. Its only power will be to interpret the application of American and Canadian laws, but not to judge whether they are appropriate or not. The situation will remain exactly as before.
At the very moment I am speaking . . . Often did I ask questions on behalf of wood producers in my riding who were concerned about the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber, and I was told: Wait until the free trade agreement comes out. But they had no reason to wait, for the 15 per cent tax is now a permanent feature of the free trade accord. And they call this solving the problem.
As for hog producers, they were told to wait for the free trade agreement. The accord has now been signed, but the $10 a head surtax still applies. What have you settled?


An Hon. Member:: Tell him about the footwear industry. We will get out clothes from Taiwan.
Supply


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, she is yelling that apple producers do agree. For sure she is raving, since we export hardly any.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing. This panel will change nothing in the daily application of the American protectionnist legislation. Economists like Marie-Josee Drouin, from the C.D. Howe Institute, say that this panel is actually nothing at all. People realize everywhere that setting-up the binational panel is really creating serious problems for us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us have a look at some of our industries. Let us consider the case of farmers. Last week-end, I visited the Agricultural Fair where I had an opportunity to meet a UPA delegation, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) had a long conversation with them and was made aware of their concerns, Mr. Speaker. We could easily understand their situation. People of Portneuf, can you imagine, instead of relying on the instinct and experience of farmers, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) would rather trust a Montreal newspaperman who probably has never milked a cow in his whole life.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more confidence in the common sense of our farmers who can see the dangers involved. I have more confidence in Quebec producers who say they stand to lose a large share of the poultry market. When Quebec producers tell me dairy farmers will be at risk, I have a lot more confidence in them than in a bunch of Conservative ninnies. I have a lot more confidence in the membership of Agropur, Mr. Speaker, when they explain that their survival depends on being able to produce yogurt and processed cheese, than in that bunch of ignoramuses. They would have us depend on U.S. producers-for shame!
Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Members who represent rural ridings are pathetic. They should listen to their farmers. Those people in the UPA, Mr. Speaker are defending their own interests, but their interests happen to be our market basket. When a country ends up depending on another country for all its food-I don't want Canada to be another Lesotho, surrounded by South Africa. Mr. Speaker, they tell us: Don't worry, the farmers will be able to compete. Mr. Speaker, have you ever seen people with a three-month growing season for market gardening able to compete with U.S. producers in the South and Southwest who produce crops twelve months of the year? Mr. Speaker, it does not take a Grade 12 certificate to know that we have a cold climate here in Canada, and that we cannot compete because of what the energy costs would be in certain sectors. Mr. Speaker, it costs more to raise pigs in Canada. After all, we have to heat during winter. The way the Canadian Government is treating Canadian producers, however, they are starting to think what they are going to do with all those pig and chicken farms. Mr. Speaker, there won't be any left in the long run. I hope Conservative Members will wake up before it is too late. Mr. Speaker, look at the headlines in Le Devoir. Free trade may mean end of agricultural


Supply
industry. It's true. The wine industry in Ontario and British Columbia was sold down the river because the U.S. president had a preference for California wines. And that while 20.000 people earn a decent living in the wine industry! I fail to understand how the Government can sacrifice an entire industry just to do the U.S. president a favour. That shows the kind of negotiators we have.
And what about industrial jobs? Some Quebec Members here who blindly support their Leader will go down to defeat with him. But the fact is that in Quebec, according to studies conducted by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in the clothing, footwear and furniture industries,
50,000	jobs are threatened, and 30,000 more in the mechanical manufacturing industry.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec only, in the printing and publishing industry, 22,000 jobs are threatened. In data processing, 17,000; in the jewelry, rubber and plastic goods industries, 13,000; in electrical manufacturing, 17,000; in metal products manufacturing, 37,500. Those studies were conducted by experts from the Quebec Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When I heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration suggest that up to 500,000 jobs were threatened, I can believe him because here only we have 350,000 to 400,000. Therefore, I cannot accept that no one in this Government has ever thought of having transitional measures.
Instead of helping people adjust, you did the exact opposite. You have the textile industry. For several years we have had great respect for older people leaving the textile, clothing and footwear industries. We wanted, for instance, to protect this 54-year old lady working as a seamstress on a overlock, twin-needle machine. That lady had often been suffering from arthritis because she had been working in basements, and was entitled to early retirement with a decent standard of living. Hard-nosed Conservatives cut that program but they had nothing with which to replace it. You should have your heads in shame. They said: Do not worry, we will have programs for that! You had the beginnings of programs but you cut them off. Therefore, I cannot trust that you will care for the most needy in our society. We know where the Prime Minister's priorities are. To this day, whom did he meet for a briefing on his free trade agreement? He went to Toronto to meet a group of fat cats. Then he told himself: That might be good for fundraising!
So he went to Halifax and met the 500 Club. He did not discuss this with ordinary people. On the contrary, he has gone into hiding. This coming Saturday he might travel through his own riding and send out feelers, he would find out that his free trade story is not a magic potion by any means. He would realize that people have reasons to be concerned. I urge you to get out of Ottawa. I hope we will have a short parliamentary recess, that would enable you to meet ordinary people, to get away from your brainwashing caucus which has you convinced this is a good deal. It is good only for the big people. 1 happen to know they make up your traditional clientele but, let us face
facts, the interests of Canada do come before those of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, I could elaborate on the energy sector. The food issue has been raised, so now let us talk about heating. For 30 years the Americans have been dreaming about getting ready access to our natural resources and now, thanks to this Government and this Prime Minister, their dreams have become reality. History tells us that Canada used to be the world's wheat basket, now we have become the American's reservoir. Even in times of crises they will feel free to siphon off our resources at any time. You should hang your heads in shame. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, these are our very own resources. But henceforth, as my leader said yesterday, what is theirs is theirs, and what is ours is theirs as well. Yet we are talking about a basic issue. We all know an energy crisis can break out from one moment to the next. We are fully aware of the very explosive situation in the Middle East, and if Canadians have to line up at service stations in times of crises, oil will flow down huge pipelines directly to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we are not contemplating our nationalistic navel, we are simply talking plain common sense. I understand that this Government is very sensitive to foreign interests, so much so that it grovels before them. However, this is unreasonable. We shall know the whole details within a few weeks, because we have only had a preview until now and it has left a bitter taste. When we have the 2,000 page document promised by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, we shall examine it carefully. 1 believe that Canadians will then realize that the Americans are really the winners in this deal.
Mr. Speaker, I had many other things to say. I believe that this debate will go on for a long time. One thing is certain; this will probably be the most important decision ever made as far as the future of Canadians is concerned. It will probably be the most important decision as far as the future of our children and our culture is concerned. I do not especially want my children to become like the Louisiana Cajuns.


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very strange to listen to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and to the other members of the opposition. I listened to the Leader of the Liberal Party and to the NDP Members. If I may refer to my own Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine riding, I would like to say that my constituents supported with the previous Liberal Government for 25 years. The Liberals kept pushing the famous Canada Works Program to create jobs. I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Shefford who has just spoken and who was born, I believe, in our region, that the Canada Works Program put people to work for ten weeks at cutting branches and that this did nothing to help our development. All that changed in 1984. The Prime Minister said: You can get $1.25 for every dollar spent in this country by the federal Government, whether in Quebec, in the Magdelen Islands, in Newfoundland or in British Columbia.


That is good, Mr. Speaker. It is good because we do not give money for nothing, to private enterprise or anybody else. But speaking about free trade, I must absolutely get back to it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me quote from Hansard on February 24, 1972. The Leader of the Opposition, who was Minister of Finance at the time, was addressing the issue of trade with the United States. He said:
The division of the world into large trading blocs, to which I referred a few moments ago, presents particular dangers to Canada as a major trading nation and one of the few industrialized countries without free access to a market of 100 million people or more.
Of course, we are talking about a population in Canada of 25 million. He went on to say:
We in this country must now use what influence we can bring to bear to press for a resumption of the postwar movement toward greater liberalization of international trade. The dangerous alternative would be a move backward toward greater protectionism.
There are more than 200 protectionist Bills in the United States which are a serious threat to our economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member will put a question, or we will have to carry on because we do not have that much time. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Darryl L. Gray: Fine, Mr. Speaker, given the opportunity, I could have spent more time on that subject.
Mr. Speaker, the only point I want to make in thirty seconds before asking my question is that for men and women of Canada, of Quebec, and even more so for us in Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine and other eastern Quebec ridings, it was difficult because we saw development more as a matter of politics than an economic issue. We have changed all that since 1984.
Here is the question I wanted to ask: During the twenty-five years the former government was in office, for us, for our development, Mr. Speaker, I am not denying it, I did the same thing with the people of my riding, with my partisans, and I said the same thing: Give me a chance. And in three years, I put more money in my riding than it ever received before-and we cut-
The question I wish to put to the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) is the following. He said-let him answer the question ... If during twenty-five years those people in his Party did not do anything and gave money to their friends while forgetting about regional development. . . Let him answer, if he wants to return to office, let him say how he will change their policy, because you can be sure that next time the Progressive Conservative Party-
Supply


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the Hon. Member was speaking for his own Party. He is a bit confused about Canada Works and U.S. Works. I imagine he wanted to do some comparisons.
What I wanted to say to the Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray) is that free trade is much more than Canada Works or basement renovations. 1 can tell him that for people like my parents, who live in the Magdalen Islands and fortunately did not vote for him, it is important to be from the Magdalen Islands or from the Gaspe Peninsula or from Bonaventure, but they don't want to be Americans. They believe in the value of the Canadian challenge, and traditionally, despite hardship, although the Hon. Member did not succeed in getting funds for his area under the Eastern Plan, although he did not look after his area, these people have the will to be Canadians, and values-


Darryl L. Gray: -I rise on a point of order-


Jean-C. Lapierre: -I think the Hon. Member is rising on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine, on a very short point of order.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, it will be very short. The point I tried to make is that on lles-de-la-Madeleine in the Gaspe we had 25 years of Liberal Government. We could not do it. The point that should be made now about what the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) said, is that the people must have value for the dollar.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a good point of debate.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I should like to conclude my reply, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid the Hon. Member does not know anything about free trade. I also think he is mistaking oranges for tomatoes. The fact is that a Liberal policy is a two-prong policy: developing markets abroad and developing domestic markets within a global formula. We strongly believe in GATT's international machinery, while developing a domestic policy which would enable Canada to meet the challenges of international competition. That is exactly the commitment my leader made a few weeks ago before a group in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member should understand is that, strictly speaking, and far from solving any problem in the Magdalen Islands, the proposed free trade accord will jeopardize several programs made available to the people of these islands, whether they are the regional economic development assistance programs ... the Prime Minister himself admitted that the unemployment insurance and social benefit


Supply
programs have been jeopardized. In a way, it is the wringer process: once the tip of the hand is caught in it, the shoulder is often pulled in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State responsible for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) has the floor.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to follow up on my Hon. colleague's comments.
Mr. Speaker, the free-trade agreement is the outcome of a collective effort which pooled the energies of ten, hundreds, and thousands of Canadian men and women who were determined to see the fulfilment of the promises made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), which promises are endorsed by all Cabinet members and all members of his Party.
Since we came to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, we have been adressing a long term job based on the implementation of two basic goals, national reconciliation and economic renewal.
And now, Mr. Speaker, we have something tangible because the Government's direction is based on concret achievements that are bound to bring a fundamental change in the whole political and economic history of Canada.
As far as national reconciliation is concerned, the previous Government proved to be unable to come up with even the shadow of a proposal that would be satisfactory to all partners. It took this Government's own tenacity and flexibility to arrive at a new constitutional accord finally being signed, whereby the pointless confrontation of the last decades gave way to a climate conducive to dialogue and open co-operation between the central Government and the provinces.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord is something solid, something real that is taking us light years away from the noisy rhetoeric and far fetched policies of the Liberals, whose arrogance and carelessness led the country to the brink of breaking up.
Turning to economic renewal, that cannot be separated from the free-trade agreement. To us, freer trade is the key to Canada's continued economic, social and cultural development. The free-trade agreement will in no way hinder the economic reforms this Government is in the process of implementing. To the contrary, this progressive opening-up of the American market will increase our ability to carry on our regional development policies.
Mr. Speaker, the agreement does not force upon the Government new restrictions as to the grants it is extending to whatever type of industry.
I would like to dispel any doubts in this regard. It is very clear and obvious. We will continue to develop programs that
really take regional characteristics into consideration but, from now on, we will have at our disposal more powerful tools to support the development of traditionally disadvantaged regions.
There will be no change either, Mr. Speaker, in the operations of subsidized businesses exporting to the United States. The free trade Agreement does not protect those businesses from countervail measures that the United States might take against them. But both countries can now rely on the action of an organization, a dispute settlement committee, precisely when anti-dumping duties and countervail duties are imposed. If a dispute occurs and the committe concludes that the laws have been incorrectly or unfairly applied, that new organisation will be able to correct the situation because its decisions will be binding. This is a protection mechanism which Canada did not enjoy until now and which will put our country on an equal footing with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the Government will continue to take action to promote regional development, in particular in the areas of resource management, research, scientific development and policies regarding transportation, education, training, small business development and energy.
The new decentralization approach will not be questioned by the free trade Agreement. Some support or subsidy programs will obviously have to be amended within the next five years. Those adjustments would have been required anyway because of our desire to increase the efficiency of our regional development programs. An economic agreement with the Americans does not change anything in that respect. With the free trade Agreement, we are given a legal framework that will be much less arbitrary if countervailing actions were requested by the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have summarized the expected impact of the Canada-United States trade Agreement on regional development. Why should we worry and moan when the free trade Agreement increases our opportunities to interact and negotiate with the United States?
My colleagues from the opposition do not sufficiently trust their conciliation capacities. But the old fears the Liberals and the New Democrats seem to be entertaining are not really important. The main thing is that we have been elected with the strongest majority in Canadian history and that, as such, it will rest with us to ensure that our trade agreement with the Americans will open a new era of prosperity for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I find this very comforting. I think that, by rejecting the free trade Agreement, the opposition shows its total ignorance of history, its disregard for the lessons of the past and for the economic environment. The opponents of the free trade Agreement do they not realize that, outside of our borders, there is a global economy based on technology, on the free circulation of information and capital, a world which, until now, was excluding Canada from the three major trade


blocks made of Japan, the European Common Market and the United States? On last October 3rd, Canada was the only industrialized country with no access to a market of 250 million people.
We know that Canada will never be absorbed by any other country as long as Canadians want to live in a country of their own. We know also that Canada, thanks to freer trade after World War II, grew as a stronger and more independent country than ever before. There is no reason why the gradual and wise implementation of a trade deal with the United States would not be the catalyst we so desperately need to reach greater heights.
Free trade will in no way destroy the common values shared by all Canadian men and women. We took great care to exclude from the accord all factors that could affect our cultural industries, social programs and other elements considered essential to our national identity. I sincerely believe that we should not think only in terms of immediate costs and benefits and look for mere band-aid solutions to present irritants. That way of thinking has been inflicted on us only too often by previous Liberal administrations.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated a few times that this Agreement does not only recognize our economic interplay but further reflects our social and political differences. So, logically, there is something in it for every region of this country. As a minister and a member of Parliament representing a Quebec constituency, I have naturally taken a special interest in the benefits that that province will be able to derive from our deal with the United States. I can tell you right away that Quebec is one of the regions that will benefit most from the free trade Agreement.
In fact, lower tariffs will favor the processing of Canadian resources to be exported, thus creating jobs and new investments in Canada. These lower tariffs will correct a situation that has been lasting for generations and that, as a ball and chain, always slowed down the economic growth of Quebec.
Finally, all serious economist foresee a drop in consumer prices and in manufacturing costs to our industries. After complete implementation of the free trade Agreement, we expect the purchasing power of consumers, including those from Quebec, of course, will increase by 3 to 12 percent as a result of increased competition on most markets. In clear terms, this means that thousands of Canadian and Quebec families will be able to acquire more goods with their money and to have a more decent life, above poverty level.
As for Quebec itself, Mr. Speaker, the energy Agreement removes for good the threat of American embargos affecting Hydro Quebec exports. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Quebec's economic future depends largely on the development of new hydraulic resources and on the sale of hydro power to potential customers, and the New England states are the most directly concerned. The energy agreement will greatly facilitate our negotiations with states interested in securing our surplus
Supply
hydro-electric power. Here again, there is great potential for employment creation in the near, medium and long term.
As promised, the Agreement does not interfere with marketing boards for agricultural products, eggs and poultry. Canada retains the right to decide what kinds of agricultural marketing programs are appropriate. This should help to reassure certain agricultural organizations in Quebec which, in our view, have been too quick to react to the intentional scare tactics of my Liberal and NDP colleagues. This type of useless rhetoric will do no good for Quebec agriculture. Certain provisions of the Agreement will, however. For example, potato growers and hog and cattle feeders who export to the United States will benefit from an absence of tariffs and a much stronger guarantee of access to the American market.
There will be a mutual exemption from legislative restrictions applying to meat imports in both countries. We should keep in mind that tariffs on fruit and vegetables will be phased out over a ten-year period. This will give Canadian farmers who must face American competition in Canada ample time to adjust. Moreover, Canadian agriculture will get more protection since the trade deal gives Canada the right to temporarily restore tariffs on fruit and vegetables, over a twenty-year period, if prices fall. Quebec farmers must be persuaded, Mr. Speaker, that their industry not only will not be negatively affected by the Canada-U.S. trade deal, but that it will finally beak out of the stagnation that it suffered because of captive markets with little if any prospect for growth.
Besides, let us not forget that two-thirds of Quebec pulp and paper exports are purchased by the U.S. Elimination of tariffs on these products will tremendously increase their competitiveness on the American market.
And what about our Montreal based engineering and consulting firms which have earned themselves a worldwide reputation, Mr. Speaker? To sell our expertise and our achievements in this area is one thing, but to provide a reliable customer service is another challenge. In the past, U.S. immigration regulations often prevented Canadians from working with their American clients in order to provide them with the after-sales services to which they are entitled. Under the new undertakings concerning temporary entry for business purposes, the people involved in our service industries, including our engineering consultants, will find it a lot easier from now on to enter the United States, to better serve their customers and therefore increase their sales volume.
Moreover, reference is also made to an increase in revenues of close to $4 billion for Canadian industries which will have better access to the United States Government procurement contracts.
Now let us move on to the automotive industry, for which NDP tenor Bob White has voice so loud a concern that we must give him the reasoned reply he deserves. No one in the Government can explain Mr. White's attacks against this trade deal, or his predictions that the Auto Pact will meet an untimely end.


Supply
1 will explain to those who may not know it that the Auto Pact, which was signed in 1965, is essentially a bilateral free trade agreement involving cars and trucks.
The most unrelented Auto Pact critics have become, with the passage of time and because of the results obtained, its fiercest champions. It is a fact that, because of our competitive costs, the number of cars built in Canada greatly exceeds the minimum quotas provided for under the Pact. With the Free Trade Agreement, these protection clauses will remain intact. As a matter of fact, the Auto Pact will be further improved and completed with the October 3 agreement, especially through the elimination of tariffs on spare parts and tires, previously excluded from our agreements with the United States.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the climate now is very favourable to investments in Canada and our costs are very competitive. I have every reason to believe, therefore, that Asian car manufacturers, for whom the access to the North American market is vital, will gracefully accept the terms of the agreement which will more or less directly affect their operations both in Canada and in the United States.
Within the wider context of the regulations contained in the Free Trade Agreement, I have the very steadfast conviction that the automotive industry, both in Canada and the United States, will help improve the well-being of workers and consumers alike.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to emphasize the fact that the setting-up of a special bi-national panel designed to solve trade disputes and the commitment by both parties to negotiate new trade legislation over the next five years will enable Canadian and American investors and business people to work in an environment that will be more in tune with the realities of today's world.
The free-trade agreement has nothing to inspire those people who fret at the mere idea that a change might affect their daily routine. I am sorry that my colleagues from the Opposition do fall in that group of passive people who would rather suffer from undue constraints than face up to the reality and do what is needed to get out of it.
This time, the moment has come for Canadians to listen not just to their hearts, but also to their reason and their intelligence. The free-trade agreement will bring dividends to those who will take the trouble to roll up their sleeves, meet the challenge, and use the boundless opportunities available to them on the American markets. We will have to be strong, we will have to have determination and use the free-trade Agreement as a springboard to other markets, as a springboard into the upcoming century.
Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity to bequeath to our children and grandchildren a better world economically, socially, and culturally.
Mr. Speaker, in our mind, this is a cornerstone of our program of national reconciliation, economic renewal and international relations.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gesture to give me a chance to put the position of our Party yet again, perhaps, in a slightly different way from what our Leader did in his comments earlier.
I think that the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) has, as his colleagues have, talked a great deal about the lack of confidence of the Opposition. He is quite right. There is a tremendous lack of confidence which we feel. It is a lack of confidence in this Government and this Government's activities over the past three years in what we expect that it will bring to us with this one-sided deal which has been presented to the Canadian people. 1 have no apology for this lack of confidence. Nor do I think that most people in the country find anything that contradicts their feelings about this Government in that lack of confidence.
I want to do three things in the time that we have left in this debate. First, I want to give a general assessment of this pact which, in its 36 pages, threatens to do more damage to the people of Canada and to communities right across the country than has any other treaty that this country has ever entered into. It is a pact which has details within it that, frankly, I cannot believe that a sovereign Canadian Government would have been prepared to sign. It contains details that leave me with the sense that we have a deal here which has been developed by this Government, given to the people of this country, and hidden throughout the process of negotiation. This is a deal which, first, is unfair. Second, it is a deal which has in its explanations a great deal of untruths. Third, it is a deal which is tremendously destructive to the people of the country and to the communities in which we live.
There are so many parts to this deal to which one could refer which indicate this so clearly. We could talk about the jobs which will clearly be lost as part of this free trade agreement. For instance, we could talk about the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and his own statements recorded on tape that up to 500,000 jobs will be lost. He was never prepared to confirm those comments in the House, but he was prepared to go outside the House and reconfirm that up to 500,000 jobs could be lost.
We could talk about the tremendous threat to women because of the manner in which the service industries, for the first time in any trade agreement, have been completely liberalized. Of course, services employ approximately 83 per cent of the women in this country. I am convinced that the competition which will come in that service sector will destroy small scale businesses throughout the country which employ large numbers of those women.


Marjorie Cohen, one of the eminent economists, with whom presumably the Minister of Industry does not agree, and he certainly did not make reference to her in his speech, has done a very detailed study. In a book, which has recently been published, she has indicated very clearly that the service sector is very much at threat and the women within that service sector will be the victims of that threat.
We could talk about investment on the subject of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) earlier this afternoon tried to suggest that the question in front of us with this free trade pact is whether or not we wish more investment in this country. That is not the question. The question opened up by this free trade agreement, by this trade pact, is not a question of open investment. It is a question of takeovers which will take from the total of 7,500 firms which were formerly protected by review procedures so that an American company could not come in and simply take over a firm and shut it down to get rid of the competition. It will reduce that figure from 7,500 to only 500 firms in this country which are protected.
That type of change is inexcusable. It leaves small companies, such as those whose representatives I was talking to this morning in Guelph, with a sense of tremendous vulnerability, and a reality which faces them that at any stage they can be taken over without any review whatever on the part of the Government of this country. They can be shut down, turned into warehouses or small subsidiary operations, and again and again jobs will be lost as a consequence.
We can talk about film distribution. The Government has claimed that it has done nothing with respect to film distribution. Yet, within the li.S. briefing papers from that Government, there is the following statement, "The Canadian Government has also promised to solve Jack Valenti's problem on film distribution within the next two weeks". We know quite well that there has been a commitment made which at this very moment the Department of Communications is trying hard to struggle with, because it is very difficult, I would say it is impossible, to protect a place for Canadian films in the future, and at the same time to satisfy the motion picture industry of the United States which Jack Valenti represents.
We can talk about agriculture, which indeed tomorrow on our opposition day we will focus on as one sector which has been hung out to dry by the Government.


Mr. Mayer:: That is not true, and you know it.


Steven W. Langdon: That is one sector which has been given a tremendous set of threats, attacks, and sabotage as far as this fundamental and basic industry in our country is concerned.
As a country, what do we get in return? We get a toothless tiger; a hopeless, ineffective, completely unacceptable system of appeals which is so far from anything the Government talked about prior to the free trade signatures on that piece of paper that it is ludicrous.
Supply
For instance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) told the House of Commons at one stage that it would be absolutely ridiculous to accept a tribunal which did not have rules. Yet that is exactly what has been accepted, a tribunal which will make judgments, not on the basis of agreed rules, not on the basis of some type of common definition of subsidies, but instead on the basis of United States laws.
It is unbelievable that a Government of this country would sign an agreement which puts the future of this country, the future business activities of this country in the United States completely under U.S. law. With respect to the appeals mechanism, there is no capacity for it to do anything but apply U.S. law, and in the process back up what the Government itself has criticized as laws that are unfair to this country.
One could continue, but I wish to spend a few moments dealing with perhaps the most amazing attempt to sell this agreement for something that it is not that we have yet seen in this country. I am referring to the attempt to sell the provisions which deal with the auto industry as somehow something that will benefit the country. The reality is that there are three key parts of the agreement in respect of the auto industry which affect our future, especially the future of communities like mine and others right across the country that depend upon the auto industry.
First, there is the elimination of the stick, which has enforced the safeguards that have made the Auto Pact a successful exercise in sectoral trade between Canada and the United States. That goes. It is eliminated. It is finished.
Second, there is the elimination of the possibility of putting Japanese and Korean companies under the auspices of the Auto Pact. Again this means that we cannot ever get the 60 per cent Canadian content which we had hoped to get at some stage in the future from these Japanese and Korean companies. There will be no capacity to enforce that kind of law and get the resulting jobs, parts purchases, and prosperity that the country could have from a policy of that sort.
Finally, the duty remission provisions were something which we as an independent country had the possibility of being able to use to help our parts producers. That, too, is eliminated as a possibility in the future. Existing duty remission schemes will have to be done away with.
In respect of the hard sell about the auto industry, there has also been a tremendous lack of truth. The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), for instance, said to the House on June 23: "We do not intend to alter the Auto Pact". Yet, in each of the detailed ways I have indicated, that Pact has been altered. All we have to do is to look at the U.S. assessment in briefing papers on the subject. They say quite clearly that the opportunities for increased domestic sourcing of parts, that is sourcing of parts in the United States, and therefore the creation of jobs in the United States, have been increased by the changes about which I have been talking.


Supply
Perhaps there is a sense above all of sadness about the agreement because alternatives existed. Different approaches could have given us jobs, given us reasonable trade relations with the United States, and given us much more prosperity for the future. We have passed those up. We have before us an agreement which will hurt Canadians, will leave Canadians much more vulnerable than they have been, and will seriously restrict the freedom of the country in respect of all our economic policy-making in the future.
It is for that reason that we have moved the amendment, and we oppose the agreement which has been placed before the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 82(9), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
Accordingly, the question is on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra)) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 284)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	KeeperAlthouse	Frith	KillensAngus	Fulton	LangdonAxworthy	Gagliano	LapierreBaker	Garneau	MacLellanBenjamin	Gauthier	MalepartBerger	Gray	ManlyBlaikic	(Windsor West)	MarchiBoudria	Grondin	McCurdyBroadbent	Guilbault	McDonaldCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	(Broadview-Cassidy	Harris	Greenwood)Copps	Heap	McLaughlinde Corneille	Henderson	Mitchellde Jong	Hopkins	MurphyDewar	Isabelle	NicholsonDingwall	Jewett	(Trinity)Epp	Johnston	Nunziata(Thunder Bay-	(Saint-Henri-	NystromNipigon)	Westmount)	OrlikowFinestone	Kaplan	OuelletAndre	Edwards	MacDougallAttewell	Ellis	(Timiskaming)Beatty	Epp	MacKayBelsher	(Provencher)	MaillyBernier	Fennell	MaloneBertrand	Ferland	ManthaBinns	Fontaine	MarinBissonnette	Forrestall	MartinBlackburn	Fraleigh	Masse(Jonquiere)	Fretz	MayerBlais	Friesen	MazankowskiBlais-Grenicr	Gagnon	McCainBlenkarn	Gass	McCuishBlouin	Gerin	McDougallBosley	Girard	(St. Paul's)Bouchard	Gormley	MclnnesBourgault	Gottselig	McKenzieBoyer	Graham	McKinnonBrightwell	Gray	McKnightBrisco	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McLeanBrowes	la-Madeleine)	McMillanCadieux	Greenaway	MerrithewCaldwell	Grise	MinakerCardiff	Guilbault	MooreCarney	(Drummond)	MulroneyChampagne	Gurbin	Murta(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Gustafson	NicholsonBagot)	Halliday	(Niagara Falls)Champagne	Hamelin	Nickerson(Champlain)	Hamilton	NowlanCharest	Hardey	OberleChartrand	Harvey	O'NeilClark	Hees	Oostrom(Yellowhead)	Hicks	PaproskiClark	Hnatyshyn	Peterson(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PlourdeClifford	Holtmann	PorterClinch	Horner	PriceCochrane	Howie	RavisCollins	Hudon	RedwayComeau	Jacques	ReidCook	James	ReimerCooper	Jardine	RicardCorbett	Jelinek	RomanCossitt	Jepson	St. GermainCote	Johnson	St-Julien(Lac-Saint-Jean)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergCote	Conception)	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Langelier)	Joncas	SchellenbergerCrofton	Jourdenais	(Wetaskiwin)Crombie	Kelleher	ScottCrosbie	Kempling	(Victoria-Haliburton)(St. John's West)	Kindy	ScottCrosby	King	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Halifax West)	Ladouceur	ScowenCrouse	Landry	ShieldsDantzer	Lanthier	SiddonDarling	La Salle	SparrowDaubney	Lawrence	Speyerde Cotret	Layton	StackhouseDella Noce	Leblanc	StevensDesjardins	Lesick	StewartDesrosiers	Lewis	SulukDick	Lopez	TardifDomm	MacDonald	(Charlesbourg)Dorin	(Kingston and	TaylorDuguay Duplessis	the Islands)	Thacker Towers
Constitution Amendment, 1987
Tremblay	Vincent	Wilson(Quebec-Est)	Warner	(EtobicokeTremblay	Weiner	Centre)(Lotbinicre)	Wenman	WinegardTupper	White	WiseValcourt	Wilson	Witer -194Van De Walle	(Swift Current	Vankoughnet Vezina	-Maple Creek)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn:
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force on April 17, 1982, following an agreement between Canada and all the provinces except Quebec;
AND WHEREAS the Government of Quebec has established a set of five proposals for constitutional change and has stated that amendments to give effect to those proposals would enable Quebec to resume a full role in the constitutional councils of Canada;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto sets out the basis on which Quebec's five constitutional proposals may be met;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto also recognizes the principle of the equality of all the provinces, provides new arrangements to foster greater harmony and cooperation between the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces and requires that conferences be convened to consider important constitutional, economic and other issues;
AND WHEREAS certain portions of the amendment proposed in the schedule hereto relate to matters referred to in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
AND WHEREAS section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province;
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987 Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 1 thereof, the following section;
"2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada; and
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(2)	The role of the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures to preserve the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph (1 )(a) is affirmed.
(3)	The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec referred to in paragraph (!)(b) is affirmed.
(4)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislatures or governments of the provinces, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language."
2.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 24 thereof, the following section;
"25. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, the government of the province to which the vacancy relates may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada the names of persons who may be summoned to the Senate.
(2)	Until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the person summoned to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be chosen from among persons whose names have been submitted under subsection (1) by the government of the province to which the vacancy relates and must be acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
3.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 95 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Agreements on Immigration and Aliens
95A. The Government of Canada shall, at the request of the government of any province, negotiate with the government of that province for the purpose of concluding an agreement relating to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province that is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of that province.
95B. (1) Any agreement concluded between Canada and a province in relation to immigration or the temporary admission of aliens into that province has the force of law from the time it is declared to do so in accordance with subsection 95C(1) and shall from that time have effect notwithstanding class 25 of section 91 or section 95.
(2)	An agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) shall have effect only so long and so far as it is not repugnant to any provision of an Act of the Parliament of Canada that sets national standards and objectives relating to immigration or aliens, including any provision that establishes general classes of immigrants or relates to levels of immigration for Canada or that prescribes classes of individuals who are inadmissible into Canada.
(3)	The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies in respect of any agreement that has the force of law under subsection (1) and in respect of anything done by the Parliament or Government of Canada, or the legislature or government of a province, pursuant to any such agreement.
95C. (1) A declaration that an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) has the force of law may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement.
(2) An amendment to an agreement referred to in subsection 95B( 1) may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized
(a)	by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the
legislative assembly of the province that is a party to the agreement; or
(b)	in such other manner as is set out in the agreement.
95D. Sections 46 to 48 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, in respect of any declaration made pursuant to subsection 95C( 1), any amendment to an agreement made pursuant to subsection 95C(2) or any amendment made pursuant to section 95E.
95E. An amendment to sections 95A to 95D or this section may be made in accordance with the procedure set out in subsection 38(1) of the Constitution Act. 1982, but only if the amendment is authorized by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of all the provinces that are, at the time of the amendment, parties to an agreement that has the force of law under subsection 95B( 1)."
4.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 96 thereof, the following heading:
[Stage Direction]

"General"
5.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately preceding section 101 thereof, the following heading:
"Courts Established by the Parliament of Canada"
6.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 101 thereof, the following heading and sections:
"Supreme Court of Canada
101 A. (1) The court existing under the name of the Supreme Court of Canada is hereby continued as the general court of appeal for Canada, and as an additional court for the better administration of the laws of Canada, and shall continue to be a superior court of record.
(2) The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada and eight other judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
101 B. (1) Any person may be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada who, after having been admitted to the bar of any province or territory, has, for a total of at least ten years, been a judge of any court in Canada or a member of the bar of any province or territory.
(2) At least three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be appointed from among persons who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total of at least ten years, been judges of any court of Quebec or of any court established by the Parliament of Canada, or members of the bar of Quebec.
101C. (1) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province and are qualified under section 101 B for appointment to that court.
(2)	Where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
(3)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) of any of the three judges necessary to meet the requirement set out in subsection 101 B(2), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the Government of Quebec.
(4)	Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) otherwise than as required under subsection (3), the Governor General in Council shall appoint a person whose name has been submitted by the government of a province other than Quebec.
101 D. Sections 99 and 100 apply in respect of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
101 E. (1) Sections 101A to 101D shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws under section 101 except to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with those sections.
(2) For greater certainty, section 101A shall not be construed as abrogating or derogating from the powers of the Parliament of Canada to make laws relating to the reference of questions of law or fact, or any other matters, to the Supreme Court of Canada."
7.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 106 thereof, the following section:
"106A. (1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Government of Canada after the coming into force of this section in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a program or initiative that is compatible with the national objectives.
(2) Nothing in this section extends the legislative powers of the Parliament of Canada or of the legislatures of the provinces."
8.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following heading and sections:
"XII-Conferences on the Economy and Other Matters
148. A conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year to discuss the state of the Canadian economy and such other matters as may be appropriate.
Constitution Amendment, 1987
XIII-References
149. A reference to this Act shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
Constitution Act, 1982
9.	Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(e)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(f)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(g)	the Supreme Court of Canada;
(h)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories;
(i)	notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces; and
(j)	an amendment to this Part."
10.	Section 44 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"44. Subject to section 41, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons."
11.	Subsection 46(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"46. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province."
12.	Subsection 47(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution."
13.	Part VI of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Part VI
Constitutional Conferences
50. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada at least once each year, commencing in 1988.
(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators and representation in the Senate;
(b)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries; and
(c)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
14.	Subsection 52(2) of the said Act is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (c) thereof and by adding thereto the following paragraph:
"(d) any other amendment to the Constitution of Canada."
15.	Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
[Stage Direction]

Constitution Amendment, 1987
"61. A reference to the Constitution Act 1982, or a reference to the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
General
16.	Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25 or 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Citation
17.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
and on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(a)	the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and Englishspeaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(b)	the recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
(c)	the recognition that aboriginal peoples constitute a distinctive and fundamental characteristic of Canada;
(d)	the recognition of the multicultural nature of Canadian society, and in particular respect for the many origins, creeds and cultures as well as the differing regional identities that helped shape Canadian society; and
(e)	the recognition of the advantages of developing the Canadian economic union."
(b)	in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 2.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"2(a) The role of the Parliament of Canada to preserve and promote, and the role of the provincial legislatures to preserve and, subject to subparagraph (2)(b) to promote, the fundamental characteristic of Canada referred to in paragraph 1(a) is affirmed.
(b) The role of a province in relation to promotion applies from the time it is adopted by a resolution of the legislative assembly of that province."
(c)	in paragraph 2 of the Schedule by deleting section 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"25. Where a vacancy occurs in the Senate, and until an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is made in relation to the Senate pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the government of Canada shall, within six months after the vacancy occurs, call an election in the province or territory to which the vacancy relates for the purpose of filling that vacancy, and, notwithstanding the provision of section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867, for a term of nine years."
(d)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by deleting subsections 101C.(1) and (2) and substituting the following therefor:
"101C.(I) Where a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of Canada, the government of each province and the elected government of each territory may, in relation to that vacancy, submit to the Minister of Justice of Canada the names of any of the persons who have been admitted to the bar of that province or territory and are qualified under section 101 B. for appointment to that court.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), where an appointment is made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Governor General in Council shall, except where the Chief Justice is appointed from among members of the Court, appoint a person whose name has been submitted under subsection (1) and who is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada."
(e)	in paragraph 6 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 101C.(4) the following:
"(5) Where an appointment is made in accordance with subsection (2) and, if within a period of three months, no name which has been submitted under subsection (1) is acceptable to the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Chief Justice may make an interim one-year appointment from among justices of the Federal Court of Canada or provincial Superior Courts."
(f)	in paragraph 7 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 106A.(1) and substituting the following therefor:
"106A.(1) The Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of a province that chooses not to participate in a national shared-cost program that is established by the Parliament of Canada after the coming into force of this section, in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if the province carries on a compatible program which meets minimum national standards."
(g)	by deleting paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"9. Sections 40 to 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
40. Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers legislative powers from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province of a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province was entitled to be represented on April 17, 1982;
(c)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(d)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(e)	the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(f)	an amendment to this Part.
42.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38( 1):
(a)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; and
(b)	the number of members by which a province or territory is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
42A. Notwithstanding subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the establishment of new provinces and the extension of existing provinces into territories shall be a matter exclusively for the Governor General in Council and the elected government of the territory affected."
(h)	in paragraph 13 of the Schedule by deleting subsection 50.(2) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The conferences convened under subsection (1) shall have included on their agenda the following matters:
(a)	the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including self-government;
(b)	Senate reform, including the role and functions of the Senate, its powers, the method of selecting Senators, representation in the Senate.
(c)	roles and responsibilities in relation to fisheries at the first meeting only;
(d)	such other matters as are agreed upon."
(i)	by deleting paragraph 16 of the Schedule and substituting the following therefor:
"16. Nothing in the Constitution Amendment. 1987 derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or affects Part II of the Constitution Act, 1982".-The Leader of the Opposition.
and on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent:
October 1, 1987-That the motion be amended
(a)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(1) the words "and the elected government of each territory" immediately after the word "province";
(b)	by adding in paragraph 2 subsection 25(2) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(c)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(1) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(d)	by adding in paragraph 6 subsection 101C.(4) the words "or the elected government of a territory" immediately after the word "province";
(e)	by deleting in paragraph 9, section 41 paragraph (i);
(f)	by adding to paragraph 13 subsection 50(2) the following new paragraph:
[Stage Direction]

''(c) aboriginal rights, in particular self-government;"
(g)	by adding to paragraph 13 section 50 the following new subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister shall invite to the Conferences designated in section 50 subsection (2)(c) representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the governments of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory and those groups and governments shall participate fully in all matters that affect aboriginal rights."
(h)	by deleting paragraph 16 and substituting the following therefor:
''16. Nothing in section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affects section 25, 27 or 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or class 24 of section 91 of the Constitution.- Mr. Broadbent.
and on the amendment of Mr. Caccia:
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule
(a)	by deleting Section 2.(1) and substituting the following therefor: "2.(1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that Canada constitutes aboriginal and multicultural societies, with English and French as the official languages of Canada, French-speaking Canadians being centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada and English-speaking Canadians concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec".
(b)	by deleting Section 2.(3).
and on the amendment of Mr. Allmand.
That the motion be amended in paragraph 1 of the Schedule by adding immediately after subsection 2.(4) the following:
"(5) Nothing in this section derogates from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order adopted Thursday, October 1, 1987, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) to the motion on the constitutional amendment, 1987.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra)) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 285)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Axworthy
Baker
Boudria
Copps
de Corneille
Dingwall
Finestone
Foster
Frith
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grondin
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Henderson
Hopkins
Isabelle
Kaplan
Killens
Lapierre
MacLellan
Malepart
Marchi
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Robichaud
Rompkey
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin Turner
(Vancouver Quadra)-37
Constitution Amendment, 1987
++NAYS
Members
Alt house
Andre
Angus
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Benjamin
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Broadbent
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Cassidy
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-
Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret de Jong Della Noce Desjardins Desrosiers Dewar Dick Domm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis
Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greenaway Grise Guilbault (Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Harris
Harvey
Heap
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Jepson
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Keeper
Kelleher
Kempling
King
Ladouceur Landry Langdon Lanthier La Salle Lawrence Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Manly
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCuish
McCurdy
McDonald
(Broadview-
Greenwood)
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLaughlin
McLean
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitchell
Moore
Mulroney
Murphy
Murta
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nystrom
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parry
Peterson
Plourde
Porter
Price
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
Riis
Rodriguez Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Siddon Skelly Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Toupin
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)


Constitution Amendment, 1987
Tremblay	Weiner
(Lotbiniere)	Wenman
Tupper	White
Valcourt	Wilson
Van De Walle	(Swift Current
Vankoughnet	-Maple Creek)
Vezina	Wilson
Vincent	(Etobicoke
Warner	Centre)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Broadbent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Broadbent) which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 286)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Grondin
Althouse	Guilbault
Angus	(Saint-Jacques)
Axworthy	Harris
Baker	Heap
Benjamin	Henderson
Blaikie	Hopkins
Boudria	Isabelle
Broadbent	Jewett
Caccia	Kaplan
Cassidy	Keeper
Copps	Killens
de Corneille	Kindy
de Jong	Langdon
Dewar	Lapierre
Dingwall	MacLellan
Epp	Malepart
(Thunder Bay-	Manly
Nipigon)	Marchi
Finestone	McCurdy
Foster	McDonald
Frith	(Broadview-
Fulton	Greenwood)
Gagliano	McLaughlin
Garneau	Mitchell
Gauthier	Murphy
Gray	Nicholson
(Windsor West)	(Trinity)
Winegard
Wise
Witer
Young-219
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Binns
Bissonnette
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Nickerson	Cote
Nunziata	(Langelier)
Nystrom	Crofton
Orlikow	Crombie
Ouellet	Crosbie
Parry	(St. John's W<
Penner	Crosby
Pepin	(Halifax Wesi
Prud'homme	Crouse
Riis	Dantzer
Robichaud	Darling
Rodriguez	Daubney
Rompkey	de Cotret
Rossi	Della Noce
Skelly	Desjardins
Tardif	Desrosiers
(Richmond-Wolfe)	Dick
Tobin	Domm
Toupin	Dor in
Turner	Duguay
(Vancouver Quadra)	Duplessis
Waddell	Edwards
Young-70	Ellis Epp (Provencher) Fennell Ferland Fontaine
++NAYS
Members
Forrestall	McKinnon
Fraleigh	McKnight
Fretz	McLean
Friesen	McMillan
Gagnon	Merrithew
Gass	Minaker
Gerin	Moore
Girard	Mulroney
Gormley	Murta
Gottselig	Nicholson
Graham	(Niagara Falls)
Gray	Oberle
(Bonaventure-iles-de-	O'Neil
la-Madeleine)	Oostrom
Greenaway	Paproski
Grise	Peterson
Guilbault	Plourde
(Drummond)	Porter
Gurbin	Price
Gustafson	Ravis
Halliday	Redway
Hamelin	Reid
Hamilton	Reimer
Hardey	Ricard
Harvey	Roman
Hees	St. Germain
Hicks	St-Julien
Hnatyshyn	Schellenberg
Hockin	(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Holtmann	Schellenberger
Horner	(Wetaskiwin)
Howie	Scott
Hudon	(Victoria-Haliburton)
Jacques	Scott
James	(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Jardine	Scowen
Jelinek	Shields
Jepson	Siddon
Johnson	Sparrow
(Bonavista-Trinity-	Speyer
Conception)	Stackhouse
Joncas	Stevens
Jourdenais	Stewart
Kelleher	Suluk
Kempling	Tardif
King	(Charlesbourg)
Ladouceur	Taylor
Landry	Thacker
Lanthier	Towers
La Salle	Tremblay
Lawrence	(Quebec-Est)
Layton	Tremblay
Leblanc	(Lotbiniere)
Lesick	T upper
Lewis	Valcourt
Lopez	Van De Walle
MacDonald	Vankoughnet
(Kingston and	Vezina
the Islands)	Vincent
MacDougall	Warner
(Timiskaming)	Weiner
MacKay	Wenman
Mailly	White
Malone	Wilson
Mantha	(Swift Current
Marin	-Maple Creek)
Martin	Wilson
Masse	(Etobicoke
Mayer	Centre)
Mazankowski	Winegard
McCuish	Wise
McDougall	Witer-190
(St. Paul's)	
Mclnnes	
McKenzie	


Constitution Amendment, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Mr. Caccia's motion: [English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. Amendment (Mr. Caccia) negatived.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 287)
++YEAS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Allmand.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost on division.
Amendment (Mr. Allmand) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on the main motion in the name of Mr. Hnatyshyn.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: 
Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to register my abstention from the last vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 draw to the attention of Hon. Members the fact that the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) has the floor on a point of order, and I would ask that courtesy be extended to him.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to register my abstention from the last vote. I was present-


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


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from the last vote, but I would like my constituents to know that 1 was present in the House and that my abstention was for a good reason which 1 will explain to them.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 7 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 7.05 the House adjourned.



HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers